HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Race & Ethnicity » African American (Group) » The Case for Reparations

Wed May 21, 2014, 09:43 PM

The Case for Reparations

I like this article because it directly and fairly thoroughly addresses racist loaning laws against blacks which led to the lack of inheritable wealth among other things. I learned about this in collage---taking an elective, which led to another. If I hadn't taken the elective, I wouldn't know. This isn't standard history taught, as far as I know. Yet it's so very, very important.

When whites, such as my self, hear the term "Jim Crow laws" I believe we regulate it to some part of history we had nothing to do with, and aren't responsible for, much as we do with Native Americans.

How many of us know what happened after? When hard working AA families tried to buy homes? As the article goes on it addresses problems of today--not to sound trite but how one thing led to another, all backed by now 'unfashionable racism'. And how the fight STILL continues.

On edit; while I was taking the class, affirmative action programs were being rolled back. I thought it much too early, as did the instructor, what he said in class was "time will tell"


Clyde 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.



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)

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.”


http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

5 replies, 1511 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Case for Reparations (Original post)
ismnotwasm May 2014 OP
1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #1
randys1 May 2014 #5
sheshe2 May 2014 #2
Number23 May 2014 #3
1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #4

Response to ismnotwasm (Original post)

Thu May 22, 2014, 03:38 PM

1. Great and informative article ...

 

that will be largely ignored, outside of the AA Group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #1)

Sat May 31, 2014, 01:38 PM

5. Of course it will...Guilt has a way of doing that to us

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Original post)

Fri May 23, 2014, 11:37 PM

2. This too.

Whereas shortly before the New Deal, a typical mortgage required a large down payment and full repayment within about 10 years, the creation of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation in 1933 and then the Federal Housing Administration the following year allowed banks to offer loans requiring no more than 10 percent down, amortized over 20 to 30 years. “Without federal intervention in the housing market, massive suburbanization would have been impossible,” writes Thomas J. Sugrue, a historian at the University of Pennsylvania. “In 1930, only 30 percent of Americans owned their own homes; by 1960, more than 60 percent were home owners. Home ownership became an emblem of American citizenship.”

That emblem was not to be awarded to blacks. The American real-estate industry believed segregation to be a moral principle. As late as 1950, the National Association of Real Estate Boards’ code of ethics warned that “a Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood … any race or nationality, or any individuals whose presence will clearly be detrimental to property values.” A 1943 brochure specified that such potential undesirables might include madams, bootleggers, gangsters—and “a colored man of means who was giving his children a college education and thought they were entitled to live among whites.”

The federal government concurred. It was the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, not a private trade association, that pioneered the practice of redlining, selectively granting loans and insisting that any property it insured be covered by a restrictive covenant—a clause in the deed forbidding the sale of the property to anyone other than whites. Millions of dollars flowed from tax coffers into segregated white neighborhoods.


http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Original post)

Sat May 24, 2014, 01:16 AM

3. You're beautiful for posting this here. I know that I should be shocked at how little GD

seems to care about this issue. I know I should be incensed that this article -- which imo has the potential to get this country to have the deep, profound, open and lasting conversation about race that we've been needing to have for CENTURIES -- is seemingly dismissed and ignored by the same folks who scream the loudest about being "party over principles" LIBERALS and Democrats for 632 years, since Jesus was in diapers.

But really, the fact that this powerful article (which should get Coates the Pulitzer and every damn thing else) is being so overlooked and that many of the comments here whine about having to talk about something "that happened so long ago" when the damn article clearly discusses how slavery and the effects of America's institutionalized racism are still affecting things TODAY just makes me want to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Original post)

Sun May 25, 2014, 09:56 AM

4. I saw that you posted a "companion" post ...

 

to this ... talking about "the signs someone critical of the article hasn't actually read the article"; but, unsurprisingly, it fell through the floor, before I could get back to it.

Please post it in this forum. Thank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread