Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List
 

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=7286&start_row=1


The Case for Reparations

1 - 7
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: jessep86 Sent: 2/7/2020 1:36:40 PM
Reply

Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing today.— DEUTERONOMY 15: 12–15

Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation.
— JOHN LOCKE, “SECOND TREATISE”

By our unpaid labor and suffering, we have earned the right to the soil, many times over and over, and now we are determined to have it.
— ANONYMOUS, 1861

I. “So That’s Just One Of My Losses”
LYDE ROSS was born in 1923, the seventh of 13 children, near
Clarksdale, Mississippi, the home of the blues. Ross’s parents owned and farmed a 40-acre tract of land, flush with cows, hogs, and mules. Ross’s mother would drive to Clarksdale to do her shopping in a horse and buggy, in which she invested all the pride one might place in a Cadillac. The family owned another horse, with a red coat, which they gave to Clyde. The Ross family wanted for little, save that which all black families in the Deep South then desperately desired—the protection of the law.
In the 1920s, Jim Crow
Mississippi was, in all facets of
society, a kleptocracy. The
majority of the people in the state
were perpetually robbed of the
vote—a hijacking engineered
through the trickery of the poll tax
and the muscle of the lynch mob.
Between 1882 and 1968, more
black people were lynched in
Mississippi than in any other state.
“You and I know what’s the best
way to keep the nigger from
voting,” blustered Theodore Bilbo,
a Mississippi senator and a proud
Klansman. “You do it the night before the election.”
The state’s regime partnered robbery of the franchise with robbery of the purse. Many of Mississippi’s black farmers lived in debt peonage, under the sway of cotton kings who were at once their landlords, their employers, and their primary merchants. Tools and necessities were advanced against the return on the crop, which was determined by the employer. When farmers were deemed to
be in debt—and they often were—the negative balance was then carried over to the next season. A man or woman who protested this arrangement did so at the risk of grave injury or death. Refusing to work meant arrest under vagrancy laws and forced labor under the state’s penal system. Well into the 20th century, black people spoke of their flight from Mississippi in much the same manner as their runagate ancestors had. In her 2010 book, The Warmth of Other Suns, Isabel Wilkerson tells the story of Eddie Earvin, a
spinach picker who fled Mississippi in 1963, after being made to work at gunpoint. “You didn’t talk about it or tell nobody,” Earvin said. “You had to sneak away.”

When Clyde Ross was still a child, Mississippi authorities claimed his father owed $3,000 in back taxes. The elder Ross could not read. He did not have a lawyer. He did not know anyone at the local courthouse. He could not expect the police to be impartial. Effectively, the Ross family had no way to contest the claim and no protection under the law. The authorities seized the land.
They seized the buggy. They took the cows, hogs, and mules. And so for the upkeep of separate but equal, the entire Ross family was reduced to sharecropping.
This was hardly unusual. In 2001, the Associated Press published a three part investigation into the theft of black-owned land stretching back to the antebellum period. The series documented some 406 victims and 24,000 acres of land valued at tens of millions of dollars. The land was taken through means ranging from legal chicanery to terrorism. “Some of the land taken Clyde Ross, photographed in November 2013 in his home in the North Lawndale neighborhood of Chicago, where he has lived for more than 50 years. When he first tried to get a legitimate mortgage, he was denied; mortgages were effectively not available to black people.
(Carlos Javier Ortiz)
“Some of the land taken from black families has
become a country club in Virginia,” the AP reported.
Advertisement from black families has become a country club in Virginia,” the AP reported, as well as “oil fields in Mississippi” and “a baseball spring training facility in Florida.”

Clyde Ross was a smart child. His teacher thought he should attend a more challenging school. There was very little support for educating black people in Mississippi. But Julius Rosenwald, a part owner of Sears, Roebuck, had begun an ambitious effort to build schools for black children throughout the South. Ross’s teacher believed he should attend the local Rosenwald school. It was too far for Ross to walk and get back in time to work in the fields. Local white children had a school bus. Clyde Ross did not, and thus lost the chance to better his education. Then, when Ross was 10 years old, a group of white men demanded his only childhood possession—the horse with the red coat. “You can’t have this horse. We want it,” one of the white men said. They gave Ross’s father $17. “I did everything for that horse,” Ross told me. “Everything. And they took him. Put him on the racetrack. I never did know what happened to him after that, but I know they didn’t bring him back. So that’s just one of my losses.”

The losses mounted. As sharecroppers, the Ross family saw their wages treated as the landlord’s slush fund. Landowners were supposed to split the profits from the cotton fields with sharecroppers. But bales would often disappear during the count, or the split might be altered on a whim. If cotton was selling for 50 cents a pound, the Ross family might get 15 cents, or only five. One year Ross’s mother promised to buy him a $7 suit for a summer program at their church. She ordered the suit by mail. But that year Ross’s family was paid only five cents a pound for cotton. The mailman arrived with the suit. The Rosses could not pay. The suit was sent back. Clyde Ross did not go to the church program. It was in these early years that Ross began to understand himself as an American—he did not live under the blind decree of justice, but under the heel of a regime that elevated armed robbery to a governing principle. He thought about fighting. “Just be quiet,” his father told him. “Because they’ll come and kill us all.” Clyde Ross grew. He was drafted into the Army. The draft officials offered him an exemption if he stayed home and worked. He preferred to take his chances with war. He was stationed in California. He found that he could go into stores without being bothered. He could walk the streets without being harassed. He could go into a restaurant and receive service.
Ross was shipped off to Guam. He fought in World War II to save the world from tyranny. But when he returned to Clarksdale, he found that tyranny had followed him home. This was 1947, eight years before Mississippi lynched Emmett Till and tossed his broken body into the Tallahatchie River. The Great Migration, a mass exodus of 6 million African Americans that spanned most of the 20th century, was now in its second wave. The black pilgrims did not journey north simply seeking better wages and work, or bright lights and big adventures. They were fleeing the acquisitive warlords of the South. They were seeking the protection of the law. Clyde Ross was among them. He came to Chicago in 1947 and took a job as a taster at Campbell’s Soup. He made a stable wage. He married. He had children. His paycheck was his own. No Klansmen stripped him of the vote. When he walked down the street, he did not have to move because a white man was walking past. He did not have to take off his hat or avert his gaze. His journey from peonage to full citizenship seemed near-complete. Only one item was missing—a home, that final badge of entry into the sacred order of the American middle class of the Eisenhower years.
In 1961, Ross and his wife bought a house in North Lawndale, a bustling community on Chicago’s West Side. North Lawndale had long been a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, but a handful of middle-class African Americans had lived there starting in the ’40s. The community was anchored by the sprawling Sears, Roebuck headquarters. North Lawndale’s Jewish People’s Institute actively encouraged blacks to move into the neighborhood, seeking to make it a “pilot community for interracial living.” In the battle for integration then being fought around the country, North Lawndale seemed to offer promising terrain. But out in the tall grass, highwaymen, nefarious as any Clarksdale kleptocrat, were lying in wait.

Three months after Clyde Ross moved into his house, the boiler blew out. This would normally be a homeowner’s responsibility, but in fact, Ross was not really a homeowner. His payments were made to the seller, not the bank.
And Ross had not signed a normal mortgage. He’d bought “on contract”: a predatory agreement that combined all the responsibilities of homeownership.
From the 1930s through the 1960s, black people
across the country were largely cut out of the
legitimate home-mortgage market.
with all the disadvantages of renting—while offering the benefits of neither. Ross had bought his house for $27,500. The seller, not the previous homeowner but a new kind of middleman, had bought it for only $12,000 six months before selling it to Ross. In a contract sale, the seller kept the deed until the contract was paid in full—and, unlike with a normal mortgage, Ross would acquire no equity in the meantime. If he missed a single payment, he would immediately forfeit his $1,000 down payment, all his monthly payments, and the property itself.
The men who peddled contracts in North Lawndale would sell homes at inflated prices and then evict families who could not pay—taking their down payment and their monthly installments as profit. Then they’d bring in another black family, rinse, and repeat. “He loads them up with payments they can’t meet,” an office secretary told The Chicago Daily News of her boss, the speculator Lou Fushanis, in 1963. “Then he takes the property away from them. He’s sold some of the buildings three or four times.”
Ross had tried to get a legitimate mortgage in another neighborhood, but was told by a loan officer that there was no financing available. The truth was that there was no financing for people like Clyde Ross. From the 1930s through the 1960s, black people across the country were largely cut out of the legitimate home-mortgage market through means both legal and extralegal. Chicago whites employed every measure, from “restrictive covenants” to bombings, to keep their neighborhoods segregated.

Their efforts were buttressed by the federal government. In 1934, Congress created the Federal Housing Administration. The FHA insured private mortgages, causing a drop in interest rates and a decline in the size of the down payment required to buy a house. But an insured mortgage was not a possibility for Clyde Ross. The FHA had adopted a system of maps that rated neighborhoods according to their perceived stability. On the maps, green areas, rated “A,” indicated “in demand” neighborhoods that, as one appraiser put it, lacked “a single foreigner or Negro.” These neighborhoods were considered excellent prospects for insurance. Neighborhoods where black people lived were rated “D” and were usually considered ineligible for FHA backing. They were colored in red. Neither the percentage of black people living there nor their social class mattered. Black people were viewed as a contagion. Redlining went beyond FHA-backed loans and spread to the entire mortgage industry, which was already rife with racism, excluding black people from most legitimate means of obtaining a mortgage.

“A government offering such bounty to builders and lenders could have
required compliance with a nondiscrimination policy,” Charles Abrams, the
urban-studies expert who helped create the New York City Housing
Authority, wrote in 1955. “Instead, the FHA adopted a racial policy that
could well have been culled from the Nuremberg laws.”
The devastating effects are cogently outlined by Melvin L. Oliver and Thomas M. Shapiro in their 1995 book, Black Wealth/White Wealth:
Locked out of the greatest mass-based opportunity for wealth
accumulation in American history, African Americans who desired
and were able to afford home ownership found themselves
consigned to central-city communities where their investments
were affected by the “self-fulfilling prophecies” of the FHA
appraisers: cut off from sources of new investment[,] their
homes and communities deteriorated and lost value in comparison
to those homes and communities that FHA appraisers deemed
desirable.
In Chicago and across the country, whites looking to achieve the American dream could rely on a legitimate credit system backed by the government.
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.” The kill was profitable. At the time of his death, Lou Fushanis owned more than 600 properties, many of them in North Lawndale, and his estate was estimated to be worth $3 million. He’d made much of this money by exploiting the frustrated hopes of black migrants like Clyde Ross. During this period, according to one estimate, 85 percent of all black home buyers who bought in Chicago bought on contract. “If anybody who is well established in this business in Chicago doesn’t earn $100,000 a year,” a contract seller told The Saturday Evening Post in 1962, “he is loafing.”
Contract sellers became rich. North Lawndale became a ghetto.
Clyde Ross still lives there. He still owns his home. He is 91, and the emblems of survival are all around him—awards for service in his community, pictures of his children in cap and gown. But when I asked him about his home in North Lawndale, I heard only anarchy.
“We were ashamed. We did not want anyone to know that we were that
ignorant,” Ross told me. He was sitting at his dining-room table. His glasses were as thick as his Clarksdale drawl. “I’d come out of Mississippi where there was one mess, and come up here and got in another mess. So how dumb am I? I didn’t want anyone to know how dumb I was.

“When I found myself caught up in it, I said, ‘How? I just left this mess. I just left no laws. And no regard. And then I come here and get cheated wide open.’ I would probably want to do some harm to some people, you know, if I had been violent like some of us. I thought, ‘Man, I got caught up in this stuff. I can’t even take care of my kids.’ I didn’t have enough for my kids. You could fall through the cracks easy fighting these white people. And no law.”
But fight Clyde Ross did. In 1968 he joined the newly formed Contract Buyers League—a collection of black homeowners on Chicago’s South and West Sides, all of whom had been locked into the same system of predation. There was Howell Collins, whose contract called for him to pay $25,500 for a house that a speculator had bought for $14,500. There was Ruth Wells, who’d managed to pay out half her contract, expecting a mortgage, only to suddenly see an insurance bill materialize out of thin air—a requirement the seller had added without Wells’s knowledge. Contract sellers used every tool at their disposal to pilfer from their clients. They scared white residents into selling low. They lied about properties’ compliance with building codes, then left the buyer responsible when city inspectors arrived. They presented themselves as real-estate brokers, when in fact they were the owners. They guided their clients to lawyers who were in on the scheme. The Contract Buyers League fought back. Members—who would eventually number more than 500—went out to the posh suburbs where the speculators lived and embarrassed them by knocking on their neighbors’ doors and informing them of the details of the contract-lending trade. They refused to pay their installments, instead holding monthly payments in an escrow account. Then they brought a suit against the contract sellers, accusing them of buying properties and reselling in such a manner “to reap from members of the Negro race large and unjust profits.”

In return for the “deprivations of their rights and privileges under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments,” the league demanded “prayers for relief”—payback of all moneys paid on contracts and all moneys paid for structural improvement of properties, at 6 percent interest minus a “fair, nondiscriminatory” rental price for time of occupation. Moreover, the league asked the court to adjudge that the defendants had “acted willfully and maliciously and that malice is the gist of this action.”
Ross and the Contract Buyers League were no longer appealing to the government simply for equality. They were no longer fleeing in hopes of a better deal elsewhere. They were charging society with a crime against their community. They wanted the crime publicly ruled as such. They wanted the crime’s executors declared to be offensive to society. And they wanted restitution for the great injury brought upon them by said offenders. In 1968, Clyde Ross and the Contract Buyers League were no longer simply seeking the protection of the law. They were seeking reparations.


Messenger: Mineral B Sent: 2/7/2020 9:11:57 PM
Reply

Hmm enlightening. Respect hail Amlak-
-Iyesus Kristos


Messenger: jessep86 Sent: 2/8/2020 12:19:38 AM
Reply

https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/371360/the-story-of-clyde-ross-and-the-contract-buyers-league/


Messenger: RasTafarIWork Sent: 2/9/2020 9:00:14 AM
Reply

Is like when there is international conviction about the issue of slavery that the parpetrators will comply to restitutions


Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 2/11/2020 7:53:08 AM
Reply

jessep:
And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing today.— DEUTERONOMY 15: 12–15


You just justified perpetual slavery.

You CANNOT use the bible to defend human rights. The Israelites did indeed have perpetual slaves.

Exodus 21:6 - Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Deuteronomy 15:17 - Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.


Israelites couldn't force other Israelites to work longer than 7 years. However, if you weren't an Israelite you could work for 50 years. Why 50? All slaves were released in the year of Jubilee. So... wouldn't you shop for slaves the day after you have to release your old ones? If you get a new slave at 20 years old... and you don't have to release him for another 50 years... how much work are you getting out of a 70 year old man anyway? And were they even living to the age of 70? So 50 years might as well be that person's whole life.

You CANNOT use the bible to justify a position against slavery because it was NEVER against slavery. It was PRO-slavery. That's why it was Christians who enslaved us. That's why it was the Catholic priest who said to go use Africans as slaves. We were foreigners to them and therefore, by the rules set forth in the bible, what they did was okay. It may not have been perfectly done according to scripture but it was close enough. The bible considered the slave to be property of their master. This included the slaves children. That's why a slave could choose to stay with the master for the sake of his family who he didn't want to leave. But could he stay until their time was up and then they all leave? No. He had to stay for ever. There's nothing moral about that.

And I'm not even going to get into Israelite women vs foreign women and the rules surrounding maidservants. You could even call it a form of sex trafficking. Women... no "virgins" were even counted as spoils of war. But I'm not going to get into that. My point should be made. The only reason why we try to use the bible to shame is because we are CHERRY PICKING it while doing so. This ignores the fact that, when they did it, they were ALSO using the SAME BOOK! And now you're trying to use the same book they've been reading longer than us to try and tell them they're wrong? Nah bruh.... According to that book they were RIGHTEOUS and we were wrong because when they put that book in our hands we didn't know wtf it was. But it was the only book we were allowed be read. And we took comfort in the idea of a savior. But the salvation we needed all along was FROM THAT BOOK! You can't use the devil to shame the devil.

"he that hath an ear, let him hear..." ironically.


Messenger: jessep86 Sent: 2/11/2020 4:59:14 PM
Reply

II. “A Difference of Kind, Not Degree”
CCORDING TO THE MOST-RECENT STATISTICS, North Lawndale is now
on the wrong end of virtually every socioeconomic indicator. In
1930 its population was 112,000. Today it is 36,000. The halcyon
talk of “interracial living” is dead. The neighborhood is 92 percent
black. Its homicide rate is 45 per 100,000—triple the rate of the city as a
whole. The infant-mortality rate is 14 per 1,000—more than twice the
national average. Forty-three percent of the people in North Lawndale live
below the poverty line—double Chicago’s overall rate. Forty-five percent of all
households are on food stamps—nearly three times the rate of the city at
large. Sears, Roebuck left the neighborhood in 1987, taking 1,800 jobs with
it. Kids in North Lawndale need not be confused about their prospects: Cook
Interactive Census Map
Explore race, unemployment, and vacancy rates over seven decades in Chicago. (Map design and development by Frankie Dintino)
County’s Juvenile Temporary Detention Center sits directly adjacent to the
neighborhood.
North Lawndale is an extreme portrait of the trends that ail black Chicago.
Such is the magnitude of these ailments that it can be said that blacks and
whites do not inhabit the same city. The average per capita income of
Chicago’s white neighborhoods is almost three times that of its black
neighborhoods. When the Harvard sociologist Robert J. Sampson examined
incarceration rates in Chicago in his 2012 book, Great American City, he
found that a black neighborhood with one of the highest incarceration rates
(West Garfield Park) had a rate more than 40 times as high as the white
neighborhood with the highest rate (Clearing). “This is a staggering
differential, even for community-level comparisons,” Sampson writes. “A
difference of kind, not degree.”

In return for the “deprivations of their rights and privileges under the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments,” the league demanded “prayers for
relief”—payback of all moneys paid on contracts and all moneys paid for
structural improvement of properties, at 6 percent interest minus a “fair, nondiscriminatory”
rental price for time of occupation. Moreover, the league
asked the court to adjudge that the defendants had “acted willfully and
maliciously and that malice is the gist of this action.”
Ross and the Contract Buyers League were no longer appealing to the
government simply for equality. They were no longer fleeing in hopes of a
better deal elsewhere. They were charging society with a crime against their
community. They wanted the crime publicly ruled as such. They wanted the
crime’s executors declared to be offensive to society. And they wanted
restitution for the great injury brought upon them by said offenders. In 1968,
Clyde Ross and the Contract Buyers League were no longer simply seeking
the protection of the law. They were seeking reparations.

In other words, Chicago’s impoverished black neighborhoods—characterized
by high unemployment and households headed by single parents—are not
simply poor; they are “ecologically distinct.” This “is not simply the same
thing as low economic status,” writes Sampson. “In this pattern Chicago is
not alone.”

The lives of black Americans are better than they were half a century ago. The
humiliation of WHITES ONLY signs are gone. Rates of black poverty have
decreased. Black teen-pregnancy rates are at record lows—and the gap
between black and white teen-pregnancy rates has shrunk significantly. But
such progress rests on a shaky foundation, and fault lines are everywhere. The
income gap between black and white households is roughly the same today as
it was in 1970. Patrick Sharkey, a sociologist at New York University, studied
children born from 1955 through 1970 and found that 4 percent of whites
and 62 percent of blacks across America had been raised in poor
neighborhoods. A generation later, the same study showed, virtually nothing
had changed. And whereas whites born into affluent neighborhoods tended to
remain in affluent neighborhoods, blacks tended to fall out of them.
This is not surprising. Black families, regardless of income, are significantly
less wealthy than white families. The Pew Research Center estimates that
white households are worth roughly 20 times as much as black households,
and that whereas only 15 percent of whites have zero or negative wealth,
more than a third of blacks do. Effectively, the black family in America is
working without a safety net. When financial calamity strikes—a medical
emergency, divorce, job loss—the fall is precipitous.
And just as black families of all incomes remain handicapped by a lack of
wealth, so too do they remain handicapped by their restricted choice of
neighborhood. Black people with upper-middle-class incomes do not
generally live in upper-middle-class neighborhoods. Sharkey’s research
shows that black families making $100,000 typically live in the kinds of
neighborhoods inhabited by white families making $30,000. “Blacks and
whites inhabit such different neighborhoods,” Sharkey writes, “that it is not
possible to compare the economic outcomes of black and white children.”


The implications are chilling. As a rule, poor black people do not work their
way out of the ghetto—and those who do often face the horror of watching
their children and grandchildren tumble back.
Even seeming evidence of progress withers under harsh light. In 2012, the
Manhattan Institute cheerily noted that segregation had declined since the
1960s. And yet African Americans still remained—by far—the most
segregated ethnic group in the country.
With segregation, with the isolation of the injured and the robbed, comes the
concentration of disadvantage. An unsegregated America might see poverty,
and all its effects, spread across the country with no particular bias toward
skin color. Instead, the concentration of poverty has been paired with a
concentration of melanin. The resulting conflagration has been devastating.


One thread of thinking in the African American community holds that these
depressing numbers partially stem from cultural pathologies that can be
altered through individual grit and exceptionally good behavior. (In 2011,
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, responding to violence among young
black males, put the blame on the family: “Too many men making too many
babies they don’t want to take care of, and then we end up dealing with your
children.” Nutter turned to those presumably fatherless babies: “Pull your
pants up and buy a belt, because no one wants to see your underwear or the
crack of your butt.”) The thread is as old as black politics itself. It is also
wrong. The kind of trenchant racism to which black people have persistently
been subjected can never be defeated by making its victims more respectable.
The essence of American racism is disrespect. And in the wake of the grim
numbers, we see the grim inheritance.





The Contract Buyers League’s suit brought by Clyde Ross and his allies took
direct aim at this inheritance. The suit was rooted in Chicago’s long history of
segregation, which had created two housing markets—one legitimate and
backed by the government, the other lawless and patrolled by predators. The
suit dragged on until 1976, when the league lost a jury trial. Securing the
equal protection of the law proved hard; securing reparations proved
impossible. If there were any doubts about the mood of the jury, the foreman
removed them by saying, when asked about the verdict, that he hoped it
would help end “the mess Earl Warren made with Brown v. Board of Education
children a college education.”
and all that nonsense.”

The Supreme Court seems to share that sentiment. The past two decades
have witnessed a rollback of the progressive legislation of the 1960s. Liberals
have found themselves on the defensive. In 2008, when Barack Obama was a
candidate for president, he was asked whether his daughters—Malia and
Sasha—should benefit from affirmative action. He answered in the negative.
The exchange rested upon an erroneous comparison of the average American
white family and the exceptional first family. In the contest of upward
mobility, Barack and Michelle Obama have won. But they’ve won by being
twice as good—and enduring twice as much. Malia and Sasha Obama enjoy
privileges beyond the average white child’s dreams. But that comparison is
incomplete. The more telling question is how they compare with Jenna and
Barbara Bush—the products of many generations of privilege, not just one.
Whatever the Obama children achieve, it will be evidence of their family’s
singular perseverance, not of broad equality.


Messenger: jessep86 Sent: 2/13/2020 8:28:13 PM
Reply

"We built your penetentaries. We built your schools..."

University attempt to pay its debt..
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/2612821001


1 - 7

Return to Reasoning List




RastafarI
 
Haile Selassie I