Current Events > Obama says black people should get reparations but white people won't allow it

(+) Yeah! (+)

Former President Barack Obama blamed "the politics of White resistance and resentment" as the reason why he didn't push financial reparations for Black Americans during his presidency.

On Monday, Obama and rock and roll legend Bruce Springsteen released the second episode of their new podcast, "Renegades: Born in the USA," where they spoke about race relations in the United States.
Toward the end of the episode, the two hosts spoke about reparations to Black Americans and whether or not the controversial policy would come to fruition.

Obama said he believes reparations are "justified" and that "theres not much question that the wealth the power of this country was built in significant part not exclusively, maybe not even the majority of it, but a large portion of it was built on the backs of slaves."

The former president claimed that a reparations proposal didnt make its way through the lawmaking process during his presidency due to "the politics of White resistance and resentment."

"And what I saw during my presidency was the politics of White resistance and resentment. The talk of 'welfare queens' and the talk of the 'undeserving' poor. And the backlash against affirmative action," Obama said. "All that made the prospect of actually proposing any kind of coherent, meaningful reparations program struck me as, politically, not only a nonstarter but potentially counterproductive."

Obama went on to say it was "perfectly understandable why working-class White folks, middle-class White folks, folks who are having trouble paying the bills or dealing with student loans, wouldn't be too thrilled" about the prospect of "a massive program that is designed to deal with the past but isn't speaking to their future."

Obama appears to have changed his position on reparations over the years. He opposed reparations during his 2008 presidential campaign, arguing that "the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed."

Bills regarding reparations have been introduced to Congress for over three decades, with the most recent being a proposal from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas.

Jackson Lee introduced H.R. 40 to the House of Representatives, which aims to set up the Committee to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans. According to the bills summary, the committee "shall examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies."

President Biden hasn't endorsed reparations outright, but he has voiced his support for forming a commission to study the issue. White House press secretary Jen Psaki reaffirmed this position last week to reporters.

Full Article: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-springsteen-podcast-reparations-white-resistance



Isn't that kinda worse than saying you don't support them?

"I support them but I have no spine and don't stand by my convictions" is a weird stance

---

dental plan!

---

Ah Fox News

---

ThunderTrain posted...

Ah Fox News

?

They are direct quotes from Obama.

---

"I support them but I have no spine and don't stand by my convictions" is a weird stance

The first black president, who was met with coordinated, racially motivated attacks before he even took office, felt pursuing reparations would have been counterproductive politically. given the backlash from white America whenever the subject is even broached, his assessment was correct

---

BeantownHero posted...

The first black president, who was met with coordinated, racially motivated attacks before he even took office, felt pursuing reparations would have been counterproductive politically. given the backlash from white America whenever the subject is even broached, his assessment was correct

If you say so

Screams of Tulsi voting "Present" to me.

People voted for you to represent them and you back down on stating what you think because you're weak willed?

Kinda sad really.

Say what you will about Trump but he had no problems stating what he believed no matter how stupid it was

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

If you say so

Screams of Tulsi voting "Present" to me.

People voted for you to represent them and you back down on stating what you think because you're weak willed?

Kinda sad really.

Say what you will about Trump but he had no problems stating what he believed no matter how stupid it was

Most white Americans dont support reparations. Whatever those reasons are, that's simply the truth. Obama needed white voters in order to secure the election, so it doesn't make sense, if you're trying to not only stay president, but actually get things done, to pursue legislation a major part of your base vehemently opposes


---

BeantownHero posted...

Most white Americans dont support reparations. Whatever those reasons are, that's simply the truth. Obama needed white voters in order to secure the election, so it doesn't make sense, if you're trying to not only stay president, but actually get things done, to pursue legislation a major part of your base vehemently opposes

so why not do the right thing during his second term since he didn't have to worry about getting reelected again?

---

BignutzisBack posted...

so why not do the right thing during his second term since he didn't have to worry about getting reelected again?

because he knew there would be an election after his term was done? again, it's not politically feasible, if your goal is to maintain power and actually get things done, to force legislation through your support base doesnt agree with.

The problem ain't Barack, its "progressives" who think all they have to do to earn that label is vote D.

---

BeantownHero posted...

Most white Americans dont support reparations. Whatever those reasons are, that's simply the truth. Obama needed white voters in order to secure the election, so it doesn't make sense, if you're trying to not only stay president, but actually get things done, to pursue legislation a major part of your base vehemently opposes

I guess if that's what you want from a political figure

Someone you can't trust, don't know their stances, doesn't speak their mind or stands out for what they believe in and just submits to the majority because it's "easier" than trying to change things....

Even though "Change" was Obama's entire slogan.

I think that's actually worse than having an unpopular opinion.

I mean too this day we don't know what Obama's views on gay rights truly are.

---

BignutzisBack posted...

so why not do the right thing during his second term since he didn't have to worry about getting reelected again?

This isn't the kind of thing you can make happen via executive action. And Congress was controlled by the Republicans for six of Obama's eight years as President. To say reparations were a non-starter at that point is an understatement at best.

---

This is just a simple admission that redistribution exists only by the grace of those redistributed from.

UnfairRepresent posted...

?

They are direct quotes from Obama.

?

Fox News

---

ImAMarvel posted...

Yeah, pretty much. It's another example of the sheer transparency of white supremacy and yet people refuse to see it anyway.

Kind of a circular argument...

"If you don't don't agree with me then that shows you're a white supremacist!" seems to lack critical thought

---

ImAMarvel posted...

I mean, if you just look all around you, there's evidence of systemic white supremacy everywhere in society but people just choose not to see it.

Even if that is true, and that is an if:

That doesn't mean if you don't support reperations for the descendants of black slaves then you're a white supremacist.

Hell Barack Obama himself is a descendant of John Punch, the first US Slave in history.

Should multi-millionaire $275,000 for a 7 minute speech Obama be getting reperations from the taxes of guys earning $7.50 an hour working at a gas station including black guys?

It's not as simple as "Agree with this or ur a nazi!"

---

meralonne posted...

This isn't the kind of thing you can make happen via executive action. And Congress was controlled by the Republicans for six of Obama's eight years as President. To say reparations were a non-starter at that point is an understatement at best.

nah, Obama should have told both Republicans that hated him AND white progressives who didnt support reparations, to fuck off.

because we all know that's how economic policy, especially for black people, gets accomplished in America


---

ImAMarvel posted...

Ehh, maybe that statement is a little radical but think about it. It's pretty clear that the black American population is traumatized and devastated after centuries of systemic abuse, discrimination, and slavery. And you can make a pretty good argument that a lot of America's wealth was founded on the exploitation of black labor. Not only that but it's not like discrimination against blacks ended after slavery as well. If you look at the black American population, we're still overly policed, we're still thrown in prison at higher rates, with higher rates of recidivism, with less wealth than any other racial demographic in America. The idea that America doesn't owe us reparations, or that it shouldn't at least be considered, is insane.

That's a bit of a non-sequitur don't you think.

Premise: Black people were mistreated in the past.
Conclusion: We must have reperations for other people in the present.

There's a lot of other elements to this.

And I agree, not considering it is bad. Yet Obama right here is confessing to not bother considering it. Sooo...

ImAMarvel posted...

I mean, you could give some kind of income cut off for people already making greater than 150k or so.

And those black guys would be getting reparations too.

So what happened to all that talk about what America "owes" black people?

It "Owes" black people except the ones that made successes of their lives? Which aren't owed anything?

How is that fair. You've attacked your own moral argument.

What about black guys who aren't descended from slaves? What about 2nd generation African-Americans who have only been in the US for 45 years?

Also if it comes from taxes, whatever the reperations there are will be less than what black women and men contribute in taxes...

So black guys would be... paying their own reperations?

What about all the other groups that were mistreated in the past?

You're over-simplfying this just so you can yell at people. Life is more complicated than that.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Also if it comes from taxes, whatever the reperations are will be less than what black women and men contribute in taxes...

So black guys would be... paying their own reperations?

Reparations are a claim against the state, which is not, to my knowledge, keeping racially separate pools of public money based on whose taxes they came from.

---

BeantownHero posted...

The first black president, who was met with coordinated, racially motivated attacks before he even took office, felt pursuing reparations would have been counterproductive politically. given the backlash from white America whenever the subject is even broached, his assessment was correct

+1

---

Antifar posted...

Reparations are a claim against the state, which is not, to my knowledge, keeping racially separate pools of public money based on whose taxes they came from.

Sure

But if black people raise $350 billion in taxes

Then the US spends $100 billion in reperations for black people in taxes.

Then isn't that just giving people their money back? Only a small amount of it?

Where does that fit in with "Fixing what's owed due to morality, except for the successfull... also you have to pay for it, especially the successful!"?


---

Id be fine with it if it came strictly out of politicians politics. But to punish joe blow whos never had a racist bone in his body for something his ancestors maybe did (not all white people where here back then is what I mean. Half my family didnt come over till the world wars) is just dumb. And forcing people to pay another group of people for something they are innocent of stands to cause resentment and thus more racism.

Hell my family was treated like shit during WW2 cause we are German. And couldnt hide it well due to the last name. I have a great aunt who was assaulted and had a swastika carved into her hip. I know its not the same but just saying.

But as said im not against them getting something i just dont feel taking the money from regular citizens is morally just.

---

"I was gonna do the right thing but there was an election to win" is so very America.

I agree with reparations in theory. If you asked people if living descendants of people lost in the Holocaust were due reparations, I think most would say yes. If you asked if descendants of slaves should get reparations, I think you'd see a lot of resentment over the prospect of "handouts" being given to people.

And let's be honest: it wouldn't be the government paying for reparations. It would be the tax payers. So while you're giving one person more money, you're charging everyone more to foot that bill. If ever you wanted to sew racial resentment in America, there could be no better strategy than reparations.

It's definitely something that's due to the descendants of victims. But I think it would create more problems than it would solve.

mooreandrew58 posted...

Id be fine with it if it came strictly out of politicians politics. But to punish joe blow whos never had a racist bone in his body for something his ancestors maybe did (not all white people where here back then is what I mean. Half my family didnt come over till the world wars) is just dumb. And forcing people to pay another group of people for something they are innocent of stands to cause resentment and thus more racism.

Hell my family was treated like shit during WW2 cause we are German. And couldnt hide it well due to the last name. I have a great aunt who was assaulted and had a swastika carved into her hip. I know its not the same but just saying.

But as said im not against them getting something i just dont feel taking the money from regular citizens is morally just.

Reparations is not about punishing any group of people or individuals, it's restitution that the government pays a group of people as recompense. The local, state and Federal governments created and maintained multiple systems that barred or severely inhibited the social mobility and wealth portfolio of African-Americans for generations.

Reparations has already happened multiple times, even former slave owners received reparations.

---

I mean he's right but truth is he's still a politician at the end of the day

If during the Obama years Democrats had gotten even an extremely conservative (ie, cheap) reparations bill passed, that likely would have bought them the votes Clinton needed in 2016.

---

CommonJoe posted...

If during the Obama years Democrats had gotten even an extremely conservative (ie, cheap) reparations bill passed, that likely would have bought them the votes Clinton needed in 2016.

If they cloned Vlad the Impaler, I think he would've had a better chance of winning than Hillary. She was that hated.

FortuneCookie posted...

If they cloned Vlad the Impaler, I think he would've had a better chance of winning than Hillary.

Are you really sure that's not what actually happened?

Questionmarktarius posted...

Are you really sure that's not what actually happened?

Eh, close enough.

FortuneCookie posted...

I agree with reparations in theory. If you asked people if living descendants of people lost in the Holocaust were due reparations, I think most would say yes. If you asked if descendants of slaves should get reparations, I think you'd see a lot of resentment over the prospect of "handouts" being given to people.

And let's be honest: it wouldn't be the government paying for reparations. It would be the tax payers. So while you're giving one person more money, you're charging everyone more to foot that bill. If ever you wanted to sew racial resentment in America, there could be no better strategy than reparations.

It's definitely something that's due to the descendants of victims. But I think it would create more problems than it would solve.

the "taxpayers" consist of people who have benefited from the unpaid work of black people. so why not pay their descendants some of that back? You don't think they did $X (however much the number is) worth of work that was uncompensated?

Fam_Fam posted...

the "taxpayers" consist of people who have benefited from the unpaid work of black people. so why not pay their descendants some of that back? You don't think they did $X (however much the number is) worth of work that was uncompensated?

You have a point. It does seem fair to tax people for services received. I didn't ask for those services, but I didn't ask to be born on this land and I'm taxed for that. So, yeah, fair is fair.

But here's the thing which undoes all that. All people will see is, "Why are you getting something I'm not?" They won't see it as reparations for the descendants of victims. They'll see it as Black people getting money for being Black. That means spikes in racism, a likely increase in hate group membership, resentment from members of other ethnic minority groups, additional targeting from police, and a greater likelihood for people being passed up for promotions because, "They've had their bonus."

Like I said, ethically, the wages are due. In terms of what would result from paying people what they're owed, it would ultimate sew enough discord that it would be a burden rather than a blessing.

Obama's entire shtick is to say he'd love to do something good while working hard behind the scenes to make sure that something good never happens so donor money can buy him another ugly mansion.

---

If every Black household receives $1,000 dollars, you might get by with minimal resentment. If every Black household receives $20,000 dollars -- enough for, say, a down payment on a house -- that house will be vandalized.

You're looking at paying pennies on the dollar of what is due or you're setting people up to be hated.

FortuneCookie posted...

You have a point. It does seem fair to tax people for services received. I didn't ask for those services, but I didn't ask to be born on this land and I'm taxed for that. So, yeah, fair is fair.

But here's the thing which undoes all that. All people will see is, "Why are you getting something I'm not?" They won't see it as reparations for the descendants of victims. They'll see it as Black people getting money for being Black. That means spikes in racism, a likely increase in hate group membership, resentment from members of other ethnic minority groups, additional targeting from police, and a greater likelihood for people being passed up for promotions because, "They've had their bonus."

Like I said, ethically, the wages are due. In terms of what would result from paying people what they're owed, it would ultimate sew enough discord that it would be a burden rather than a blessing.

People were complaining that African-Americans were getting equitable treatment under Reconstruction right after slavery. There will always be pushback when policies of racial discrimination are addressed. People thought that civil rights leaders were asking for too much, too soon in the 50s and 60s.


---

Definitely not divisive. No way.

---

onedarksoul posted...

Definitely not divisive. No way.

The fact that you think this is divisive is the problem.

---

Reparations are necessary for healing and Jesus himself would agree with it. It is the Christian position, and if Evangelicals profess to love Christ they will advocate for reparations for minorities and for all poor exploited by the machine.

---

The idea of reparations is basically saying "one person who is no longer alive did something horrible to another person is no longer alive, so everyone the same color as the first person now owes something to everyone the same color as the second".

---

Trumble posted...

The idea of reparations is basically saying "one person who is no longer alive did something horrible to another person is no longer alive, so everyone the same color as the first person now owes something to everyone the same color as the second".

yeah pretty much

---

Trumble posted...

The idea of reparations is basically saying "one person who is no longer alive did something horrible to another person is no longer alive, so everyone the same color as the first person now owes something to everyone the same color as the second".

Wrong. The idea of reparations is that royalty/billionaire exploitation of vulnerable people created a legacy of lasting poverty and destroyed families. No one who professes to love God or to be objective will have a competent argument against reparations.

It's not you or I who are supposed to make things right, but the nation as a whole. We must heal and make sure all minds are empowered and thriving. Or we will be uprooted by God himself.

---

Trumble posted...

The idea of reparations is basically saying "one person who is no longer alive did something horrible to another person is no longer alive, so everyone the same color as the first person now owes something to everyone the same color as the second".

If that's your truth...

Trumble posted...

The idea of reparations is basically saying "one person who is no longer alive did something horrible to another person is no longer alive, so everyone the same color as the first person now owes something to everyone the same color as the second".

Plenty of people from the pre-civil rights era are still alive

Also, it's kinda amazing that the US gave reparations to multiple groups who were treated horribly, but every time the subject has come up for black people, the response is always "lol no you guys were 100% fine after slavery" while ignoring the Jim Crow era, segregation, red lining, Rosewood, Tulsa, etc.

We still see remnants of the Jim Crow era today, but it pretty much gets ignored and/or minimized any way.

---

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2058&version=NIV

---

Reparations in the form of cash is not going to happen. Economically it won't make a real difference, and the line between who would and wouldn't receive money is way too hard to determine.

The real solution if we wanted to truly change things for the better, would be to invest in predominantly black neighborhoods or schools. Obviously it's easier said than done, but tackling the problems black people in America face at the root is the long term way to stamp them out.

---