And So It Begins...ados Victories

brg240

Well-Known Member
I don’t have a problem with other black people getting anything, necessarily. But I have never heard of these other groups fighting for reparations in America. As usual, they wait until AA’s have shed blood, sweat and tears fighting for something, mostly alone, and then when that thing begins to come to fruition, they just run to stand in line talking about “we should get it too, cause...”. It’s an excellent strategy on their parts, but I’m sick of it.

Where are you seeing/hearing this. I doubt that a large amount of non-AA people are clamoring for these small amount of scholarships or hypothetical reputations.

I am weary of anything being championed by alt-right people. I’ll have to look into ados

Many black people cant prove their ancestry so these scholarships would go to very specific groups of people

That said I think it’s wild that this is seriously being discussed now. Reparations were always spoken of as kind of a joke/pipe dream.

I remain skeptical that anything tangible will come of this for the majority of AA in this country. I feel it’s more likely that a handful of people will be helped and it will be deemed sufficient. I’ll believe it when I see it when it comes to this country dealing with black people.
 
Last edited:

nubiangoddess3

Well-Known Member
Good point... what about the descendants of enslaved persons who went to Liberia? Or the ones who escaped to Nova Scotia? There were many in the United States, including Lincoln, who believed formerly enslaved people should be repatriated to other lands; for example, quite a few ended up in Haiti (though not all stayed). And I would think that a whole lot of descendants of people who passed would suddenly become very proud of proclaiming their long-erased African ancestry. I have no issue with anything being set aside specifically for those whose ancestors were enslaved in the United States but the actual proof of who would be deserving looks as if it could easily become a logistical nightmare. Other than a few scholarships though, I am very pessimistic about reparations becoming a reality for any people of African ancestry anywhere - the hatred against us is still so strong. CARICOM has had a committee working on the issue of reparations for five years, and the rest of the world - particularly the European nations most responsible for slavery - have utterly ignored the issue.


You guys are making this more complex. The same way, Mexicans can't receive Native American benefits, the same rule should apply to Liberians, Sierra Leoneans and anyone else who ancestors needed a visa to come to the USA.

As a Liberian, we have our own claims against the USA government. So Black Americans can have this claim.

Rachel Dolezal = Elizabeth Warren, these ppl will be eliminated due to DNA, problem solved.

The problem is Caricom is too general. Each country needs to file its own separate claim against its colonizer. Model it after Kenya's Mau Mau tribe who won a multi-million dollar settlement against Britain
 

Black Ambrosia

Well-Known Member
Rachel Dolezal = Elizabeth Warren, these ppl will be eliminated due to DNA, problem solved.
Not to hijack the thread but I don't put Elizabeth Warren in the same category as Rachel Dolezal. I thought the issue with Elizabeth Warren was that the Native American tribes have to officially recognize you (something about tribal identity and citizenship) and were offended because she proclaimed that she was one of them without their blessing. Her DNA showed some small NA ancestry and trump ridiculed her for that despite her actually proving her claim.

She has NA ancestry. She wasn't pretending so it's odd to me that she's spending so much time apologizing but that's politics.

Or am I getting this wrong?

Side note: Claud Anderson said that the NA rules about who they recognize were created to exclude Black people. When it came time for the government to give money to the tribes, they (the tribes) didn't want black people benefitting so they made it so they were the gate keepers. I know this is going down a rabbit hole but it's relevant since the conversation is about reparations.
 

Southernbella.

Well-Known Member
You guys are making this more complex. The same way, Mexicans can't receive Native American benefits, the same rule should apply to Liberians, Sierra Leoneans and anyone else who ancestors needed a visa to come to the USA.

As a Liberian, we have our own claims against the USA government. So Black Americans can have this claim.

Rachel Dolezal = Elizabeth Warren, these ppl will be eliminated due to DNA, problem solved.

The problem is Caricom is too general. Each country needs to file its own separate claim against its colonizer. Model it after Kenya's Mau Mau tribe who won a multi-million dollar settlement against Britain

Isn't it interesting? Some AA NFL player wrote an op Ed on the Washington Post about how he wasn't a slave so he doesn't want reparations.

The responses have been strange, particularly from black folks. We already know how most whites feel but I wasn't expecting pushback from us...
 

nubiangoddess3

Well-Known Member
Not to hijack the thread but I don't put Elizabeth Warren in the same category as Rachel Dolezal. I thought the issue with Elizabeth Warren was that the Native American tribes have to officially recognize you (something about tribal identity and citizenship) and were offended because she proclaimed that she was one of them without their blessing. Her DNA showed some small NA ancestry and trump ridiculed her for that despite her actually proving her claim.

She has NA ancestry. She wasn't pretending so it's odd to me that she's spending so much time apologizing but that's politics.

Or am I getting this wrong?

Side note: Claud Anderson said that the NA rules about who they recognize were created to exclude Black people. When it came time for the government to give money to the tribes, they (the tribes) didn't want black people benefitting so they made it so they were the gate keepers. I know this is going down a rabbit hole but it's relevant since the conversation is about reparations.

They are the same, Elizabeth Warren claimed she was Native American but the DNA test proved she wasn't. The percentage of her being Native American was very low and does not give her the right to claim minority status. Period.


The Boston Globe. The paper originally reported that the probability of Warren's Native American ancestry ranges from 1/32 to 1/512, but now reports the low end of that range is actually 1/1,024.


Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is once again apologizing for claiming Native American ancestry after the Washington Post reported that she filled out a registration card for the State Bar of Texas in 1986 and wrote "American Indian" in the line asking her race.
 

Southernbella.

Well-Known Member
Just as an aside... reparations for slavery also encompasses reparations for Jim Crow and other assorted disenfranchisement that occured between 1865-1970s. I get why people might get caught up in the "slavery" portion of the term but it's much bigger than that. And most of us only need to go back a generation or two to find a living AA ancestor who is owed redress.
 

nubiangoddess3

Well-Known Member
How do you prove that you are the descendant of a slave without paperwork is not a complex question.

That question is equivalent to writing your name on a standardized test.


Thank you.. 99% of foreign blacks immigrated to the USA after 1960. There is documentation for that.

Just say you don't think reparation will happen instead of creating these different scenarios.
 

Crackers Phinn

Either A Blessing Or A Lesson.
Thank you.. 99% of foreign blacks immigrated to the USA after 1960. There is documentation for that.

Just say you don't think reparation will happen instead of creating these different scenarios.
The argument for reparations is a legal question. If it can be argued away by someone who hasn’t been to law school then how is it supposed to pass the smell test of the people who actually argue law for a living?

If you study the cases for reparations for every group that got them you will find that the activists were also attorneys.

John Conyers, the senator from Michigan who initiated H.R. 40 the initiative to study the case for reparations that’s been marinating since 1989 has a LL.B. That initiative mirrors the Japanese internment initiative from the 60’s that got them folks their money.

But you know, I guess we can tell the legislators to check google to see who qualifies as ADOS. That’ll get these checks rolling.
 

Southernbella.

Well-Known Member
The argument for reparations is a legal question. If it can be argued away by someone who hasn’t been to law school then how is it supposed to pass the smell test of the people who actually argue law for a living?

If you study the cases for reparations for every group that got them you will find that the activists were also attorneys.

John Conyers, the senator from Michigan who initiated H.R. 40 the initiative to study the case for reparations that’s been marinating since 1989 has a LL.B. That initiative mirrors the Japanese internment initiative from the 60’s that got them folks their money.

But you know, I guess we can tell the legislators to check google to see who qualifies as ADOS. That’ll get these checks rolling.

You're conflating two different arguments. There's the case for reparations and then there's the issue of who qualifies. There's no concrete legislation yet so the parameters for qualification haven't been formally established yet. What we're talking about in this thread is theoretical but I can pretty much guarantee that in addition to lawyers, there will be economists and experts from my field giving input on that because AAs are a unique and special case.

But again, when it comes to that, establishing who's qualified will not be difficult the way you/detractors seem to want it to be.

I know you were trying to be funny with the Google comment but I think even you understand how research works.
 

Black Ambrosia

Well-Known Member
In the past I believed reparations were owed but would never be given so I never entertained the conversation but times are changing as black people are realizing their political power and science can help.

I think some could prove their heritage through papers and others could be proven through DNA. There are enough records of white people and some will have slave owners in their family trees. All that’s needed is to prove you share the same ancestor but to @Southernbella’s point I don’t think it’ll be necessary. Other accommodations can be made for AA since the reasons for the paperwork not being available are well known and reparations were promised.
 

Southernbella.

Well-Known Member

They already had legacy admissions but this new initiative is more compensatory.



Valid question/counterpoint:


Different article:

"The undergraduate student body voted to add a new fee of $27.20 per student per semester to their tuition bill, with the proceeds devoted to supporting education and health care programs in Louisiana and Maryland, where many of 4,000 known living descendants of the 272 enslaved people now reside.

Georgetown University agreed in 2016 to give admissions preference to descendants of the 272 slaves; Mr. Thomas was one of the first to be admitted under the policy. The school also formally apologized for its role in slavery, and has renamed two buildings on its campus to acknowledge the lives of slaves; one is now named for Isaac Hawkins, the first person listed in the 1838 sale.

The university has about 7,000 undergraduates, so the fee would raise about $380,000 a year for the fund."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/georgetown-reparations.html
 
Last edited:

brg240

Well-Known Member
Isn't it interesting? Some AA NFL player wrote an op Ed on the Washington Post about how he wasn't a slave so he doesn't want reparations.

The responses have been strange, particularly from black folks. We already know how most whites feel but I wasn't expecting pushback from us...
I think this is really really dumb but I think I get it. Misguided as it is :/

Anyway, honestly reperiations for slavery are the very least this country should be doing.

I again am skeptical bc I don’t expect this country to do the right thing (ever) but I’m not opposed at all.
Just as an aside... reparations for slavery also encompasses reparations for Jim Crow and other assorted disenfranchisement that occured between 1865-1970s. I get why people might get caught up in the "slavery" portion of the term but it's much bigger than that. And most of us only need to go back a generation or two to find a living AA ancestor who is owed redress.
oh I didn’t know that it was supposed to encompass that

Do you know any podcasts that have talked about this in depth? I’ve heard it mentioned on pod save the people but it was only like 15 min
 

Southernbella.

Well-Known Member
I think this is really really dumb but I think I get it. Misguided as it is :/

Anyway, honestly reperiations for slavery are the very least this country should be doing.

I again am skeptical bc I don’t expect this country to do the right thing (ever) but I’m not opposed at all.

oh I didn’t know that it was supposed to encompass that

Do you know any podcasts that have talked about this in depth? I’ve heard it mentioned on pod save the people but it was only like 15 min

I don't do vids or podcasts because my attention span is shot so I can't vouch for these but I know Breaking Brown is one of the main ones reparations proponents listen to. Economist Sandy Darity has done some talks as well.

I mostly do articles and The Case for Reparations by Ta Nehisi Coates is one of the best.

Re: the bolded, I feel like "reparations for slavery" is becoming a misnomer/distraction. Acknowledging the back wages of slave labor is important but I think one thing these proposals are gonna have to make clear is that sharecropping, Jim Crow, segregated schools, being shut out of employment markets, lynching, medical injustice, redlining/blockbusting/creation of ghettoes, withholding of GI benefits, theft of land/race riots, etc are all under the umbrella of slavery and its effects. Frankly, I wouldn't support a program that only focused on slavery because it's not specific enough.
 

itsallaboutattitude

Cancer Support in Health
It's not that difficult. Large-scale black immigration didn't start until after the civil rights movement (when, for the record, AAs demanded the US end the National Origins Act).

If a black person can find their people on a census between 1880 and, say, 1940, there's a VERY good chance they are ADOS.

In your opinion, does this include those territories with black descendants purchased (VI, Puerto Rico$? My great-great grans, great grans and a couple of gran parents were bought in 1917.

Island was under military rule until 1960’s. Governor was appointed US navy admiral until we were allowed to vote for our own governor.

There are historical documents and pictures of black women on island marching for the right to vote circa 1919/1920.
 

itsallaboutattitude

Cancer Support in Health
Just as an aside... reparations for slavery also encompasses reparations for Jim Crow and other assorted disenfranchisement that occured between 1865-1970s. I get why people might get caught up in the "slavery" portion of the term but it's much bigger than that. And most of us only need to go back a generation or two to find a living AA ancestor who is owed redress.
Just got to this post. This answers my question.
 

Laela

Sidestepping the "lynch mob"
Well...apropos...on Juneteenth, Sen Sheila Jackson Lee leading discussion on HR40. Danny Glover, Te-Nehisi among others... are there. I'll note that several supporters of the global reparations movement from the Caribbean are there and she thanks them for their support.
 
Top