We, an organization of white Americans, express our deep remorse for the ongoing wrongs committed by our people against Black men, women and children in the U.S. and throughout the Diaspora who are descendants of enslaved Africans.
We see the United States of America as immoral from its very foundation because of the lie of white superiority and the commission of the crime of slavery, and we dedicate our lives to fundamental change within ourselves, and in our society.
We dedicate our time, energy, talent and resources to support and advocate, without reservation, the movement for full and complete reparations to the descendants of enslaved Africans in the U.S. and throughout the Diaspora.
We support and advocate reparations proposals put forward by Black leaders, recognizing that white Americans have no part in deciding what is required to repair and restore the descendants of enslaved Africans individually and collectively, and that these decisions belong to Black people alone.
We state that full and complete reparations must be paid not only for slavery and the atrocities that flowed from slavery, but for the ongoing effects of slavery that exist today.
We mourn the fact that many things can never be restored to the descendants of enslaved Africans: the lives of countless people, the connection to family lineage and home, and the mother tongue and original identity.
We appreciate the efforts of white abolitionists toward emancipation, while realizing that true emancipation of the enslaved Africans will not be achieved until their descendants enjoy the freedoms that reparations will provide.
We state that the U.S. Government is obligated to provide financial and other support for citizenship choices of the descendants of enslaved Africans, whether they choose full and equal U.S. citizenship, semi-autonomous or autonomous self-government, dual citizenship or migration/repatriation.
We express our intent to call upon the families of the white American aristocracy that directly benefited from slavery, to voluntarily pay their fair share of the reparations debt with wealth gained from slavery, the slave trade, and slavery related enterprises.
We are truly grateful to the Black community for allowing us an opportunity through the reparations movement to make amends, however inadequate, for the crimes of chattel slavery and slavery's ongoing effects - crimes most unconscionable, most damaging, and most burdensome to the human spirit.
We express remorse for all crimes committed in the name of white supremacy and we pray for justice to be done in the United States of America and around the earth.
A high point for all of us was meeting the international reparations leader, Mr. Silis Muhammad, when he came to our meeting place to speak with us. Mr. Muhammad, who has been the CEO of the Lost-Found Nation of Islam since 1977, encouraged us in our work, and told us that the most important thing we could do was to continue what we are doing. He spoke for nearly an hour and a half about the effects of slavery on African Americans throughout the entire Americas region, and about the need for collective political recognition of all of the descendants of enslaved Africans by the UN and the world community.
As a person who has hungered, thirsted, to meet other white people who feel as I do--that assisting in bringing about reparations is a central, driving passion of their lives--you can just imagine what a thrilling weekend this was for me. I was also very moved to see how Silis Muhammad and other people we met in the Lost-Found Nation of Islam and elsewhere welcomed our efforts. It all made me surer than ever that we are right, and that a life used fighting for reparations is a life well spent.
Reparations for slavery? ROTFLMAO It'll NEVER happen!
But I personally appreciate the high level of consciousness of some Whites who not only acknowledge the atrocities of slavery, but slavery's residual effects which still plague our society today - more than 100 years after abolition.
I wonder how many of these people have ancestors who were actually involved in slavery.
Quote:
We, an organization of white Americans, express our deep remorse for the ongoing wrongs committed by our people against Black men, women and children in the U.S. and throughout the Diaspora who are descendants of enslaved Africans.
We see the United States of America as immoral from its very foundation because of the lie of white superiority and the commission of the crime of slavery, and we dedicate our lives to fundamental change within ourselves, and in our society.
This opening statement reflects the common sentiment among whites like these: ultimately we are responsible for black peoples’ suffering. Sometimes I really question if white people like these folks consider black people their equals in humanity. Too many see black folks as just passive participants in their own existence.
I also feel that whites like these really aren't concerned about black folks' past suffering. They just like to appear morally superior to other white people.
The ODR would disintegrate if a group with some clout pushed the reparations agenda. Why? Because instead of identity we're talking about the distribution of wealth to people with "legitimate" claim to reap the benefits of past ancestors' suffering.
Associate African ancestry with potential wealth and see how many people rush to claim it. Similar to all of the people looking for Indian casino money.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1842 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Wed 12 Jul 2006 20:55 Post subject:
Basically, this is a group of White liberals trying to alleviate their "White guilt". Deep down inside, subconsciously, they think themselves superior to Blacks and most Whites, though they would never admit it. They mean well though. But their ultimate effects are disasterous to the people whom they are trying to help, IMO. White liberals think that Blacks are helpless and cannot achieve anything without their help. The Rev Jesse Lee Peterson says, "with friends like these, who needs enemies??"
Associate African ancestry with potential wealth and see how many people rush to claim it.
This has already happened. There have been many cases of White Americans claiming affirmative action benefits on the basis of the one-drop rule (that they have distant Black ancestry). In some of those cases, affirmative action benefits have been denied. Where benefits were denied, some claimants have sued in court. Of those, some have won, and the employer ordered to grant the benefits. Others have lost and been convicted of fraud for claiming distant Blackness.
The difference has hinged upon the support of the local Black community leaders. Where local Black leaders have supported a claimant, the courts have granted benefits, despite total lack of genealogical evidence of Black ancestry. Where local Black leaders have objected, courts have denied benefits despite overwhelming documentary evidence of recent African ancestry.
The point, children, is power. Who wields it. Who must bend under its lash. If some sort of reparations bill were passed, I suggest that it would wind up the same way. In my view, this is why leaders of the reparations movement do not want money distributed to real individuals. "Just make out the check to my Swiss bank account."
Associate African ancestry with potential wealth and see how many people rush to claim it.
This has already happened. There have been many cases of White Americans claiming affirmative action benefits on the basis of the one-drop rule (that they have distant Black ancestry). In some of those cases, affirmative action benefits have been denied. Where benefits were denied, some claimants have sued in court. Of those, some have won, and the employer ordered to grant the benefits. Others have lost and been convicted of fraud for claiming distant Blackness.
The difference has hinged upon the support of the local Black community leaders. Where local Black leaders have supported a claimant, the courts have granted benefits, despite total lack of genealogical evidence of Black ancestry. Where local Black leaders have objected, courts have denied benefits despite overwhelming documentary evidence of recent African ancestry.
The point, children, is power. Who wields it. Who must bend under its lash. If some sort of reparations bill were passed, I suggest that it would wind up the same way. In my view, this is why leaders of the reparations movement do not want money distributed to real individuals. "Just make out the check to my Swiss bank account."
I agree. Those reparation checks would see more fraud than a FEMA debit card. But I think affirmative action, as it relates to quotas, school admission and "bump ups" is easier to support and localize than reparations (defined as monetary/land compensation) would be. IMO, the dialogue on reparations, at this point, lacks the unimpeachble moral authority that affirmative action had in the 60s. I think the backlash against identity politics and white guilt would generate fierce opposition to reparations, and it would force proponents to get down to brass tacks and decide just who in this country is Black and who isn't. And since we know there is no one way to skin this cat, and problems upon problems would ensue in trying to determine how much/what kind of slave ancestry deserves compensation and from whom. Using myself as an example: Should a Black/Haitian American such as myself get half a check and take the rest up with France? Or should my economic status/education level be factored out because I don't "need" reparations? Does my daughter, who is partially descended from Black slave owners in the US and mulatto slave owners in Haiti, have to both compensate and punish herself or does she get some kind of reduced benefit? And this is assuming our families trees don't take unwelcome turns into whiteness (no luck there)?
I think the possibilities are fascinating. I for one would pay money to see the rhetorical gyrations of Jesse Jackson.
This has already happened. There have been many cases of White Americans claiming affirmative action benefits on the basis of the one-drop rule (that they have distant Black ancestry). In some of those cases, affirmative action benefits have been denied. Where benefits were denied, some claimants have sued in court. Of those, some have won, and the employer ordered to grant the benefits. Others have lost and been convicted of fraud for claiming distant Blackness.
Elizabeth Lake says she has always thought of herself as a Native American.
So two years ago, when filling out a state-government job application that asked her race or culture, she didn't think twice about checking the box labeled "American Indian."
She eventually landed a job with the Department of Social and Health Services. But within the first week, a supervisor pulled Lake out of a training session.
"She said she could not visibly determine my race," recalls Lake, who has long, dark hair, dark eyes and a light complexion.
The supervisor told Lake she had been hired to meet an affirmative-action goal for American Indians, and that if she could not prove her race, the job offer would be withdrawn.
The next day, Lake brought in documents showing her great-grandfather was a member of the Chickasaw Nation.
But her supervisors told her she needed proof that she was a member of a tribe - and that she had a month to produce it.
She didn't. She lost her job.
Lake has since learned she is 1/128th Chickasaw Indian, enough for her to get a tribal-affiliation card, sufficient documentation for the state.
Now she's suing DSHS.
As her case illustrates, running and policing affirmative-action policies can be tricky.
Among the most challenging and uncomfortable tasks is verifying the race and ethnicity of applicants who get jobs through affirmative action.
Consider the questions a supervisor faces: When do you challenge or accept an employee's race or ethnicity? What proof do you accept? What do you do when you find out people aren't who they say they are?
"It is a very difficult and sensitive thing to do," acknowledged Roy Standifer, administrator of the Workforce Diversity Program of the state's Department of Personnel. "For example, how do you prove you're Hispanic?"
Such vexing questions are being raised in the national debate over the future of affirmative action - a debate now centered on Washington state, where voters face a decision this November on a ballot measure known as Initiative 200.
I-200 has the stated goal of ending preferences based on race, ethnicity and gender in state and local government employment, contracting and public education. If passed, it would end affirmative action as it is now practiced in state and local public agencies.
Rep. Scott Smith, R-Graham, co-chairman of the campaign for I-200, said the state wouldn't have to worry about verifying applicants' backgrounds if it didn't use preferences based on race or ethnicity.
"It's pitting one race against another," he said.
Accusations of `racial fraud'
State administrators are divided on the policy.
Supporters of the practice say it may be awkward, but it's necessary. They frequently cite the case of the Malone twins of Massachusetts.
In 1975, Philip and Paul Malone took Boston's civil-service exam to become firefighters, but weren't hired because their scores were too low. Two years later, after a court ordered Boston to hire more minority firefighters, the Malones again took the exam. Their scores remained the same, but this time they were hired - because they had switched their racial classification from white to black.
No one challenged them until 1988, when both applied for promotion. Reviewing their applications, a commissioner who knew them personally was surprised to see them identified as African Americans.
When questioned, the twins claimed that between 1975 and 1977, they learned their great-grandmother was a light-skinned black woman. The department rejected the claim and fired them for "racial fraud."
Black and Hispanic leaders blasted the Boston Fire Department, and one charged that as many as 60 firefighters had gotten jobs through racial fraud. The city investigated 11 firefighters who said they were Hispanic, and two of them resigned.
Most public agencies rely on applicants to be honest and accurate in identifying themselves, but all fear such incidents.
State asking questions
Washington state's six-page job application asks job-seekers to volunteer their race or culture on a page titled "Affirmative Action Information."
The page has a series of boxes an applicant can check. At the bottom, it defines the choices: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black/African American, Hispanic, White/Caucasian, person with disabilities, disabled veteran and Vietnam-era veteran.
Except for the category of white, those seven - as well as women and people age 40 and over - make up the groups designated to benefit from affirmative-action policies.
The form lists definitions of each category, but says nothing about requiring applicants to prove who they say they are.
Most departments accept whatever race or culture the applicant checks. But in the early 1990s, the state began surveying its employees to check the accuracy of its ethnic and racial headcount.
That survey was begun in part because the federal Americans with Disabilities Act changed the definition of disability, making it stricter than before. But it was also in response to criticism by Native-American leaders and the state Commission on Hispanic Affairs.
"The criticism was that individuals were putting themselves down as being Native American and Hispanic and were not," said Margarita Mendoza de Sugiyama, the top aide on affirmative action for Govs. Booth Gardner and Mike Lowry. "And I am sad to say it was true."
At the conclusion of the survey, the numbers on the race and ethnicity of state employees changed, and the biggest drops were in the number of Native Americans and people with disabilities.
The Department of Labor and Industries, for example, where Mendoza de Sugiyama now oversees diversity and affirmative action, surveyed 2,600 employees in 1994. In cases in which employees could not - or chose not to - prove they fit into one of the nine affirmative-action categories, the agency changed their classification. More than 10 percent of the employees were changed, most for claiming disabilities or veteran status.
About a quarter involved race:
-- Twenty-nine changed from Native American to Caucasian.
-- Nineteen changed from Asian American to Caucasian.
-- Nineteen changed from Hispanic to Caucasian.
-- Six changed from African American to Caucasian.
Unclear, though, was whether applicants had lied or simply balked at providing proof of their race. Of the six whose classification changed from black to white, Mendoza de Sugiyama said: "When the verification process began, they chose not to participate or not to provide the documentation."
Nonetheless, the survey discovered some who had clearly cheated. Some non-Hispanic women, for example, would marry a man with a Spanish surname, then claim to be Hispanic.
Although some of the cheaters had benefited from affirmative action, none lost their jobs, Mendoza de Sugiyama said: "Absolution was given to every employee."
Accurate numbers are crucial to the goals and timetables of affirmative-action programs.
That's why Mendoza de Sugiyama has argued for verification.
But Rita Cooper, of the Department of Parks and Recreation, thinks that puts another obstacle in the way of people who already face plenty.
"This is very much about people who are disenfranchised who now have to prove their membership in a disenfranchised group," she said.
Employees with multiracial backgrounds find it particularly hard to prove their race, said Cooper, who is herself multiracial. She feels the problems created by requiring verification outweigh the benefits of finding a few people who are lying about their backgrounds.
"I don't find a lot of people standing in line to say they're black."
Verification - a touchy process
The debate has never been resolved - and resurfaces at times, as it did this month at a meeting of state affirmative-action officers.
A subcommittee looking into the issue sent out basic guidelines, suggesting claims of race, ethnicity or gender should be accepted on the same basis as claims of education and experience.
"In the absence of contradictory information, the protected-group status claimed on an employment application should be accepted," the guidelines state.
But they also suggest that for job candidates getting a boost over others higher on the eligibility list to meet an affirmative-action goal, "greater scrutiny is appropriate."
The only state agency to require verification by every employee who could benefit from affirmative action is the Department of Labor and Industries. Mendoza de Sugiyama says she sits down with each new employee, pulls out his or her file and asks for documentation.
"It's been fascinating for me," she said. "It's not like we're all card-carrying members of something."
For some, the records needed are clear: a Vietnam-era veteran must produce a military-discharge form; a disabled veteran must show a letter from federal Veterans Affairs; a person with disabilities must show a note from a doctor.
For African Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanics, Standifer's guidelines are vague: "Birth certificate stating ethnicity, or other verifiable proof."
That standard poses problems. The state of Washington stopped putting race on birth certificates in 1968. Even though it added ethnicity as a category in 1988, that information also is confidential. To divulge that information, the Health Department requires a court order.
And for Hispanics, the standard is even more difficult, since that term describes not a race but a culture.
Mendoza de Sugiyama said she also accepts naturalization papers, genealogy records, military papers, marriage certificates, even family Bibles. If a person has none of these documents, he or she can swear to circumstances and culture in a notarized affidavit.
Native-American status
The strictest and most specific documentation is required for Native Americans - a tribal-affiliation card or a letter from a tribe.
That requirement is based on the complex history of the issue of Native-American identity, according to James Nason, a University of Washington anthropology professor and curator of the Burke Museum.
At the turn of the century, the U.S. government began using the "blood quantum" rule - defining an Indian as someone who has at least one-quarter of his blood from one person from one tribe. For some federal services, that's still the official definition.
But long before Europeans arrived, the continent's 750 tribes already had their own rules of membership, many of which were based not only on birthright, but also on shared culture, behavior and participation, Nason said. Outsiders sometimes were adopted as members of the tribe. So affirmative action's litmus test for Native Americans has become the tribe's recognition that someone is a member.
Many people suddenly discover they had a great-grandparent who was a Native American, and they often call asking how they can claim benefits reserved for Indians, says Jennifer Scott, who directs the Governor's Office of Indian Affairs. She is suspicious of such revelations, and solidly supports affirmative action's litmus test of tribal recognition in one form or another.
Elizabeth Lake says that growing up in Thurston County, she and her family "just knew" they were part Native American.
She always stood up for Native Americans in class and among her schoolmates and friends, she said.
That's why she says she was stunned when her supervisor questioned her status and ultimately took away her job.
She filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission, an appeal with the state Personnel Board, and finally retained an attorney to file a federal lawsuit charging racial discrimination, invasion of privacy and emotional distress. She is seeking damages, but is unsure if she wants her job back.
Lake's claim meets skepticism from a surprisingly wide range of people, from state affirmative-action administrators to I-200 co-chair Smith, who said he is 1/32nd Cherokee but has never thought of himself as a Native American.
Lake is the only member of her family to reclaim that part of her heritage, and her attempts to reconnect that link and her lawsuit, her lawyer says, have been met with mixed emotions by her family.
But the incident has drawn Lake closer to the Chickasaw Nation, a 38,000-member tribe based in Ada, Okla.
Since losing her job, Lake, 22, has volunteered at a Head Start program for the Nisqually tribe, and has spent most of her free time researching her background, compiling genealogy charts and tracing her lineage.
"I don't want anybody to have to go through what I did," Lake said. "I think what they did was wrong, and it needs to be fixed. And I want my heritage back."
The whole thing is a joke. If anything, ancestry does not automatically make you discriminated. Show you have been discriminated against. SHow that you live in a community that has less opportunities. If you claim Native American IN NEED OF SUPPORT, show you were raised in the many empoverished communites. Blood quantum my arse.
..... and Hispanic leaders blasted the Boston Fire Department, and one charged that as many as 60 firefighters had gotten jobs through racial fraud. The city investigated 11 firefighters who said they were Hispanic, and two of them resigned.
*GASP*
These Hispanics leaders have some incredible nerve (true gall), to protest 60 white americans, when they are the biggest "racial frauds" there are in this country. Whats 60 firefighters vs. the millions of hispanics, who are as white as the Klan's robe(Cubans, Puertoricans), and priveledged, and the first in line to take advantage of "minority" benefits??
These Hispanics leaders have some incredible nerve (true gall), to protest 60 white americans, when they are the biggest "racial frauds" there are in this country. Whats 60 firefighters vs. the millions of hispanics, who are as white as the Klan's robe(Cubans, Puertoricans), and priveledged, and the first in line to take advantage of "minority" benefits??
The point was that the affirmatve action regulations in effect mandated preferences for Hispanics, merely for being Hispanics. Such a thing may be just or unjust--I have no opinion on this. But it was the law, like it or not. The eleven Hispanics who were hounded by the Black leadership to the point that two resigned rather than fight it, were specifically accused of not being "racially" Hispanic enough, but of being merely culturally Hispanic. If the leadership of the Black community had wanted friendly relations with the Hispanic community, this surely was not the way to go about it.
If Phil is saying that Hispanics and other minorities do not deserve affirmative action benefits because their ancestors did not suffer as much as U.S. Blacks, and that, law or no law, nobody but U.S. Blacks should receive such benefits, no matter what the regulations say, then I can understand his argument. But if Phil is saying that some Hispanics are "racially" Hispanic while others are merely culturally Hispanic, then his argument makes no sense. How could anyone tell them apart?
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 13 Jul 2006 02:15 Post subject: Heading for trouble
fwsweet wrote:
...
If Phil is saying that Hispanics and other minorities do not deserve affirmative action benefits because their ancestors did not suffer as much as U.S. Blacks, and that, law or no law, nobody but U.S. Blacks should receive such benefits, no matter what the regulations say, then I can understand his argument. But if Phil is saying that some Hispanics are "racially" Hispanic while others are merely culturally Hispanic, then his argument makes no sense. How could anyone tell them apart?
Yes!
Either they take the benefits to ALL hispanics, or to ANY.
By the way, if the benefits are taken from Hispanics why not from Blacks as well. Also, I believe is not a good idea for Black leaders to start conflicts with Hispanics. Particularly now that Hispanics are the second ethnic group in the U.S. after Whites.
Actually, I believe all people should be treated equaly by the state. Why some have to have benefits because theirs phenotype and others should be forgotten? By to separate Hispanics by that criteria when regardless of color all came from a foreign culture? Nonsense.
..... and Hispanic leaders blasted the Boston Fire Department, and one charged that as many as 60 firefighters had gotten jobs through racial fraud. The city investigated 11 firefighters who said they were Hispanic, and two of them resigned.
*GASP*
These Hispanics leaders have some incredible nerve (true gall), to protest 60 white americans, when they are the biggest "racial frauds" there are in this country. Whats 60 firefighters vs. the millions of hispanics, who are as white as the Klan's robe(Cubans, Puertoricans), and priveledged, and the first in line to take advantage of "minority" benefits??
Gasp, is someone playing the victimism role again?
I wonder how many of these people have ancestors who were actually involved in slavery.
Quote:
We, an organization of white Americans, express our deep remorse for the ongoing wrongs committed by our people against Black men, women and children in the U.S. and throughout the Diaspora who are descendants of enslaved Africans.
We see the United States of America as immoral from its very foundation because of the lie of white superiority and the commission of the crime of slavery, and we dedicate our lives to fundamental change within ourselves, and in our society.
This opening statement reflects the common sentiment among whites like these: ultimately we are responsible for black peoples’ suffering. Sometimes I really question if white people like these folks consider black people their equals in humanity. Too many see black folks as just passive participants in their own existence.
I also feel that whites like these really aren't concerned about black folks' past suffering. They just like to appear morally superior to other white people.
I totally agree.
White Liberal (aren't they always? ) Guilt:
"We must save the colored man since he is incapable of saving himself".
Personally I think a formal apology from the U.S. government for slavery is warranted and long overdue. It is no different than other formal apologies offered by the U.S. government to wronged populations (i.e., interned Japanese Americans). Sometimes "meaningless" (i.e., non-monetary) symbolic gestures of recognition can have a powerful impact on people. Just look at the Statue of Liberty and the monuments in D.C.
If African and Europeans nations can apologize for their roles in conducting the Atlantic slave trade then the U.S. can too. The threat of lawsuits is not a valid reason not to do so, especially since the legal standing on reparations is tenuous.
If Phil is saying that Hispanics and other minorities do not deserve affirmative
Phil345 believes that white people, regardless of national/linguistic origin, are majority Americans, and that white people from spanish speaking countries, should be not be made an exception to this general rule.
Quote:
But if Phil is saying that some Hispanics are "racially" Hispanic while others are merely culturally Hispanic, then his argument makes no sense. How could anyone tell them apart?
Phil345 is saying that some hispanics (40-50% of them), are racially white, and finds it extremely hypocritical, that Hispanic leaders were codemning americans who took advantage of minority benefits, for "racial fraud", because those persons were white. They (hispanics), routinely take advantage of minority benefits and are as white as it gets.
They should start applying these "blood quantum" guidelines to those of spanish speaking background.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 13 Jul 2006 23:40 Post subject: Other appologies
sagascend wrote:
...If African and Europeans nations can apologize for their roles in conducting the Atlantic slave trade then the U.S. can too. The threat of lawsuits is not a valid reason not to do so, especially since the legal standing on reparations is tenuous.
Hey,
In Latin America we are still waiting our gold and silver back from Spain.
And we are also waiting for a formal appology from the U.S. for 100 interventions in our countries, invasions, territorial loses and demographic changes included.
But you are right. Saying I am sorry for the participation in the Atlantic slave trade could be a good start to forgive the past.
After all, nations and people are like individuals. They make big mistakes too. But they should recognize their errors and promise to not repeat them once again.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
