Support NeoGAF

[FiggyCal]

The argument seems to go like this: Bernie Sanders is not a serious candidate. He supports policies which are not serious. Reparations is not a serious policy proposal. Therefore, Bernie should support reparations.

 

[CCS]

curious how this one pans out

Simple:

-Sanders believes in reducing inequality and the excessive influence of the wealthiest in society.
-In particular, as a Socialist he believes in a degree of transfer of wealth from the rich to the poorer.
-White people on average are wealthier than black people.
-This has been the case ever since the establishment of the United States, and specifically since the abolition of slavery.
-So we have inequality between one group of people and another in terms of wealth, which is structural and self perpetuating.
-Hence, wealth should be transferred from white people as a group to black people as a group.
-Hence, reparations.

Even if you don't want to call it reparations, it logically follows from his beliefs that wealth should be transferred from whites to blacks.

 

[FiggyCal]

Simple:

-Sanders believes in reducing inequality and the excessive influence of the wealthiest in society.
-In particular, as a Socialist he believes in a degree of transfer of wealth from the rich to the poorer.
-White people on average are wealthier than black people.
-This has been the case ever since the establishment of the United States, and specifically since the abolition of slavery.
-So we have inequality between one group of people and another in terms of wealth, which is structural and self perpetuating.
-Hence, wealth should be transferred from white people as a group to black people as a group.
-Hence, reparations.

Hillary Clinton doesn't believe in reducing inequality and excessive influence of the wealthiest in society? She doesn't believe in a degree of transfer of wealth from the rich to the poorer? Is that right?

 

[CCS]

Hillary Clinton doesn't believe in reducing inequality and excessive influence of the wealthiest in society? She doesn't believe in a degree of transfer of wealth from the rich to the poorer? Is that right?

She is not proposing the same quantity of wealth transfer that Sanders is. Clearly, therefore, Sanders believes that the acceptable level of wealth inequality is lower than Clinton does. Therefore, he should be more in favour of reparations, as redressing income inequality should be more important to him.

 

[FiggyCal]

She is not proposing the same quantity of wealth transfer that Sanders is. Clearly, therefore, Sanders believes that the acceptable level of wealth inequality is lower than Clinton does. Therefore, he should be more in favour of reparations, as redressing income inequality should be more important to him.

Sure. But that's not what you said earlier.

What I'm saying is: saying that he should be in favor of reparations and saying that he should be more likely to be in favor of reparations than his opponent are two different things.

 

[Manmademan]

Simple:

-Sanders believes in reducing inequality and the excessive influence of the wealthiest in society.
-In particular, as a Socialist he believes in a degree of transfer of wealth from the rich to the poorer.
-White people on average are wealthier than black people.
-This has been the case ever since the establishment of the United States, and specifically since the abolition of slavery.
-So we have inequality between one group of people and another in terms of wealth, which is structural and self perpetuating.
-Hence, wealth should be transferred from white people as a group to black people as a group.
-Hence, reparations.

The bolded is where your reasoning breaks down.

White people are "on average" wealthier than black people, but "wealth" isn't solely measured in dollars, but assets. If a white couple has a home bought with a down payment provided by parents while the black family is renting, one of these is going to have a lot more wealth even if the take home pay between the two is the same. Post WW2 housing policy being what it was (with levittowns, etc and restrictive covenants) ensured that this continues to be the case. "taking" dollars from white people and redistributing it to black people does not fix this at all.

second, talking about the "average" is useless when everyone is going to have to pay the taxes that fund this kind of program, including poor white people subsidizing reparations to wealthy black athletes. obviously this example won't be the norm but it will happen and this is absolutely terrible optics. You are also going to be taking money from hispanics, asians, native americans, etc to pay "reparations" to african americans and this is nonsensical. How are you going to handle payments from and to biracial citizens? Do they pay half as much? receive half as much? What qualifies one as black? are we bringing back the one drop rule? Will we have white people like elizabeth warren claiming they're not actually white but native american because a great great grandfather was cherokee? Are we going to have people "opt in" to being white or black on tax forms? Prepare for the white population to crash overnight in favor of "other" and the amount of black people to triple.

speaking of actual funds, there are 30 million black people in the country. Giving them all enough money to actually be meaningful is not trivial. If you're talking correcting structural inequality then you're looking at an amount equivalent to free college tuition for every african american in the country, or even the cost of the average home. If we want to use the historical monetary equivalent of "40 acres and a mule" that was commonly bandied about in the post civil war period, people put the cost of that one at 6.4 trillion dollars

to say this is "significant" is an understatement. that amount would cripple the economy, and if the political will to actually implement that kind of massive wealth transfer actually existed, 6.4 trillion would be a lot better spent on more broad ranging policies that benefit the lives of all americans, not 12.4%. At that point it's no longer reparations, but social improvement that we should be doing anyway i.e. free healthcare, subsidized childcare, free post secondary education, or guaranteed income.

So no, I don't think sanders' policies support reparations nor does anyone running, since the concept itself is flawed.

 

[CCS]

Sure. But that's not what you said earlier.

What I'm saying is: saying that he should be in favor of reparations and saying that he is more likely to be in favor of reparations than his opponent are two different things.

Well logically, if he is more in favour of reparations, he should be in favour of them. It's an either/or thing, the only thing how in favour of them you are should effect is how much you want to pay in reparations. So if he is more in favour than he should be in favour.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I really don't particularly see this whole logical corollary that he should support reparations based on his other policies... it really seems entirely flawed...

But I think a disconnect does arise, because his stated reasoning for opposing such a policy (that it would have no chance of passing in Congress and it would be divisive) could quite easily apply to other policy positions he does support and propose.

As noted earlier, it's the same disconnect that arose in past debate about gun control, where on that issue calm pragmatism is requisite.

It's the problem that emerges when, for instance, in the middle of a debate he says he'll dramatically reduce the US prison population, despite how it would be entirely beyond him to do so. If you're promising this star, then why not that one too.

 

[CCS]

The bolded is where your reasoning breaks down.

White people are "on average" wealthier than black people, but "wealth" isn't solely measured in dollars, but assets. If a white couple has a home bought with a down payment provided by parents while the black family is renting, one of these is going to have a lot more wealth even if the take home pay between the two is the same. Post WW2 housing policy being what it was (with levittowns, etc and restrictive covenants) ensured that this continues to be the case. "taking" dollars from white people and redistributing it to black people does not fix this at all.

second, talking about the "average" is useless when everyone is going to have to pay the taxes that fund this kind of program, including poor white people subsidizing reparations to wealthy black athletes. obviously this example won't be the norm but it will happen and this is absolutely terrible optics.

speaking of actual funds, there are 30 million black people in the country. Giving them all enough money to actually be meaningful is not trivial. If you're talking correcting structural inequality then you're looking at an amount equivalent to free college tuition for every african american in the country, or even the cost of the average home. If we want to use the historical monetary equivalent of "40 acres and a mule" that was commonly bandied about in the post civil war period, people put the cost of that one at 6.4 trillion dollars

to say this is "significant" is an understatement. that amount would cripple the economy, and if the political will to actually implement that kind of massive wealth transfer actually existed, 6.4 trillion would be a lot better spent on more broad ranging policies that benefit the lives of all americans, not 12.4%. At that point it's no longer reparations, but social improvement that we should be doing anyway i.e. free healthcare, subsidized childcare, free post secondary education, or guaranteed income.

So no, I don't think sanders' policies support reparations nor does anyone running, since the concept itself is flawed.

So what you're saying is that the practicalities of the situation override the philosophical principles. Looks like Sanders and Clinton are similar after all.

 

[FiggyCal]

I still think Sanders is more radical than he's letting on; I've never doubted that he's been dishonest and I still don't think he necessarily has to believe in reparations, because if it's a bad idea, then it's a bad idea.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I think it's merely representative of how he thinks of economic issues broadly, but does not concern himself with the needs of specific constituent classes. The fact that he dismisses them offhandedly rather than at least talking about them is very telling.

 

[Manmademan]

So what you're saying is that the practicalities of the situation override the philosophical principles. Looks like Sanders and Clinton are similar after all.

Philosophically it doesn't make sense because throwing money at black people and pretending it fixes everything wrong with american society does not work. Even if it was hypothetically possible to throw 6.4 trillion at every black person in america, it would make things even worse than they already are, as bitter angry white people would not only still exist, they would have carte blanche to ignore structural inequality from that point forward because "fuck it, we paid you already."

Practically its just idiocy, and thats clear to anyone who owns a calculator.

Sanders and Clinton are similar here in that I assume that neither is a moron.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

There is a basic failure here to understand what Sanders is proposing via his candidacy. He's not dumb, and he knows that the current makeup of Congress is such that the things he wants to get passed will not get passed. Single-payer healthcare and college tuition reform are pie in the sky at the present moment, and nobody thinks otherwise. What he is proposing is that his election would be the lynchpin of a more general leftward lurch, and that, if there is consistent agitation for leftism from the presidential pulpit, and if the people who support him so passionately stay politically engaged and continue to affect change in the grassroots, the path will be paved for the policies he's proposing. His policy proposals are programs that are pie in the sky assuming things stay basically as they are now, but they could become practical realities if they are fought for correctly because their benefits are broad and stretch across many demographics. Reparations, while a valid proposal for the redistribution of wealth in terms of morals and ideology, are a niche policy proposal that would benefit only one group and are on a much longer timetable in terms of becoming a practical possibility. I could see the U.S. shifting to favor Bernie's ideas in 15-20 years, but I'd be surprised to see a push for reparations in my remaining lifetime, that's how radical of a policy they are. That he doesn't adopt reparations for his platform says something about the system, as Coates pointed out, but it doesn't really say anything about Bernie other than that he has a limit on how far he thinks he can shift the dial, politically.

Note that I am not unaware of the massive problems with Bernie's proposed political strategy. I'm just saying, reparations are not some glaring inconsistency unless your opinion is that he is a joke candidate and should therefore just go full ham on supporting radicalism.

 

[dramatis]

If people are allowed to make a huge ruckus over Hillary Clinton calling herself "liberal" and "progressive", then people are allowed to wail on Bernie for radical issues because he considers himself "radical". There is no pretense of "not understanding what Bernie proposes with his candidacy". It's simply the scrutiny that a candidate gets.

 

[The Technomancer]

I really don't particularly see this whole logical corollary that he should support reparations based on his other policies... it really seems entirely flawed...

But I think a disconnect does arise, because his stated reasoning for opposing such a policy (that it would have no chance of passing in Congress and it would be divisive) could quite easily apply to other policy positions he does support and propose.

As noted earlier, it's the same disconnect that arose in past debate about gun control, where on that issue calm pragmatism is requisite.

It's the problem that emerges when, for instance, in the middle of a debate he says he'll dramatically reduce the US prison population, despite how it would be entirely beyond him to do so. If you're promising this star, then why not that one too.

Exactly. It highlights the really weird position Bernie is in: his positions are too radical in the current political climate, but they're also not actually fundamentally radical

 

[FiggyCal]

If people are allowed to make a huge ruckus over Hillary Clinton calling herself "liberal" and "progressive", then people are allowed to wail on Bernie for radical issues because he considers himself "radical". There is no pretense of "not understanding what Bernie proposes with his candidacy". It's simply the scrutiny that a candidate gets.

It's not actual scrutiny. We're not looking over every issue and saying "this one makes sense and/or people like" and "this one doesn't make sense and people don't like it". People here, in this very thread, are criticizing Sanders for not supporting a policy that they themselves don't support on the basis that "it only makes sense that he should support it". That's not scrutiny; I don't even know what you'd call it.

We shouldn't measure people by how leftist they are by comparing how close they are to reparations, in the same way that we shouldn't judge leftists by how anti-gun they are. There are plenty of libertarians and communists that are pro-gun. If an idea is bad; the idea is bad and smart people should be against it and not be in favor just to prove how radical they are. And I'm necessarily saying that's what reparations is ... I honestly don't know, but holding him to that standard that is so unpopular, unfeasible, "magical" (as a person in the other thread put it) is unreasonable.

 

[Elaugaufein]

It's not actual scrutiny. We're not looking over every issue and saying "this one makes sense and/or people like" and "this one doesn't make sense and people don't like it". People here, in this very thread, are criticizing Sanders for not supporting a policy that they themselves don't support on the basis that "it only makes sense that he should support it". That's not scrutiny; I don't even know what you'd call it.

A condemnation of ideologocal inconsistency.

I'm not sure its appropriate though given that its not an exclusive answer to the question it addresses based upon any positions he's stated as far as I can see. Which is the way he'd actually be ideologocally inconsistent.

 

[User 406]

I support reparations.


Reparations are continuously handwaved away with reductio ad absurdum arguments like the only possible option is to cut every black person a check for the full inflation adjusted cost of the stolen labor and suffering, which is then summarily dismissed as unrealistic so therefore the very idea of reparations is unrealistic.

It's just another way to dodge a full accounting.

America has never completely faced the consequences of slavery, has never fully acknowledged responsibility, and has not truly attempted to redress the wrong and set things right.

We can't even talk about policies that directly address the problems the black community has without having to tie it in some way to helping out white people. You can't water down reparations that way, which is one of the reasons why resistance to even discussing the idea is so high. Ta-Nehisi Coates says:

And so we must imagine a new country. Reparations—by which I mean the full acceptance of our collective biography and its consequences—is the price we must pay to see ourselves squarely. The recovering alcoholic may well have to live with his illness for the rest of his life. But at least he is not living a drunken lie. Reparations beckons us to reject the intoxication of hubris and see America as it is—the work of fallible humans.

Won’t reparations divide us? Not any more than we are already divided. The wealth gap merely puts a number on something we feel but cannot say—that American prosperity was ill-gotten and selective in its distribution. What is needed is an airing of family secrets, a settling with old ghosts. What is needed is a healing of the American psyche and the banishment of white guilt.

What I’m talking about is more than recompense for past injustices—more than a handout, a payoff, hush money, or a reluctant bribe. What I’m talking about is a national reckoning that would lead to spiritual renewal.

The exploration of reparations requires us to face the problem of systemic racism head on, eyes open, without flinching. It's why we constantly refuse to do so, and why we absolutely must.

There is a house bill, H.R.40 that would set up a commission to study potential approaches to reparations and remedies to the problems that slavery and systemic racism has caused. Pressing the candidates on their support for this bill would be a good start.

 

[thepotatoman]

I really don't particularly see this whole logical corollary that he should support reparations based on his other policies... it really seems entirely flawed...

But I think a disconnect does arise, because his stated reasoning for opposing such a policy (that it would have no chance of passing in Congress and it would be divisive) could quite easily apply to other policy positions he does support and propose.

As noted earlier, it's the same disconnect that arose in past debate about gun control, where on that issue calm pragmatism is requisite.

It's the problem that emerges when, for instance, in the middle of a debate he says he'll dramatically reduce the US prison population, despite how it would be entirely beyond him to do so. If you're promising this star, then why not that one too.

I'd guess It's not necessarily about what's realistic to get through congress, but what realistically could build a revolution. He and his supporters look at Europe and the New Deal and think that should be extremely possible to do in the modern day US if a candidate actually started giving people the chance to vote for a candidate that is actually pushing for that stuff.

I understand that Hillary fans don't think Sanders ideas are realistic in getting through congress or getting through the election, so from that viewpoint it would seem hypocritical for Sanders to call anything else realistic, but that's not the viewpoint Sanders and his supporters have.

I think it really is an honest disagreement in what's realistic. If Sanders thought universal healthcare and free college was unrealistic, he wouldn't even run in the first place. Just because he's challenging the common wisdom of what's realistic doesn't make it reasonable to throw the kitchen sink of leftist ideas in there with it.

 

[Overlee]

The funniest part about everyone in here picking apart Bernie's stance on reparations is the fact that some old white guy has everyone talking about reparations.

This is why Bernie's message is so powerful. He's challenging everyone to think of new landscapes and possibilities we can create through our involvement in government. Because they are OUR ideas and not his, means that future leaders and representatives will be empowered to perhaps even run on a platform of reparations or anything that was once viewed as "impossible." Like the effect FDR's second bill of rights has had on Bernie.)

We're seeing a massive influx of imagination and creativity being planted this election cycle that will fruit eternally. This is the revolution POLIGAF, you can't explain it away when you are partaking in it.

 

[FiggyCal]

I support reparations.


Reparations are continuously handwaved away with reductio ad absurdum arguments like the only possible option is to cut every black person a check for the full inflation adjusted cost of the stolen labor and suffering, which is then summarily dismissed as unrealistic so therefore the very idea of reparations is unrealistic.

It's just another way to dodge a full accounting.

America has never completely faced the consequences of slavery, has never fully acknowledged responsibility, and has not truly attempted to redress the wrong and set things right.

We can't even talk about policies that directly address the problems the black community has without having to tie it in some way to helping out white people. You can't water down reparations that way, which is one of the reasons why resistance to even discussing the idea is so high. Ta-Nehisi Coates says:



The exploration of reparations requires us to face the problem of systemic racism head on, eyes open, without flinching. It's why we constantly refuse to do so, and why we absolutely must.

There is a house bill, H.R.40 that would set up a commission to study potential approaches to reparations and remedies to the problems that slavery and systemic racism has caused. Pressing the candidates on their support for this bill would be a good start.

I really like where the person is coming from, but if the goal is more about cultural consciousness and not economic justice, there must be other ways that address the issue which are more politically feasible.

I think Western countries owe Haiti a ton of money. But I think there's something different about reparations in the US. I'm not sure what it is and I haven't put a lot of thought into it tbh

 

[Bronx-Man]

gop-harmony.com

 

[User 406]

I really like where the person is coming from, but if the goal is more about cultural consciousness and not economic justice, there must be other ways that address the issue which are more politically feasible.

Reparations have been paid to Native Americans, not nearly enough, mind you, but they have. They have been paid to the families of Japanese Americans who were interred during WWII. Reparations are a common part of redressing wrongs. It's why we have civil lawsuits.

But we aren't even willing to start discussing the idea in regards to slavery and systemic racism.

That's the problem.

 

[dramatis]

It's not actual scrutiny. We're not looking over every issue and saying "this one makes sense and/or people like" and "this one doesn't make sense and people don't like it". People here, in this very thread, are criticizing Sanders for not supporting a policy that they themselves don't support on the basis that "it only makes sense that he should support it". That's not scrutiny; I don't even know what you'd call it.

We shouldn't measure people by how leftist they are by comparing how close they are to reparations, in the same way that we shouldn't judge leftists by how anti-gun they are. There are plenty of libertarians and communists that are pro-gun. If an idea is bad; the idea is bad and smart people should be against it and not be in favor just to prove how radical they are. And I'm necessarily saying that's what reparations is ... I honestly don't know, but holding him to that standard that is so unpopular, unfeasible, "magical" (as a person in the other thread put it) is unreasonable.

Scrutiny is scrutiny. Saying "they're reasoning out what he might be thinking" doesn't equal scrutiny when right there it's people scrutinizing and analyzing Bernie's positions and whether or not by logic it means he should support an issue. If it's inconsistent, then we scrutinize why.

You were all too eager to judge Hillary for how 'sincere' and 'authentic' she actually is based off of something that's not policy: Wall Street donations. So why not judge Bernie based off of something that is an actual policy that he won't support because suddenly realism has to be brought into his discussions, when the whole time he sells dreams? How is discussing that not "actual" scrutiny, but the endless parade of 'real' progressive is?

We shouldn't measure people by how leftist they are by comparing their donors, in the same way that we shouldn't judge leftists by how anti-Wall Street they are.

So many people have absolutely no trouble holding Hillary to unfeasible and magical standards, to the point of unreasonableness, and now you would like to argue that it's unfair to Bernie?

The fire in the political spotlight is hot, if he can't handle it, he's not presidential material.

 

[And_Gignac]

Bernie calling out US Imperialism in Latin America yaaas <3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNnUxatctC4&feature=youtu.be

It feels like magic that someone like him has now a chance to the presidency.

 

[Makai]

It keeps getting harder to argue the US economy is entering recession

 

[Cesare Borgia]

It's not actual scrutiny. We're not looking over every issue and saying "this one makes sense and/or people like" and "this one doesn't make sense and people don't like it". People here, in this very thread, are criticizing Sanders for not supporting a policy that they themselves don't support on the basis that "it only makes sense that he should support it". That's not scrutiny; I don't even know what you'd call it.

We shouldn't measure people by how leftist they are by comparing how close they are to reparations, in the same way that we shouldn't judge leftists by how anti-gun they are. There are plenty of libertarians and communists that are pro-gun. If an idea is bad; the idea is bad and smart people should be against it and not be in favor just to prove how radical they are. And I'm necessarily saying that's what reparations is ... I honestly don't know, but holding him to that standard that is so unpopular, unfeasible, "magical" (as a person in the other thread put it) is unreasonable.

It's an asinine, intellectually bankrupt argument that I'm stunned isn't being called out. Sanders being a "radical" does not mean that he should thus support every "radical" idea, that doesn't make sense and isn't a sincere argument. Coates strikes me as someone who has exhausted himself to create the most tortured anti Sanders/white liberal argument possible. And I say that as someone who has been anti Sanders for quite some time.

 

[pigeon]

The funniest part about everyone in here picking apart Bernie's stance on reparations is the fact that some old white guy has everyone talking about reparations.

Ta-Nehisi Coates is not an old white guy.

 

[VendettaRed07]

The argument seems to go like this: Bernie Sanders is not a serious candidate. He supports policies which are not serious. Reparations is not a serious policy proposal. Therefore, Bernie should support reparations.

The way think about it is this. Sanders supporters when asked about the likelyhood off the legislation Bernie proposes passing, they deflect or say something along the lines of "well it's worth giving it a shot," or " how do we know it won't pass unless we try??". But when it comes to reparations they immediately handwave away the notion as something that will never happen, and start making the exact same arguments that they shit on Clinton and her supporters for using about things they personally want.

It just feels hypocritical to me in how arguments over the direction and what the party should fight for next term have played out to brush them off. Bernies message is essentially "you've all been screwed over and it's not your fault, and I'm going to fight for you to take your country back from Wall Street". But I mean, I think minorities have been screwed over far worse by this country than White people have been screwed over by a Wall Street banker. Why shouldn't minorities also feel entitled to paybacks if Bernie's message is all about getting back what is owed to people?

 

[Overlee]

Ta-Nehisi Coates is not an old white guy.

Don't belittle the entire point. How many people here have even read the article? There's a reason he wrote about Sanders and not Clinton and that's because he's the only candidate allowing the creative ground for such possibilities.

 

[kirblar]

It keeps getting harder to argue the US economy is entering recession

Won't stop the same doom chorus from arguing the same thing they always do.

It's an asinine, intellectually bankrupt argument that I'm stunned isn't being called out. Sanders being a "radical" does not mean that he should thus support every "radical" idea, that doesn't make sense and isn't a sincere argument. Coates strikes me as someone who has exhausted himself to create the most tortured anti Sanders/white liberal argument possible. And I say that as someone who has been anti Sanders for quite some time.

You don't get to use "it's not practical/feasible" as an argument when you're promising the moon on nearly every other issue. It goes to the fact that he still believes "its all about class", ignoring that this-

is not an issue that arised because of any sort of natural economic forces.

Don't belittle the entire point. How many people here have even read the article? There's a reason he wrote about Sanders and not Clinton and that's because he's the only candidate allowing the creative ground for such possibilities.

Calling Coates an "Old White Guy" is very much an attempt to handwave and belittle someone you clearly know next to nothing about.

 

[UltimaPooh]

The way think about it is this. Sanders supporters when asked about the likelyhood off the legislation Bernie proposes passing, they deflect or say something along the lines of "well it's worth giving it a shot," or " how do we know it won't pass unless we try??". But when it comes to reparations they immediately handwave away the notion as something that will never happen, and start making the exact same arguments that they shit on Clinton and her supporters for using about things they personally want.

It just feels hypocritical to me in how arguments over the direction and what the party should fight for next term have played out to brush them off. Bernies message is essentially "you've all been screwed over and it's not your fault, and I'm going to fight for you to take your country back from Wall Street". But I mean, I think minorities have been screwed over far worse by this country than White people have been screwed over by a Wall Street banker. Why shouldn't minorities also feel entitled to paybacks if Bernie's message is all about getting back what is owed to people?

What would reparations even look like?

 

[Overlee]

Calling Coates an "Old White Guy" is very much an attempt to handwave and belittle someone you clearly know next to nothing about.

/s

The funniest part about everyone in here picking apart Bernie's stance on reparations is the fact that some old white guy has everyone talking about reparations.

I didn't even mention Coates in that post. I'm arguing the subject not the author.

 

[Cybit]

A lot of people vote Democrat because they think it's a saner option than voting Republican. That doesn't mean they're in love with the party. I left last year, which I never would have thought I'd do.

The best thing that can happen if Bernie's not the nominee is for the DNC to get hamfisted and guarantee a loss in November.

It is the DNC after all - there's a good chance they can muck up the election regardless of the candidate

There is quite an anti Bernie crowd here.

To be honest, I really dont care if Bernie doesnt expand beyond economics for racial issues. As a Native American I really dont expect any person outside of my community to have an inkling of the sort of challenges we face.

I think its a terrible expectation of people to ask a loaded question like what's his plan to fight hundreds of years of racism, hate, and genocide. The truth is that no one has the answer. Hell if my parents couldn't help support me while going to school, I wouldnt have been able to graduate magna cum laude with a Mathematics degree and pre-health. Economics provides opportunities, but its up to people to take advantage of those opportunities. Its easy for us minorities to blame institutional racism, but sometimes it's our own fault for not working hard or smart enough.

Bernie seems to get a lot of hate for being too much of an idealist. I think solving institutional racism demands much more idealism than getting money out of politics. Perhaps Bernie just isnt the right kind of idealist...

Ain't that the truth. Part of it is that when you're not a minority that is large enough of a group to get a seat at a table (IE, not black or latino, as asian-americans are too broad of a category currently, and haven't broadly mixed enough in the US ala white people to become a concentrated group) - you just sort of realize a) no one's really going to understand what you actually have to deal with, and b) the bigger minority groups are more or less going to use you just when it's convenient, and forget about you the second you aren't useful to them.

Also known as the "why Asian-GAF doesn't bother with asian threads in OT" corollary, or stuff like http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7273

Reparations have been paid to Native Americans, not nearly enough, mind you, but they have. They have been paid to the families of Japanese Americans who were interred during WWII. Reparations are a common part of redressing wrongs. It's why we have civil lawsuits.

But we aren't even willing to start discussing the idea in regards to slavery and systemic racism.

That's the problem.

Liiiiiiiiiiiike that.

As TNC himself even put it (and then disingenuously stopped talking about because he knows how it blows up the thesis of his argument) - the difference between Native Americans and blacks in this country is that whites and blacks (let's pin this accurately, since much of it happened post Civil War) just committed genocide against Native Americans, enough that paying reparations became economically feasible.

That said, I don't get why HR 40 hasn't passed. You can at least study the damn thing. That seems like the logical thing to do.

 

[VendettaRed07]

What would reparations even look like?

I'm not sure, but We actually did begin to hand out reparations right after the civil war. Problem is that it didn't last, and all of the land was revoked and given back to the slave holders after Lincoln was shot and Andrew Johnson came into office.

I think the best way to argue for reparations or a way to start would be to revisit Special Field Order No. 15 and see if any of the land that was distributed is available or purchasable and if tracing the direct defendants of those who were supposed to inherit it is possible, and give it to them if it is. That's where I'd start atleast. If reparations are to ever happen I think bringing up the specific reparations and acts post civil war and giving back the land and estates that were unrightfully taken back by slaveholders is the best shot.

 

[teruterubozu]

I'm not sure, but We actually did begin to hand out reparations right after the civil war. Problem is that it didn't last, and all of the land was revoked and given back to the slave holders after Lincoln was shot and Andrew Jackson came into office.

I think the best way to argue for reparations or a way to start would be to revisit Special Field Order No. 15 and see if any of the land that was distributed is available or purchasable and if tracing the direct defendants of those who were supposed to inherit it is possible, and give it to them if it is. That's where I'd start atleast. If reparations are to ever happen I think bringing up the specific reparations and acts post civil war and giving back the land and estates that were unrightfully taken back by slaveholders is the best shot.

wut?

 

[Tesseract]

i don't ever repost, but i'm curious about this one,

isn't everything bernie proposing essentially reparations pursuant to communities, over individuals?

also, don't you think the upcoming (potential) recession demands a leader proficient in social security systems?

 

[VendettaRed07]

wut?

Andrew Johnson. Sorry

 

[UltimaPooh]

I'm not sure, but We actually did begin to hand out reparations right after the civil war. Problem is that it didn't last, and all of the land was revoked and given back to the slave holders after Lincoln was shot and Andrew Jackson came into office.

I think the best way to argue for reparations or a way to start would be to revisit Special Field Order No. 15 and see if any of the land that was distributed is available or purchasable and if tracing the direct defendants of those who were supposed to inherit it is possible, and give it to them if it is. That's where I'd start atleast. If reparations are to ever happen I think bringing up the specific reparations and acts post civil war and giving back the land and estates that were unrightfully taken back by slaveholders is the best shot.

I think you mean Johnson.

And that sounds like a reasonable place to start. I was just curious what reparations people wanted... Because people like to throw out the word and not have any idea of what they want, except they want something.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

wut?

He means Andrew Johnson. Although the reanimated corpse of Jackson probably would have been just as effective in helping former slaves.

 

[teruterubozu]

He means Andrew Johnson. Although the reanimated corpse of Jackson probably would have been just as effective in helping former slaves.

Are you a Steve Stevens fan?

 

[pigeon]

Don't belittle the entire point. How many people here have even read the article? There's a reason he wrote about Sanders and not Clinton and that's because he's the only candidate allowing the creative ground for such possibilities.

All of this is wrong. Belittling the entire point is like the only appropriate thing to do because it's a terrible, somewhat racist point. Coates has been writing about reparations for literally years. His point in writing about Sanders is specifically to illustrate the white supremacist nature of even the American radical left. We can envision ever grander systems of equality, but only as long as they don't acknowledge or engage with American racism.

The fact that reparations is not a popular position does not change his point, it adds to it. Talking about policies that redistribute wealth, in general, is apparently mainstream. Talking about policies that redistribute wealth specifically to African-Americans is wildly fringe and unserious, even though African-Americans are the people who have been most specifically impoverished throughout American history by policies designed to redistribute their wealth away from them. Simply acknowledging the debt of slavery makes you even more crazy than Bernie Sanders, apparently.

Reducing this point to "look how great Bernie is, he allows people to imagine reparations" is frankly embarrassing.

 

[Overlee]

All of this is wrong. Belittling the entire point is like the only appropriate thing to do because it's a terrible, somewhat racist point. Coates has been writing about reparations for literally years.

Reducing this point to "look how great Bernie is, he allows people to imagine reparations" is frankly embarrassing.

Again I don't think most in here are talking about Coates article specifically but rather how they perceive reparations in regards to Bernie Sanders platform or what Bernie has said directly when questioned on the topic.

You're trying to make this argument something it's not.

 

[dramatis]

Again I don't think most in here are talking about Coates article specifically but rather how they perceive reparations in regards to Bernie Sanders platform or what Bernie has said directly when questioned on the topic.

You're trying to make this argument something it's not.

You're the one who is trying to spin this in Bernie's favor by saying that reparations wouldn't even have been talked about in the 'mainstream' without Bernie.

But Coates has been talking about reparations for years, it's just that the audience couldn't be arsed to listen unless he put the clickbait words "Bernie Sanders" into the title. That's a reflection more on the audience than it is on Bernie Sanders himself—not because this man allowed the discussion of reparations, but because the audience didn't care until an old white guy they are idolizing was mentioned by a man the majority would barely pay attention to.

If Bernie didn't exist and Coates used the clickbait "Obama" or "Hillary", people would talk about it, simple as that. It's just that you're inflating the sense of importance to Bernie Sanders where it isn't particularly deserved.

 

[Overlee]

You're the one who is trying to spin this in Bernie's favor by saying that reparations wouldn't even have been talked about in the 'mainstream' without Bernie.

But Coates has been talking about reparations for years, it's just that the audience couldn't be arsed to listen unless he put the clickbait words "Bernie Sanders" into the title. That's a reflection more on the audience than it is on Bernie Sanders himself&#8212;not because this man allowed the discussion of reparations, but because the audience didn't care until an old white guy they are idolizing was mentioned by a man the majority would barely pay attention to.

If Bernie didn't exist and Coates used the clickbait "Obama" or "Hillary", people would talk about it, simple as that. It's just that you're inflating the sense of importance to Bernie Sanders where it isn't particularly deserved.

I have always believed that one of the great benefits of considering reparations lies in their potential to expand the American political imagination. Before there could be a Republican Party, abolitionists first had to imagine emancipation. A country that could actively contemplate atoning for plunder, by devoting significant resources to compensating its victims, would be a very different nation than one we live in now. You don&#8217;t get to that different country by waiting to talk about it.

And in this sense the conversation ends right where it began: Liberals and radicals see no problem imagining a socialist presidency. They do not demand specific details of how single-payer health care, free public-college tuition, and the break-up of big banks would make it through a Republican Congress. They are not wrong. God bless them and their radical imagination. I mean it. I just want them to imagine more. Like the movie says&#8212;You mustn&#8217;t be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.

You guys are making this about Bernie and Coates cause it fits your narrative. My original post was about US having these thoughts and discussions now. There's a whole lot of discussion that can be had around a platform that's deemed crazy or unfeasible. That's what Bernie offers that the other candidates don't.

Bernie's idea that we all start participating and talking about government and policies, that we can make a difference in our communities by getting involved and thinking differently. That we can make the political personal. That's the revolution. US.

 

[Veritigo_X]

More Judas talk from Bush donors concerning Rubio. I remember a story a while back where this was mentioned too. It's hilarious how entitled that campaign feels.

https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/698558140833492994

 

[Makai]

Jebus

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

More Judas talk from Bush donors concerning Rubio. I remember a story a while back where this was mentioned too. It's hilarious how entitled that campaign feels.

https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/698558140833492994

Jeb is the embodiment of white privilege.

 

[Cybit]

Jeb is the embodiment of white privilege.

White privilege and class privilege and family privilege. He got the Bingo of privilege.

 

[Kyosaiga]

I'm getting really sick of the 2008 election parallels falsely being aligned to this one. It's literally blatant revisionist history