I think that if you can find a family whose ancestors built their fortunes on the baks of slave labor, then that family should pony up.But what about all the people who didin't own slaves directly, but benefited from slavery? And what about the fact that people still benefit from being "White" in a society which did build its fortunes on the backs of slave labor? I don't think anyone is suggesting punishing the present people for crimes from the past as if the present people commited them. This is about acknowleging injustice which was done by a collective group against other human beings.
I think that if you can find a family whose ancestors built their fortunes on the baks of slave labor, then that family should pony up.as the society/nation/"family"/etc. built its fortunes on the backs of slave labor, and therefore should not be so hostile and might want to "pony up"—is this so different from what you said?
Whoa, those oral histories definitely open up some classist dimensions to the event. Maybe it's coincidence, but most of the people interviewed seemed like they came from fairly well-to-do families that others in the area knew were well-to-do.I think this was typical for the 4-state lynchings LarryC mentioned. At least in my hometown, the schools were integrated, there was a well-developed and successful business community with social clubs. That is until the lynchings changed the population dramatically ("ethnic cleansing" does seem to be the best term, though I hate euphemisms). After that, kids grew up thinking the place had always been "white". They knew there had been a lynching on the town square, but that's pretty much all they'd hear about things. Apparently a lot of people had memorabilia of the event tucked away in trunks or attics... and the last I heard was that the mayor made jokes about lynchings and an African man had "commited suicide" in a kind of peculiar way... Sadly, these things are not so distant in the past as we may hope, and this topic still has not been adequately discussed in most of the U.S.
'y2karl...not to snark at all...seriously...but do you have a possible stake in these potential reparations?'"My father was born in what is now Poland, my mother's family was of Northern Irish/German stock and I was born in Idaho. Do you have any other stupid questions to ask ?"
The main reason white people find the concept of reparations for the victims and the heirs of the victims of the Tusla race Riot of 1921 so objectionable is because the victims are black, and regardless of the fact that these reparations are for living survivors of a state sanctioned and sponsored act of criminally violent ethnic cleansing, the combination of their blackness and the concept of reparations brings to mind the idea of reparations for the historical aftereffects of slavery--which is anathema indeed to the majority of white Americans.(emphasis mine)
karl, your contention is that because blacks and whites disagree over reparations, than people opposing it must be doing so for racist reasons.from this:
I asked a question and immediately noted thereafter that the vast majority of white people are adamantly against slavery reparations. Percentage wise, blacks and, I would suspect, Japanese Americans feel quite differently than whites on the matter. To ask why we might feel differently on the topic is to ask a hard question. To which I have no easy answer. But it is worth asking of oneself.as out of this:
The main reason white people find the concept of reparations for the victims and the heirs of the victims of the Tusla race Riot of 1921 so objectionable is because the victims are black, and regardless of the fact that these reparations are for living survivors of a state sanctioned and sponsored act of criminally violent ethnic cleansing, the combination of their blackness and the concept of reparations brings to mind the idea of reparations for the historical aftereffects of slavery--which is anathema indeed to the majority of white Americans.(emphasis mine, again)
karl, your contention is that because blacks and whites disagree over reparations, than people opposing it must be doing so for racist reasons. Why do you jump to that conclusion? Here is one race neutral explanation: it is a bad policy. Since white people will not benefit from the bad policy, they oppose it on the grounds that it is a bad policy. Since black people will benefit from the bad policy, they support it on the grounds that, though it is bad, they will still benefit from it. That is one conclusion that could come from your data set about percentages who support and oppose it.y2karl, I have no issue with your use of small tags (as per the MeTa discussion), but if your stated reason is "because people don't read the links", then you need to seriously reevaluate your response style regarding reading people's comments.
But you choose to assume a different conclusion that disapproval of the policy is because of racism---your words indicate this clear enough.
Well, how about a pro-black reason to oppose reparations? A repayment for a past wrong is an invitation to close the book on it. Once a person is paid, then the wrong is considered righted. The reason that these black people would be paid is not because of the bad that has happened in the past. It is because there are present day consequences for the wrongs of the past. If black people weren't overwhelmingly poor; if the prison rolls weren't overwhelmingly black, we wouldn't be talking about this. But these problems do exist, and a check doesn't fix them. So if we pay a check, and then someone comes forward and comments about the overwhelming disparity in education, what is the response? "Gee, that's sad, but you've been paid." Complaints about poverty; "That's sad, but that check just went out." Payments are an invitation to close the book on the past and wipe our hands clean. That is the "made whole" doctrine.
So, if you are concerned with addressing these issues in the black community, one might oppose reparations because they could be seen as a exoneration of any further responsibility. So, because you support black people, you might oppose them. In addition to that reason, there are many reasons to oppose reparations facially.
Consequently, your accusations of racial animus being the basis for opposition is an incorrect and facile allegation.
posted by dios at 4:51 AM JST on February 24 [!]
For others it may result in HDTVs and new cars.If you think some people aren't going to spend a government payment on consumer goods like TVs or cars, you are either insane or were raised on another planet. That's what humans do. That's especially what American humans do. TVs, cars, and credit card debt. Credit card debt for rent, utilities, cars and TVs. Furniture, jewelry, air conditioners, computers, video games, tattoos, stereos, CDs, iPods. What, you think everyone who gets a refund from their IRS checks invests in a mutual fund or uses it as funding for a company startup?
« Older Return of Bee.... | FontLeech: The Free Font Blog... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Neither the state nor the city has ever issued a formal apology and no one has received any compensation, despite the fact that survivors' stories have now been recorded in half a dozen documentaries, at least eight books, three national TV news shows, two textbooks, one romance novel, a musical and a movie for cable- TV.
And that was before the lawyers arrived.
On February 24 2003, 19 attorneys led by Charles J. Ogletree, a Harvard law professor and one of the country's most eminent black lawyers, filed suit in the US Federal District Court in Tulsa on behalf of the 123 riot survivors and 272 descendants. Ogletree had assembled a pro bono legal dream team, including Johnnie Cochrane, triumphant defender of O.J. Simpson, and Michael Hausfeld, a Washington D.C. lawyer who helped to win a number of Holocaust cases, including a $5bn settlement for victims of Nazi slave labour.
Before the legal action began, a few white civic leaders in Tulsa had spoken with regret about the riot and ONEOK's John Gaberino had recruited private donors to give $5,000 to each survivor, a move that collapsed once the lawsuit began.
"We had the money," he says, "But it's kinda hard to give money to folks when they're suing you." In lieu of direct payments, the state legislature in 2001 responded to mounting political pressure and awarded the survivors medals - gold-plated medallions inscribed with the state seal. Private donors covered the cost. Gaberino now leads a funding drive for a memorial museum, a variation of the memorial called for in the 2001 riot commission report. But the city has not budged on giving financial relief. The lawsuit has strengthened such sentiment, even though, so far, it has proven a poor test case.
Ogletree and company have lost at every stage. In March 2004, US Senior District Judge James Ellison dismissed the case, arguing that the statute of limitations had run. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the dismissal was affirmed. Plaintiffs are to file a petition with the US Supreme Court on March 14. Ogletree remains optimistic, and the times may be on the side of the riot victims.
posted by y2karl at 6:02 PM on February 22, 2005