Ta-Nehisi Coates: Why Precisely Is Bernie Sanders Against Reparations?

[tishaLA]

<...> For those of us interested in how the left prioritizes its various radicalisms, Sanders’s answer is illuminating. The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as “divisive” (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing as a pragmatist. Sanders says the chance of getting reparations through Congress is “nil,” a correct observation which could just as well apply to much of the Vermont senator’s own platform. The chances of a President Sanders coaxing a Republican Congress to pass a $1 trillion jobs and infrastructure bill are also nil. Considering Sanders’s proposal for single-payer health-care, Paul Krugman asks, “Is there any realistic prospect that a drastic overhaul could be enacted any time soon—say, in the next eight years? No.”

Sanders is a lot of things, many of them good. But he is not the candidate of moderation and unification, so much as the candidate of partisanship and radicalism. There is neither insult nor accolade in this. John Brown was radical and divisive. So was Eric Robert Rudolph. Our current sprawling megapolis of prisons was a bipartisan achievement. Obamacare was not. Sometimes the moral course lies within the politically possible, and sometimes the moral course lies outside of the politically possible. One of the great functions of radical candidates is to war against equivocators and opportunists who conflate these two things. Radicals expand the political imagination and, hopefully, prevent incrementalism from becoming a virtue.

Unfortunately, Sanders’s radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy. What he proposes in lieu of reparations—job creation, investment in cities, and free higher education—is well within the Overton window, and his platform on race echoes Democratic orthodoxy. The calls for community policing, body-cameras, and a voting-rights bill with pre-clearance restored— all are things that Hillary Clinton agrees with. And those positions with which she might not agree address black people not so much as a class specifically injured by white supremacy, but rather, as a group which magically suffers from disproportionate poverty.

This is the “class first” approach, originating in the myth that racism and socialism are necessarily incompatible. But raising the minimum wage doesn’t really address the fact that black men without criminal records have about the same shot at low-wage work as white men with them; nor can making college free address the wage gap between black and white graduates. Housing discrimination, historical and present, may well be the fulcrum of white supremacy. Affirmative action is one of the most disputed issues of the day. Neither are addressed in the “racial justice” section of Sanders platform. <...>

The Atlantic

Just a quick note: I'm posting this mainly because I believe Mr Coates is one of the most important public intellectuals we have, not because I am trying to inflame the internecine warfare between supporters of various candidates. I will happily vote for any of them in the general election and, because the CA primary is so late, I don't have to pick which to support.

[peacebird]

1. Reparations? How would this happen? Seriously, where are the records needed to prove who is

descended from slaves and who isn't?
Who would pay? The families of former slave holders? Guilty for the sins of their ancestors? The American taxpayer? What about those who arrived after the civil war? Do their descendants pay reparations as well?

I'm sorry but I just do not see any way reparations make sense...... On edit- i found this article and it makes sense to me... I offer it for consideration...

http://gawker.com/what-reparations-in-america-could-look-like-1633066247

[tishaLA]

7. Mr Coates wrote an excellent article called "The Case for Reparations"

and a large part of his argument for reparations is not based on slavery, but based on government policy in the wake of slavery, from housing, to economic marginalization, etc. He sees slavery as perhaps the nexus of reparations, but just the beginning of the case for them.

[peacebird]

8. Please see this link, i just added it to my post above.

http://gawker.com/what-reparations-in-america-could-look-like-1633066247

As I said, this makes sense to me...

[tishaLA]

14. I think it's great that Mr Nolan takes Mr Coates' argument seriously enough to issue a rejoinder

I will only say that I find Mr Coates' position on this issue far more convincing than I find mr Nolan's. And, at the very least, I think the conversation is a good one to have. To my mind, it goes without saying that reparations will never happen, but just as importantly, we can talk about the reasons they should happen and why slavery is not the beginning and ending of the argument

[tazkcmo]

207. Well put

I'd only say "never" is a long time and "Never say never". I do know it won't happen if we can't just talk about why with out even mentioning how or should. As you put it, it's the least, the minimum, easiest thing we could do.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

279. I appreciate your open mind on this very complicated issue. Mr. Nolan's work is laudable, but

Coates has become an authority on this issue.

Again, I fully appreciate your attempt to understand the argument and not just dismiss the discussion like many people do.

[underthematrix]

2. Thank you for posting this. Ta is brilliant.

I'm headed over to the full article. Thanks again.

[Ed Suspicious]

3. What is Hillary's plan to grant and distribute reparations. I mean, the realists in the party must

have this all worked out, right?

[ecstatic]

9. I think you're missing the point. Most of Bernie's platform is

virtually unattainable, but he says we should try anyway. So why the difference when it comes to reparations?

[underthematrix]

20. And there you have it.

[tishaLA]

21. as someone wrote in response to Mr Coates' article...

this was on twitter, so bear with me:

Subtext: Sanders' coalition might win on a redistributive, anti-plutocracy program—but reparations would shatter it.

His political calculation is probably right! But appealing to legislative feasibility only when it excuses your apostasies is disingenuous.

Subtext: Sanders' coalition might win on a redistributive, anti-plutocracy program—but reparations would shatter it.

But nobody wants to admit some policies are non-starters because they alienate too many whites—so we get inconsistent feasibility arguments.

[SMC22307]

139. 15% of Americans support reparations.

At least according to what I just learned from a HuffPo piece based on Coates' initial article about reparations.

I don't support them. I agree with Obama and Sanders on this issue.

[tishaLA]

141. I'm just curious. On what grounds do you oppose them?

Moral? Economic? Because you don't believe we live in a nation constructed on systematic oppression of African Americans?

I have no problem with the idea that they are politically implausible, but I can't think of another reason.

[SMC22307]

421. I don't think they're fair to the many other groups that suffered greatly under greedy capitalists.

Native Americans. Chinese railroad workers. Poor white Appalachian miners. Immigrant garment workers who perished in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire because management fuckers locked doors to stairwells and exits.

Who would pay for reparations? How about slave states and African nations involved in the slave trade?

Ending the Slavery Blame-Game
HENRY LOUIS GATES Jr.

While we are all familiar with the role played by the United States and the European colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there is very little discussion of the role Africans themselves played. And that role, it turns out, was a considerable one, especially for the slave-trading kingdoms of western and central Africa. These included the Akan of the kingdom of Asante in what is now Ghana, the Fon of Dahomey (now Benin), the Mbundu of Ndongo in modern Angola and the Kongo of today’s Congo, among several others.

....

How did slaves make it to these coastal forts? The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred.

Advocates of reparations for the descendants of those slaves generally ignore this untidy problem of the significant role that Africans played in the trade, choosing to believe the romanticized version that our ancestors were all kidnapped unawares by evil white men, like Kunta Kinte was in “Roots.” The truth, however, is much more complex: slavery was a business, highly organized and lucrative for European buyers and African sellers alike.

The African role in the slave trade was fully understood and openly acknowledged by many African-Americans even before the Civil War. For Frederick Douglass, it was an argument against repatriation schemes for the freed slaves. “The savage chiefs of the western coasts of Africa, who for ages have been accustomed to selling their captives into bondage and pocketing the ready cash for them, will not more readily accept our moral and economical ideas than the slave traders of Maryland and Virginia,” he warned. “We are, therefore, less inclined to go to Africa to work against the slave trade than to stay here to work against it.”

....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/opinion/23gates.html?_r=1

As a native Pennsylvanian, "my people" paid dearly during the Civil War. Whether because morally opposed to slavery or to keep the union together, they paid.

What I support today are Bernie's proposals for economic and social justice. Quality public schools. Affordable college. Livable wages. Fair housing. JOBS. Ending the school-to-prison pipeline. Perhaps Mr. Coates needs to take it up with the Corporate Dems who've enacted some truly damaging policy over the decades... BILL CLINTON would be a good place to start.

[tishaLA]

423. I appreciate your contribution

I'd just say that, pace Prof Gates, Mr Coates doesn't look primarily to slavery as the rationale behind his argument in favor of reparations. Instead, he spends a large amount of his time in "The Case for Reparations" looking at domestic policy since WW2 that has, he argues, been constructed to ensure poverty and economic marginalization in the black community. He points to things like the GI Bill (right after WW2) and things like redlining,, predatory lending, the carcarel system that are still in effect today.

ITA that Pres Clinton bears some responsibility for this, as does Pres Obama and even liberal icon FDR. There is a lot of blame to go around: it includes virtually all Democrats and every, single, fucking. repub.

[SMC22307]

425. Well, we are in agreement on this...

ITA that Pres Clinton bears some responsibility for this, as does Pres Obama and even liberal icon FDR. There is a lot of blame to go around: it includes virtually all Democrats and every, single, fucking. repub.

I'm not swayed on reparations, but I'll read Coates' "Case" again. And I'm mystified as to why anyone would think Hillary would be any better than her husband on the issues... they're cut from the same cloth.

[tishaLA]

427. I don't believe Sec Clinton OR Gov O'Malley would be better

Mr Coates doesn't either. He said as much on Chris Hayes this evening.

[SMC22307]

428. Then what's the solution?

Besides reparations?

[tishaLA]

430. LOL well fuck if that's off the table....

actually I think a lot of things can happen, but I also believe the nation is nearing a point where reparations can become a serious conversation. A generation ago, we thought marriage equality was an impossibility....

[SMC22307]

431. LOL!

I've always supported marriage equality and have to admit I'm pretty astonished at what 2015 brought. I'll listen re: reparations. I want to hear nuts and bolts. Again, I'm not swayed based on the "fairness" factor, but I'll listen.

[uponit7771]

146. Wasn't the majority of Americans against gay marriage? tia

[jfern]

154. It had a solid majority supporting it by the time SCOTUS legalized it nationwide

[uponit7771]

160. Point being what a majority of people are for and against hasn't stopped progressives when...

... there's a moral reason to push it.

There's a moral reason to push reparations to this day and the try anyway candidate shouldn't be dismissing this moral act because of its opposition

[jfern]

162. What reparations anyways? I've heard estimates of $14 trillion.

That would be total political suicide.

[uponit7771]

164. We put a man on the moon before I was born so figuring out WHAT to do is the easier part...

... the hard part is getting someone push it and America to do it.

I would think Sanders would be that person seeing "try anyway" is a central part of his platform

[jfern]

166. A man on the moon is like a few hundred billion

And no, he doesn't try anyway on every crazy idea. If you don't understand the difference between $14 trillion in reparations and trying to not be the only developed country without healthcare, I don't know what to tell you.

[uponit7771]

169. Reparations COULD be a few million, no one is asking for the moon and yes ... Sanders, too me, is...

...different on the Obama level... his ideas are not only crazy but he's saying they'll work with the electorate behind him.

Reparations is good economics, great politics, its radical, its left and it's the right thing to do...

There's no real good reason why it shouldn't be in the platform that pulls asunder the status quo...


Sanders intimates towards reparations I'm all ears and would think about switching allegiances...

To me it would be him walking the walk of "revolution"

[jfern]

173. A few million? Are you kidding? So like a quarter a black person?

Wouldn't that be totally insulting to give every black person a quarter?

[uponit7771]

175. No, free college education and a national level equalization for 1 - 12 grade...

... that's not a few trillion at all.... more in the 10s of billions

That's just ONE proposal, now what about Sanders adding it to his platform?!

[jfern]

177. Bernie already has a free college education plan

[uponit7771]

180. Then government backed housing loans with guaranteed appreciation and government buyback after 5

... years of residence along with a federal equalization of 1 - 12 education.

That's simple, helps a lot of people and doesn't cost a ton... either way... there's not need to go on about the how... that's simple to solve without going into tons of money.

What about reparations on Sanders platform? Why is the progressiveness of reparations not in the "try anyway" realm?

[jfern]

189. Reparations of trillions of dollars is political suicide

And what about the Native Americans, can they get all their land back?

[uponit7771]

195. Again, no one is asking for trillions of anything... and yes, the Native Americans can get their...

... land back under land lease agreements, same thing that happens in Hawaii right now .... America will just build one less carrier group a month... I'm fine with that.

There are tons of solutions that doesn't break the bank, that redistributes wealth and doesn't that doesnt' upheave an established country.. I'm no genius.

It should be a part of the platform that is calling for revolution, it's revolutionary... and the right thing to do

[SMC22307]

422. Yes. Sometimes we get it wrong; sometimes right.

I've always supported marriage equality. Just not reparations.

[uponit7771]

434. Both are the moral thing to do

[SMC22307]

437. One leaves out the descendants of others who also suffered greatly.

Native Americans are still getting a raw deal. Poor white Appalachians, too. It doesn't seem fair. But, as I said elsewhere in this thread, I'll listen to nuts and bolts proposals.

[uponit7771]

440. No it doesn't, why .. where did that come from?! Native Americans need reparations too... give it to

... them and ever other race wronged like America has in the past.

[Number23]

38. 100% nailed it.

[uponit7771]

40. Somewhere a bunch of Dynamite went BOOM!!!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

94. I think Mr. Coates missed the point on this issue.

I don't believe Mr. Coates has studied Bernie's record and platform sufficiently. To begin with, there is a vast difference politically between reparations and Bernie's platform. I don't believe reparations has majority support, while most, if not all of Bernie's platform enjoy either a majority or super majority of support. So claiming that Bernie's platform has no chance of passage flows from an Establishment perspective in which Bernie won't have substantial Congressional coattails in the GE and his ability to use grassroots citizen participation will have no effect on Congressional debate and all of the other Establishment assumptions involved in predicting that nothing significant will change in politics. Actually, it always does. It's just a matter of timing. So I see Mr. Coates original premise based on expert conventional wisdom, which has proved consistently wrong in this unusual election cycle.

Having said that, I take Mr. Coates larger point, that reparations should be on the table and should ultimately be implemented.

I have a lot of other points I wanted to raise, agreeing and disagreeing with Mr. Coates, but time doesn't permit. Let me just close by offering my perspective. Bernie is a once-in-a-lifetime public figure, like MLK or FDR, in my view. He is one of those rare politicians, like Paul Wellstone, who walks the talk. He doesn't lie and he can't be bought. He loves people and he does everything he can to serve them. So viewed in that light, I think Bernie deserves a close look, for example by reading his book "Outsider in the White House," first titled "Outsider in the House," when originally written in 1997.

[uponit7771]

138. Then why not walk the walk on reparations, radical left on everything except reparations undermines

... radical and left.

Either it's a "try anyway" or its not

[Admiral Loinpresser]

261. A fair question.

I think the answer is that Bernie is very much a pragmatist. For example, rather than opposing the ACA (which is very regressive in some of its provisions) he negotiated hard to get everything he could for poor and working people and got over $12B added to the bill for community health centers.

The same argument could be made on Big Oil. Why doesn't he advocate for the federal government to nationalize Exxon, etc.? Because there is no popular support for it, just as there is no popular support for reparations. He could also call for the removal of almost all American troops from overseas and a huge reduction in military spending. These are other ideas which are good but not politically feasible yet. If he was running as a purist, e.g. like Dennis Kucinich, we would not even be having this conversation because he wouldn't be politically relevant.

Bernie's platform is filled with common sense progressive ideas supported at least by a majority of Americans, because he is an outsider who intends to actually win the White House and effect the greatest changes in American politics since FDR. The reason he is very popular and has great momentum is because he is a master of shaping a progressive agenda which is doable and popular. That is how he created the miracle in Burlington.

Reparations now is not politically feasible, but raising the minimum wage to $15 is. Creating urban youth programs to get kids jobs is. Hiring millions for jobs for decent childcare and rebuilding our infrastructure and transitioning to a green economy, these are politically feasible for a dynamic president. They are not labeled as reparations because all ethnic groups will benefit, but the beauty of Bernie's fulfillment of the New Deal is that this time, unlike under FDR, this will be an inclusive program. So it will have some of the practical effect of reparations without the label.

[aikoaiko]

151. Bernie's platform is much more attainable than TNC's

[magical thyme]

242. Because you believe it is unattainable does not mean that it is unattainable. nt.

[Ed Suspicious]

288. Good. Same with healthcare.

[magical thyme]

368. I was referring to Bernie's platform

Personally, I believe reparations are a non-starter. Unless and until we are willing and able to make reparations to Native Americans -- against whom the forefathers committed genocide and from whom they stole an entire continent -- that precedent will not be set.

[Vincardog]

289. What exactly in Bernie's platform is "virtually unattainable"? What would you deem unworthy?

[earthside]

362. Well, because reparations is such a stupid idea?

Sanders proposals are certainly challenging ... but good ideas.

Reparations is a bad idea whether 'attainable' or not.

[Ed Suspicious]

371. Where are you people getting this idea that I even so much as implied it was a bad idea? I just

thought Hill must have a plan since she's the grown up and Bernie is the unicorn farmer.

[ecstatic]

374. Stupid idea? Are you serious? Millions died and/or were enslaved

against their will. The U.S. government was complicit in the atrocities that occurred before, during, and after slavery. Even if you think it's impossible to make things right, the idea of making things right is NOT stupid.

[earthside]

376. Yes. History can be horrible and ugly.

Virtually every group of human beings on this planet from the beginning of history has suffered from that machinations of other groups of humans.

We have all benefited and all suffered from those who have gone before us.

As a species we move into the future as best we can and try and redeem ourselves to our posterity.

Reducing all of that to mere dollars is an insult to those who suffered and died and is, well, yes, stupifying.

My position on reparations is the same as Sander as Clinton.

[cui bono]

386. No, the point is that only Bernie is being asked about this. When you make it an attack on only

one candidate it's no longer about that issue, it's about the candidates.

Here's a response to that:

"I'm Sick & Tired of the Black Community Making BERNIE Jump Through Hoops", Black Media Host
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511037801

.

[Empowerer]

415. He's not the only one being asked

Hillary has been asked and has answered this question and everyone knows where she stands. Sanders' stance is not being questioned. He's being questioned about his priorities, i.e., why he doesn't think that reparations are something that should be fought just as he relies to fight for other out-of-the-mainstream but principled ideas. And he hasn't bothered to answer - in fact, he's ducked it for two days.

[Ferd Berfel]

18. Thet're still triangulating on this one

[PotatoChip]

25. There is this from her debate w/Lazio in the fall of 2000...

Some newer statement may be out there, but I have yet to find it.

Q: Will you support reparations for African-Americans?

CLINTON: We have mental, emotional and psychological reparations to pay first. We have to admit that we haven’t always treated people in our own country fairly. We have some issues that we have to address when it comes to racial justice right now. I’m willing to work hard to be a strong advocate for Civil Rights and human rights here at home and around the world. I want to do everything I can to make sure that the programs and policies that have helped generations of African-Americans have a better life in this country continue. I think we should be focused on the present and on the future. We owe an apology to African-Americans for hundreds of years of slavery.

LAZIO: I believe it is time for us to move past the issue of reparations among African-Americans and work for ways in which we can bring more opportunity and better educational opportunities to African-American children.
Source: (X-ref Hillary) Senate debate in Manhattan Oct 8, 2000

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/NY_Senate_Manhattan_Civil_Rights.htm

[uponit7771]

41. Again, Hillary isn't promising unicorns or getting the unfeasible past a historically gerryrmandered

... GOP congress Sanders is.

If he's proffering all the unfeasible now why not reperations to?!

Seems logical no?

tia

[choie]

121. Oh it must be because

He's an unrepentant racist......yeah, that's it....

(Sarcasm sign not needed,I hope)

[uponit7771]

123. Or hasn't put it on his list? tia

[Kentonio]

443. What a complete crock

I know you won't, but you should feel completely ashamed of spewing that right wing crap on a Democratic board. Your contempt for Democratic ideals says everything about you that needs to be said.

[closeupready]

275. Her plan is to give Ta-Nehisis Coates a job in her administration.

[appalachiablue]

369. Activist/Rapper KILLER MIKE & MORE ASK: *Why Attack BERNIE and Not Other Democratic Candidates?

- Michael Render (Killer Mike) & Sen. Bernie Sanders walk in Atlanta where the candidate held a large rally in 2015 -

"Killer Mike Defends Bernie Sanders in a Series of Tweets About Slavery, Entering a Public Debate with Ta-Nehisi Coates", Esquire, By Matt Miller, Jan. 20, 2016

On Tuesday, celebrated writer Ta-Nehisi Coates published an article in The Atlantic in which he decried Bernie Sanders for being against "reparations for slavery." In 2014, Coates published a landmark cover story in The Atlantic, "The Case for Reparations." In this week's piece Coates argued that: Unfortunately, Sanders's radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy. What he proposes in lieu of reparations—job creation, investment in cities, and free higher education—is well within the Overton window, and his platform on race echoes Democratic orthodoxy.

Today, rapper and political activist Killer Mike—who has endorsed Sanders in one-on-one interviews, and appearances on Colbert—fired back at Coates, defending Sanders' policy.
COMMENTS on Twitter by KILLER MIKE (Michael Render), Rapper and Political Activist, Jan. 20, 2016:

"I love the writings of @tanehisicoates. I am very curious why every one thinks his critique of Sanders of some kind of death nail". "Our current POTUS has NOT been asked about Reparations and he is black. lol".
"If I as a working class African American read and hear Sanders platform. Better pay, end of drug wars, fixing Youth unemployment and more. - "Like continuing to free those folks whom mandatory minimums had essentially given life in jail." "The truth of my support is I am pro Reparations for any people used and abused like Blacks have been here and other places."

"Candidate that I think would be more sensitive to the very accomplishable goal, and the other things that can/will help black people is Sanders." "The fact that blacks even have to justify the case for reparations is shameful.
*THE FACT THAT ONLY ONE CANDIDATE IS BEING CALLED TO TASK IS- BULLSHIT. ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT CANDIDATE IS THE ONLY ONE WITH POLICY PROPOSAL THAT DIRECTLY EFFECTS THE BLACK COMMUNITY IF ELECTED."

More: Esquire, 'Killer Mike Defends Bernie Sanders in a Series of Tweets About Slavery, Entering a Public Debate with Ta-Nehisi Coates', http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a41346/killer-mike-ta-nehisi-coates-bernie-sanders/

[cui bono]

391. Exactly. Same thing happened with the BLM bruhaha.

It's hard to have a real discussion when the issue is obviously being used to attack a candidate. If there is to be a real discussion desired, then have it about all candidates.

.

[appalachiablue]

397. "I'm Sick & Tired of the Black Community Making BERNIE Jump Through Hoops", Black Media Host

- THE BENJAMIN DIXON SHOW: *TA-NEHISI COATES ATTACKS SANDERS ON REPARATIONS*

Check out media host Benjamin Dixon's perspectives on the Coates attack on Bernie Sanders, and a whole LOT more.

[randome]

4. Because it's a political non-starter. Something politicians take note of.

Mind you, I'd have no problem with reparations, I'm just guessing at Sanders' motives.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[tishaLA]

10. Yes, he quotes Sen Sanders at the beginning of the article

saying the chance of passage is "nil." In Mr Coates' view, that kind of pragmatism about the issue of reparations is antithetical to the rhetoric of revolution that Sen Sanders uses when talking about things like health care, education, etc.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

285. You and I are on the same page. He thought single payer and free college education...

could get through Congress, but we Negroes asking for our 40 acres and a mule...wait...let's not go there because it'll never happen.

This is why I cannot support Sanders when it's all said and done. He refuses to acknowledge the centrality of race and that will cost him votes. He wonders why black folks aren't coming on board quicker. That's why!

[kenfrequed]

321. What other candidates have you asked about this?

You cannot support Bernie so who do you support that is willing to support this?

Private prison Hillary?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

341. I've made it quite clear how much I hate the Clintons. Try again.

[kenfrequed]

344. So who do you support?

O'Malley has a problematic record as well.

Sadly there isn't enough support for reparations. I support them but I'm not running for office this year.

I am not going to use a special purity test on the most progressive candidate (outside of the green party) running for office this year. I would demand all of the candidates answer the same questions and base my support on that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

348. I was asked this question upthread and I answered it. I support NONE of the candidates.

Bernie fans can't get me to waiver. I think for myself only!

[kenfrequed]

350. Well again... I live in the real world.

I will support Bernie through the entire primary.

Then I will support whoever wins that primary.

I am not going to require special answers to questions now for the most progressive candidate.


It would be like asking Hillary if she supports Free four year college for all and then not posing that same question to the republicans. It is an unreasonable standard and it is electorally dishonest.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

358. I started out as an O'Malley supporter because he was my governor and did some

pretty good things here. Not perfect. But good.

I expected Bernie to be the best candidate, but he has turned me off on this race issue. It is my belief that we must stop running from race. I wanted him to be that candidate because I loathe the Clintons with a passion, but he continues to hide behind class and so-called economic justice. I think his unwillingness to dig deeper may be what's turning me and a lot of black voters off. Many get the sense that he is refusing to grasp that it doesn't matter if there is economic parity among the racial groups, racial discrimination will continue; the mistreatment of people of color continues. I have two advanced degrees, and as a black woman, I can expect to earn--what--65 cents to every dollar, even with my degrees, experiences, and technical skills? I can expect to be followed in stores regardless of what I wear and accosted by police for looking wrong? When these issues are raised to Bernie, he seems to continue to talk about economic issues, as if ignoring the experiences of black people when they confront racism. He continues to assert that with economic justice, the racism would just go away--and that's the problem.

The racism comes first. It's the racism that leads to the economic injustice, not the other way around. It's the hate and feelings of white superiority over those who don't look like you (black, brown, red, yellow) that leads to the implementation of policies and programs that exacerbate economic and structural inequalities. But Bernie seems to not understand this. Or, in my view, he is deliberately dismissing the centrality of race and that is what is turning people off. These are votes that he could have because I do not think that there are a lot of black voters who like Hillary Clinton---they just believe that she's the only one who can beat the Republicans. I believe (and I could be wrong) that many black voters are just convinced that the Clintons are politically powerful; but, this is my view: I don't think black voters necessarily like Hillary Clinton, even if the polls suggest otherwise--I think they believe that she's the only viable candidate that the Democrats can offer.

[kenfrequed]

361. I see

I have seen nothing to support that perspective and in fact while Bernie had a shakey start with BLM having been caught off guard by their protests he has started having the best relations with activists in that community.

I have looked at the candidates policies and Bernies is by far the most racially progressive. Yes, there is a focus on economics but racial justice is part of the picture too.

In the end I will be a good Democrat and pull the lever for whoever wins the primary. It is just too important to sit it out.

[uponit7771]

42. It's a non starter like 100% of his other proposals.

[arcane1]

353. Name one progressive policy that Clinton can get through a republican congress that Sanders can't

It should be simple to come up with MANY, right?

[Maedhros]

5. Coates' views on reparations are very well considered, and the issue goes far beyond

slavery.

We live in a kinder, gentler apartheid state, and a lot is needed to undo its damage. However singling out Sanders for criticism on this issue is a bit disingenuous.

[tishaLA]

12. I don't want to pretend to speak for him, but I think Mr Coates' argument isn't that

Sen Sanders is alone in this--Secretary Clinton and Governor O'Malley, I'm sure, are also opposed to reparations--but that the "pragmatism" of Senator Sanders' stance conflicts with the revolutionary rhetoric he uses when discussing income inequality, education, etc.

In other words, he is singling out the shift in rhetorical stance on this particular issue, not attempting to demonize Mr Sanders.

[Maedhros]

13. That's fair criticism.

Although it is true that, given any possible issue, reparations would be the one that would sink like a stone fastest in today's Congress.

Sanders may be 'pragmatic' on the issue of reparations, but he has been a firebrand with respect to improving economic conditions for the Black community. So much so that he has been criticized for concentrating on it.

[SunSeeker]

232. All of Sanders' proposals "would sink like a stone in today's Congress."

No one has criticized Sanders for "concentrating" on
"improving economic conditions for the Black community."

The criticism was for not aknowledging the role racism plays in creating poverty in the Black community and for suggesting going after the oligarchs will take care of the effects of racism too.

[MADem]

6. The big finish is a superb summation.....

If not even an avowed socialist can be bothered to grapple with reparations, if the question really is that far beyond the pale, if Bernie Sanders truly believes that victims of the Tulsa pogrom deserved nothing, that the victims of contract lending deserve nothing, that the victims of debt peonage deserve nothing, that that political plunder of black communities entitle them to nothing, if this is the candidate of the radical left—then expect white supremacy in America to endure well beyond our lifetimes and lifetimes of our children. Reparations is not one possible tool against white supremacy. It the indispensable tool against white supremacy. One cannot propose to plunder a people, incur a moral and monetary debt, propose to never pay it back, and then claim to be seriously engaging in the fight against white supremacy.

My hope was to talk to Sanders directly, before writing this article. I reached out repeatedly to his campaign over the past three days. The Sanders campaign did not respond.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/

[snot]

229. Could we just acknowledge, Sanders has very little paid staff, and they are spread very thin?

And besides, what are they supposed to say?

If you feel it's not worth putting ALL the other candidates on the spot in the same way, because even if they agreed with you, they'd never admit it right now, why does Bernie deserve tougher treatment?

I can see an argument for it, but I worry that this could turn into you shooting yourself in the foot.

[SunSeeker]

233. Why focus on Sanders? Coates tells you why.

Because Sanders labels himself the radical, the revolutionary, the Democratic Socialist.

Yet, as Coates notes, last week Bernie Sanders was asked whether he was in favor of reparations for slavery. Bernie responded, "No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive." When Hillary provided those same reasons for not pursuing single payer at this time, Sanders pounced, as did many of his supporters here. They derisively called it the politics of "No We Can't." Why don't they have the same reaction to Sanders' position on reparations?

As Coates says:

For those of us interested in how the left prioritizes its various radicalisms, Sanders’s answer is illuminating. The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as “divisive”  (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing  as a pragmatist. Sanders says the chance of getting reparations through Congress is “nil,” a correct observation which could just as well apply to much of the Vermont senator’s own platform. The chances of a President Sanders coaxing a Republican Congress to pass a $1 trillion jobs and infrastructure bill are also nil. Considering Sanders’s proposal for single-payer health-care, Paul Krugman asks, “Is there any realistic prospect that a drastic overhaul could be enacted any time soon—say, in the next eight years? No.”
...
One can’t evade these facts by changing the subject. Some months ago, black radicals in the Black Lives Matters movement protested Sanders. They were, in the main, jeered by the white left for their efforts. But judged by his platform, Sanders should be directly confronted and asked why his political imagination is so active against plutocracy, but so limited against white supremacy. Jim Crow and its legacy were not merely problems of disproportionate poverty. Why should black voters support a candidate who does not recognize this?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/#about-the-authors

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

284. Funny how he concludes that reparations for us Negroes is "too radical" and would never

pass Congress, oh, but wait...

"What he proposes in lieu of reparations—job creation, investment in cities, and free higher education—is well within the Overton window, and his platform on race echoes Democratic orthodoxy..."

Reparations don't have a chance to get through Congress, but job creation, investment in cities, and FREE high education WILL?

That he believes FREE higher education has a chance in hell or any of those other things--either he's stupid, naïve, or deliberately obtuse.

[TM99]

11. Because reparations will never

get passed by Democrats or Republicans. There is no middle ground to be found. There is no compromise. It is a ludicrous proposal to begin with.

Who determines who gets how much? Let's see. I am bi-racial. My mother's side of the family is white but were first generation Russian & Scottish immigrants in the early 20th century. Why should that side of the family have to pay for something none in their heritage ever committed? And on my father's side of the family, one line is descended from slaves and the other from freedmen. Some of those slaves were in the Caribbean as well and not in the US. So do I only then get 50% or a smaller portion thereof of any reparations due to my blood line? It is simply not a rational or feasible proposition. Nor is it ethical or likely legal either.

But getting jobs created? Yes. Working to get a better healthcare system? Sure why not? He worked with the GOP to help Vets with better physical and mental health care. Higher education for all? Yes, definitely!

Coates still believes as he was taught that social justice (racial justice) and economic justice are separate things. They are not. They must be worked on together. Always. But lambasting Sanders for not support reparations which is a monetary decision is laughably ironic given the rest of his rant.

[tishaLA]

24. First: I don't think a considered evaluation of a rhetorical stance is a "rant"

Second: The root of Mr Coates' arguments in favor of reparations is not "slavery," but an apartheid system in the United States, including housing, access to capital, economic marginalization, etc. Slavery is a starting point, but, as he argues in "The Case for Reparations," the sins begun in slavery continued well after emancipation as we moved on to Jim Crow, lynchings, red lining, predatory lending, etc.

Third: One of Mr Coates' key points, to my mind, is that Sen. Sanders' argument about the impossibility of reparations is in direct contradiction to other things he advocates that are also "impossible"--if one believes in incrementalism. Things like single payer health care, free college, etc. Of those forms of impossibility, Mr Coates is asking, why does one meet with immediate dismissal as unfeasible while others are embraced?

[TM99]

101. It began with slavery

and it may have continued post with racist problems, however, not all suffered, including not all blacks.

That is the main reason why it is not worth trying to fight for. You can get a society to accept gay marriage because it is for all - marriage that is. Everyone who wants to marry should be. The same for health care. It is for all of us regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation. But 'reparations' are for a small percentage of the population and a difficult one to determine who exactly out of that is going to get them.

If Coates is so concerned with the 'apartheid' like system including housing, access to capital, economic marginalization, then why doesn't he support the social and economic justice message of Sanders. That is exactly what he has been talking about with regards to his racial justice platform since last summer.

[tishaLA]

105. You really believe that "not all suffered" from structural racism/racial animus?

Really? Can you find a couple for me? I'd love to meet them.

Also: what would be a sufficiently high or low number of people to merit reparations? Were the Japanese who received them for "Internment" Camps exactly the right size, neither too small nor too large?

Finally, to repeat myself again, Mr Coates doesn't say whether he does or doesn't support Sen Sanders generally ("Sanders is a lot of things, many of them good. But he is not the candidate of moderation and unification, so much as the candidate of partisanship and radicalism. There is neither insult nor accolade in this.&quot ; he is interested, however, in how someone preaching revolution about other matters can be so quiescent about revolutionary ideas that apply to black folks.

[TM99]

107. Can you show me definitive proof since the early 1800's that all have?

No, because it is a ridiculous rubric and impossible to quantify. And if you can not quantify it, you can not reasonably do it.

Stop being silly. We knew exactly how many and who were put in to the Japanese Internment Camps. Therefore, we could quantify it. The number was significantly smaller than what we are talking about her with AA, bi-racials, mulattos, etc.

You and Coates are very wrong, and that is part of your problem. Sanders is not a candidate of partisanship or radicalism. His stances are hardly radical. Most of the economic ones center one what the New Deal was and Democrats supported until the DLC Clintons in the 1990's. His actions as mayor and in congress show a man who is quite capable of unification. His entire message is that if we all succeed, the US succeeds. If we all have economic and social justice, then all of us benefit. His revolution is not necessarily about a new set of ideas or positions, rather it is a return to what the Democratic Party stood for again before the Clinton DLC take-over in the 1980's and 1990's.

Finally 'reparations' are hardly revolutionary. Black radicals and nationalists have been vocal about them for over a hundred years. Even if we gave every damned AA, bi-racial, mulatto, etc. $20,000, it would not change the drug war, the police violence, the lack of education, the lack of jobs, etc. It would be no different than a Bush take refund. As a bi-racial man, I support Sander's revolution to bring jobs back our communities. I support an end to police violence. I support social and economic justice. And like West, Killer Mike and Nina Turner, I support this type of change, not some damned reparations that will never work for so many different reasons.

That you, Coates, and others consider reparations to even be remotely equal to all of the other issues that Sanders is pushing for shows me how shallow your support for real change in the AA communities really is.

[tishaLA]

108. " every damned AA, bi-racial, mulatto, etc"

I'll just let that sit there, as it should.

[TM99]

109. Why? Is it some sort of 'gotcha' in your mind?

So you can't debate the merits but instead cherry pick?

Newsflash, I am damned bi-racial man.

[tishaLA]

111. quoting directly isn't cherry picking

Last edited Wed Jan 20, 2016, 03:09 AM - Edit history (1)

and I have debated the merits or Mr Coates' article, as I see them, throughout this thread. You have made two of the perhaps 4 or 5 posts in this thread that strike me as so innately wrongheaded that I have nothing to respond to.

[TM99]

244. Yes, you are cherry picking.

So are you a PoC?

Coates has crafted a strawman argument in order to attack Sanders for something (reparations) that is a non-starter in this country. Hell, not even all AA, bi-racials, mulatto's, etc. support it.

My 'damned' adjective expressed my frustration at the disconnect and childish thinking that says give us all $20,000 but don't support the man and the policies that would give us long-term economic and social justice. The very policies that Sanders has fought for all this time are the ones that will end 'apartheid' in this country.

No, you and Coates are the innately wrongheaded ones and extremely shortsighted and selfish to boot.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

287. You wrote: Things like single payer health care, free college, etc. Of those forms of impossibility,

Mr Coates is asking, why does one meet with immediate dismissal as unfeasible while others are embraced?"

My response: I'll get banned, but the claims that Sanders is insincere when talking about race is starting to look more and more valid. Again, his willingness to dismiss the impact of race and its CENTRALITY in any discussion tells me what he really thinks. It infuriates me and further affirms my decision not to support him or Hillarity in this election.

[TM99]

297. Sander is insincere?

Coates constructs a strawman parody of Sanders, but Sanders is the insincere one?

Watch these and tell me that Sanders dismisses the impact of race --

Come on, I fucking dare you!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

299. I don't care how many black people he has onstage with him. I'm not impressed.

As long as he refuses to acknowledge the centrality of race, I believe he is insincere.

And this is not a laughing matter. This is very serious! Your candidate is losing.

[TM99]

302. So you dismiss any black person

who agrees with Sanders as just 'being on stage' with him? You sure you want to go there son?

You obviously didn't watch those videos. I know because it would have taken you about an hour to reply, not 5 minutes.

No it is not a laughing matter, but yes, I do laugh at those I see as making foolish comments.

My candidate is currently ahead in both of the first two primary states. My candidate is not losing by a long shot. Try again.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

307. Ugh! Not all black folk think alike, sir/ma'am. I'm free to disagree with...yes...even black people

who support nonsense. I respect Killer Mike, Nina Turner, and Cornel West, but I don't have to agree with them on every issue because they are black. That's ignorant, not to mention presumptuous. My thoughts are deeper than skin color.

[TM99]

310. Hey you are the one throwing around the comment

that you dismiss blacks on stage with Sanders as not impressing you, not me.

And you are absolutely right. We PoC do not all think alike. And many of us now support Sanders over Clinton. And those numbers are only going to grow after his victories in New Hampshire and Iowa.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

343. I don't "dismiss" them. I disagree with them on this one issue.

And I find it insulting and degrading that any time a person of color disagrees with Bernie, someone goes out and finds some black celebrity or black figure and uses that person(s) hoping that will change minds. I don't like it when white folk do it, and I don't it when black folk do it. It's offensive.

[Depaysement]

402. ". . . Why does one meet with immediate dismissal . . . ?

BECAUSE IT EXPLICITLY FAVORS ONE RACE OVER ALL OTHERS.

[tishaLA]

403. That's like saying Don't Ask, Don't Tell should have been dismissed

because it favored one group over another. And the fact is that reparations would be good for our entire nation in a number of ways, so it wouldn't affect just black folks.

[Depaysement]

409. Bad analogy

Don't ask, don't tell was a stupid policy, denying a certain segment of the population the right to love who they want openly. And even if it were good policy, it was not a racial transfer of wealth. That is what Coates is advocating. A racial transfer of wealth. How is that good for the entire nation?

[tishaLA]

410. i'd suggest you peruse

"The Case for Reparations." I think the part about why it'd be good for the nation is near the end

(BTW, institutionally denying access to capital is also bad policy and that's what reparations intend to address. Or perhaps you think it's good or neutral policy, in which case I;m not sure what to say)

[Depaysement]

413. Yes I read this

I especially like the Ben-Gurion quote. David Ben-Gurion, one of the architects of Plan Dalet, leading to the forced displacement of 700,000 Palestinians from their homes and communities in 1947-48. That's Coates' spokesman. How rich in irony is that?

I think denying access to capital is bad. But you want to take money from white, Asian, Hispanics and others whose ancestors had little access to capital to help black folks only. Not really seeing much healing, repairing and "facing up" there.

Funny thing is while people talk reparations rich people get richer and a lot of brothers and sisters of all colors get poorer. What a surprise.

[tishaLA]

418. I sure hope Mr Coates never quoted Nietzsche

because, after all, Hitler and all that.

I can't quite keep track of this position, though, because it's shifted from reparations are bad because itfavors one group; that then became it's OK for legislation to favor one group over another, but not in the case of reparations because, you know, racial animus (leaving aside for a moment that Christians had the same animus about marriage equality, for example); now it's that he quoted someone bad.

You don't have to like Mr Coates' argument, and that's fine, of course. I do think the discussion about reparations merits real discussion even if we don't have a single presidential candidate running who is willing to support them as a means to mitigate policies that are still in place that undermine the possibility of black economic success.

[Depaysement]

442. Analogies

They can be hard to fathom. Quoting Ben-Gurion merits criticism for his actions, and quoting Nietzche merits criticism for his actions, not the horrific actions of one of his "followers," actions he never advocated.

The argument has remained consistent. Reparations favor one racial group over all others. At its core is a racial transfer of wealth. Among many other problems, that dilutes and distorts a class-based politics. I wonder who benefits from that.

It's not hard to figure out why Bernie Sanders and most other people oppose reparations.

[uponit7771]

43. Neither will single payer, Sanders is the candidate of "Try Anyway" why not try with reparations?

[TM99]

85. We will eventually have healthcare for all in this country.

We are the only civilized nation to not have it. Once a few more generations die off, just like with LGBT marriage, it will be the right time.

And we will keep fighting for it until it passes. We have the ACA for what it is worth. Now we take the next step which was 'promised' by all the sensible wood chucks when it passed.

Reparations is not the same thing. It does not benefit everyone in this culture. That alone will keep it from occurring.

[uponit7771]

87. Will eventually have preparations also if we try won't we?

[TM99]

102. Never.

It does not benefit all. The need for it was shortly after slavery ended and the period of reconstruction. It will not occur now 100's of years later. Japanese Americans that were interred in WWII received reparations shortly after the war ended. There was a set number of people that were effected, and it was easy to determine who, what, how, and why it was being done. This will never happen for AA in this country. Period.

[Empowerer]

115. Funny thing. If you stall long enough, drag your feet long enough, oppress people long enough

then you can claim that it's "too late" to provide a remedy - and even the people who claim to be on the side of the oppressed will swallow your crap hook, line and sinker and join force with you to tell the oppressed to shut up about it already.

Very clever . . .

[jeff47]

165. The English seized some of my family's land in the 1300s.

My ancestors lived on the Scottish-English border. The English took away some of my family's lands in the 1300s.

Should I expect them to pay me for that now? How, exactly, would they calculate payment? I presume there are a very, very large number of decedents by now.

And why should we punish the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren of the people who actually took the land?

[uponit7771]

174. That was hundreds of years ago, Federally supported Jim Crow and The War on Drugs was

... decades ago.

He makes the case of reparations now, I think Sanders should to being it would fit right in there with revolution

[jeff47]

183. The complaint in that post is that people should not "get away with it" if enough time passes.

I provided an example where, indeed, they get away with it if enough time passes.

[Fumesucker]

240. The War on Drugs is now and Hillary supports it even for pot

[uponit7771]

258. OK, even better reason for reparations then... Sanders should push for it, that would be revolutiona

[tishaLA]

176. Mr Coates doesn't focus an inordinate amount of his attention on slavery itself

in his previous, widely-praised article on the subject, "The Case for Reparations," Mr Coates discusses slavery somewhat, but he is much more interested in government policy since slavery and believes that it provides a sufficient case. And he isn't talking ancient history here--not reconstruction--but largely policy in the US post-WW2, including things like the GI Bill that effectively kept black soldiers from the same benefits vis-a-vis housing as their white counterparts. He also looks at predatory lending, the carceral system, red lining, etc.

And a lot of that is strategic: he wants to avoid the kind of sophistry that would lead people to say "oh, but three hundred years ago, something happened in my family." The fact is, as Mr Coates points out, the systematic oppression that created slavery is with us to this very day; it is not part of our past. And because capital is the mother's milk of white supremacy, the way to counter it is through capital itself.

[jeff47]

182. The point of the 700-years-ago example

was to respond to the "Oh, so you get away with it if enough time passes?!" complaint from that particular post, not the overall subject of reparations.

[tishaLA]

186. OK, thanks. nt

[TM99]

245. How could I have dragged my feet.

I am not an immortal. I wasn't born in the early 1800's.

If you mean 'you' in the sense of this culture, then support the only candidate that is working to end apartheid in this country. He has and is now fighting for economic and social justice.

He has a plan to change the inner cities. Does Clinton? No.

He had a plan of racial justice in response to BLM while Clinton was still saying she would only 'talk to white people'.

So I ask you as well, are you a PoC? I am, and I don't support reparations. I don't want a 'tax refund' of any amount. I want health care for all of us. I want jobs, a high minimum wage, and a living wage for all of us. I want an end to police violence in our inner cities.

That won't happen if you give all of us AA's, bi-racials, and mulatto's $20,000 in 'reparations'.

Look beyond your own ill-stoked rage and see the bigger picture. Even MLK's Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged spoke to the need to change the economic conditions not only of the 'negro' but poor & disadvantaged whites as well. He also did not advocate for a lump sum pay out but rather a change in policy in order to provide economic justice for all disadvantaged today.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

291. Exactly. And methinks this has been the plan all along. Stall, stall, stall...oh, wait...

It's now too late to pay you oppressed Negroes back for all that you did for this country. Stolen land that could have been passed on through the generations; destroyed cities and neighborhoods; deliberately denying economic and housing opportunities which continues to have ramifications to this very day; and despite the building of this nation by slaves--(even that Capitol Building that stands blocks away from where I'm sitting right now)--oops! You and your descendants will never be whole for what has happened to you. Our grandparents, still living--even some of us having great grandparents still alive, were never able to generate wealth to pass down to their children and their children's children. Not to mention poor opportunities--substandard schools, deliberately disinvesting in black neighborhoods and cities due to segregation; creating blighted communities; the drug trafficking and drug wars...all of these things were deliberately set in place to destroy the black community.

This country owes black people a debt. A huge debt.

Sanders claims that we must apologize for slavery. FUCK YOUR APOLOGY! Take your apology and shove it up your ass!

Now, that's RADICAL!

[uponit7771]

127. Yes it does benefit all to fix what has been broken and we've had racial reparations in the US befor

.. why stop when it comes to blacks?

The need for reparations is now... there's still systematic abuse heaped by the federal and state governments.

Either way, why not try this... from an economic perspective it fits right in Sanders wheel house

[TM99]

246. You seem to be mixing some concepts in your replies.

Yes, there is apartheid in this country. Yes, we need economic and social justice reforms to fix this. Yes, Sanders is the only candidate with the history and the policy positions today that is advocating for that level of change.

Reparations are a one off pay out. Less than 15% of the population support that for good reasons. As I have stressed in my replies, a damned pay out of $20,000 does not change the system of apartheid. MLK's Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged advocated a systemic policy change not only for the blacks but also the poor & disadvantaged whites. He never supported 'reparations' as a one off pay out.

Why? In my opinion it is obvious. That pay out would be difficult to determine how much, for whom, and the justification to our entire culture of why one group is getting it hundreds of years later when no one alive was so then. This is not equivalent to the reparations of the Jews in Germany which occurred in the generation right after the war. The same with the Japanese here. This would be generations and generations after slavery and the oppression began. You claim the war on drugs is recent. Yes, it is still going on and Clinton still supports it. You can claim Jim Crow, but that was the South and not all of the US.

So what it comes back to is really a simple statement. Do you want to fight for a single pay out that has little support and would do very little in the long run to fix the real problems PoC have and still suffer from? Or do you want to fight for a candidate who will fight for a new Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged which will focus on changing the whole system so that not only this generation but future generations receive economic and social justice?

If you agree with Coates you support the first. It is selfish and short sighted. If you agree with MLK, you support the later and Sanders. Why attack the only candidate who is truly pushing a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged?

[uponit7771]

257. 1. Reparations is NOT a one off pay off, that's a winger meme, 2. MLK was an advocate of reparations

... for racial discrimination for the race that was discriminated, 3. America has done reparations before, do them similar without one time payout, 4. Fight for single payout is false dichotomy and a narrowing of solution to stop debate, 5. I agree with coats that Sanders is seemingly talking out of the side of his neck when it comes to revolution and level of change and leaving reparations out of the conversation...

Regards

[TM99]

272. Replies --

1) As is being discussed yes it is. If it is not, then it is not reparations but what MLK proposed.

2) Reparations to him was a Bill of Rights for the disadvantaged AND yes, it included whites as well.

3) You are switching them again because the only time we did reparations was with the Japanese after WWII, and it was definitely a one time payout. The Germans did the same with the Jews.

4) There is no debate. It is either a one time payout type of reparation which will never happen. Or it is an end to economic apartheid which is what MLK proposed and Sanders is wanting to continue. Unlike every other candidate, he is speaking to both economic & social justice.

5) Then you are also ignorant of what Sanders means when he says 'revolution' and that his positions are NOT 'radical'. Coates has constructed a strawman of what he believes Sanders is about and then attempts to use that parody to attack him on a topic that he seems rather confused on himself. If reparations are a one off payment then it is not an ending of economic apartheid. If it is an ending of economic apartheid, why attack Sanders when that is what he is offering?

Coates and you have failed to make a rational argument or to defend reparations in general. Clarify and decide on your terms, clear the misconceptions about Sanders that you have gleaned, and then maybe start over without a two bit attack.

[KittyWampus]

253. We will have Universal Healthcare but it won't be Sanders "Single Payer".

[TM99]

256. Catch up Kitty.

You are pushing an old meme. It 2013 bill which discussed 'single payer' it not his current plan.

He is calling for federally run universal medicare for all.

But thanks for trying...yet again.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

293. And that has NO CHANCE at all. We even tried that when BOTH houses were

controlled by Democrats. Both Sanders and Kucinich put forward Medicare For All bills--and BOTH bills got nowhere. Couldn't even get out of subcommittee. Now you really expect for MFA to get through a Republican-dominated subcommittee, FULL committee, the Floor in both chambers and on Sanders' desk? Really?

And when it doesn't, how long will it be before you turn on Bernie Sanders himself, just people turned on Obama? How long?

[TM99]

295. Well there you go.

Since there is no chance, let's just give the fuck up.

I mean LGBT marriage rights were a no go. We should have just given up on that. Oh wait, we didn't.

My father, a black man, was told he would never get tenure and certainly never be the chairman of the English department when he was hired at the college he worked for in the late 1960's. He should have just given up on that right? Oh wait, he didn't. In fact, within 20 years he had both, then became an academic dean, and retired professor emeritus well loved by the campus and his students.

I sure as hell want someone like my gay sister who fought for the right to marry her partner for almost 20 years. I sure as hell want someone like my black father who fought for equal job rights for his entire life. That is why I support Sanders and not miss status quo we should even try Clinton.

Why would I turn on Sanders? I know it is a hard fight, but he is at least willing to do so. I never turned on Obama. I knew he was a neoliberal New Dem from the start. I didn't vote for the 'hope and change' 1980's moderate Republican. And sure as shit, he didn't even try to get single payer. But damned, he sure made those insurance company's happy! You do know that mandated insurance is not mandated health care?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

298. Obama didn't try to get single payer because he knew it wouldn't pass. Don't you get it?

But Sanders is doing the same thing with Reparations. You don't see the hypocrisy of your own argument--and Sanders'?

Think a little deeper, please.

[TM99]

300. So Obama had the power of mind control

and the magical ability to predict the future. So he didn't even try. Well, fuck everyone lacks that amazing ability so...

Bullshit. Reparations is a non-starter. Always has been, always will be. It is supported by at most 15% of the population, and it benefits only a small minority.

If we are discussing one type of reparations that is a payout, nope, never going to happen.

If we are discussing reparations as an end to economic apartheid in our communities, then why in the fuck wouldn't you support Sanders. That is what he is fighting for. That is what MLK spoke of when he discussed reparations.

Not a bit of hypocrisy here because you and Coates continue to pretend that Sanders is someone he is not.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

311. Dude, do you know anything about how politics works? There's something called

a "head count". The Majority Whip or perhaps the president's Chief of Staff takes a reading of how many members of the caucus might support or oppose a particular policy position. Trust me, even in the Democratic party, there were a long list of conservative Democrats who were opposed to a single payer system, not to mention a public option.

Were you just born in 2008? Do you not remember us going through this hell for nearly two years on the health care debate? Do you not remember the Democrats taking a count of their party members and realizing that there were some electorally vulnerable (read: cowardly) Democrats who wouldn't/couldn't go along with single payer? You don't remember Max Baucus and Joe LIEberman?

You should go back and revisit history between the latter half of 2008 through early 2010 and catch on that health care debate.

The president never had the votes for single payer. We tried the public option--the votes weren't there, either.

Maybe you weren't around DU then, but that time was absolute HELL around here.

[TM99]

323. And the last resort of someone who is failing

at their argument - condescending arrogance implying I am just too stupid and naive to understand how politics work.

Go away kid!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

336. O.K., I'm sorry for being arrogant. Not my intent, really. I'm just frustrated with this whole

Bernie thing. My argument is that like Bernie is now suggesting, the president did the headcount and knew that there were not enough votes to secure the passage of a single payer bill. In fact the bill didn't even clear the subcommittee. Public option proposals got further in both Houses, but could not get to the Floor due in large part to conservative Democrats not budging.

So now Bernie is asking for understanding and political nuance when it comes to reparations--the courtesy that he didn't extend to President Obama during the health care debate. And I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency.

[TM99]

364. Thank you.

But you are still wrong. He is not basing it on a headcount. Like Obama, he fundamentally disagrees with reparations as a financial payout. He does, however, strongly believe in ending the apartheid like conditions affect disproportionately the minority populations in this country. It is not just blacks but also Latino's and Native Americans who are suffering.

You think he is ignoring race. No he is not. He is putting forth policies and positions that address both racial justice AND economic justice. I agree with Killer Mike that Sanders is the one candidate right now with the consistent history of following in MLK's footsteps. He is NOT MLK. He is simply agreeing with King that economic reparations comes through a bill of rights for ALL that are disadvantaged because of forced economic inequalities.

Coates is still unclear as to whether he means reparations as a one-time payout or as a systemic change in our economic and social justice policies. He also continues to construct a strawman version of Sanders in order to beat him over the head with the same fucking reframe that we have heard since he announced last May - 'Not good enough Bernie'.

Well, if Coates is truly serious, then why is he not having this discussed at debates or at forums? Why is he not holding ALL three candidates feet to the fire on this issue? Hell, Clinton couldn't have been bothered to show up for the Black & Brown forum.

Until you and others hold all candidates to the same standards, I summarily dismiss your concerns, attempts at point out inconsistencies, etc. They are disingenuous at best.

[KittyWampus]

420. Except you and the rest of the Sanders supporter are wrong- single payer

or what the heck ever YOU want to call Sanders plan isn't the only path to Universal Healthcare.

Clinton, for instance, and O'Malley both have plans to amend ACA and move things forward.

It's as if Sanders supporters can only see things one way and that's it. Black/White. Reptilian.

[TM99]

445. I am not wrong.

I am aware. Sanders has chosen to scrap his 2013 single payer idea and instead push for a universal Fed run Medicare for all plan.

No Clinton has no desire whatsoever to get us to a universal system. She, her daughter, and Bill have all made that abundantly clear. That is a lie.

O'Malley at this point in the campaign is a non-starter. Why would I care about any of his policies? He barely had enough support to make the last debate?

I laugh at Clinton's supporters projection. Y'all consider principles black/white because your candidate changes her positions every damn time she runs or really just opens her mouth. Y'all follow that like good little reptiles, justifying every twist and turn she makes. Why would I take seriously anything you would say? I couldn't trust it one bit!

[KittyWampus]

419. Please inform your fellow Sanders supporters who relentlessly

talk about Sanders plan as "Single Payer".

Pretty much every single Sanders supporter calls it Single Payer on DU.

LOLZ

[TM99]

444. What we are discussing

is a national healthcare system.

Some call it single payer because that was what was first discussed during the run up to the ACA. Sensible wood chucks said we would build on the ACA to produce it. Vermont had no choice but to try for a single payer as they were a lone state without national support.

Some also call it universal healthcare because it is for everyone.

But your continued snark is dully noted. And your deflection is irrelevant to my correction of you. If you know that it is not single payer but instead medicare for all (a national Fed run healthcare plan) what advantage do you think you get from still pushing the incorrect meme? I bet I know.

[Go Vols]

15. Obama stands firm against reparations

Sunday, August 3, 2008

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) | Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders.

The first black man to win a major-party presidential nomination argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all.

“I have said in the past - and I’ll repeat again - that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed,” the Illinois Democrat said recently.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/03/obama-stands-firm-against-reparations/?page=all

[uponit7771]

44. The "Try Anyway" candidate doesn't really care what Obama thinks, he's dogged Obama for years

... what I do want to know if Sanders is the try anyway candidate why not reparations!?

Seems like a no brainer

[Go Vols]

88. + give the Indians their land back.

[azmom]

95. + We mexicans want our land back too.

[Go Vols]

100. +1

plenty of people in line.

[uponit7771]

147. Seems the moral thing to do, but what about the reparations part? tia

[TheBlackAdder]

155. What's with the overuse of 'tia'? tia

[uponit7771]

157. it's a red herring for people who don't want to address this rational question of reparations...

... and it means Thx In Advance

[TheBlackAdder]

171. Why don't you research it with peer-reviewed articles, as an answer won't be found on a board?

.


The red herring is this political distraction that I am witnessing, trying to force another issue because your candidate supports it.

The main issue is that slavery was legal before 1865, so there is no legal standing for descendants. Any form of slavery afterwards could be required by those who directly perpetrated it, as it would have been illegal. But, you are not interested in legal fact.


What you should focus on is institutional racism and income disparity. But, again, if a settlement is something that you are looking for, it needs to be proven on a case by case basis. And seeing how the American society slowly evolved since 1865, and the setbacks to the African Americans brought on by Booker T. Washington (note: I am a fan of W. E. B. DuBois), this will be difficult to prove. This is akin to how the Jews, Asians and others were quarantined to sections of cities, withheld from banking and various industry.


The only way you will see correction is not by some passively slow progress, but by an institutional disruption.

If you took politics courses, you'd know this. I know you haven't based off of the posts fielded.


.

[Go Vols]

119. Same reason as Bernie?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

294. Try again. Obama didn't position himself as a REVOLUTIONARY, RADICAL candidate.

Remember? My candidate--Denis Kucinich did! Obama painted himself more as a pragmatist.

Bernie Sanders is supposed to be Kucinich-like...well...except for when it comes to us Negroes. When it comes to us, he doesn't give a shit. It's all class, class, class. Even Denis Kucinich had sense enough to recognize race and understand its impact. All Bernie does is deny and run behind economic justice platform that has no chance in hell of being passed. That's why he will lose!

[Go Vols]

308. I was posting facts

nothing to try again.They are correct.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

345. Facts about what? Nothing you posted made sense.

[Kentonio]

446. Right..

So any candidate who doesn't support reparations doesn't care about black people? Sure you want to go there?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

448. If you really want me to be honest, I believe

that most white people (not all) don't care at all about black people.

[Blue_Adept]

16. He's going to be writing comic books this year. How can anyone take him seriously?

[myrna minx]

17. I'm a Bernie supporter and I also I think Ta-Nehisi Coates is one of the most important

thinkers we have today, so I look forward to reading his essay. I'm kicking to read later.

[underthematrix]

19. Bernie's statement on reparations is the opening

salvo of article:

I thought it was interesting, instructive and illuminating:

No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do.

So I think what we should be talking about is making massive investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free, basically targeting our federal resources to the areas where it is needed the most and where it is needed the most is in impoverished communities, often African American and Latino.

Bernie is willing to make massive investments as long as it doesn't dismantle the underlying infrastructure and the grand narratives of white supremacy, even though this is the one thing we need to do bring about real racial, social and economic justice.

[stillwaiting]

23. I think it is VERY important that we choose the Democratic candidate that would best serve

to lessen the systemic injustices that are pervasive throughout our systems.

On the drug war, legalization of marijuana, being AGAINST for-profit prisons;

On economic redistribution, on $15 per hour minimum wage, being strong for unions;

On foreign policy, on being the candidate LEAST likely to send our sons and daughters to wars...

There is one candidate that massively eclipses the others, and he most certainly CAN win. He's worth fighting for.

People WANT to upset the status quo. On issues that are EXTREMELY important to racial minorities, Bernie's positions are simply better. His Executive office, His Justice Department, His DEA would be so much better for ALL of us.

[underthematrix]

69. As an African American, I find Bernie offensive and

only under absolute necessity would I vote for him in the general.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

296. RACE IS CENTRAL AND FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF ALL MATTERS...

What does that mean?

High minimum wage does not stop the police from stopping my black brother on the streets.
Legalizing marijuana does nothing for the millions of black and brown people who are already incarcerated.
Collectively, black people care about foreign policy; it's just not top of the agenda in my view.

My problem with Bernie Sanders and why I'm finding him increasingly repulsive is that he represents a version of the Left that many black people have come to distrust and abhor. Why? Because of their refusal to acknowledge racism in ALL forms--not the overt expressions of it, such as calling someone the N-Word or incidences of policy brutality. This is the problem of the political Left, and that is why many black people want no parts of it when it comes to the race issue because the Left is not much better than the crazies on the Right.

[stillwaiting]

365. I am truly sorry you feel that the Left (me being part of that) is not much better than the Right.

I truly do not understand that at all, but I will keep listening and trying to do so.

If marijuana were to be legalized, people that were incarcerated on marijuana related offenses would certainly be released I would have to think. I can't imagine they wouldn't.

I do believe that our current drug laws are disproportionately used against POC (who would dare argue that) due to the fact that we live in a racist country and our systems are inherently racist. I also feel like Bernie's sincere about his stated positions against our current drug war. For me that puts him FAR ahead of HRC (not a little bit; a lot). I do believe that his Department of Justice and DEA would be much better for all people (and that definitely includes POC). I wouldn't be as passionate about my support for him if I didn't believe that.

I fully understand and fully agree with you that racism should be fully acknowledged as being inherent in ALL of our systems. It is pervasive in our society.

I consider myself an ally of POC, and I will continue to speak my mind on what needs to happen in this country to help rectify the injustices that POC suffer. If that's not good enough for some people I will listen more, and I will continue to fight to eliminate the racist systems that are still strongly in place. I'm not quite sure what more I can do. But, I promise you I do strongly believe that Bernie Sanders would be a much better ally towards POC than HRC and that IS an important reason why I support him. I look at HRC's and Bernie's past history to inform my opinion on this matter, and I compare their currently stated positions as well. Their trustworthiness also plays a huge factor for me.

[uponit7771]

45. Sanders has counted congress out of 100% of his platform already except for reparations?! tia

[underthematrix]

71. I'm sorry I don't understand your comment

[uponit7771]

73. The whole platform is improbable to get passed Congress why not just throw in another improbable ...

Promise?!??!

[Armstead]

90. I'm glad you weren't around when Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights Act were being fought over

All of them ridiculous,. Impossible. Ponies. So improbable as to be meaningless.

[underthematrix]

110. I was around.

[Empowerer]

114. The people who were pushing them didn't think they were impossible

But they were very savvy and strategic. Sometimes they bided their time and waited. Sometimes they brought things in piecemeal. And, in almost every instance, they made compromises in order to get them passed, something that Sanders supporters now tells us is cowardice.

But when it comes to reparations, Sanders says "no go." Why are reparations not worthy of being part of the package of supposedly impossible reforms?

[Armstead]

118. Read my post responding to reparations lower down the thread

As for your other points, You assume Sanders and his supporters are stupid.

No we are not under illusions that Bernie can snap his fingers and make it all happen. Most of us are well aware that it would be a slog, require interim steps and compromises and all of that stuff.

But Bernie is going to try rather than throw in the towel at the start.

Also, more importantly there is a difference between "compromise": and undermining the goal and going in the opposite direction. For example, a public option would be a compromise. But further embedding private insurance, and mandating people to pay extortionist premiums is a step in the opposite direction.

[Empowerer]

129. I don't think you're stupid. I think you're disingenuous

You keep flipping back and forth. On the one hand, you attack anyone who pushes back on Sanders' ideas as impractical, claiming that they must be tried anyway. But on this issue, you push back on Coates because you say that reparations are impractical and shouldn't be pushed.

This is a consistent theme with the Sanders supporters. No matter what he does or says - even when he completely contradicts himself - you seem to believe he's infallible. And anyone who criticizes him, in even the mildest terms, you see as deeply flawed.

Coates' piece has bought this out in stark relief. There is no justification for Sanders' conflicting viewpoints on reparations vs. single payer or Wall Street reform, etc. If he truly believes that the degree of difficulty of success should not be any impediment to his fighting for something, that should apply across the board, not just to certain things. And if his supporters were honest and not so blinded by loyalty to him, they would acknowledge that this is an inconsistency in this approach.

[Armstead]

144. Life is full of nuances and paradoxes

If you think that's disingenuous, then its not worth trying to convince you otherwise.

[uponit7771]

145. +1, the "try anyway" candidate isn't going to try on reparations ... I'd like to hear Sanders answer

... on this

[Starry Messenger]

251. +1

[JTFrog]

266. Well said. n/t

[underthematrix]

134. You don't know what I'm thinking.

If you think a public option would be a compromise then you don't really understand the complexity of America's healthcare system.

[Armstead]

148. No I only was very involved in exploring it in depth as part of my profession

You havev no idea what I'm thinking.

Might as well leave it that if you want to be so dismissive.

[uponit7771]

143. I'm not hearing Sanders is going to "try" anything on reparations... he's said it was nil no? tia

[MADem]

267. Really? That's not the vibe I get.

There are a shitload of people here who believe that Sanders will accomplish his agenda.

Clinton favors compromise too. I think you've "undermined" the argument.

[Armstead]

269. Sigh. There is no ONE supporter of either Sanders or Clinton

Nor is there a rigid "argument" that is all encompassing.

Yes some Sanders supporters have stars in their eyes and believe he will deliver the moon in his first year in office. Most are more realistic to varying degrees, and recognize that it will be a long, hard slog. And many (or most) realize that it won't all get done.

Some Sanders supporters are idealistic milennials. Some of us are older farts who have seen the wheel go around many times.

And we recognize that Sanders is a politician, in all senses of the word, with the good and not-so-good that comes along with that. We may disagree with him on some issues or approaches. But overall, we believe he is the one most in tune with what is needed, and is different enough in his message and goals to inspire enthusiasm.

If there is a basic common message though it is that we should at least be aiming higher, and attempting to break up the stranglehold the wealthy and powerful institutions/corporations and individuals have had on politics, in government and economy for far too long.

Obviously others see it differently, for whatever combination of reasons and prefer Clinton.

And on all sides people argue about the fine points and the larger message. Some reasonably, some obnoxiously.....or a combination of both.

But to randomly pick out specific issues and say that "undermines the argument" if it is not a priority in that campaign is misleading and simplistic.

[MADem]

273. I think MOST do. I think you are mistaken--woefully so. And those BS supporters are going to be in

for the disappointment of their lives when it dawns on them that no, he's not going to get "free" college and health care on demand for all, just like he's not going to get 'reparations.' The difference is, he ADMITS it when it comes to the latter, but he doesn't admit it when it comes to the former.

It's interesting what things he'll admit to--in 2006, he said gay marriage for VT was "too divisive" too, and wanted to stick with civil unions.

He knows his audience, that's for sure. And it's obvious who isn't considered important, simply by what he regards as "divisive."

Thing is, when the True Believers in his audience realize they've been hoodwinked, totally -- and they have been sold "an idea" or "a dream" that they will never actually see realized, they're going get bitter, hectoring, angry (see the archives of DU when Obama didn't deliver as much "HOPE" or "CHANGE" that some felt was appropriate or sufficient) to be turned off from the political process. Not a smart move on his part. He will turn short term dreamers into world-weary, long-term cynics who take a "Screw it, I'll get MINE and to hell with everyone else" attitude....and that's how Paulbot "MY STUFF, SCREW YOU, GOVERMENT" libertarians are born.

Mr. Coates is not just some schlump off the street--this argument he is making is genuine, reasoned, coming from a place of knowledge and scholarship-- and quite nuanced. And clearly, it resonates (negatively with Team Sanders, obviously) based on the responses this thread has gotten.

This is a real "Show us your principles" moment, and Sanders did not make the grade. I am amused at how he can be "pragmatic" about some things that might cost trillions, and completely obtuse about other things that might cost trillions. This dream that Congress will never pass? Why that's a "good" dream. This OTHER dream that Congress will never pass? That's a "divisive" dream.

Great big "FEH!" to his arguments. I am NOT impressed at all with him in the way he handled this conversation. If you're going to be a Don Quixote idealist who tilts at millenial windmills, don't pass by those black windmills, like he passed by those gay windmills in 2006--that's just not cool.

And it looks, well, glaringly OBVIOUS.

Politics as usual....he's no different than his opponents. He's just more quirky and folksy, and thus he APPEARS more authentic, while he plays the same games that his 534 colleagues on the Hill play.

I'm really very surprised that he came out so bluntly on this topic--it does show where he's at, though, and where he's at ain't a good place for people with melanin.

[Armstead]

277. End of discussion

You dislike Sanders and think he is a weaselly politician with no principles.

That is your right.

I disagree.

Neither of us will change our minds.

That's life.

[MADem]

282. I find his reticence to take the "idealistic" path VERY TROUBLING on this issue.

And it is a fair point.

It's not about "You dislike Sanders and think he is a weaselly politician with no principles."

If that's your take-away from this conversation, then you're entrenched in your advocacy for this candidate, and unwilling to hear a valid concern from a large percentage of our population. This does go to qualities like "character" and "commitment to progressive ideals" even if you don't care to acknowledge that. He most certainly has principles, but he considers some principles more worthy than others. He is dancing with the ones what brung him--and showing the hand to substantial percentage of Democrats.

[Armstead]

327. If someone wants to make a reparations a major campaign issue....

to try and defeat Sanders, have at it.

Try convincing Clinton to do that. I'm sure she will go to the mat for it.

[MADem]

331. You keep missing the point. I'm starting to think that's deliberate...?

Let's have someone else try to make the point for you:

Sanders doesn't have a different policy position from Clinton or O'Malley or any other Democrat on any of these issues. But he does differ from Clinton and O'Malley in having built the entire rhetorical structure of his campaign around the singular idea of a political revolution aimed at wresting power away from billionaires, in a way that frames questions of racism as something other than "fundamental," curbing them as something other than "real" and treating racial disadvantage as an afterthought in terms of how the system is "rigged."

If you ask why Hillary Clinton offers only a limited vision of a struggle against white supremacy, the answer is that she is a pragmatist through and through. Sanders isn't. On the issue he cares most about, he's a radical — indeed, a self-described revolutionary. But that necessarily means other things end up taking second place.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/20/10794044/bernie-sanders-reparations

Sanders has lost the black community with his tone deaf approach to this issue. He doesn't help himself with his remarks at all.

[Armstead]

340. I'm not missing the point. I disagree with it.

The whole core focus of Sanders life has been the fight against inequality and injustice. Period. ALL inequality.

He has placed his primary focus on economic justice because the economy affects everyone. EVERYONE.

He has placed his focus on rectifying the concentration of wealth and power, because most issues are affected by that.

Because he has as a priority focused on certain broadly based issues does NOT mean he dismisses or marginalizes others. It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Making it possible for an AA mother on a low income who does not qualify for Medicaid but can't afford health insurance to give she and her children a healthy life free of the unendurable pressures of poverty? Is making her life better a priority or not? Is giving her access to childcare, education and other opportunities a distraction?

Yes she will have to struggle with racism. But Sanders cares about that and supports all of the legal remedies for that too.

Yes Bernie is a politician. Yes he has to set priorities and cannot promise to be all things to all people on every single issue. But to characterize that in the cynical way you do is just flat out wrong -- and missing the point.

In my opinion, of course.

[MADem]

454. He doesn't have a problem tilting his little lance against fanciful issues that matter to white

people, but when it comes to black issues that have just as much of a chance of seeing fruition, he's not there. It's that WHITE PRIVILEGE thing showing...again.

Here--read:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/21/bernie-sanders-reparations-problem/

Wonkblog
Bernie Sanders’ reparations problem
Resize Text Print Article Comments 1
By Jeff Guo January 21 at 12:52 PM

COLUMBIA, SC - JANUARY 18: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (C) listens to a speaker during the King Day at the Dome rally at the S.C. State House January 18, 2016 in Columbia, South Carolina. The event drew appearances from Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and Hillary Clinton. (Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images)
Over a hundred years ago, African American thinker and civil rights activist W.E.B. Du Bois scolded his fellow socialists for waffling on the issue of race. At that time, many unions excluded blacks, and socialist parties in the South promoted segregation. Du Bois called the situation hypocritical.

“The essence of Social Democracy is that there shall be no excluded or exploited classes in the Socialistic state; that there shall be no man or woman so poor, ignorant or black as not to count one,” he wrote .

There are echoes of Du Bois in an essay published this week by the Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, who criticized Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders for not being radical enough on matters of race. Coates famously made the case for reparations in a 2014 Atlantic article, and won the National Book Award for non-fiction last year for his memoir, "Between the World and Me."

Sanders recently came out against reparations for slavery, which he described as impractical and “very divisive.” Coates responded that, in light of the candidate’s other fanciful policy proposals, it was peculiar he would require realistic thinking on this issue.

“Sanders should be directly confronted and asked why his political imagination is so active against plutocracy, but so limited against white supremacy,” Coates wrote.

He added: “If not even an avowed socialist can be bothered to grapple with reparations … then expect white supremacy in America to endure well beyond our lifetimes and lifetimes of our children.”

Sanders half-baked ideas do not address shitty housing...for BLACK people....high unemployment .... for BLACK people (last hired/first fired)... crummy schools...for BLACK kids .... usurious lending rates, shitty credit opportunities, unequal access to banking, etc.

Please. You just do not SEE it.

[Armstead]

455. Yeah, yeah...Sanders is a racist...... Definitely end of discussion.

Buh Bye.That crosses the line.

[MADem]

456. No. He's just not a REVOLUTIONARY when it

comes to issues that might not appeal to his CORE group of supporters.

He's a politician. If his fans started caring about these matters, he would too.

That is what you refuse to see. It's not him alone...it's his constituents who inform his priorities and not always in a genuinely revolutionary way.

A lot of his fans actually believe he can pass this stuff he spouts on about... They don't realize that it will just not happen. And then they'll get all mad at him just like they did at Obama...

[Armstead]

457. Okay he's only being racist because his supporters are

See ya

[MADem]

458. He accepts the status quo. Were he genuinely "revolutionary" he'd be revolutionary

in all things--to include the circumstances of some of our most oppressed citizens.

You've got your back up over this matter; you should try to stow the "hurt feelings" and instead work on seeing and understanding the perspective of those who aren't you and to whom this issue matters.

[uponit7771]

142. OK, great ... he's all for reparations then right?!

[NYCButterfinger]

22. If you want a race riots, then you'll be for reparations

You want Rush and Hannity to go off? I think not.

[uponit7771]

51. Now we care what those idiots think?

[NYCButterfinger]

63. I don't, but it's going to tear the country apart. It's time to accept the fact that

the U.S. did horrible acts during slavery, and move on. If any candidate mentions reparations, it's over. People do not want to hear that right now. I'm sorry but it is true. It was centuries ago and it only increases hate and violence, which is not needed right now.

[kwassa]

113. if you think the horrible acts were centuries ago ....

you don't know the history. You don't know Jim Crow.

The US government, via housing policy, created poor racial ghettos up into the 1960s. It was federal policy.

Coates " The Case for Reparations" is excellent. Read it.

[uponit7771]

149. +1, some only think slavery... hell, the war on drugs is overtly racist its gob smacking... its ...

... has emperically hurt generations of Americans

[JustAnotherGen]

237. Poster has never heard of the FHA

Implmented in 1934 (FDR) and ended in 1968.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/

Plenty of DUers were alive during those years.

I asked the question to a DUer last week who wants a New FDR -

Does this mean when you get him my house gets siezed because I'm too black for my street/town?

Because this town was impacted by that.

A non answer one liner response.

Ironically my home - in 1968 - was owned/lived in by a famous politician - A Republucan who was friends with Romney. He has a misstep in NJ politics for lining with Romney - ie These housing policies by design need to be changed to allow black people the opportunity to prosper.

His kids have said - Mom and Dad woud love that you two are living here. . Not all Republicans are inherently racist - soe see things as they are. If politicians took the approach of Reparations Is Prosperity nd The End Of Social Services for "those people" it could be done. But I would expect that solution to the so-called Welfare Queen to Come from a Republican.

[Empowerer]

116. I thought the Sanders folks wanted a "revolution?"

I misunderstood. My bad.

[underthematrix]

132. You went from zero to sixty right there.

I'm with President Obama on this one. I enjoyed Ta's piece and I think he was right to call revolutionary Bernie out on his reasoning as to why the reparations issue was a non-starter. I think a reparations conversation can happen after 2040 when white America becomes a decisive minority.

[uponit7771]

152. So could Universal Health care when the majority of Americans wont be voting GOP...

... either.

There's no real good reason why reparations shouldn't be offered now

[underthematrix]

328. yes, you're making the same point Ta's was making in a round about way

Medicare for All is just as outside the box as reparations so why not make reparations part of his platform. But Bernie can't do that because the angry bitter crowd would abandon him like the plague. Part of their anger is their resentment of the visual success of people of color. They feel like whiteness is being erased from the landscape when in reality America is browning. Like Trump, Bernie has to diminish and reject President Obama's accomplishments or pretend they don't exist and then offer the same policies as his own.

I think African Americans should keep moving it forward. BlackWealth has been a huge support for AA working class and poor by funding academic excellence with college scholarships, mentoring programs, apprenticeships, emphasizing the important role fathers play in the lives of children, parenting children to success. Other groups like BLM and NAN have named the issues and created policy positions. President Obama has provided leadership by example - well educated, happily married, beautiful well educated accomplished wife. Two happy beautiful smart well adjusted daughters who are very classy. His message is to do what you can to make a difference from where you are. African Americans are listening and stepping up.

At the same time, I think we need to continue to address institutional arenas of racism but I prefer BLACKWEALTH, BLACKLEGACY BLACK POLICY, BLACK EXCELLENCE providing the support to our community because they don't have to marginalize us in order to help us.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

303. LOL!! Love it!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

354. Who's side will you be fighting on? Honest question.

[retrowire]

26. I got it.

I think this is why Bernie said it's nil..

Have reparations ever been done in any first world country before?

I don't believe so.

Have all of Bernie Sanders other policies been done in a first world country before?

Yes.

This is a complicated one. Believe me. But let's also acknowledge that it would be divisive, because white supremacy is still here. I understand the article says that with reparations, white supremacy will truly be over but, with white supremacy, you'll never have reparations.

I don't think anything is impossible but, maybe this is a cart before the horse kind of thing. Get rid of our white supremacist culture THEN worry about reparations. Sound like an impossible task? It almost is.

[tishaLA]

28. German reparations to Jews post WW2

and US reparations to Japanese internment camp victims come immediately to mind.

I would have to reread the article--can't right now--but I don't think (I may be wrong) that reparations would end white supremacy, but that, because white supremacy feeds on capital, the way to attack it is through capital. That doesn't mean it will kill it, but that it will, at the very least, injure it.

[retrowire]

29. I agree and thanks for the enlightenment. nt

[cannabis_flower]

342. Yes but..

While there were many Jews that got murdered, it only went on for how many years? The problem with reparations to African Americans for slavery is that it happened over a period of over 100 years and it was more than 100 years ago that it ended. Now, reparations for Jim Crow and redlining would be more feasible and maybe could have successful class action lawsuits.

[tishaLA]

351. Maybe I should add a link to his article "The Case for Reparations" because

I keep referencing it so much. But Coates' argument isn't primarily about reparations for slavery as much as it's about reparations for the aftermath. In fact, the post WW2 period takes up the lion's share of his argument, when he writes about predatory lending, redlining, the carceral state, etc., all of which, Coates argues, were designed to result in black poverty.

[cannabis_flower]

352. And then there's this

Killer Mike responds http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a41346/killer-mike-ta-nehisi-coates-bernie-sanders/

[tishaLA]

359. That's fine

I don't have a problem with most of that. If people are trying to suggest it's what Mr Mike calls a "death nail" (presumably "knell," but whatever), they're wrong. I have been very careful myself not to pretend it is anything other than what it is: a critique of Sen Sanders' pliable discursive registers that seem to differ when he talks, on the one hand, about th rhetoric of revolution (for "average Americans&quot vs the rhetoric of pragmatism that pops up when someone mentions reparations.

And Sen Sanders rhetorical shift has nothing to do with Pres Obama whatsoever, so it's unclear to me why Mr Mike thinks it's germane in any way: the question remains, why pragmatism for this and revolution for that? What is the difference?

It's laudable that Mr Mike supports reparations, as I do, and that he's also passionate about a candidate he believes in.

[stevenleser]

380. My father is still getting reparations from the German government

It will continue for the rest of his life. He is 88 now.

[uponit7771]

46. Yes they have, in the US with Japanese and in Germany with Jews

[retrowire]

112. the topic creator already informed me of this. good to know. nt

[Prism]

27. There isn't the same level of support for reparations as democratic socialism

Coates makes an error right out of the gate, calling socialist a divisive term and then equating that to reparations.

But Americans often support - in rather large numbers - many policies that people call socialist even while rejecting the term Socialist due to nearly a century of political demonization. Even if the professional political will is not there for parts of Sanders' platform, there is an untapped base of American desire for various improvements on many different social programs. The most magical politician of our time will be the one who can get Americans to somehow simultaneously support the socialist-like policies they claim to desire while avoiding being labelled a Socialist. It hasn't happened, but it needs to.

This underlying support does not exist for reparations. There's no other term you can use for them that will budge the American people.

I respect Coates, and I think everyone should read his case for reparations. Even if reparations never happen (and I really don't see it), it's important that everyone in this country understands how we have lived and continue to some extend to live in a kind of apartheid light state of racial inequality in America.

But Coates misfires here and misconstrues the difference between a Name and a Policy. Americans often reject the Socialist name, but readily support the policies. There is neither support for name nor policy with reparations.

[uponit7771]

53. Among whom?!?! There's a large level of support for reporations from POC... there's even

... songs about getting our land and our 6.

[Prism]

60. Among Americans generally

Here is one poll taken around the time of Coates' article:

https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/06/02/reparations/

65-15% against is prohibitive. We're talking similar numbers against gay marriage in the late 80s and early 90s.

When we had even Democrats saying as late as 2008-2012, including Clinton, that the numbers weren't there for gay marriage as late as 2013, when numbers had surpassed a majority, what kind of political will do you think exists for reparations? As Sanders said, nil.

Way, way, way more work would need to be done to change those numbers to give them even a whiff of a chance. Like with gay marriage, there would need to be a massive cultural shift from the ground up.

[uponit7771]

153. The same numbers were against gay marriage too... we didn't stop then why stop now? When the radical

... left candidate isn't radical or left on reparations that undermines the message IMHO

[Prism]

172. Bernie Sanders isn't a radical

That's a media and political meme. Many of the policies he supports are broadly supported by the American people in poll after poll.

Here's just one example among many. A story/poll from today showing that over 50% of Americans support single payer - including a quarter of Republicans.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/229959-majority-still-support-single-payer-option-poll-finds

And yet, even on DU, Sanders is painted as some kind of crazy radical for supporting it. How is arguing for what a majority of Americans want a radical proposition?

But I agree with you that we shouldn't stop pushing for redress. I would love to see something like a New Deal For African Americans made into a plank of the Democratic platform with the expectation that all Democratic candidates support it. I think the idea of cash reparations would be a tough sell, but repackaging it as economic and institutional revitalization through investment in communities of color and reformation of discriminatory systems would be possible over time. It's just one of those things, it's right because it's right.

And, like gay marriage, this is something the AA community and their allies are going to have to really go after on a grass roots level until the national politicians are pressured into backing it. This will take years, if not decades. And the AA community, I think, has a tougher road to hoe here than the LGBT community did. America is still a segregated place. It's almost impossible to segregate straight America from LGBT America. We pop up everywhere, in every community, in families of every religion and ideology. That is not so with racial dynamics. Too many white people actually can live in areas where they never really know or befriend or include people of color in their families. There's a harder wall to break down there. The Otherization is strong both demographically and geographically. There is also the matter that gay marriage wasn't seriously seen as "taking" something away from anyone. The whole argument for it was, "Who is hurt by this?" With reparations, there's a question of billions if not trillions of dollars. People will read that as their money being taken from them. That's a political hurdle.

But, you're right. It is like gay marriage, but how many major presidential candidates came out for it in 1992 when it had similar poll numbers as reparations currently have? It wasn't until 2012 that we finally had a national candidate go for it. And even then, the support of the electorate was already in the majority.

We're simply not anywhere close to that with reparations. I don't understand why it's even an expectation with Sanders. I feel like Coates and others are addressing a fictional portrait of Sanders the Radical they themselves and the media have painted about the man.

I would love for him to lead on this issue, but I don't expect it. Not in this climate, not with those poll numbers. It's up to us to make it safe for the politicians to go there, just as we had to do with gay marriage.

[uponit7771]

178. That's great, neither is reparations... it's great economics, great politics and the right thing to

...do.

It's an expectation with Sanders cause Sanders is the only dem candidate calling for pulling asunder the status quo and a course correction even in his own party.

There's no "Climate" for his calls on higher taxes either no matter how much they make sense...

There's not one moral proffered reason for keeping reparations off his platform...

[Prism]

184. Morally radical? No. Politically? Heaps.

Bernie Sanders is a politician.

Continuing our comparison. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, gay marriage was considered highly radical. In fact, it was so off people's radar, even many LGBTers opposed it in those early days. There were cries that it was "assimilation" and hetero-normative to want to be like straight people.

That certainly didn't make gay equality less moral, but it did create a political climate that made it so no major politician - not even the best among them - was about to run out there and back it.

Economic and institutional reparations would be great economics and the nation has a moral responsibility regarding them. But at this point in time they do not make great politics for a national politician. The ground needs to be laid for them, just as it did with gay marriage. We've got a lot of work to do to bring that to fruition.

[uponit7771]

188. There's no ground work for the 2.2% increase in payroll taxes for HCI payments but that hasn't kept

... Sanders from proffering it.

Groundwork, feasibility, popularity and even politics hasn't kept Sanders from proffering what's moral, good economics and progression from being a part of revolution.

I don't know why reparations would be the exception.

[Prism]

194. Stating as clearly as I can

I think people have convinced themselves that what Sanders wants is radical. It's not. Take any issue at random, look at the polls, and you'll find pretty broad support for a lot of what the man is proposing. Sanders does need to do a lot of legwork to explain and make clear his policies, but increasing payroll taxes when you're offsetting other health care costs isn't a hard explanation or even the hardest sell imaginable.

Of course, it would help if other Democrats weren't muddying the waters out of self-interest.

80% of Democrats, 50% of Americans, and 25% of Republicans support a single payer system.

15% support reparations.

Sanders is a politician. He sees those numbers. He may think the politics are hard, but he believes the current disposition of the American people make it possible. With reparations, the public support is so politically abysmal, he would be shooting himself in the foot to come out for them.

[uponit7771]

201. Let me say it clearly, 0% of Americans support a 8.4% increase in payroll taxes for single payer

... right now***

Part of Sanders revolution is getting people behind him... poll numbers be damned... that's what HRC does.... everything has to be poll tested before she moves... that's not a total negative but I can see how it can be disdained.

The morality of reparations isn't up to popularity when it comes to "try anyway"... the offender SHOULD NOT get to choose whether they have to right recent wrong(S).

Also,

The issue isn't the American people with Sanders, he isn't counting on them KNOWING congress is historically gerrymandered by the GOP.

The American people don't matter to the GOP, they're not going to do whats right towards the American people... they haven't for the last 2 years.

Why should they matter on whether or not to right a wrong here, I'm thinking it's "try anyway" or ...

Pragmatism


*** That's 6.2% what the employer is supposed to pay but will get passed down to employee, cause that's what they do... and 2.2% of what the employee is supposed to pay

[Prism]

216. Depends how it's framed

Saying, "You will pay an X tax increase for a Y reduction in health-care costs," is a potential political winner. Potential, because it depends how it is framed, how trustworthy the candidate is, etc.

80% of Democrats support single payer. I see in other posts in this thread, you claim that Sanders is trying to tear apart the party and the status quo. But how is pushing for something 80% of Democrats want tearing apart the party?

If we're being straightforward, I would argue that the candidate dismissing what 80% of the party wants is the one artificially messing with the party's dynamics.

The problem in this conversation - and I don't think you and I will find middle ground on it - is that your image of Sanders is a strawman at its heart. How a politician who is finally pushing for what the party and voters repeatedly say they want a pie-in-the-sky radical?

I mean, I know calling the democratic socialist a crazy radical may seem good politics when trying to build Clinton up as a pragmatic incrementalist, but it's becoming apparent that people are starting to believe the artificial construct of Sanders they've created.

He's just not this crazy radical you're insisting he is. You're getting upset at a self-invented fiction.

Anyway, bedtime. Thank you for the exchange. Even if no national candidate currently supports it, I vigorously support of system of government programs aimed at economic reparations for the African American community.

[uponit7771]

224. Point being that trade has NOT been explained so far ... but that's part of the revolution Sanders..

.... is claiming that has to occur; to explain to the American people why x for y trade or reparations is good for everyone.

But how is pushing for something 80% of Democrats want tearing apart the party?

Sanders wants a course correction on the status quo, that includes current DNC leadership... he said that this week.


The strawman here is you telling me I'm calling him a crazy radical... I'm not... and never have... don't even know where you got that from.


YOUR position (rightly stated) is that Sanders platform depends on what's popular at least in the democratic party... it's not.. cause the plan he put out last week in it's accuracy is in no way "popular" unless... unless explained...

The SAME... SAME Thing can happen with reparations...

So why not "try anyway"!!??

tia

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

305. You wrote: "I don't know why reparations would be the exception."

You and I both know why. The people in this thread are simply acting as if they are naïve and ignorant. They are not. Everyone knows why reparations are unpopular. EVERYONE!

[tishaLA]

190. Very good post, Prism nt

[NCTraveler]

30. Thank you for sharing this. K&R nt

[tularetom]

31. Who's gonna get reparated?

And who reparates?

I'm not an intellectual by a long shot but my suggestion to this gentleman is if his support for a candidate is solely based on that candidate's position on reparations, and if he feels that Sen Sanders does not sufficiently support reparations, then he should not vote for Sanders.

I'm sorry but this is a straw man argument. Or does he honestly believe some other candidate is going to buy his case for reparations? If not, why does he single out Sen. Sanders?

[tishaLA]

32. Mr Coates never said that his support for a candidate is based

solely on his or her position on reparations nor does he say anything about another candidate's position on reparations. (As I say upthread, I'm virtually certain that all the Presidential candidates, both Democratic and repub, oppose reparations; I'm equally certain that Mr Coates, who is savvy and well-informed, knows this, as well.)

Both of those are straw man arguments.

What Mr Coates actually argues in this article is that Mr Sanders makes a noteworthy rhetorical shift toward the rhetoric of pragmatism when discussing reparations that is noticeably absent from his discussions concerning infrastructure, health care, and free college. And he wants to understand that rhetorical shift. The effect of this pragmatic turn, Mr Coates argues, is to leave white supremacy intact.

If you are interested in the whys and wherefores of Mr Coates' position on reparations, he has written an excellent, widely-praised (and long) article on the subject, "The Case for Reparations."

[elias49]

34. But that implication is there in the quoted text

as well as the title of the OP.
Words have consequences as they say, as does the presentation of those words.

[tishaLA]

35. Which implication?

I'm not sure what the quoted text is implying to you. Perhaps you can clarify for me because, unless I know which implication I'm supposed to address, I'm afraid I'm doomed to failure before I even begin. Also, the title of the OP is lifted directly from the article.

[elias49]

36. To me, the implication is that Sanders is running

a quixotic campaign, and so we should stick with a status quo candidate.

[tishaLA]

39. Yeah, I never would have guessed that's what you thought he was implying

In the excerpt above, and in the rest of the article, he specifically says that Sanders has historically, and in this campaign, constructed himself as someone willing to pursue goals constructed as "radical" (or, in his parlance, "revolutionary&quot like free college tuition, health care for all, and other initiatives that, given the makeup of Congress, are "implausible." So he is interested in the shift toward pragmatism in Senator Sanders' stance on reparations--Mr Coates quotes Sen Sanders as saying it has "nil" possibility of passing Congress, which is almost certainly true, but Mr Coates is interested in the rhetorical shift here from idealism to pragmatism. As he writes, "One of the great functions of radical candidates is to war against equivocators and opportunists who conflate these two things. Radicals expand the political imagination and, hopefully, prevent incrementalism from becoming a virtue."

Mr Coates, a proponent of reparations, is hardly an advocate for the status quo. In fact, he believes that reparations are necessary to confront white supremacy because capital is its mother's milk:

Reparations is not one possible tool against white supremacy. It is the indispensable tool against white supremacy. One cannot propose to plunder a people, incur a moral and monetary debt, propose to never pay it back, and then claim to be seriously engaging in the fight against white supremacy.

If that sounds like advocacy for the status quo....

[uponit7771]

47. People who've been continually harmed by policies of the federal government based on race? tia

[99Forever]

33. ...

[Number23]

37. Good googly...

Sanders says the chance of getting reparations through Congress is “nil,” a correct observation which could just as well apply to much of the Vermont senator’s own platform.

That is going to TRULY leave a mark.

This is the “class first” approach, originating in the myth that racism and socialism are necessarily incompatible. But raising the minimum wage doesn’t really address the fact that black men without criminal records have about the same shot at low-wage work as white men with them; nor can making college free address the wage gap between black and white graduates. Housing discrimination, historical and present, may well be the fulcrum of white supremacy. Affirmative action is one of the most disputed issues of the day. Neither are addressed in the “racial justice” section of Sanders platform.

Coates is doing nothing but confirming what many, many black people have already said re: Sanders a thousand times.

One can’t evade these facts by changing the subject. Some months ago, black radicals in the Black Lives Matters movement protested Sanders. They were, in the main, jeered by the white left for their efforts.

And none of us will ever forget it. The whole piece is a hell of a read. Thanks for posting.

[uponit7771]

49. I think Coates ended Sanders run for prez with this article, somewhere a bunch of dynamite went boom

... Sanders says congress then he's full of shit, Sanders says yes well.... we'll know what happens then.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Wow, that is some serious wishful thinking right there.

[uponit7771]

54. No, Sanders "Try Anyway" mantra is dead if he screams congress as a roadblock because 99% of his

... platform is roadblocked by congress.

He says yes, well... we know what happens then

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Yeah, good luck.

He opposes reparations ZOMG!

Yeah, okay, run with that.

[uponit7771]

76. It's be easier to say Sanders is not a real "try anyway' candidate

[Warren DeMontague]

96. Okay, I'm going to "unpack" this nonsense, as they like to say on the tumblr.

1) Hillary Clinton doesn't support reparations either.

2) Hillary Clinton isn't any more likely to get legislation through a GOP congress, either.

3) This thread isn't about Hillary Clinton? Bull.

4) Just because Sanders advocates some things that will be difficult to pass, does not mean he is under some obligation to advocate everything that will be difficult (or impossible) to pass. To say he is, isn't a good logical argument. Hell, I'm not even sure you can call it a bad logical argument, because that is giving this plate of gibberish too much credit.

5) it's entirely possible that he genuinely doesnt support reparations, as clearly a majority of people in this country agree. Just because Ta-Nahesi Coates thinks they're a good idea, doesnt mean they are.

[Vattel]

137. Nicely unpacked.

[MADem]

318. Hillary Clinton has not said she doesn't support reparations--she has said we have to do a lot of

things first.

If there is a single developmental thread of Hillary’s political, religious, and social development, it is her belief and determination that the tragedy of race in America must be made right. What in part first attracted her to Bill Clinton was her perception that he was an unusual, enlightened Southerner who wanted to go into politics and help right the country’s greatest wrong. Hillary formed many of her closest friendships with blacks; her mentor was Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund. Later, in the White House, Hillary chose several African Americans as senior aides. Source: A Woman in Charge, by Carl Bernstein, p. 31 , Jun 5, 2007

Q: Will you support reparations for African-Americans?
CLINTON: We have mental, emotional and psychological reparations to pay first. We have to admit that we haven’t always treated people in our own country fairly. We have some issues that we have to address when it comes to racial justice right now. I’m willing to work hard to be a strong advocate for Civil Rights and human rights here at home and around the world. I want to do everything I can to make sure that the programs and policies that have helped generations of African-Americans have a better life in this country continue. I think we should be focused on the present and on the future. We owe an apology to African-Americans for hundreds of years of slavery.
LAZIO: I believe it is time for us to move past the issue of reparations among African-Americans and work for ways in which we can bring more opportunity and better educational opportunities to African-American children.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Civil_Rights.htm

This isn't about Hillary, though, so pack that all back up.

This is about a politician who has no problem being "idealistic" with regard to UHC, but can't muster the same degree of idealism for what is plainly a wrong done over the course of centuries to one segment of our population. Why is it too hard to at least ADDRESS that wrong?

As for your point 5, since he has plainly SAID he doesn't support reparations, so there's no question of "possible" there--he finds them "too divisive" (JUST like he found gay marriage for VT in 2006).

The fact that you call this issue "nonsense" is telling. It's not nonsense. It's past time America acknowledged that every damn brick that built the White House was made by black hands, laid by black hands, pointed and painted by black hands. Black labor built our nation. Our advantage in the world exists because we've stood on black shoulders. America must acknowledge this. We've yet to so do.

[Warren DeMontague]

349. Reparations are not going to happen any more than Manhattan will be given back to Native Americans.

I mean, one could certainly make that case as well from a perspective of fairness.

I'm not calling the historical acknowledgment of the centuries-long holocaust of slavery; and its undeniably echoing fallout which reverberates to this day- "nonsense".

I AM calling the shameless attempt to turn this into a sudden and pressing issue to go after Bernie Sanders because someone has decided that AA voters are Hillary Clinton's "firewall" in the polls (if we are going to look at candidates' track records, we can look at Hillary's in 2008, too, can't we?) ..I'm calling that "nonsense". Not the same thing.

And Hillary Clinton giving a non-answer to a question is hardly news, she does it all the time.

[tishaLA]

64. I don't think that was his intent nor do I thik it will be the result

I think it does a good job of pointing out how difficult it is to confront the legacy of historical, structural racism is, even with those who call for political revolutions.

[uponit7771]

75. Unnnnnn, Sanders is the "try anyway" candidate... Why wouldn't he do at reputations?... Not trying o

That would under cut his whole message

[tishaLA]

81. I don't disagree with that. But you said that Mr Coates

effectively ended Sen Sanders' campaign. I don't think he intended for Sen Sanders to end his campaign--he says some very positive things about him, in fact--nor do I think Sen Sanders will end his campaign as a result of it.

[Number23]

84. Hmmm....

I don't think this article is "positive" about Sanders at all.

And actually pretty much says that if the candidate that has based his candidacy on being as left on every issue as he can be BUT on the issue of racism and reparations, then this is one of the reasons that we will be having to deal with racism for many generations to come. He calls Sanders a "failed radical" on the issue of white supremacy and says that he doesn't understand racism, hence his "it's not race, it's class" perspective on things. I don't think these comments were meant as compliments.

[tishaLA]

91. positive was probably too strong

you're right. But I don't think it's negative, either. You pulled some good quotes there, especially the failed radical thing. But that's the only neutral way one can describe someone who promises radical solutions to issues like college costs but incrementalism on issues of racial justice.

[Number23]

92. Absolutely.

[uponit7771]

128. Yes, this is why I say figuratively he's ended Sanders campaign. On the other side if Sanders says..

.. he's for reparations and he'll try (HARD) then I'll give him a second look.

[uponit7771]

86. I'm speaking figuratively not literally, Sanders technically has enough money to go beyond 2016

... so he can hang around but not asking for reparation undercuts the try anything mantra that is central to his campaign

[choie]

125. You're repeating yourself..

You got nothing else..but you'll keep on trying..anyway..

[uponit7771]

130. No to the same people and why not address the question? Radical left on everything except racial

... justice? ?

Seems to under cut the message no?

tia

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

315. You wrote: "Coates is doing nothing but confirming what many, many black people have already said"

Me: ...and that's why Bernie may gain a few black supporters here and there, perhaps on the Left, but he ain't winning us over in large numbers. He's just not.

[Number23]

320. You know it. Which is why this board is flooded with Sanders endorsements of every person

with melanin, no matter how many times you say "who?" about the person doing the endorsing.

And the crowing about the inroads he's made in the black community. Going from 1% to 30% may be a big deal numerically but in the general scheme of things, it's still a spectacular ass whipping. And like I've said before, his reluctance to continue Obama's legacy combined with his "economics trumps all" approach have not and don't appear to be energizing the black community as a whole.

There is a lot of "meh" from black folks on these candidates. I would not be surprised if our voting numbers reflect that in the primaries and November polls.

[cannabis_flower]

347. I don't think Hillary supports reparations either

Benjamin Dixon asks why the black community is making Bernie jump through hoops that they aren't asking Hillary to jump through.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017322601

And here's Killer Mike's take

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a41346/killer-mike-ta-nehisi-coates-bernie-sanders/

[Number23]

367. I love how you try to use Killer Mike to refute Ta-Nehisi Coates

That is absolutely hysterical. As is the panic over Coate's piece from Sanders supporters.

[LittleBlue]

48. 1) He isn't politically suicidal

2) It's a dumb idea that can't work
3) It stands as much chance of passing as a 1st Amendment repeal. Not just "hard" or "remote", impossible.

Ta Nehisi Coates is a fraud.

[uponit7771]

50. 1. It's worked before in the US and Germany and 2. So does 99% of the rest of Sanders agenda...

... Sanders screams congress then he's full of shit, Sanders says yes then... we'll we know what happens then.

[LittleBlue]

55. Disingenuous nonsense

Go look at the polling for Bernie's policies compared to support for reparations. Reparations support comes in at 15%. Any party that tried to pass reparations would instantly be made into a nonexistent party down there with the Greens.

What nobody can answer is who gets paid and what happens to those who never owned a slave. Why should I pay for reparations when all of my ancestors came after slavery was abolished? It's absurd and Bernie knows that.

[tishaLA]

59. slavery plays only a minute role in Mr Coates' call for reparations

he believes that what happened after slavery is enough to merit reparations, ranging from government housing policy to predatory lending to Jim Crow to red lining to economic marginalization to the carceral state, etc etc etc.

[LittleBlue]

62. I'm not responsible for that

I am not responsible for what people did 400, 300, 200, 100 or even 10 years before I was born. I'm not taking on debt to pay for the misdeeds of others. Neither are Mexican-Americans, neither are Japanese-Americans, yet all of us would be forced pay the bill for this nonsense.

If someone has wronged you, go make a specific claim in court. It's got nothing to do with me. Any candidate who supports this loses my vote and probably 85% of the rest of the country. Ta Nehisi Coates can say whatever he wants, it won't happen and shouldn't happen.

[tishaLA]

66. He's actually addressing thins that continue even today

not ancient history. As I said in the post you responded to, slavery plays only a minute role in his argument in favor of reparations. And the things that merit reparations, like housing policy to use just one example, is something that implicates everyone. This is something Emerson realized after the Fugitive Slave Law passed: those in Boston were as guilty of keeping slavery alive every time they wore cotton clothing.

[LittleBlue]

68. Then some other solution must be found to level the playing field

This would cost $10tr to $14tr. Where would the money come from? We're already nearly $17tr in debt. We'd be selling bonds to foreign countries to pay for this. Hundreds of billions in additional interest would basically destroy our social safety net, we couldn't pay for it anymore. Social Security costs $850bn, and we're somehow supposed to find $14,000bn. Where will it come from?

Reparations are not just politically nearly impossible, it's impossible from a fiscal perspective.

[uponit7771]

82. Will care how it would be labeled just as long as it's specific towers the people who are harmed

... And that we try.

Otherwise Sanders is not a try anyway candidate

[stevenleser]

382. Luckily the Germans born since 1945 haven't stopped reparations to holocaust survivors

Your argument is an interesting one, until you dig into the details.

Using your logic, one could never sue a government for anything because to pay for any litigation losses, it would necessarily use the tax money of people who never did anything wrong and have to tax those same folks more to make up the difference at some point or cut services to those people.

People sue the government for wrongdoing all the time and yes you have definitely paid for some of it.

[LittleBlue]

404. How many ex-slaves are alive today? How many Holocaust survivors?

There's your answer. It isn't that complicated.

Instead of another illogical reply, tell me where we're going to get $14tr. I'll wait.

[stevenleser]

405. Well my father for one. And Coates reparation points arent regarding slavery. nt

[LittleBlue]

406. Okay, then you understand the difference

If we're extending this past slavery, then almost every minority group is entitled to reparations.

Where will we find $14tr? How naive.

[tishaLA]

56. "Ta Nehisi Coates is a fraud."

Thanks for your considered opinion.

BTW, do you believe the other initiatives Sen Sanders supports that have practically zero chance of passing Congress, like universal health care or free college tuition, should also be forgotten? If not, what makes reparations different? And isn't it incumbent upon those who call for political revolution to, in Mr Coates' words, "expand the political imagination and, hopefully, prevent incrementalism from becoming a virtue"?

[LittleBlue]

58. I don't even agree with some of his other positions

I'm glad some of them won't pass. Like the transactions tax that doesn't exempt small traders.

Of the things in his platform I believe are crazy, they won't pass anyway. He can at least make a difference on more popular issues.

I'm not calling for a political revolution, just some chance at change. I'd like to see a candidate for once who isn't bought and paid for by Wall Street, if nothing else as an experiment. Ta Nehisi Coates is used by under-performing media outlets to generate clickbait, he doesn't apparently see how he's being used. I don't take him seriously. He's a tool.

[tishaLA]

61. thank you for your resppnse

I only wish you had answered my questions.

I didn't post Mr Coates' the excerpt of Mr Coates' article here for clickbait: I had hoped it would generate some meaningful dialogue. I feel fortunate that it has, this subthread notwithstanding.

[LittleBlue]

65. Sorry, I'm replying to multiple things at once

And probably overlooked something you wrote. If you still want me to answer, I will.

[tishaLA]

67. Thanks, but I think I'd prefer not

I'm more than willing to discuss those who disagree with Mr Coates' ideas--there is plenty of room for critique--but I'm not interested in the endless personal insults about him being a "fraud" or "clickbait."

DU seems to thrive on the personal attacks; it used to thrive--at least to some degree--on ideas.

[ram2008]

70. Bernie is against reparations because it's stupid policy

How do you determine who gets reparations/how much? Also given the current economic problems of this country asking someone to pay someone for something they were not responsible for is incredibly divisive.

It is political suicide, it is a political non-starter, and it's politically stupid policy.

Reparations would only drive the divide of white and black and allow other individuals like Trump to pray on economic and racial anxiety-- it would set America back 50 years in race relations.

[tishaLA]

72. Mr Coates has written extensively about this

The Case for Reparations

His argument, in a nutshell, is that reparations are at least in part for policies that are still in place today and the legacy from the fairly recent past haunts us still. From the article linked above:

The oft-celebrated G.I. Bill similarly failed black Americans, by mirroring the broader country’s insistence on a racist housing policy. Though ostensibly color-blind, Title III of the bill, which aimed to give veterans access to low-interest home loans, left black veterans to tangle with white officials at their local Veterans Administration as well as with the same banks that had, for years, refused to grant mortgages to blacks. The historian Kathleen J. Frydl observes in her 2009 book, The GI Bill, that so many blacks were disqualified from receiving Title III benefits “that it is more accurate simply to say that blacks could not use this particular title.”

As he says of housing segregation--a practice that continues to this day, Mr Coates writes, "White flight was not an accident—it was a triumph of racist social engineering."

Or there is this:

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.

[ram2008]

93. Simply put: he's wrong

Reparations are an extremely dividing non starter, not to mention horrible policy. Glad Bernie doesn't support it.

[tishaLA]

99. So you opposed, at least in theory,

reparations from Germany to Jews after WW2? And Japanese "Internment" camp victims?

[ram2008]

104. If they tried to give out reparations >150 years later, yes

That was not the case, however.

[Empowerer]

122. Yes - a racist society delays giving out reparations for 150 years and then claims it's "too late"

Convenient.

If only those whiny black people had pushed for reparations in 1865, this would have been resolved a long time ago.

[Empowerer]

120. So we only venture to do that which is not "divisive"

It sounds like "divisive" in this context is euphemism for "something that will benefit mostly people of color but is inconvenient for large numbers of white people."

[Empowerer]

124. I'll be sure to remember that the next time a Sanders supporter posts a "No we can't" response to

anyone saying that one of his other ideas is impractical because it won't get through Congress.

[ram2008]

255. Sanders ideas are supported by many Americans

A Majority in most cases.

Reparations is an impractical idea supported by almost no one.

Furthermore, "divisive" issues Bernie supports are divisive because money'd interests and Wall Street fight tooth and nail to derail them. Reparations are divisive because they are incredibly unpopular, not because corporate America is against it.

[wildeyed]

126. "Admitted the exact nature of our wrongs and became willing to make amends for them."

It is one of the 12-steps of AA, but it is applicable to many situations. If we as country ever want to heal the wound of slavery and racism, we will need to name the hurt and then make amends.

Coates is brilliant. And he is right. We need to name it, talk about it and then make some sort of amends if we ever want to heal it. This is healing for white people too. We all live with the pain of this sin somewhere in our collective consciousness. And until we as a nation decide to do this, everything else will be a bandaid.

[tishaLA]

179. +1000 nt

[Warren DeMontague]

236. So when exactly can we expect Secretary Clinton to come out in favor of reparations?

I mean, clearly, it's a moral imperative.

[cherokeeprogressive]

292. Why doesn't Coates include Native Americans in his call for reparations?

Anywhere?

[uponit7771]

77. Was it stupid for the German Jews or Japanese in America?

[ram2008]

97. Two completely different scenarios

On completely different time scales.

[uponit7771]

140. This is false on its face, the incarceration rate for blacks now call for reparations...

... at the federal and state level for the war on drugs.

That has hurt generations of people of color... institutional discrimination in our court systems TO THIS DAY is gob smacking... from the judges to the jail house.

Either way, no one is going to argue the morality of reparations .. seeing it's the moral and economic thing to do why isn't in a sensible "try anyway" platform.

Radical and left on everything except reparations is not radical nor left

[Recursion]

187. I would say refusing to even talk about reparations is what is keeping race relations back

Government housing and agriculture policy created the postwar white middle class by destroying the black middle class and stymying its attempts at re-forming. Not talking about it, as Coates points out, leads to the idea that African Americans are a subset of the population that are magically very poor, rather than deliberately made very poor by the government.

(And, no, I doubt O'Malley would come out for reparations either.)

[Truprogressive85]

74. Read it and I will say this

While I agree on reparations and love to see it happen

No candidate will be for it ! If we are being honest

Not Sanders
Not Clinton
Not O'malley

Heck even Obama a black man would say he is for it

[tishaLA]

78. he never denies that, really

the question Mr Coates seems to be asking is about the shift in discourse from "revolution" to pragmatism when it comes to reparations? After all, much of Sen Sanders' policy objectives, like universal health care and free college tuition, are both implausible when one considers the makeup of Congress AND expensive--the two things that ostensibly make reparations into political dynamite.

[Truprogressive85]

98. Again

I think Sen. Sanders should call for reparations as Mr.Coates states "from revolution to pragmatism " is bit stepping back

[uponit7771]

79. But Sanders is supposed to be be "try anyway" candidate... No matter how improbable the outcome try

Trying is better than pragmatic.

This would under cut that argument

[randys1]

80. Regardless of what any candidate says, to not do reparations is an absolute disgrace

Their ancestors were fucking SLAVES for chirst sake

[uponit7771]

83. And to argue the improbability of Congress on this point undercut his whole message of try anyway

[azmom]

89. Many leftists are not supporting Sanders because

He is not left enough for them. It seems Coates is one of those. Many people want to paint Sanders as a radical socialist, but he is far from that.

[aikoaiko]

159. What is leftist about TNC?

[AOR]

426. Coates is no more a leftist (anti-capitalist) than Sanders...

"The Case For Reparations" is not about challenging the capitalist power structure.

[azmom]

447. If he is not a leftist, then he is full

of it.

I'm voting for Sanders but I am not under any delusion that Sanders is a radical.

[Armstead]

103. Let me take a swing at this

Yes Bernie is going after big goals. Most of them are stretching the rigid envelope that has been established by both parties.

Yes, many Democrats dismiss Bernies ideas as "unrealistic."

Yes, Bernie and many of his supporters realize some of therm are longshots.

But -- even though he is stretching the envelope, he is not breaking it. There is also the matter of how he will spend his "political capital" both to get elected and to govern.

He is going after things that he believes ate ultimately possible because there is either an overt support for them and/or latent support. How many Democrats, for example, say they like Bernie's ideas, but they are "not achievable?" ....It is not inconceivable that this could be translated into active support for those ideas with some pushing and the right circumstances.

Reparations does not fall into that category. It does not strike a lot of people as the way to break the bonds of racism and the problems associated with it. They see different ways to achieve the same goals.

It can certainly be debated. And, perhaps over time there could be more widespread support and the political will, to do that. But it is nowhere close to that at this point. And if Bernie were to add that to his platform....it would be very alienating to many, even those who are supporter of his overall "socialist" (liberal) goals.

You would be hard pressed to find any politician building a platform around reparations. To single out Bernie for criticism for that is misguided.

[tishaLA]

106. thanks for a thoughtful reply

I agree with much of what you've written and I'm genuinely thankful for your comments.

a couple things. I don't think Mr Coates is asking anyone to build a platform around reparations. He is merely looking for support for them--or, at the very least, a consistency in the rhetoric, rather than revolution on X and pragmatism on Y.

I guess it's accurate to say that he's singling out Sen Sanders, but I don't believe it's out of animus. I regard the article primarily as an examination of inconsistencies in the discursive fields Sen Sanders uses. In his inconsistency, he is like all of us; as Emerson wrote, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds (and all that).

[kwassa]

117. Reparations can take many forms, and most don't get that.

The animus towards reparations is comparable to the animus towards gay marriage a few years ago. It ia all about an education curve, really.

[uponit7771]

136. Yeap,... the thought of just giving out tons of dough to people irks some

[uponit7771]

135. Not only is he breaking it he's shattering it, he's unapologetically shattering the enveloe on so

... many levels.

I've said before if Obama can be elected Sanders can be elected, Americans don't care about the other crap about our leaders it's the ideas and the credibility to get them done that count.

So I reject the shattering part, Sanders has already shook shit up ... in a couple major different ways.

If Sanders had the relationship HRC did with communities of color he'd be in this primary alone... no one would bother running against him.

It does not strike a lot of people as the way to break the bonds of racism and the problems associated with it. They see different ways to achieve the same goals.

Regardlless of what people are struck by in regards to reparations its the right thing to do... Period, full stop
Ask the Japanese and Jewish people... it's been done for them in the past and its the right thing to do for blacks and Native Americans right now.

Again, radical left on everything except reparations kinda undermines the radical and the left part

There's no argument against the morality of reparations; it works and sets the record straight as it has in the past multiple times.

You would be hard pressed to find any politician building a platform around reparations. To single out Bernie for criticism for that is misguided.

Sanders is either status quo or he isn't, none of the other candidate are claiming to be what Sanders is saying he can do

[jfern]

161. This straw man that Bernie should be for reparations because

Hillary hacks think he's radical left on every other issue is fucking insulting.

[uponit7771]

211. No,... no it's not a strawman, it basically calls out Sanders "try anyway" stance no matter the

...probability... that's what he has chided Obama for in the past.

This is a perfect call out, if Sander says yes he wins the DNC primary... no then his whole revolution is undermined seeing the strong economics, strong morals and strong right thing to do of reparations is nixed

[jfern]

230. I think you have to be clear exactly what you mean by reparations

Because depending on that it is, we're talking about something way way way less popular than the universal healthcare that Hillary is trashing Bernie for.

[uponit7771]

259. Reparations could come in many forms ... not just handign out people tons of cash like America has..

...done before

[HassleCat]

131. I favor reparations

I am white (more of a beige, actually) but many of my forebears marched around the south, shooting at rebels and other fun stuff, including getting shot at themselves. By some miracle not a one of them was hit, not even a scratch, but I guess I would get some money for their effort.

[1StrongBlackMan]

133. Posted to for later comment. eom.

[aikoaiko]

150. TNC is wrong. Universal health care is much more likely than reparations.

He is entitled to his opinion but I think his premise is flawed.

[uponit7771]

156. You're making his point, Sanders isn't caring about the likely hood of anything he's going to try

... and that in and of itself will push the envelope.

There's no real argument against trying reparations then, saying its a no go undermines the "try anyway" message.

[aikoaiko]

158. I disagree. Bernie think his platform is attainable

That's very clear.

[uponit7771]

163. Then why not reparations then? The economics of the issue alone makes since and its moral...

... sans its support.

Keeping reparations off the table isn't radical or left

[aikoaiko]

167. If you think it is viable then have your candidate promise it.

Reparations are not left or right issues. It's financial compensation for injuries.

[uponit7771]

168. My candidate isn't the "try anyway" candidate, Sanders is... I'm not expecting that out of her...

... or anyone else because they're not position themselves to pull asunder what has been built so far in the DNC.

Sanders is...

My question still stands, if we're going to really "try anyway" why isn't reparations on the table!?

It's radical and its left... and it's good economics and the wright thing to do...

Seems like its all win win no?

[aikoaiko]

170. Bernie doesn't advocate for a lot of things people call leftist or radical.

He's built his platform on things he think are attainable.

If you are TNC can make the case they are attainable I'm sure it would be considered.

But TNC doesn't make the case reparations are attainable in the essay or even his essay "the case for reparations". He just thinks they should happen.

[uponit7771]

185. Reparations on attainable, good economics, good morals, good revolution. Universal Health care

... without the involvement of employer or a substantial hike in payroll taxes is NOT and Sanders plan proves such.

That has NOT kept Sanders from trying and pushing it in this election.

TNC thinks they should be added to the platform of "try anyway"... there's been no reason proffered so far to keep them off that platform

[aikoaiko]

192. If you believe that than find a candidate who agrees with you.

I don't think reparations are attainable because they single one group where things like UHC, free college, and higher wages help people across races and ethnicities.

I don't believe even TNC thinks it's attainable. He probably just wants #bowdownbernie

[uponit7771]

208. What group is singled out for reparations has nothing to do with whether it can be done...

... especially since America has done reparations in the past and it has worked out of the greater good.

There's no need to stop at another group of offended because the offender doesn't think its right ...which should NOT be the choice of the offender anyway.

If single payer with hikes in payroll taxes and no employer dependency is attainable then so is reparations, that's the point of TNC article...

Again, Sanders mentions it then its a game changer...

He'd really be calling for a revolution and walking the walk... and pulling asunder politcal and financial structures in the US...

Go in or stay home

[aikoaiko]

219. I know HRC supporters such as yourself love it when black activist beat up on Bernie for 'not being.

...enough" but Bernie isn't promising everything to everyone. He defined his platform with things he thinks is attainable.


TNC asks why black people should support Bernie when he doesn't support reparations but since HRC doesn't either but Lots of black folks support her I think his question is meaningless.

[uponit7771]

226. I have no idea what you're talking about aikoaiko and stop generalizing people. Reparations ARE

... as attainable as convincing people a total of 8.4% increase in payroll taxes are needed... something SBS proffered just this week!!

That's PART of the revolution Sanders is saying is needed; explain to people and get them behind you then go for the legislation... reparations shouldn't be any different.

I'm thinking why should ANYONE support Sanders if he's not truly a "try anyway" candidate outside of economics?!?!?

Racial justice should be a part of "try anyway"... there's good no moral, economic or poltiical revolution relative to what he's already proposed that should keep reparations out of the mix no?

[Empowerer]

243. Coates is not a "black activist" - he's a renowned and highly respected scholar

I have never seen anyone on DU - or anywhere else - dismissed as a "white activist." He's no more an "activist" than Paul Krugman but he doesn't agree with you and he IS black so . . .

Shame on you.

[Kalidurga]

181. Okay then I want my family to get theirs too.

I want my Mexican branch to get their land back plus there is a lot more economic discrimination to this day against people who look Mexican. I have a lot of latino family members so we all feel this the ones who are darker get told cute little things like ICE is coming you better hide, or go back home even though those branches have been here some for hundreds of years, my SO's family are the most recent arrivals they ended up in NYC 50 years ago. Those of us who look European don't get told these things at all, two of my daughters look very white one doesn't and she has faced workplace discrimination. Then there is my dad's family same thing with them many look European, but he has a brother that looks more like his mother dark hair and dark skin, he is under constant surveillance. I would like something for him too. If checks get handed out I will take 1/8th or 1/4, I really don't care which.

[uponit7771]

191. That's not a problem with me, we can make one less carrier group per month and pay Mexicans

... for generations for land lease.

There's tons of solutions for payments in reparations that doesn't break the bank or upheave everything.

The bigger issue here is why isn't reparations part of Sanders platform?

The improbable, unpolitical, unpopular hasn't stopped Sanders so far from proposing what's good economics, moral and the right thing to do.

[Kalidurga]

193. No the question and you know it is not why isn't it part of Bernie's platform

It is why isn't it in the DNC platform. Why don't all Democrats embrace this instead of what 10% maybe.

[uponit7771]

196. The DNC isn't calling itself revolutionary, it's not trying to pull asunder its own structure cause

... they think its rotten to the core.

That's Sanders...

The DNC is calling for pragmatism, Sander is not ... he abhores it especially when Obama has tried it in the past... calling Obama tracking right and weak.

Either way, why not "try anyway" on something like reparations?

[Kalidurga]

199. Thank you for making the case to not support the DNC.

[uponit7771]

202. Got an answer to the rational question of why not reparations in Sanders platform? tia

[Kalidurga]

205. Sure as soon as the question is inclusive of all POC and rational.

[uponit7771]

210. What does who is asking the question have to do with whether or not it should be answered?

... not getting this response

[Kalidurga]

213. You don't get why I think all POC should be considered?

You don't get why saying you are rational and other's aren't isn't a good tactic to include in an argument? You don't get why I think that the DNC is flat out wrong? Or why it's wrong to single out one person and not every other damn person in this country? Because, this is only going to be supported by maybe 10% of Democrats and 0% of Republicans and it should be something everyone supports at least in theory if nothing else.

[uponit7771]

221. We're talking about why reparations isn't in Sanders platform seeing all the other obstacles for

... other left tenants are... so no, I don't see why POC should be asked on whether the question of Sander platform should address reparations is important.

In regards to why it shouldn't be included in Sanders Platform; Sanders is the anti pragmatic...

All the things that was posted in regards to why reparations shouldn't be included is ... well...

Pragmatic no?

And...

The offender isn't the chooser of what repairs the offended... it must be reasonable and just ... not choosen by the offender... that's not logical.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

324. There was a time when Bernie would never even call himself a Democrat.

Why wouldn't he run on the Independent platform if he's so principled? He has a history of lambasting the Democratic party for not being radical and revolutionary enough.

Suddenly when it comes to us People of Color, oh...where is the radicalism? It's left the room? Oh, he's just a "Democrat" now who realizes that after all that shouting at Obama and the Democrats for compromising with Republicans, no radical or even reasonable agenda can get through Congress, anyway.

Oh how enlightened Bernie has become about the realities of politics and government.

FOH!!

[Kalidurga]

372. I will put you down for one who would root for Bernie to destroy the chances of a Democrat win.

Because that is literally what would have happened if he ran as an Independent. I would have left this place in a heartbeat if it came down to supporting the Independent or the candidate of NOPE.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

378. Do what you feel you must. Like you argue on behalf of Bernie, I'm a woman who stands

on principle. The Democratic Party has taken black voters for granted for far too long.

Make sure date and time stamp this post too.

[Kalidurga]

384. Do you read what you post?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

416. I MEANT EVERY FUCKING WORD!! What's your problem?

I'm not supporting Bernie Sanders. Get the fuck over it.

Slavery is over!

[Kalidurga]

432. My problem is you meant every word, yet don't understand any of them.

[artislife]

197. I should get land from the Ojibwa side AND the Mexican side

Grandpa was in Indian School by the Apostle Islands and if you want to know what that was about watch Rabbit Proof Fence. The Aussies did the same thing to the Aboriginals..this movie actually tells the story and implications of such schools the best. Grandma came over the rails from Mexico to California, but lets face it, I am Amerind and Irish...




Honestly, the most telling about reading all the way through was how many h supporters neglected to call to task their own candidate. They know she hasn't a plan to do anything about this either. Face it, issues for PoC are not high on anyone's list...unless it is to send us back, put us down or deny entry.

[Kalidurga]

200. issues for PoC are not high on anyone's list

yes I know. I had to dig to find out about my family history. I still have a whole lot of work to do. I found out just recently that a man was passed off as my great-grandfather and I might not even be related to him. It is quite impossible for him to be who he was passed off as, since that man died in 1956 and I knew this man up into the 1970's until he was put in a nursing home. I just recently found out my dad's mother was half Indian. My SO is Mexican or rather Mexican Indian since Mexican isn't a race group, he doesn't know which tribe from Mexico, I think Miztec but who knows. So, my children yep they look white, but mostly aren't. I don't claim minority status for myself since my family has done the passing thing for so many generations and I am not going to wear a yellow star.

[artislife]

222. I know that Indian school was terrible for my grandfather.

At the end of his life, he lived in a VA home in Mpls. My brother decided one day to take him back across the MN/ WI border to his reservation. They would be going across the state and stay over night. They got in the car, but within a couple of my miles, my grandfather was shaking and saying over and over again.."Bad, bad".

My brother pulled off the road and asked him if it was the reservation. And he nodded. My brother then asked him if he wanted to go back to the VA home and he nodded again. They never spoke of the event. But my grandfather was very abusive to my father who was then abusive to us. I feel this is the reaction to the life he endured in Indian School. My father had guns and he was very cruel. He also was very self loathing and hated his very dark skin and eyes and he hated seeing it in my oldest, darkest brother the most.

We still feel the effects of the abuses to those children to this day and so this is why I feel I can claim this heritage. Because it has owned me.

[Kalidurga]

228. I might be in the same boat.

But, before I address that. I live in the Mpls area and I have seen the crap they do to Indians it breaks my heart quite literally. I know how the police used to put Indians in the trunks of the police cars and drive around for hours before taking them to jail or detox, detox centers have been shut down since as far as I know. I had a boss that said all Indians do is steal, I hated his guts.

Now as for me. I am just finding out things about my heritage that have either been deliberately hidden or it's just one of those things that happen in families that don't pass down a lot of family lore. An uncle on my dad's side has confirmed that yes my dad is part Indian his mother was half and half Jewish I haven't proven that, but her maiden name is Jewish (many Jewish names are also shared by non Jewish people). I grew up with a mother who was rabidly prejudiced against both groups. I don't know what she knew of my father's family he looks white and he never talked about his mother. I don't know what happened to my dad as a child as a result of this either his mom died when he was 6. I do know there was abuse in the family. I don't know if it was related to anyone's ethnic heritage. I am going to go with my hunch that passing was involved though. My mother's side of the family is even more convoluted. I have found relatives I may or may not be related to, it could take months or years to untangle that mess as very few records are available. So, this is where I am now. I won't claim what I don't know and what I don't know is a lot. I know I am not nearly as white as I look though and that is all I know. I am not going to claim damages that I don't know exist for me. But, I do know for a fact because I am with someone who looks Mexican Indian, that we have been denied housing and that he has faced job discrimination and that one of my daughters who is darker has had some issues in the workforce.

[artislife]

271. I believe the Rare Earth Indian Reservation

if memory serves me right, is the largest reservation inside a city limit. Those are my band, as the Ojibwa call tribes.

Your husband and child are facing discrimination. The great thing, sad sarcasm here, is that the haters don't really care what flavor of brown one is. They just don't like it.

Funny thing about me and my brothers, none of us had kids. None of us will. The cycle ends with us.


As for the family tree and not knowing, it bears upon us in our dna, a dna memory so to speak. Be kind to yourself and others is the only real antidote.

Peace to you and your loved ones.

[underthematrix]

332. I think we need to help ourselves and that's what I love about BLACKWEALTH

They are doing amazing things in the AA community. We also need to educate our children. We don't want them to end like GOP voters, stupid, uneducated, angry and violent. We need to handle out business, while we continue to breakdown and demolish institutional racism. But this means we need lawyers. We need quality well educated well adjusted POCs with a moral compass to run for office.

There is no great white hope. There never was. We need to handle our business.

[underthematrix]

334. How many of you are watching PBS' Eye on the Prize?

They also have a docu on Thurgood Marshall. Every POC should watch that. It is amazing and should be everyone's guide on how to live their their life and be a real change agent. Justice Thurgood Marshall was amazing and has an amazing wife.

[Kalidurga]

370. We need to handle our business.

That is what I told my kids. They all got good grades and ended up with pretty good jobs. I told them no one is going to hand you anything. They don't look like minorities save one. It's kind of beside the point though. They are girls and yes there has been some damage I don't know how to quantify it, but their father faced discrimination and it does end up hurting the kids.

[uponit7771]

203. Again, fine with me... build one less carrier group per month..even steven. Now why isn't

... reparations on Sanders platform seeing not only is it revolutionary but its the right thing to do and good economics?

[artislife]

215. I don't understand what you mean by build one less carrier group per month. TIA

[uponit7771]

217. Like tanks we have too many useless aircraft carrier groups that cost 100s of billions and is mostly

... part of red state welfare work programs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy

Either way, I'm not against making amends I just don't think they have to break the banks or upheave everything in the country to do so...

There will be wealth redistribution but that's part of what Sanders is for

[artislife]

223. Oh okay. I understand now

Less money for arms and warfare. Yes.


40 acres and a mule.

The one thing we all could do now, is stop the police from killing African Americans. This is a genocide, imo. This needs to be dealt with yesterday. I am astounded by the lack of justice.

[uponit7771]

225. That COULD be part of reparations, I'm for that... I've said it in this thread if Sanders proffers .

... reparations and explains how they could help the nation like he's going to have to explain how a 8.4% increase in payroll taxes (6.2% employer / 2.2% employee) is good for the country then he'd have my attention and willingness to switch candidates.

Right now the reasoning that has been proffered so for is that since reparations aren't popular they shouldn't be proffered...

That sounds too...

Pragmatic ...

to me

[artislife]

227. Until this thread, I hadn't seen a push for reparations

That doesn't mean there hasn't been, but it isn't an issue I have heard being asked.

Who knows, he may listen to this article, talk to people further, do some reassessing. I watched Trudeau's speech on the First Nationers and apologizing to them. His vow to reestablish a true relationship, was heartfelt and long over due. We need to do that for African Americans for sure. I do believe there is a lot of breaking down of long held systems all over the globe and that it has been in motion for a decade or so.

I also believe that the movement for fairness, Occupy, the bringing down the confederate flag is a movement from the ground up. I think this movement has been stirring and Sanders joined it rather than we joined him. He stepped up because this movement needed a candidate and the way to get all the streams to gather together into one, was through raging against Wall Street and the bankers.

This is how it feels to me.

[uponit7771]

260. Sanders said no to them, to me that's counter revolutionary

[artislife]

270. I can't wait to hear Hillary's plan for reparations.

Really.


I don't think I have that long.

[underthematrix]

339. You missed the point of Ta's article

His point was that both Medicare for All and reparations are revolutionary ideas and since both will be nonstarters in a GOP Congress, why not include both in his platform. Am I for reparations in this environment - NO.

HRC is not going to get involved in that nonsense. She and Bill Clinton already have a connection/relationship with BLACKWEALTH. Their voices along with BLACKACTIVISM will help move us forward.

[tishaLA]

206. Rabbit Proof Fence is a great film

Thanks for reminding me of it; I have to watch it again. It's both heartbreaking and affirming.

And ITA agree about the kind of duplicity involved here re: candidates. If people feel reparations are such a great idea--and I do--they should press their candidates to support them, too. I really had no desire to see this turn into another cudgel (it even has its own spin off thread now), but of course it happened, as it always does.

[MADem]

286. You actually believe this? There are Sanders supporters IN THIS THREAD who acknowledge that

universal health care is not at all likely, but that it's a more valid issue than reparations. I'm not really sure what that means, I guess that more people like the idea of health care than they do the idea of reparations.

You truly believe Sanders could convince Congress to foot the massive expenditure he has laid out in his health care 'plan?' You EXPECT to see universal health care and/or "free college?"

I'm not asking to be difficult--I really want to know.

[aikoaiko]

290. Yes, I think UHC is more likely than a certain type of reparation (large $$ payouts to individuals)

About free college: Georgia will already pay all tuition and some fees at public GA universities for GA high school students who graduate with a 3.8 GPA and 90% of tuition and some fees with a 3.0 GPA.

So yeah, its doable.

However, I will admit that I've recently learned that there are models of reparations that, if explained properly, are more doable than UHC.

[uponit7771]

212. There are no moral arguments to why its silly and asking for a 8.4% increase in payroll taxes

... is suicide also but Sanders did it anyone under single payer plan.

There's no logical reason to leave reparations out of Sanders platform

[tazkcmo]

204. I guess it's officialy

The New Meme.

[tishaLA]

209. No, it's an article Mr Coates tweeted today

that I, an admirer of Mr Coates' work, decided to post in the hopes of having a discussion. I'm more than happy to say that much of it has been productive (to me, at least) and a fair number of people have posted thoughtful replies, some of which I disagree with and some of which I don't

[tazkcmo]

218. I'll apolgze to you.

Seriously. I'm sorry. Personally, I'm in favor of reparations and would support bringing it to the forefront of our national dialogue. I'm not so agreeable with the whole "Sanders is Holier than thou" and hypocritical because he doesn't include it in his stump speeches. He has chosen his battles and to begin with and those are issues that a majority of Americans support (or did up till a week or two ago in the case of single payer). Reparations unfortunately does not enjoy majority support and I do not know Sen Sanders' position on it. I think it's a fair subject to broach with him. I also think the Senator is a reasonable man and sides with justice.

Anyway, I apologize for being a rude ass.

[tishaLA]

220. I agree 100% with everything you wrote

including the innate fairness of Sen Sanders. No apology is necessary, though. This forum is a viper's den and I'm surprised the responses have been as reasoned and thoughtful as they've been. Well, at least in part.

[uponit7771]

214. Or the right thing to talk about?! Cause this aint going away, TNC brings up a damn good point...

... in regards to attaining the unattainable.

[Bernin4U]

231. Far more questions than answers

Given the (lack of) context especially, it comes off more as a verbal sucker punch.

Was there more discussion about it, or was this a question out of left field?

Bernie gave a 5 second answer, to point out the impracticalities, as well as what he sees as a much higher priority. Does that necessarily make him against reparations? No. Does that make him for reparations? No. He could be for, or against, or undecided. From his brief answer, we can't tell. All we know is that he doesn't see it as something that makes sense to pursue. Just like I can be all for the idea of being in good enough shape to race triathlons. That's very different from committing oneself to the actual training required.

I do appreciate that Mr Coates at least tried to reach out to Bernie to discuss this in more detail.

But to call Bernie the "candidate of partisanship and radicalism"? Sorry, that's such utter bullshit. Laughable really, considering how often we hear that Bernie isn't even a Dem. How the party has shown so little interest in supporting him. How he apparently has the ear of so many Trump supporters. Not to mention how he's simply trying to steer the country back onto the same "by the people, for the people" track as TR, FDR, and Eisenhower. This is called "radical" only in a very cynical sense.

And without said bullshit foundation as the premise of his argument, the conclusion has little to stand on. Which is a bummer, because it would be quite interesting to hear Bernie's actual thoughts on this. I would hope Coates can pursue it further. As is, his conclusion is frankly, lame. (Although not on the level of calling non-Hillary supporters misogynists.)

Personally, I'm undecided. Apparently I don't see Mr Coates' essay as air-tight as some:

1. It can be said that post-Nazi Germany set a precedent, but how does that make the decision correct? Bush v Gore may have set a precedent too, but it sure as hell wasn't correct. Being awarded millions for having "too hot" coffee spill on your crotch while driving doesn't make it correct.

2. What does Mr Coates want? What exactly is he looking for? Quite possibly I missed it, but all I picked up is that he wants a study. Really?? After all that, is it the best he can say? Isn't his essay already a study? So what does he suggest? Not to offer anything concrete (what reparations might entail, and the expected results) seems pretty intellectually dishonest. But again, sorry if I missed it, as I'm quite curious about this.

[SunSeeker]

234. No, reparations is not like the Bush v. Gore decision and payment for scalding coffee.

If all you got from that piece is that Coates wants a study, I can see why you would compare reparations to the Bush v. Gore decision and payment for scalding coffee.

[Warren DeMontague]

238. The fact of the matter is, Bernie Sanders is far and away the most progressive, forward-thinking

candidate in this race, on pretty much every damn issue there is.

So lacking any real basis on which to make a progressive argument to progressives to support the less-progressive, status quo candidate (and let's not kid ourselves, we all know that's exactly what this is about) we've been treated to 5-6 months of lame gibberish about "But ZOMG O NO Bernie and his Supporters are ____!!!!!!!",white supremacists or unmitigated racists being 2 favorite fill in the blanks, along with all sorts of made-up hyperventilating about completely manufactured nonsense.

I think people should just be honest, "I support Hillary Clinton for President for the same reason Hillary Clinton supports Hillary Clinton for President, namely, I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY want Hillary Clinton to be the President".

Just cut the pretense, already.

[Zorra]

250. ^This^

[Ken Burch]

235. While I personally do support reparations, I have to ask...

Why does it matter that Bernie doesn't currently support reparations when Bill Clinton didn't, Barack Obama didn't, and(to my knowledge)neither HRC nor O'Malley currently support them?

Why should this ONLY be an issue regarding Bernie?

(it's suspicious that this is suddenly being raised here just as HRC's undeserved lead among AA voters is narrowing if not vanishing).

It would be better if Bernie(and the other Dem candidates) DID support reparations(if they don't feel they can support reparations for slavery itself, they could make a strong case for supporting reparations for redlining, since that was deliberately started as part of federal housing policy in the 1930's and the paper trail of complicity is still clear there) but it's hard to believe that this would justify continued AA distrust of Bernie, when the other current Dem candidates seem to be getting a pass on the issue.

[elias49]

247. Long thread...anything about reparations to Native Americans? nt

[uponit7771]

265. Yes, land lease and stop building 5 carrier groups per month

[steve2470]

239. Ok I'm for reparations

Now let's say in 2016, Senator Sanders forcefully argued for reparations. The vast majority of DU and the left would support Senator Sanders in this. That's X percentage of the likely-voting population, sorry don't have numbers at my fingertips.

Pretty much zero percent of the right-of-center voting population would support that. I don't think I need to explain why.

Now the $64 million question (inflation, inflation) is, what percentage of the "centrist" voting population would support it ? I have no idea. It would depend on how skillfully it was framed and by whom. Somehow I think the percentage would struggle to reach 50% , but perhaps I underestimate centrist voters.

Overall numbers for Senator Sanders once he forcefully argues for this ? Hmm.... I don't know. However, what I am confident in predicting is that he would lose to Secretary Clinton (unless she also supported it forcefully).

People, we are in a very left-of-center BUBBLE here at DU. If you don't realize this and agree, I don't know what to say to you. Making it possible for any politician to publicly support this and forcefully argue for it is a long hard slog. I think, longer and harder than the slog was for gay marriage. I'm VERY glad that now marriage is equal, I really am. I just think reparations is much more difficult, because of the financial angle that will be lied about and distorted.

One day, sure, I think it's possible. In 2016 ? Only if Senator Sanders wants to lose the primaries. Political reality sucks, but there it is.

[uponit7771]

264. Those SAME NUMBERS hasn't stopped Sanders on UHC!! Why reparations!? tia

[steve2470]

355. Universal health care is a much easier sell, there's minimal or no racist argument against it

With reparations, all the racism in the American electorate comes out. Senator Sanders would go down in flames in the primaries if he strongly advocated for it. He will NOT go down in flames for UHC.

Reparations is just not "there" yet in the way gay marriage was. No politician is going to risk political suicide at this point. Someone brand new to politics might strongly advocate for it, because they have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. Ever heard of Potomac fever ? It's real and it takes an incredibly brave politician to resist it. Who knows, after this electoral effort, Senator Sanders might never be able to be re-elected even in his own home state. He might be perceived as vulnerable on the guns issue, in an overwhelmingly rural and gun-friendly state.

That's my opinion, and I think it's obvious we disagree. Fair enough.

[uponit7771]

436. The stupid arguments are against it, they don't have to be racist stupid ...just stupid stupid..

... so the that's not a deilinator on why UHC and not reparations.

Sanders would NOT go down in flames in the dem primaries for asking for a progressive thing to be done...

Sanders is Mr Kick ass except on reparations even towards progressives?!

Seems a little 2 sided no?

[steve2470]

452. The arguments against reparations by non-DU'ers are RACIST stupid...

Sanders WOULD go down in flames, as would Clinton and O'Malley.

I can see you want Sanders to be defeated, soundly. Go start urging Secretary Clinton to forcefully advocate for reparations. Watch her go down in flames, guaranteed. We're done, good bye.

[uponit7771]

453. Ok, outside of the progressive fold who cares... inside the progressive fold he would not

... go down in flames.

and HRC isn't claiming revolution either, Sanders is

[GeorgeGist]

241. Mr Coates supports the status quo because ...

Bernie isn,t radical enough. That,s not genius it,s arrogance.

[uponit7771]

263. Proffering what is right is now "radical"!? This point is that no matter how radical Sanders

... will "try anyway" and has said so... except for reparations

[azmom]

280. Not except for reparations. How about open borders?

Many advocates for that. How about the Palestine issue? Many support that. Visit Socialist Worker website. They want a real socialist revolution which includes reparations. There is a socialist candidate running in this election. You might be interested.

In my view, If you are a Hillary supporter but attack Bernie from the left you are just full of it.

[uponit7771]

438. No one who supports HRC takes the winger like villainizing seriously, it comes across as noise...

... and is ignored along with the she's not left enough.

She'll be fine, as Sanders will be they'll both continue the pull leftward and Sanders is VERY electable.

[bigtree]

248. I'll echo this

"...raising the minimum wage doesn’t really address the fact that black men without criminal records have about the same shot at low-wage work as white men with them; nor can making college free address the wage gap between black and white graduates. Housing discrimination, historical and present, may well be the fulcrum of white supremacy. Affirmative action is one of the most disputed issues of the day. Neither are addressed in the “racial justice” section of Sanders platform."

[KittyWampus]

252. It was very interesting to read. Made me stop and think and question my own views

and that is good. I can see why it has so few rec's. It's actually a bit uncomfortable to read. And I'm not a Sanders supporter. Or a Hillary supporter.

[Agnosticsherbet]

254. It is divisive because the major opposition are racists

I don't give a damn about what they think.

Republicans are not going to pass a bill, but the same is true of Sanders entire agenda.

His logic is convoluted.

[uponit7771]

262. Yeap, ... but what people have been saying in this thread is that a good portion of the dem...

... electorate are no different therefore it should not be addressed.

That's STILL talking out of the side of his neck seeing that his UHC plan calls for an 8.4% total payroll tax increase that a good portion of dems aren't for either unless it's explained how it benefits everyone.

[Agnosticsherbet]

377. If Dems are agaisnt Tax increases, then Sanders agenda is dead in the water...

Because no Republican will vote for any of it, and tax revenue is how we pay for it.

We should do reparations because after Slavery, Jim Crow, and damn near a century of racist laws it is past time the nation should step up and fix the problem.

[uponit7771]

435. +1, and reparations doesn't mean paying trillions to the oppressed either... college programs, home

...buying etc etc... could be implemented.

[Nye Bevan]

268. As a Hillary supporter, I give Bernie credit for opposing the stupid idea of reparations.

I could list the many reasons why it's such a monumentally dumb idea, but what's the point? If people are going to attack Bernie over this they might as well attack him for opposing a policy of attempting to summon magic unicorns that will spread world peace and happiness.

[kenfrequed]

346. Yup

I require all of the candidates to answer the same questions and base my support on whose answers I like best.

[stevenleser]

387. But the point is Bernie is not against it because he disagrees, he's against it for pragmatisms

Sake. On this one issue he is a pragmatist.

Coates is asking why that is.

On every other issue folks like me are saying Bernie you can't get that done. And the response from him and his supporters is we will find a way, mobilize the people, yada yada yada. All of which I think is nonsense, but when it comes to reparations all of a sudden he's about "gee, I just don't think we can get that passed through congress".

What's almost as interesting as Coates pointing this out is the reactions of Sanders supporters in this thread. There are a lot more levelheaded and fair Sanders supporters than I thought there were. A lot of them upthread acknowledge this as a peculiar inconsistency and understand why people of color might be taken back a bit by it. Then of course you have the Sanders supporters who are determined to try to spin it away and just end up looking silly for doing so.

[Chitown Kev]

465. This is one of the more interesting aspects of this thread

[closeupready]

274. Yawn.

[liberal_at_heart]

276. ah, the new anti-Bernie meme of the day. This thread is going in the trash.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

278. What is infuriating to me is how Bernie seems to understand the "impossibility" of getting

Reparations through Congress, but when it comes to single payer and the public option, suddenly he blames President Obama and seems not to understand how hard it is to get these kinds of initiatives through Congress.

I will not be supporting Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.

It's looking increasingly likely that I will be forced to skip making a selection in the Democratic primary.

Neither candidate gives a fuck about black people, which I already knew anyway.

[Number23]

306. Sigh... welcome to the club, L_S

Now you understand why so few of us are all that enthusiastic about any of these folks.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

330. I was always anti-Hillary and only lukewarm on Bernie. I thought a few PoC's liked

Hillary, which I will never understand.

Glad to see that people are coming to the light on ALL these Democratic candidates.

Yes, black people DO think outside the box!

[myrna minx]

335. I'm a Bernie supporter and I hold Mr Coates in high esteem.

I think he's one of the most meaningful thinkers of this decade. This piece was very thoughtful and thought provoking and I can see how maddening it must be to have people tell you about this big! and bold! revolution that doesn't recognize something as humanly basic as reparations in this big! and bold! area of ideas.

I must say, I find that difficult to reconcile as well. I do think he cares, but I do know that he does have blindspots like many white liberals do.

As a middle aged white liberal, I appreciate the lessons I've learned from Mr Coates, as well as the BLM movement and will continue to confront my own ignorant blindspots to the struggles of others.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

337. I appreciate your words. That idea that making things right for those who have been negatively

affected by past wrongs is labeled as RADICAL is maddening in itself.

I think Coates is trying to approach this Reparations issue as delicately as possible--as put forward some ideas that could be reasonable. In fact, I think some of the ideas could be phased in overtime, which is the very essence of an incremental approach rather than a major, comprehensive action.

I hope (and wish) more white people--and for better or worse, people in general would open their minds to an alternative view. What Mr. Coates is putting forward really isn't radical. I think the word "reparations" has become quite the pejorative.

[myrna minx]

357. The fact that Mr Coates has introduced this idea to mainstream presidential politics is very encouraging

Last edited Wed Jan 20, 2016, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

I agree that there is nothing radical about righting a wrong (especially when many of these wrongs are still ongoing) - and I also agree that people grouse at the word that has come to be poorly defined in the minds of many over time.

This article does introduce steps forward as well as an attempt to "reboot" the word. Just think, word liberal was, for most of my lifetime, considered a pejorative as well. Ha.

I truly appreciate what BLM has done to educate people like me. I thought I understood - but I didn't. Hell, I didn't even know what was going on in my own backyard in Minneapolis. A revolution is happening with these passionate young people who are walking the walk, reclaiming public spaces and demanding a life of dignity and safety.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

360. Yes, thank you. Much appreciated. I explain my stance in Post #350. I think there's learning

to go around and that's a start.

[myrna minx]

373. Thank you for being patient with folks like me who have a learning curve.

As you well know, the blindspots can be huge - and then when we finally see - it's so woefully embarrassing.

I've tried to stay away from the primary fray, but I had to come by and acknowledge this important issue.

I've been a huge Bernie supporter for years - enjoying his "Brunch with Bernie" talks on the Thom Hartmann show. He does reflect many of my values, but, while he does have a great civil rights track record - in the age of Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, Eric Garner and Freddie Gray, the lack of acknowledging this modern day human rights and life or death issue when he kicked off his campaign, understandably rang flat with many.

I can only imagine how that appears to one of the most reliable voting blocs in the the Democratic Party - People of Color - especially when speaking of revolution.

When Bernie was confronted by BLM at Netroots, I saw passionate young people demanding comment from what was suppose to be the most progressive candidate running for President. If *HE* didn't recognize their plight, who on earth would?

In Seattle, I didn't see a BLM as conspiracy of Sarah Palin infiltrators, I saw young women who were coming into their own, who were finding their political voice, and making their mark. Again, if the the revolutionary didn't recognize the life and death issues of our PoC, who the hell would?

I really, truly think he does care about PoC, and I think he's evolving on many current civil rights issues, but I understand why his kick-off campaign rang hollow for many. The financial solutions aren't the panacea when, Tamir Rice was just an innocent child playing in a park.

I do think he's trying, though. As am I.

I wish things were different. Just know you have an ally with me.

[tishaLA]

379. i love your posts in this thread

thanks for your contributions to a serious discussion about a difficult issue

[myrna minx]

390. When we, as a nation, are witnessing the purposeful, slow poisoning of the children of Flint Michigan,

- children and families that are predominantly African American households, the arguments for reparations are not all about correcting sins of the historical past. We are watching the nihilist indifference of Rick Snyder and his hostile party toward people of color right here, right now in 2016.

This is life and death - we must stand shoulder to shoulder to stop this now.

Thank you for posting this essay. Despite the inevitable and unfortunate sniping, I truly hope it brings dialogue (and hopefully a little seed) to bring forth an understating.

I love Bernie - and I'm 100% on board with his fiscal message, but the word *revolution* means different things to the family of Sandra Bland, a woman who was just trying to go to work.

[Empowerer]

417. What a thoughtful and obviously heartfelt analysis

I really appreciate you. Please keep posting. People here, regardless what side they're on, need to hear your rational voice.

[Number23]

366. You deserve a hundred standing ovations for this post

I appreciate this so much.

[myrna minx]

375. Thank you. I have much to learn, but I'm trying.

[gwheezie]

281. Wonderful article

I've read it several times and reread reparations. The glaring argument for reparations this week is flint.

[aikoaiko]

283. I've learned just a bit about different models of reparations recentlyand some are definitely doable

And by recently I mean within the last 2 hours.

Its possible that Bernie is as ignorant as me and assumed that reparations are defined as large monetary pay outs to individuals.

There are doable options. Perhaps someone on his team can explain them to him.

[Bradical79]

301. There's a lot to read, but it seems to be a reasonable argument

If it were up to me, I would have a round table forum with the Democrat candidates with Ta-Nehisi Coates and perhaps some other intellectuals from various groups where more specific ideas and concerns could be aired and discussed. It would be a good place to have more intelligent discussion and touch on some things that simply are going to get ignored by mainstream media hosted debates. Maybe reparations should be taken seriously. Maybe someone like Ta-Nahisi Coates bringing his thoughts on this subject to presidential candidates in an aired forum would increase support and make such a thing more viable in the future.

[Kurska]

304. I'm not paying one red cent for what other people did a hundred odd years ago.

And I'm not supporting anyone who tries to make me either.

[tishaLA]

312. In his (very long) essay, The Case for Reparations, Mr Coates

makes quite clear that he doesn't see reparations as a case of "what other people did a hundred odd years ago"; in fact, he argues, the policies continue right through today and, in fact, have been especially virulent post-WW2. The carceral state is reason enough to demand reparations--and it has only really taken off in the past 30 years. Likewise, things like predatory lending, redlining, etc that lead to black economic marginalization happen every day in the good old US of A.

[Kurska]

313. So when I am going to get reparations for not being able to marry for most of my life

Or the discrimination I faced in the school system and looking for unemployment as a gay man?

[tishaLA]

316. I would encourage you to pursue whatever remedies possible nt

[Kurska]

317. Discrimination is best dealt with on a case by case basis of harm

Trying to hand out checks to entire groups leads to nothing but a series of checks for each damage.

[tishaLA]

319. So you don't oppose reparations per se, then, but you think we need individual plaintiffs?

[Kurska]

325. Isn't that literally what a discrimination lawsuit is for?

For instance, I'm well aware that African Americans were disproportionally targeted by predatory sub-prime lenders. I'm fully supportive of those sub-prime lenders being sued into oblivion.

Individual discrimination by a university. Fully support a lawsuit.

Police brutality? Legal remedies are also a great option.

The government's job is to make discriminatory actions illegal and prevent them to whatever extent. It isn't to foot the bill for mostly private bad actors.

[Nye Bevan]

356. My ancestors were enslaved by the Holy Roman Empire.

Where's my check?

[MellowDem]

309. Because reparations aren't radical...

They're about as ham-fistedly simple of a way to handle a problem as possible. If you want to solve widespread racial inequalities in society, reparations wouldn't do it. Once paid out, they would hinder any efforts to address structural problems of racial inequality and deeply divide everyone. Many people's ancestors were oppressed and were oppressors, so where would anyone draw the line? It's not practical, and if done, would end up for sure taking money from people who were also oppressed and in some cases give it to present day oppressors. Such is any policy based on "ancestral guilt", a policy so establishment that none other than the genocidal God of the Bible came up with it.

Something being unpopular doesn't make it "radical". Sanders ideas are not radical in most of the developed world. Assuming Sanders must take all unpopular positions to be consistent is just... stupid.

[tishaLA]

314. please see my post immediately above yours

Coates' case isn't (primarily) constructed on "ancestral guilt."

[MellowDem]

322. It's even worse...

Because he is asking for reparations for present day policies that feed structural racial inequality. That's putting the cart before the horse. Even if reparations were paid out, how would that solve the foundation of the problem? We'd be right back to square one, except now many would proclaim the problem "solved forever" by reparations.

Reparations after all of the perpetrators have died is ancestral guilt, there is no way around that. And for present day practices, there are ways to go after people through our courts to punish perpetrators and reward their victims monetarily.

The only way to fully address racial inequality is to change the structure that promotes it, and that includes our economic system to a very large extent. Our economic system keeps the poor poor and makes the wealthy wealthier, it exacerbates racial inequality and makes it more long lived.

[tishaLA]

326. Coates doesn't say they "feed structural racial inequality"

he says that's the goal of the policies: to produce and maintain black poverty. So reparations are, in part, shifts in policy that produce racially equitable results.

And for present day practices, there are ways to go after people through our courts to punish perpetrators and reward their victims monetarily.

The courts, one may have noticed, are not especially equitable toward Black folks, either. And many people who should be able to bring suits are already locked up.

[MellowDem]

329. The courts aren't perfect...

But reparations are much less so in terms of equity. And guess who would be a huge part of implementing reparations? The very courts that can be part of the problem.

As for a policy that would reduce black poverty in the face of a system that continues to assure it, it seems like an inefficient way to go about the problem, putting water in a bucket with a hole in it and expecting it to get filled.

[tishaLA]

333. folks smarter than I have proposed a number of ways to implement reparations

and, I'll be honest with you, I'm not necessarily very familiar with some of them. The fact is that having the conversation is the first step--and I thank you for taking time to engage it, even if you disagree with it.

[kenfrequed]

338. Yes. it is a good essay

However as a voter I have to dwell in the world we are in. None of the candidates are advocating reparations at this time. I would support any effort to do so.

But again, this is the world we live in.


I am going to support the most progressive possible candidate in the Democratic party and that is Bernie Sanders.

I am not going to administer a special purity test to the most progressive candidate that I would not require of all the candidates. That is not logical.

[Stimoyo]

363. Good point

Bernie must answer.

[Depaysement]

381. What puke

Rich people plundered America, not "white people." Most white people were poor or barely working class living on poverty wages during slavery and the antecedent generations and the ancestors of many weren't ever here.

If reparations, an unwieldy, unjust means of theft, ever appears on a Democratic Party Platform, I'm out of this Party. And I would most certainly benefit from "reparations." Keep your reparations rhetoric.

Class war. Fuck your race war shit.

[tishaLA]

383. You should probably familiarize yourself with Mr Coates' writings on reparations

because they are not largely concerned with slavery, but with the aftermath. As I have posted elsewhere in this thread, he spends a great deal of time working on why reparations are justified even if we look at post WW2 America--things like the GI Bill, redlining, predatory lending, etc., that, Coates argues, are policies designed to ensure black poverty.

So this question about generations of ancestors who weren't even here doesn't figure into Mr Coates' reasoning.

[Depaysement]

395. I am well aware of what happened in the antebellum south and afterwards

I am also aware of Coates' ridiculous argument. His logic is flawed. He will require hundreds of millions who took no part in the oppression of African-Americans, men and women who received no benefit, did no wrong, to pay hundreds of billions to the descendants of those who suffered. No thank you.

Redlining? Do you think white, Asian, Hispanic communities weren't redlined based on class and ethnicity? There have been two generations of policies designed to lift African-Americans at the expense of others. These have partially worked to create a competent, educated black middle class, able to stand proud and strong, to say I made it through the sweat of my brow. Are there to be two generations where all non-African-Americans have to pay a reparations tax? What exactly do you think the consequences of that will be?

[cui bono]

385. Benjamin Dixon: Why isn't this being asked about Hillary or O'Malley?

"I'm Sick & Tired of the Black Community Making BERNIE Jump Through Hoops", Black Media Host0
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511037801

The one-sideness of those against Bernie is astounding. They like to make it about race but if you don't ask all candidate the same thing it's no longer about race, it's about THE race. The race for the presidency.

.

[tishaLA]

388. I'm guessing you missed Mr Coates on Chris Hayes

he said a couple things about that very question from Mr Hayes

1. Everybody knows Secretary Clinton opposes reparations, just like all the repub candidates do

2. Although he finds much to admire about Sen Sanders--he thinks it's great that Sen Sanders' candidacy expands the realm of the imaginable in national US electoral politics--he is disquieted that, when it comes to reparations, he ditches the language of revolution for a language of pragmatism. Mr Coates regards this as unfortunate and, ultimately, instructive.

Ummmm. He said a lot more, too, but I was only half paying attention. It will repeat later or maybe I can catch the clip online.

[cui bono]

394. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

So he attacks someone that actually might help him rather than the person he knows won't?

Can't have an honest discussion about this if it is going to be done as an attack on one particular candidate. When it is done like that it is done to harm the one being attacked and using the issue as a political football. Bad idea.

Did you watch Benjamin's video? He states that Sanders' economic plans are in effect a little bit of reparation because he seeks to level the economic playing field.

.

[tishaLA]

396. You construe it as an attack; I don't

Neither does Mr Coates. He is interested in the discursive shift from revolution to pragmatism when the conversation shifts from, say, economic justice to reparation. I would suggest that it's much more of an attack on Clinton (or Clintonism), in fact, because he basically says that he doesn't have the high expectations of her that he has for Sen Sanders.

And, as someone correctly pointed out in the AfAm group, the subject of the essay isn't really Sanders at all, but reparations; Sanders is the white liberal who made the statement, but in so doing, he could be any number of white liberals who have vivid political imaginations about "average Americans" but become gun shy when it comes to black folks. Mr Coates wishes that imagination were equally expansive about issues concerning the African American community

I did watch Mr Dixon's video (it was posted earlier today). I don't have a lot to say about it, to be honest. I felt like a lot of it was unnecessarily person re: Krugman and Coates and, in many instances, he seems to misrepresent Mr Coates' positions. I was happy to hear that he supports reparations, and in so doing agrees with the overarching narrative of Mr Coates' work, understand that he feels disappointed that Mr Coates dedicates a clause in one sentence to Mr Krugman, and feels Mr Coates is holding Sen Sanders to a higher standard than Secretary Clinton. If he is honest, tomorrow, or whenever he next posts a video, I would hope to hear that he saw Chris Hayes and retract large portions of his criticism.

[TM99]

407. But it wasn't just any white liberal.

And it hasn't been since last summer.

It is ALWAYS Sanders. He is not good enough. He is not the one giving us what we demand.

Yet when it comes to Clinton or O'Malley, chirp chirp chirp.

He has no reason to retract a damned thing. Benjamin was dead on, and it is what I have argued, actually with you and a few others in this thread, all day.

If you want real 'reparations', in other words an end to economic apartheid, then Sanders is the only candidate offering just that, or at least a solid start.

[cui bono]

424. Yes, I do. Had he directed the same question to all candidates I would not.

Same thing happened during the BLM bruhaha. Everyone attacked Sanders and Hillary got a pass even though she didn't even let the BLM activists into the event without sequestering them and even though BLM activists said Bernie gets it more than her. But it was all about Bernie is tone deaf on racism and Bernie is only for white males and Bernie supporters are white supremacists. So yeah, after all of that on DU it's hard not to take it that way.

I will look for the Chris Hayes video.

.

[tishaLA]

429. but, CB, he didnt direct the question

He saw a video of the question--and, to be entirely fair, he says he reached out to the campaign several times before he wrote his piece. As he said on Mr Hayes' show, he already KNOWS what Sec Clinton's position is--it's the absolute orthodoxy of "no no no." And he's seen Sen Sanders as a different kind of candidate, one who took riskier positions and challenged orthodoxies....

At any rate, I hope you see the video. Thanks for the conversation.

[cui bono]

439. Thanks for the info. I will watch the video. n/t

[Arazi]

389. make this an OP please? eom

[cui bono]

392. I linked to the OP about this. n/t

[Arazi]

393. It really outlines the dishonesty of TNC on this. Instructive eom

[Warren DeMontague]

398. because Obviously, Hillary cannot run on the issues.

[stevenleser]

466. Because its the hypocrisy, not the particular stance on the issue. Not sure why this is so hard.

This isn't hard. Bernie is the "We can do everything" candidate.

Except for reparations.

That's it. That's the question.

[AOR]

399. Long thread with a lot of interesting replies....

Coates is a powerful voice no doubt. Unfortunately... he is also a well-heeled bourgeois capitalist and a class denier...seemingly blind to the history and effects of capitalist social relations in regards to institutionalized racism and the continued racial oppression attributable to capitalism.

Beyond that...his branding of Sanders as representing the "radical left" is quite laughable. Sanders policy proposals are pretty vanilla by any "radical leftist" standards. It's pretty hard to brand someone a hypocrite as he basically does Sanders when your swimming in a vat of capitalist hypocrisy yourself.

[stevenleser]

400. I kept waiting for you to address Coates points and stop with the ad-hominem against him but that

never materialized.

[AOR]

408. First post in close to a month Steven...

how could you possibly be waiting for me to address his points. Do you have a crystal ball that I was logged into to DU Steven ?

I addressed his points. Nothing against the guy. I think he's whistling past the graveyard until he - like so many others supposedly on the left - addresses the historical material realities of capitalist social relations and the role they played in the Black slave trade and still play in institutionalized racism and the destruction of Black communities. Coates is another in a long line who want Social Justice without addressing capitalism and economic class in the struggle. I'm not the only one making the same critique of Coates. You can't get there from here Steven. Here being the continuation of the savage exploitation and oppression of capitalist social relations. Calling for reparations while not addressing the continuation of that oppression and exploitation is whistling past the graveyard.

[stevenleser]

449. Nope. I was waiting as I was reading your post. Would you address any of the points Coates actually

raised. And the answer was no.

[AOR]

462. As far as leftist political analysis is concerned...

as long as Coates is unwilling to completely connect class issues and capitalist social relations to racial justice he has no points to make. There is no evidence whatsoever that Coates is interested in challenging the capitalist power structure. Until then he is just another hypocrite conjuring of spirits of "hope and change."

[stevenleser]

467. There is no hypocrisy in leftism? Hmmm. I don't think that's right. nt

[tishaLA]

401. In fact, he argues precisely that reparations are THE tool because

of 'effects of capitalist social relations in regards to institutionalized racism and the continued racial oppression attributable to capitalism.' He construes capital as the mother's milk of the racist structure, which is why he sees it as the most appropriate way to attack racism. See: "The Case for Reparations"

[AOR]

411. Lip-service is not understanding...

Coates is "precisely" as I described. Another in a long line of voices swimming in a sea of identity politics without an ounce of understanding of the role that class plays in the working class struggle against capitalism and what that means.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/ta-nehisi-coates-blackwashing-reparations-brand-and-last-refuge-scoundrels


http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/20/race-without-class-the-bougie-sensibility-of-ta-nehesi-coates/

Race Without Class: the “Bougie” Sensibility of Ta Nehesi Coates

by Paul Street

[tishaLA]

414. the internet's great because you can find people who assert almost anything

but because the concept of the importance of capital is foundational to his argument, I'd hardly call it lip service, unless that term has taken on new meaning recently. In fact, were capital NOT foundational, there would be no reason whatsoever to call for reparations.

(I saw the counterpunch piece posted a bit earlier and it gave me a laugh. if being a snob about certain things, or liking nice things as opposed to shitty ones makes someone bougie....holy hell.)

[AOR]

433. The question remains...

does Coates believe capitalist social relations are the foundational problem ? There is not a single reference or analysis that addresses that in "The Case For Reparations." There is however a multitude of critiques on Coates everywhere on the net as a race reductionist who is unable and unwilling to confront capitalism. The link between institutionalized racism and capitalism is not a fiction...it's historical fact. Capitalism is dependent on racism as the source of plunder, exploitation, oppression and the main vehicle for the ruling class to divide, conquer, and rule while driving much of the working class of all colors to poverty.

What exactly does this horseshit mean in challenging the capitalist power structure that thrives on institutionalized racism tisha ? "A revolution of American consciousness and "Spiritual renewal." That is Coates below in The Case For Reparations. That is meaningless tokenism and symbolism.

" 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. Reparations would mean the end of scarfing hot dogs on the Fourth of July while denying the facts of our heritage. Reparations would mean the end of yelling “patriotism” while waving a Confederate flag. Reparations would mean a revolution of the American consciousness, a reconciling of our self-image as the great democratizer with the facts of our history."


Without a commitment to the fight against the capitalist power structure - that enables institutionalized racism - the working-class solidarity needed to gain political power to force change will never be realized. Coates can't find class solidarity with a road map. He's talking about changing attitudes and not challenging power.

[AOR]

459. Someone hijack your account over the years ?

you disagree state your case instead of one liners and eye rolls. Amazing how far some "leftists" have fallen. How does one go back and forth from leftist at the Bell to defending neoliberal tools like Obama and Clinton over here ? Unless I've been sorely mistaken for a long time...when the Bell cats blast liberalism and the Democratic Party it's coming from leftists and Marxists and not from devout supporters and in defense of Obama, Clinton, and the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party. There are no outs here for you and Starry. The duplicity is beyond laughable. What's your defense ? Posing as Clinton and Obama supporters to infiltrate and destroy the Democratic Party from within to enhance the chance of revolt ? The Democratic Party does a fine job of it without you... if that's your plan or your out with the bullshit you're throwing around here.

Why don't you run Coates - and his bourgeois changing hearts, minds, and attitudes bullshit - by BP, Dhal, Chlams, TA, Kid and see if you eye roll the response you get. You think you would get different from Anax if he was around ? Coates is a capitalist tool just like Tim Wise, just like Maddow, just like Sharpton, just like Melissa-Harris Perry, just like John Lewis and the list goes on and is endless from these capitalist frauds. Do a little scratching around the edges and you'll find a raging individualist libertarian at heart when it comes to economic class with these "leftist" frauds.

This isn't about Sanders or reparations. You think because Coates comes from the street and his old man was a Panther he gets a pass ? You think because Coates is Black he gets a pass? Nobody gets a fucking pass when it comes to complicity and this new-left, new-age, cultural identity politics bullshit that Coates and his sell-out ilk are selling as radical struggle. Adolph Reed, West, Street, Dixon, Roberts and the rest are all wrong about Coates right "YoungDemCA" ? Keep rolling those eyes.

[Romulox]

460. Wow. That left a mark: "There are no outs here for you and Starry."

[olddots]

441. I'm voting for Bernie

voted for Jackson and would again but this time Sanders is my candidate because his heart is in the right place .

[YoungDemCA]

451. Why? Because he doesn't want to alienate middle class white voters

He knows his base.

[Blue_In_AK]

463. The thing that bothered me about this discussion

is that Coates readily agreed that neither Clinton nor any other candidate, nor even President Obama himself, favors reparations and yet Bernie Sanders is the only one he calls to task on the issue. As was pointed out, it seems that Bernie has to jump through far more hoops than the other candidates to be taken seriously. Why should he be expected to hold a different opinion on this very complicated issue than any of the other politicians mentioned? I know Coates said that Sanders' other proposals will be difficult, as well, but to me at least they're not impossible. Reparations, if they are to mean anything, would be extraordinarily expensive not only in the amount to be paid out but also in determining who would qualify and who wouldn't.

[lovemydog]

464. k & r