SouthernIslander wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:35 pm
WellPreserved wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 8:12 pm
SouthernIslander wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 9:56 am
Well, unfortunately the money has to come from somewhere, so that will likely be taxpayers paying America's debts unless they find a way to different way to do it.
I agree with you on the "identifies" thing for multiple reasons (I just named one). Obsessing over which race people list on paper has always been a pet peeve of mine as far as ignorance.
I know this is probably an unpopular opinion...but this is another reason why we are going to have to find a middle ground when it comes to what people identify with and following science because its adding way too much gray in other areas. In Mississippi, Native American benefits were based off biological percentage if I'm not mistaken. So there shouldn't be a need to care about what race someone puts on a piece of paper and that logic has always been racist/problematic to me.
I understand what you're saying but in this time of on-line forms and filing, it seems logical that some sort of proof of identity/race would be required in the case of reparations like a birth certificate, license, voter registration, or census? In Mississippi, were Native American benefits based on birth certificates or how were biological percentage proven?
I think that the hang-up is with the word "identify" and the referencing of Rachael Dolezal but really, she only "identified" as Black for three years before she was outed by public documentation.
Historically listing one's race on documentation has proven to be dis-adventageous like in the cases of home ownership, agricultural loans, HOAs, business loans, job applications, or even registering kids for school. This is something that anyone who checks the "caucasian" block hasn't had to deal with. Wouldn't it be a little bit of justice to see some advantage rather than only disadvantage to checking that box?
I think Bob was referring to is a 10 year history of identifying as Black which can be different than providing proof and that’s kinda how I read it too (correct me if I’m wrong). Birth certificates yes but not documents where people can choose whichever race they want.
It has been a disadvantage but I still wouldn’t agree with setting the precedence that you can just “identify” as Black to quality because of people like Rachel Dolezal.
And of course all of this is hypothetically speaking. I’ll be surprised if I see reparations in my lifetime. Lol
I could understand if there was only a 10 year history of identifying but that is in conjunction with at least 2 other criteria. I guess it's totally inconceivable to me that someone would identify as Black (and have documentation) for 10 years, be a victim of displacement in San Francisco AND be able to demonstrate that they attended school before desegregation and/or were descendants of slaves and not actually be Black. While not completely impossible it just seems improbable and not a reason to discount reparations in San Francisco.
We are starting to see reparations which is a step in the right direction, albeit slow. Tulsa, NYC, San Francisco, St. Louis, Evanston, Providence, St. Paul, Asheville, Berkley, etc... In my state the colleges/universities: UVa, College of William and Mary, VCU, Longwood, VMI. I worked on a USDA grant project (reparations) for African American farmers which disappointedly was scuttled by the Republicans but is moving forward through private funding.
It's going to happen, at least I hope so, but perhaps not in your lifetime or mine but in our kid's.
"The books that the world calls immoral are books that show its own shame." - Oscar Wilde