If the lawyers in the Slavery Reparations case don't get sanctions, they may.........

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, there's also another "neat" little advantage of leaving Affirmative Action as it is - those in the Ivory Towers can sit back and pat yourselves on the backs (pretending that you are helping a bunch of underpriviledged black kids) while never having to actually deal with kids "from the other side of the tracks".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I Feel Good, Like I knew that I would" - James Brown

 

40 years ago I was 12 years old. So were the black kids who were my classmates. If those 50 something people and their kids are entitled to a check now I want a check for me and my peeps.

 

Brazil still held the local indigenous population as slaves and that wasn't outlawed until a year or so ago. Also only around 25% of familys owned slaves in the 1860's that equates to about 6% of the white population in the south, according to the U.S Census of 1860. Plus their were blacks that owned slaves, blacks that fought in the civil war for the confederacy. Frederick Douglas said,

"There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the…rebels."

In 1864, President Jefferson Davis approved a plan that proposed the emancipation of slaves, in return for the official recognition of the Confederacy by Britain and France.

A quota was set for 300,000 black soldiers for the Confederate
States Colored Troops. 83% of Richmond's male slave population
volunteered for duty. A special ball was held in Richmond to raise
money for uniforms for these men. Before Richmond fell, black
Confederates in gray uniforms drilled in the streets. Due to the war ending, it is believed only companies or squads of these troops ever saw any action. Many more black soldiers fought for the North, but that difference was simply a difference because the North instituted this progressive policy more sooner than the more conservative South.

Also many free blacks in the south owned slaves. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

I don't want to make this into a debate about the civil war, i just thought i would mention that the south didn't discriminate during the war as our history books teach us.

 

I wonder if the Morials were slaveowners? And if so, should they pay reparations?

Of course, they ought to pay reparations anyway for all the money Marc stole when he was mayor.

 

In 1864, President Jefferson Davis approved a plan that proposed the emancipation of slaves, in return for the official recognition of the Confederacy by Britain and France.
Mighty white of Jefferson- funny, he didn't come through, did he?




Also many free blacks in the south owned slaves. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

And if reparations are due, they should pay.

the south didn't discriminate during the war as our history books teach us.
What would you call the no-POW policy for black union soldiers captured by the confederates? Or perhaps the EXISTENCE of slavery might place some doubt on your gregarious conclusion.

 

Charley Reese, Orlando Sentinal syndicated columnist, once quoted a reparations activist as saying "I WANT MY REFUND!!!"

 

There was discrimination in every part of the country during that time, just like almost everyone was a white supremacist i.e Good 'ole Abe Lincoln. I didn't mean for my post to sound like i didn't think there was any discrimination at all, just that it wasn't as much as our history books teach. But the north had just as much discrimination as the south.

 

You are correct GIMP.
I can't argue with CB's contention that the Civil War was about slavery.
But, I think its very important not to read that statement of fact using modern political sensibilities.
In other words, it wasn't a case of one side was anti-black and the other pro-black, much less that one was pro or anti *civil rights* in terms of modern usage of that term.
I suspect that if a vote was held on whether to have blacks on American soil, the vote would have been overwhelming in the North not to have them on this soil.
This isn't a *they were better off here than in Africa* argument by any means, but the fact remains that the North was more anti-black than they were anti-slavery insofar as their motive was not purely humanitarian by any means.
The humanitarians were the abolitionists who were considered moralists and religious *fanatics* in most quarters, North and South.
I'm not arguing with CB or anyone else insofar as the build up to the War, just wanted to clarify that the sophomoric viewpoint of people who see the Civil War as the first major *Civil Rights* issue in the US are not aware of the prevailing sentiment at the time, in the North and the South.

 

Finally a well thought out and worded response. Thanks for not being a dick like CB

 

Clearly affirmative action is not the same as quotas.
But, let's also be clear, that what is practiced at many universities in the US and what the US Supreme Court approved of in the name of diversity, was not affirmative action either, it was a explicit approval of hidden quotas for as O'Connor put it in a fit of legal gymnastics, 25 years.
I see affirmative action as being a positive thing whereby an entity says that it wants to expand its pool of applicants by outreach inviting other people beyond an existing pool.
For example, Tulane could decide they do not have enough applicants from North Louisiana or North Carolina or of a certain income level or a public school system vs. private school system or any other outreach designed to increase the pool of applicants and hopefully admitees.
But what racial preferences are and what shockingly O'Connor approved of was an outreach program designed strictly on the basis of race. The success of which was to be measured strictly on the basis of race. That is a quota and the Court admitted as much in the undergraduate program, but gave a wink and a nod to their buddies in the law school ivory tower.
Mr. Bud is dead-on in his analysis of what this is really about however, it is about locking in elites who really have an attitude that having a black or red face in their midst is akin to having a nice ornament or photograph in their mansions. So nice to look at and adds to the experience.
The current racial preference system is designed to lock into place the Bush's, Kennedy's and Gore's with their form of special preference and mix in a few different colors to add to the atmosphere and make them feel good about themselves.
A true affirmative action program would be colorblind by design, the programs hiding under that umbrella now are the exact opposite.