The United States Government Ought to Pay Reparations to African Americans

For the record, I didn't feel it was necessary to provide my own definition of African-American seeing how personal definitions can skew one's agenda and so therefore, I felt it was not necessary to provide my own definition. I therefore felt, it was valid enough to go with "my opponent's" definition regarding the term "African-American." My opponent states in the following: "To defend my first point, while theatlantic may be biased in some cases, it is correct in the statement that there are no former slaves alive today." I would argue that if this news source is bias in other areas what makes their viewpoint objectively valid in others? I would submit that any source that is relevant to a subject matter ought to be objectively valid in all respects. Using websites that have political leans especially conservative websites in which conservative views are known to be prejudicial against African-Americans, questions the nature of my opponents ability to substantiate their claim using an objective source. But whether or not African-Americans alive are not directly related to slaves is besides the point of reparations. Reparations is not just about the monetary payment from slavery, but the subsequent damages that most slkaves, former slaves and their descendants endure during pre and post civil war. My opponent forgets that many African-Americans endured racism, rape, torture and segregation. My opponent failed to realize that African-Americans despite being "freed," and I use that term loosely believes that upon freedom one is released from physical bondage, but my opponent forgets that racism was a byproduct of slavery, and because it was a byproduct, both slavery and racism were concurrent and subsequent damages continued. So we're talking about from 1619 to 1865 and then from 1865 to 1950-60's is when African-Americans had complete "civil rights" ( also use the term civil rights loosely considering we still continue to fight civil rights). So the argument is thus: "Are we discussing reparations from slavery from the onset until the ending, or are we going to include subsequent damages that are the direct result from the systemic racism in place that many Africans endured which directly affect the descendants of slaves (whether my opponent admits or not there are still African-American generations that still are effected by the residual effects of racism from slavery times). In essence you cannot have one without the other because history does not deny the system that was in place to make Africans inferior which was slavery and in post slavery African-Americans still continued to have second class citizen status so my opponent has to answer for those particular damages as well." In regards to the Mormon atrocity, my opponent is attempting a red herring by citing the Mormon atrocity as comparable to the issues of slavery and the African-American plight. My opponent also failed to answer my question whether it was in reference to Executive 44, or some other incident. Again, these are two separate issues that are unrelated. The question of whether Mormons deserve reparations ought to be asked to the Mormon, not in this discussion. If indeed we are entertaining red herrings, then we can ask why the U.S paid $20,000 and an apology to every surviving internee a price tag of approximately $1.25 billion for as the L.A times called "It acknowledges "the fundamental injustice of the evacuation, relocation, and internment" of the 120,000 men, women and children, mostly West Coast residents of Japanese ancestry, in the months after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, propelling the United States into the war." We can discuss why one group gets reparations but not others however I find citing the Mormon issue in comparison to a centuries old atrocity is bit of a red herring on the subject matter so my opponent's view does not stand on this matter. My opponent fails to recall that It was Smith"s successor, Brigham Young, who adopted the policies that now haunt the church (Mormonism). He described black people as cursed with dark skin as punishment for Cain"s murder of his brother. But on that I digress. My opponent states: "The pro stated that these reparations would come from the federal government. What the pro appears to have forgotten is the fact that the federal government's funds come from the people through taxes. So the black americans will essentially be paying themselves." Apparently my opponent failed to recall the Japanese reparations as TAX FREE: "WASHINGTON " The House, with Rep. Norman Y. Mineta (D-San Jose) emotionally recalling his own experiences in a camp for Japanese-American internees during World War II, today gave final congressional approval to a bill expressing a national apology and providing a $20,000 tax-free payment to every surviving internee." See:http://articles.latimes.com... My opponent stated: "What the pro failed to realise is that according to my definition of african american, (which my opponent agrees to) it is possible to be white and 100% african." False. I committed a typo when I stated the following: "any South African who is white that happens to come to the United States wouldn't be socially considered African-American, given the historical socialization of the population being "color conscious." Besides, if we are discussing the reparation of the African-American people we have to rule out any foreigner who appears white, and/or is originally from South Africa who migrates to the states." Without skewing the discussion in another direction if we are staying with the current definition then we must question the term "origin." Whites who inhabit South Africa are not the indigenous people of South Africa, nor do they historically originate from South Africa as we can see the first settlers in South Africa began in the 17th century so by the term "origin" my opponent must be clear if he or she means origin as indigenous origin or citizen (born into the country). If my opponent asserts citizenry, then by default rules out any white South African of obtaining any benefit of reparations. In addition, we are discussing slavery which included "black people" not people of English or Dutch descent, so a white South African in that reality would not be able to receive benefits. Even if we take my opponents definition, it would be argued that in referring to slavery we are referring to a specific group of people which who their phenotype was black. "Another thing I would like to mention is that there were also white slaves in the United States" Another red herring, I would like to kindly remind my opponent to stay on one thought and not sidetrack the issue as he/she did with the mormon example. "So my points of affirmative action and black only scholarships still stand seeing as how according to my definition of reparations, (which the pro agrees to by default) affirmative action and black only scholarships are given in order to make up for a wrong done." Apparently my opponent failed to address my point in the fact that the government does not hand out "ethnic specific" grants or awards as I have submitted in my previous post that CEO (Center of Equal Opportunity) have argued against systems that favor one group over others. My opponent also fails to address my point which I have proven via link that whites actually benefit from affirmative action more than minorities, I kindly submit the link (again): http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Also: "According to the United States Labor Department, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women. The Department of Labor estimated that 6 million women workers are in higher occupational classifications today than they would have been without affirmative action policies." https://www.ncsu.edu... Also I have to ask my opponent since the mentioning of "white African-Americans" if in fact the government is awarding us via Affirmative Action and "ethnic specific" scholarships (which I have to remind my opponent are privately funded), what does that mean for white African-Americans? Do they too, reap the awards of American slavery via reparations through Affirmative Action and black scholarships? This furthers my inquiry...If in fact we are going by my opponent's definition and in fact my opponent submits that "blacks" have been awarded so if such is the case, how can a "white African-American" be awarded a "black scholarship" which is the result of in my oppnent's view "governmental reparations" if they are not black? In other words, how can a white African-American reap the rewards of reparations via affirmative action and "black scholarships" if 1) They are not black and 2) Their ancestors were not enslaved? Either my opponent needs to clear up some inconsistencies or submit defeat because these viewpoints are quite contradictory and inconsistent.