"Pay up, WHITEY......."-The Case for Reparations
"Liberals today mostly view racism not as an active, distinct evil but as a relative of white poverty and inequality. They ignore the long tradition of this country actively punishing black success—and the elevation of that punishment, in the mid-20th century, to federal policy. President Lyndon Johnson may have noted in his historic civil-rights speech at Howard University in 1965 that “Negro poverty is not white poverty.” But his advisers and their successors were, and still are, loath to craft any policy that recognizes the difference"
"All that it would take to sink a new WPA program would be some skillfully packaged footage of black men leaning on shovels smoking cigarettes,” the sociologist Douglas S. Massey writes. “Papering over the issue of race makes for bad social theory, bad research, and bad public policy.” To ignore the fact that one of the oldest republics in the world was erected on a foundation of white supremacy, to pretend that the problems of a dual society are the same as the problems of unregulated capitalism, is to cover the sin of national plunder with the sin of national lying. The lie ignores the fact that reducing American poverty and ending white supremacy are not the same. The lie ignores the fact that closing the “achievement gap” will do nothing to close the “injury gap,” in which black college graduates still suffer higher unemployment rates than white college graduates..."
And here's why he has ZERO CASE for Reparations:
1) First, it was practiced by individuals–not the government–yet the government is supposed to tax us to pay for it. Of course, there is no legitimate moral or legal theory that requires today’s whites to pay for something a few whites last did 150 years ago.
2) Only one household in five in the Confederacy owned slaves. Even if it were possible to track down current descendants, there is no legal theory under which they should pay anything either. My grandfather may have murdered your grandfather, but you have no claim on me. You can go shout at my grandfather’s gravestone if you like, but I owe you nothing
3) African blacks practiced slavery for centuries before Americans did, and it was Africans who sold slaves to whites. There is hardly a single known case of whites capturing and enslaving a black. If Ta-Nehisi Coates wants to blame someone for slavery, he can start with Africans
4) Finally, if Mr. Coates wants to figure the cost of slavery—and of the 150 years of agony since then—he should take a look at Africa. Blacks call themselves “African Americans,” but precious few want the squalor, violence, corruption, and disease of the mother continent. They are much better off right where they are–“racism” and all–and AAs know it
Regarding the FHA's role
Although he revels in the eternal burden of slavery, he has a more recent and popular villain: bankers. In particular, he resents the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)–established in 1934–which guarantees mortgage loans for poor people but allegedly made it impossible for blacks to qualify. Along with segregation and restrictive covenants, this kept blacks in misery and set them up for the sub-prime lending crisis. This, believe it or not, is Mr. Coates’ central argument, so let’s take a closer look.
What the FHA did, of course, was set underwriting rules. It didn’t want to guarantee loans for people who would default. It put some “low-income and minority” areas in some cities off limits for guarantees. This is sound banking. It is perfectly logical to avoid lending in dodgy neighborhoods, even if a particular borrower in that neighborhood is a good risk. If the borrower does default, it’s hard to resell a house in a bad area.
How did FHA loans actually work? Were there white people who couldn’t get one because of where they lived? How many blacks would have been turned down no matter where they lived because they had bad credit records? Mr. Coates has no time for questions like these; for him, the FHA was a racist plot.
Since banks wouldn’t lend to blacks, the only people who would were sharks:
Blacks were herded into the sights of unscrupulous lenders who took them for money and for sport. ‘It was like people who like to go out and shoot lions in Africa. It was the same thrill,’ a housing attorney told the historian Beryl Satter in her 2009 book, Family Properties. ‘The thrill of the chase and the kill.’
Setting aside what this says about the intelligence of blacks who can be “herded” and “shot” like game animals, here is yet another version of the myth that refuses to die: that bankers are demented, twisted people who will walk away from a profitable deal with a credit-worthy customer just because he is black. People who sell shoes or cars or funeral insurance do business with blacks, but bankers won’t.
There is an easy test for this theory. If blacks are being held to higher credit standards than whites, their default rates should be lower. In fact, the reverse is true. Studies from the 1990s–and probably from other periods as well–show that blacks stiff their lenders at about three times the white rate
If black people don't want to give the impression to others that they are seeking a free ride, then they need to stop supporting the concept of reparations.
There is no just cause to say that a person owes someone money because they were born in a certain area with a certain skin color, and that's all this is.
It's just more anti-white racism from the political Left.
I see no reason why I, a white person with no slave owners in her background, owes money to a black person who is a descendant of free blacks that owned slaves.
Are you people nuts?
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:28 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.