I mean you definitely contributed to the cultural analysis of why some white people might be distrustful of giving money directly to blacks, you just did so by showing everyone what a massive racist looks like instead of like, contributing worthwhile thoughts or something.

LMFAO !!!1!

Anyways, I think it's worthwhile for this discussion to note Richard Rothstein's "The Making Of Ferguson", a report released shortly after the Michael Brown shooting that discusses how intentional racist public policies in re: housing significantly contributed to where we are today.

It's a long report that's worth the read, and as he notes, when we had several chances to start turning things around and remedying the disconnect between white and black America, we instead opted for scores of public policies that mandated and promoted racial segregation. As a result, white families gained wealth via home-equity in the mid-late 20th century while black families did not, and that wasn't a ****ing accident.

When we talk about increasing black wealth, we're talking about people who have been intentionally robbed of the absolute basics over the course of centuries.

http://www.epi.org/files/2014/making...uson-final.pdf

Ironically, after we intentionally created heavily-black and poor urban sacrifice zones, people like jmallflush started cultivating negative views of black culture, bastardizing what little social safety net does exist, and worrying what would happen if black people had too much.

use your words

You're making a common mistake in not seeing courts and police as third parties who enforce through violence. If there were truly no third parties your landlord himself would have to physically try and remove you instead of getting the police.

you are right, there is the use of force at the edges of capitalism, a third party is required to step in when one of the parties tries to steal from the other. But its not built into the working of capitalism, if nobody is trying to break the rules no coercion is required, and in the vast vast majority of transactions in capitalist society no force is required.

this wasn't the point mr. intersectional was trying to make I'm pretty sure

LMFAO !!!1!

Of course it was.

so you posted a picture about a guy sad about his eviction, and your point was the evicted guy is the bad guy because hes trying to get a free room while not paying rent?

ok

Anarcho-capitalism making a Michael Jordan-style comeback.

I know. Inb4 the descendants of slave owners deserve compensation for the expropriation of their "human capital". That and generalized whining about The War of Northern Aggression... which totally wasn't about slavery, donchaknow.

Oh man, wish I'd opened this thread earlier:

An all-time classic BB post. You think you're such a smarty-pants TNC, well WHAT ABOUT THIS LOGIC?

This type of distraction is the exact reason Coates wrote his article primarily about the Jim Crow era and not about slavery itself. People are alive today who suffered at the hands of discriminatory systems designed to disenfranchise and plunder black communities.

If your primary concern is that slavery was just too long ago and it's too late and too murky to give reparations to their descendants, then how about reparations for the living victims of state-sponsored theft?

well what about this logic?

the idea that obama is an outlier that had to do 2x as much work as if he was white is absurd

use your words, what about what I said about capitalism don't you like

I'm assuming you are completely unable to do it other than post emotive pictures from what I can tell

It's not absurd, but even if it was it's pretty dumb to dismiss the entire article because of one minor point, irrelevant to the argument at large, that you declared to be "libtard". It is an easy way to avoid having to do any sort of critical thinking whatsoever on the topic, though.

However, I'm more curious about your response to this question:

Well?

I'll read the article then and get back to you

This i have no problem with. The ones living now that where subject to discriminatory treatment should have the right to have their cases tried.

Interesting concept. Not sure if this has been covered yet, but some food for thought (for reference, I'm leaning toward being in favor of cash reparations) - are these one-time?

If so, why? If it's more of a "let's do this and reevaluate", is there a solid plan for how this might occur?

How far does or doesn't this extend? Do the children of one of these victims - who grew up in poverty because their parents were stolen from, who didn't inherit a house or any wealth from their parents because those things were taken away from their family - have a case?

No the children and childrens children havent been unfairly treated. They have had the same bad draw as every other poor child. They would have a case if there was a deliberate system that prevented them from ever getting out from poverty. But then it wouldnt be about race anymore and more about class.

I would suggest that the reason the vast majority of transactions don't require violence is precisely because the entire system is backed by the civil and criminal justice system.

No

Wow you seem very knowledgeable so please teach me more by expanding that amazing argument.

Nyet

How can you possibly say that? They were denied a chance at a better life because their family was stolen from.

You're Swedish, right? America didn't just end slavery and start treating everyone equally. Federal and state laws kept black citizens in de facto slavery until around world war one, and government policy explicitly endorsed inferior education, excluded black people from government programs, and enforced segregation at least through the 1970s. Life in America was and is hard for all poor people, but it has always been harder, through government design for its black citizens.