Slavery reparations hearing ignites fiery debate in Congress

[Chris]

They're only confusing to you, it seems. States in the North owned slaves longer than states in the South did. Just the facts.

The way it was distinguished earlier was emancipation only applied to rebellious states and not southern states loyal to the north, though that would make them northern States, and there, in order to free the states, slave owners received reparations.

[Sergeant Gleed]

When I said educated, I didn't mean college degrees but in things like technical knowledge, organizational skills and more importantly in this context, sensitivity training etc. In Union shops sometimes nonperforming workers are encouraged to become forepersons because then they lose their union protection and can be easily fired for being lazy or incompetent or belligerent troublemakers. In other cases, sometimes the worst kind become shop stewards and encourage the kind of behavior that generates complaints by protecting those individuals who harass or otherwise make life unpleasant for minority co-workers. There are also cases where workers become supervisors just because they've been there a very long time. It doesn't always mean that they are the brightest bulbs on the tree.

In any case these environments can readily become toxic for anyone who is a minority, particularly if the plant manager is also biased or completely insensitive.

Maybe the purpose of a shop is production, not "sensitivity"?

[Sergeant Gleed]

They're only confusing to you, it seems. States in the North owned slaves longer than states in the South did. Just the facts.

Lincoln couldn't afford to offend Kentucky and Maryland or the Union would have failed.

The was was about slavery, in thst the Democrats in the states claiming secession were doing so to keep slavery, but the primary goal of the President was hus Constitutional Oath to protect the Constitution and preserve the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a moral gesture that also legally permitted the union troops in the Confederacy to liberate contrabands.

[Ransom]

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/initiative...st.cfm#hostile

Schwietzers Construction and Taylor's Shellfish Co......you win.

[MMC]

After the Civil War.....there were only Ten Republican slave owners. Dinesh DeSouza has researched it out. 10 that were living in the US.

Oh and as to the North it was Democrats in the North that owned slaves.


This alleged fiery debate was and is nothing more than distraction by the left due to their Democrats not doing anything for the country and ALL its citizens. A distraction to keep focus off their resistance. As well as to keep the focus off their start of a civil war. Their sedition.

[Rationalist]

I suppose that being in New Jersey is a factor. You are in a tri-state area that is home to many corporations and large black populations that are socially active. Having 120 employees makes hiring practices more quantifiable than having 10 employees. I think if you were in Nebraska or Kansas, it might be a bit different.

While location certainly has a bearing on things, most black people live in urban areas anyway. There doesn't seem to be a big issue with racism in hiring in most urban areas. It certainly doesn't seem to be a problem in the urban areas of NC, for example. Greensboro, Charlotte, Durham, and Raleigh all have large black populations and a lot of black corporate personnel.

If a racial minority faces discrimination in an area that is 95% white, then the best solution is probably to move rather than to have government force people to hire someone they don't want around. That's how the problem was largely solved historically. After the Civil War, a lot of black people moved out of the South and into the urban North. Overall, that had an economically beneficial effect for most of them.

Nowadays, most jobs are in urban areas anyway, so the few areas where black people are scarce don't seem to be that big of a deal. I know that, if I was black, I would prefer to live in an area that had a significant black population. I'd probably feel a little weird if I was one of the only black people in a given area. It's no different from how white people often feel the same way if they are one of the only whites in a given area.

Most people naturally want to congregate among people that are similar to them. I don't think legislation can really change that.

All that aside, I understand why we have anti-discriminatory laws, but ultimately, I wouldn't want to receive services from someone that doesn't want to serve me. I also wouldn't want to work for someone that didn't want to hire me. I would assume the average black person would feel the same regarding these things. People don't like the feeling of being unwanted.

[Rationalist]

No, these lawsuits are also brought by individuals. The EEOC closes most cases without concluding whether discrimination occurred. The agency doesn’t have the resources to really properly investigate most of the reported cases of discrimination, so unless a private lawsuit is filed, most discrimination goes unaddressed. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...stigation-eeoc

Well, most potential discrimination goes unaddressed. If it hasn't been confirmed, then it could go either way. It's kind of like when people discuss sexual assault cases or rape. A lot of cases don't go very far, so as a result, we don't actually know the real amount of false accusations that occur. We only know how many have been proven to be false, just like we only know how many have been proven to be legitimate.

[Rationalist]

Those that require that the taxes from each community fund their own schools and other infrastructure.

This again? For the upteenth time, it doesn't work that way. You know who pays for urban schools? Suburban tax payers.

It depends on the area. Different counties and cities handle things differently. Where I live, the county has a single school system that spreads funds relatively evenly between all the schools. That being said, people can still make private donations to a particular school, which can result in some disparity.

In St. Louis, they had a system where the city had its own school system, and people living outside of the city limits had separate school systems. The funding situation got so bad that the state of Missouri had to intervene and run things supplemented by state funds.

So, there's a lot of variance in taxation and the repercussions of it.

[Mister D]

It depends on the area. Different counties and cities handle things differently. Where I live, the county has a single school system that spreads funds relatively evenly between all the schools. That being said, people can still make private donations to a particular school, which can result in some disparity.

In St. Louis, they had a system where the city had its own school system, and people living outside of the city limits had separate school systems. The funding situation got so bad that the state of Missouri had to intervene and run things supplemented by state funds.

So, there's a lot of variance in taxation and the repercussions of it.

The state intervenes wherever the tax base dries up. We spend generously on education.

[Rationalist]

The state intervenes wherever the tax base dries up. We spend generously on education.

This is true. The problem isn't spending as much as it is how money is spent. Public pensions suck up a lot of funds, when we should instead pay public employees on par with their private equivalents while also limiting their pensions to their private equivalents.