Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Are you in favor of reparations to African Americans? [View all]BumRushDaShow
(141,007 posts)61. Because many tribes had treaties and for others, they rarely called attention to it
because of how it was ultimately implemented in usual paternalistic fashion.
America Has Tried Reparations Before. Here Is How It Went.
With a renewed focus on reparations for slavery, what lessons can be drawn from payments to victims of other historical injustices in America?
By Adeel Hassan and Jack Healy
June 19, 2019
/snip
Native Americans did not get full control of money awarded to them.
After World War II, Congress created the Indian Claims Commission to pay compensation to any federally recognized tribe for land that had been seized by the United States. The groups mission was complicated by a paucity of written records, difficulties in putting a value on the land for its agricultural productivity or religious significance, and problems with determining boundaries and ownership from decades, or more than a century, earlier.
The results were disappointing for Native Americans. The commission paid out about $1.3 billion, the equivalent of less than $1,000 for each Native American in the United States at the time the commission dissolved in 1978. On one level, it was remarkable, said Melody McCoy, a lawyer for the Native American Rights Fund, a nonprofit group that has represented tribes in hundreds of major cases. Congress listened to the claims of tribal leaders.
But, Ms. McCoy said, the government took a paternalistic view, and kept Native Americans from having direct control of the funds, in the belief they were not competent to receive such large amounts of money. They did not make those awards, whether it was $200 million, $20 million or $20,000 they held that money in trust accounts, she said.
A separate agreement, struck with Congress in 1971, led to the biggest award $962 million worth of land in Alaska, some 44 million acres in return for Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts relinquishing their aboriginal claims to the rest of the state. Once again, the compensation was not awarded directly; instead, the land was put in the control of corporations, and the beneficiaries were given shares of stock in them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/reparations-slavery.html
With a renewed focus on reparations for slavery, what lessons can be drawn from payments to victims of other historical injustices in America?
By Adeel Hassan and Jack Healy
June 19, 2019
/snip
Native Americans did not get full control of money awarded to them.
After World War II, Congress created the Indian Claims Commission to pay compensation to any federally recognized tribe for land that had been seized by the United States. The groups mission was complicated by a paucity of written records, difficulties in putting a value on the land for its agricultural productivity or religious significance, and problems with determining boundaries and ownership from decades, or more than a century, earlier.
The results were disappointing for Native Americans. The commission paid out about $1.3 billion, the equivalent of less than $1,000 for each Native American in the United States at the time the commission dissolved in 1978. On one level, it was remarkable, said Melody McCoy, a lawyer for the Native American Rights Fund, a nonprofit group that has represented tribes in hundreds of major cases. Congress listened to the claims of tribal leaders.
But, Ms. McCoy said, the government took a paternalistic view, and kept Native Americans from having direct control of the funds, in the belief they were not competent to receive such large amounts of money. They did not make those awards, whether it was $200 million, $20 million or $20,000 they held that money in trust accounts, she said.
A separate agreement, struck with Congress in 1971, led to the biggest award $962 million worth of land in Alaska, some 44 million acres in return for Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts relinquishing their aboriginal claims to the rest of the state. Once again, the compensation was not awarded directly; instead, the land was put in the control of corporations, and the beneficiaries were given shares of stock in them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/reparations-slavery.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I would favor DIRECT payments to living grandchildren of slaves though very few would qualify
Tom Rinaldo
Jun 2020
#4
"A male former slave born in 1860 could easily have fathered a son born in 1910"
Polybius
Jun 2020
#43
Getting rid of all systemic racism, inequality, etc,. may be the biggest gift of all. I sense
42bambi
Jun 2020
#25
So many in this country won't even acknowledge the humanity of African Americans.
LuvLoogie
Jun 2020
#16
Reparations would be not just for slavery, but for policies that lasted well into the 1990s
greenjar_01
Jun 2020
#19
Ending the property tax basis for funding schools would go a long way toward equalizing things. nt
MoonRiver
Jun 2020
#20
Another symbolism issue that's impossible to implement and an election loser.
brooklynite
Jun 2020
#29
Because many tribes had treaties and for others, they rarely called attention to it
BumRushDaShow
Jun 2020
#61