And how will they tell the difference between a descendant of a slave from a person sold in the 1700-1800 from someone who came to this country from a former slave trading country just 20 years ago? They would have the same-ish DNA but they were never slaves, their parents weren't slaves, their children weren't slaves. It's just a money grab and a lot of people who should qualify will probably never get a pay-out.
I don't particularly know how DNA works but according to mine, I have some African DNA in me, so where would I stand in this? Would it have to be a certain percentage, or will any amount do, if you don't present as particularly black but have the DNA would that person qualify? There are so many questions that just don't really have a cut and dried answer. But I really think it's just a certain few who will benefit. Kind of like BLM and the way a lot of those people defrauded and embezzled the money that was donated to the cause.
Bear in mind that this is CALIFORNIA.
Things only start being relevant in the 1850s, 1860s, and they've already identified the several 100 Black men that were brought to live to California AS slaves for a dozen years.
If your ancestors were enslaved in Georgia, you're shit out of luck if your family moved to California in 1890.
Go talk to Georgia!
This all gets watered down to the assumption that it is all about slavery and its not.
I wrote about this a week or so ago.
I really recommend looking at the CA report to understand what they propose.
It's not all loosey-goosey, not all about slavery, and there are people alive right now who would receive reparations directly
For example, until 1960, Black and white enlisted men received different pay.
That's one proposal, to give those men their back pay that they earned.
Veterans.
There's nothing wrong with that.
That's fucking fair and I can't imagine what person would be so mean as to keep a few hundred dollars away from some 80+ year old U.S. vets.
That's why they made a report: some, part, maybe all, may be adopted
On June 29, 2023, the Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans issued its final report to the California Legislature. The final report surveys the ongoing and compounding harms experienced by African Americans as a result of slavery and its lingering effects on...
oag.ca.gov
"
The state's first-in-the-nation reparations task force last year decided that some residents should win $1.2 million payouts as compensation for injustices from the slavery era onwards."
"Win". Smh.
Nowhere, not in one place, does the final version of that report ever say $1.2 million dollars.
That's some goddamn tabloid reporters math.
As far as the Senator, I looked at his educational background.
It's not in science. There's something about this all he doesn't understand or he wants the testing facility built in his district.
Some confirmation DNA testing might be required to confirm or reject, but nothing like the scale his words imply. That's ridiculous.
He's a career politician, meh, helping himself, no one else.
In a state that never had slavery
Turd. Yes it did.
A few in my hometown brought "theirs" with them.
After the war they shuffled them off to a tiny settlement far from the boundries and forbade Blacks altogether from the town from then on.
If they weren't getting labor for free, they certainly weren't going to take a job from a white man.
Our town split between those who came from the Southern states and those from the Northern states at one point over the whole thing.
The Northerners picked up their part of town and moved it a mile away. Gave it a different name.
California supported the fugitive slave act
Officially.
"California’s Supreme Court ruled that enslavers who came to California before it became a state — and thus was not technically a free state yet — should have the right to reclaim their human property."
I didn't realize that everyone didn't know this about California.
This is all public record, and I'd be happy to DM you the pertinent information, newspaper articles of the time, the town policies, the great schism, and the story of what happened to those freed men from my home town in Northern California.
When California became a state in 1850, it did not allow slavery. That's the history most people know. But in reality, California did allow slavery, and its early leaders sided with the South and the rights of enslavers through a litany of early laws. The effects of that racist foundation are...
www.kqed.org
You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.
