Social And Race Issues In Black-Ish

[vibeology]

First off, home from work, so video of Republicans owning that Voter ID laws are political and not about preventing voter fraud (which, remember, doesn't happen in a large enough number to have any impact on election results):

Second, the intention of the law doesn't have to be discriminatory (though that is exactly why they're doing it) for the effect of the law to be discriminatory. If there is a disparate impact on a protected group, the law is discriminatory. 

[LJonEarth]

5 hours ago, Granny58 said:

Let me tell you - my 82 year old mother has just spent the summer getting something in order and my friend and I helped her.   Because life is shitty like that.  And yet you did manage to get her the ID.  It can be done.  Maybe it doesn't need to be a PHOTO ID for senior citizens to vote, but we need some sort of ID system and it is not intended to keep legal citizens from voting. 

You and the person with the 83 year old grandmother are in a position to help these people. Not everyone has someone to help, or if they do those people aren't in a position to take all the time to get this done.

In my experience, a lot of these offices are open during normal business hours. If you also work during "business hours" what are you supposed to do? Skip a paycheck? Not everyone has time off. I know my mom was in a position to just leave work to help my grandma (because she had PTO at her career, understanding bosses and a vehicle), but not everyone can do that. We are seemingly in a place of privilege that even we don't fully understand.

I'm in the South. We rely on vehicles here so our public transportation isn't great. I had someone explain to me once what it takes to use city buses here. It sounds like a nightmare for a healthy person, and that's when the buses are on time or working. Add that to long lines, red tape to jump through, and fees for everything, and it can be prohibitive.

Then you add that politicians are trying to do things like disallowing non-drivers licenses state-issued IDs like student ID, and you start to see that some of these voting policies are strategic.

[paulvdb]

11 hours ago, vibeology said:

That's how I saw him before this episode but there were lines in last night's episode that I thought went way too far. It's one thing to say "think of the poor white children who have never seen a white President." It's another thing to call Obama a foreign born Muslim.

I agree. They should have stopped after the line about the white children who had never seen a white president. That line was in character based on what we had seen of him in previous episodes, but the rest of it went too far based on how I saw his character.

As far as the photo ID goes, I guess that's a difference between our countries. Here in The Netherlands you are legally required to have a photo ID. That can be a passport, ID card or driver's licence. And since a few years you also have to bring your ID with you when you vote.

[DearEvette]

I think Stevens has always been openly sexist and racist.  But I think the difference is that the comments after the "white children" line simply were too pointed and not delivered with the sly comedy they had been in the past.  They sounded like "straight" lines, rather than funny ones. So there was no humor to mask how unpalatable the comments were.

I did appreciate the nod to continuity about his murdering son, though.  He has another murderous son and last season, i think it was, he talked about paying off senators to get them off of murder charges.

[Granny58]

12 hours ago, vibeology said:

If there is a disparate impact on a protected group, the law is discriminatory

what makes a group protected?

[Granny58]

9 hours ago, LJonEarth said:

You and the person with the 83 year old grandmother are in a position to help these people. Not everyone has someone to help, or if they do those people aren't in a position to take all the time to get this done.

In my experience, a lot of these offices are open during normal business hours. If you also work during "business hours" what are you supposed to do? Skip a paycheck? Not everyone has time off. I know my mom was in a position to just leave work to help my grandma (because she had PTO at her career, understanding bosses and a vehicle), but not everyone can do that. We are seemingly in a place of privilege that even we don't fully understand.

I'm in the South. We rely on vehicles here so our public transportation isn't great. I had someone explain to me once what it takes to use city buses here. It sounds like a nightmare for a healthy person, and that's when the buses are on time or working. Add that to long lines, red tape to jump through, and fees for everything, and it can be prohibitive.

Then you add that politicians are trying to do things like disallowing non-drivers licenses state-issued IDs like student ID, and you start to see that some of these voting policies are strategic.

I can totally appreciate that it can be difficult....but the time frame is not unexpected.  We know EXACTLY when elections are.  There are 4 years between them.  In all that time it should be do'able.  Being an actual citizen is too important.  I remember in Middle East countries where voting was new people risked their lives to do it, and then proudly wore the purple thumb of participation.  If it is important, it can be done. 

[BoogieBurns]

After spending 3 hours at the DMV on Wednesday, I couldn't stop thinking about Voter ID laws. I am a 30 year old, with a vehicle, a job with PTO, and the DMV office is 15 minutes away. 

It took me 6 months past 30th birthday to renew my ID because of how unnecessarily complicated the process is. I thought I could renew online, but in Texas, you have to renew in person if you renewed online last time. The DMV's website tells you not to come on Monday or Friday because the wait averages 4 hours. So, now I'm down to 3 days a week. Then, my car overheats any time it runs for more than 10 minutes (I live 3 minutes from work). It took 2 months and $1600 to fix my car. I go out there one day and they need an electric bill with my name on it (this information was not on the website). They won't accept an electronic electric bill, so I have to try again another day. 

I'm in line and the security guard is making sure people have their correct documents, including marriage licenses for women who change their last name. Which, screams patriarchy, but that's another topic. He sends away those who don't. This was the last week to register to vote in Texas, this was the least busy day & time to be at the DMV that week, & I still needed 3 hours, $25 and a crap-ton of forms. All because my 30th birthday is an election year. It didn't "sneak up on me," life got in the way, and Texas makes it very hard to renew. We are already gerrymandered as hell, why not throw some voter suppression on top of it. 

Fun fact: I live in the whitest area of Dallas, and that day, the DMV had about 10% white, 90% POC.

[Granny58]

2 hours ago, BoogieBurns said:

After spending 3 hours at the DMV on Wednesday, I couldn't stop thinking about Voter ID laws. I am a 30 year old, with a vehicle, a job with PTO, and the DMV office is 15 minutes away. 

It took me 6 months past 30th birthday to renew my ID because of how unnecessarily complicated the process is. I thought I could renew online, but in Texas, you have to renew in person if you renewed online last time. The DMV's website tells you not to come on Monday or Friday because the wait averages 4 hours. So, now I'm down to 3 days a week. Then, my car overheats any time it runs for more than 10 minutes (I live 3 minutes from work). It took 2 months and $1600 to fix my car. I go out there one day and they need an electric bill with my name on it (this information was not on the website). They won't accept an electronic electric bill, so I have to try again another day. 

I'm in line and the security guard is making sure people have their correct documents, including marriage licenses for women who change their last name. Which, screams patriarchy, but that's another topic. He sends away those who don't. This was the last week to register to vote in Texas, this was the least busy day & time to be at the DMV that week, & I still needed 3 hours, $25 and a crap-ton of forms. All because my 30th birthday is an election year. It didn't "sneak up on me," life got in the way, and Texas makes it very hard to renew. We are already gerrymandered as hell, why not throw some voter suppression on top of it. 

Fun fact: I live in the whitest area of Dallas, and that day, the DMV had about 10% white, 90% POC.

Your DMV sounds like a nightmare.  My DMV in Pennsylvania is really wonderful.  In fact, I was praising them to somebody last week for how fast and smooth my renewal process was.  The problem sounds like Texas, not the need to ensure actual citizens vote. 

[ChromaKelly]

Interestingly, this article popped up on FB today about voter suppression in Texas.

https://www.thenation.com/article/texass-voter-registration-laws-are-straight-out-of-the-jim-crow-playbook/

[BoogieBurns]

59 minutes ago, Granny58 said:

The problem sounds like Texas.

It is, that's why I included my location. This is the first election where (in some places) Texas is looking more purple than red. They refuse to let that happen. 

[BoogieBurns]

34 minutes ago, ChromaKelly said:

Interestingly, this article popped up on FB today about voter suppression in Texas.

https://www.thenation.com/article/texass-voter-registration-laws-are-straight-out-of-the-jim-crow-playbook/

Wow, that was the perfect article!

[bybrandy]

19 hours ago, vibeology said:

Second, the intention of the law doesn't have to be discriminatory (though that is exactly why they're doing it) for the effect of the law to be discriminatory. If there is a disparate impact on a protected group, the law is discriminatory. 

This.  Voter ID wasn't passed to disenfranchise trans voters, but it has.   Many states make it difficult to change your name and gender on your id and n the ID...   It is made slightly harder still for younger LGBTQ potential voters who are often kicked out of their houses without access to their vital documents like birth certificates.  

6 hours ago, Granny58 said:

There are 4 years between them.

Presidential elections are held every four years.   Elections in general?  They are held far more frequently than every for years.   Just saying.  Reasons people have a hard time voting?  Elections days are on Tuesdays and the polls are primarily open during business hours.   The solution to help the people who literally can't take the day off to vote without risking their job and therefore the security of their family?   Early voting options.   Another one of the black suppression moves to limit early voting.  Don't have a car to get to your polling place?   That's okay, come to church on Sunday, we'll charter a bus and take anybody who needs to go during a time when they aren't working.   This worked in communities for years and years and years?   Recent voter repression actions?   Cancel early voting on Sundays.   

Even if these laws weren't specifically designed to disenfranchise poor voters, which there is taped evidence that they were, they do in fact disenfranchise poor voters.   And really that's not okay.  It isn't okay to disenfranchise any American voter to stop "voter fraud" which hasn't been proved to happen in anywhere near the levels it would need to happen to influence the outcome of an election.  

When you make it free, easy and accesible for poor and elderly American citizens to vote, then you can talk about how you stop nearly non existent illegal voter fraud.

[bybrandy]

27 minutes ago, BoogieBurns said:

It is, that's why I included my location. This is the first election where (in some places) Texas is looking more purple than red. They refuse to let that happen. 

I live in conservative white suburb of Houston.  I'm not conservative but you wouldn't know it from looking at me.  First election after Voter ID passed but before the laws were enacted they did a trial run to show people if they had what they needed to vote.  If you didn't have the ID this time you'd be allowed to vote but you were supposed to bring everything so that if you didn't you'd be prepared for the next election.   

I take my elderly white mother to our polling place the name on her ID and her Voter Registration don't match (one had her middle name and  the other her middle initial) and they tell her it is fine but she would need to change either her photo ID or her voter registration name before the next election and they couldn't tell her what to do but changing the name on your ID cost 25 dollars and a trip to the DMV but doing the voters registration was free and they had the form right there.   

That night on the news they had people complaining that their polling place told them that they needed to spend 25 dollars and go to the DMV to vote.  In non white suburbs they weren't telling people about the free option to make their ID and voter registration match... and this was for people who already had ID.  

[BoogieBurns]

5 minutes ago, bybrandy said:

That night on the news they had people complaining that their polling place told them that they needed to spend 25 dollars and go to the DMV to vote.  In non white suburbs they weren't telling people about the free option to make their ID and voter registration match... and this was for people who already had ID.  

Sounds about right. In 2008 my dad could register people himself, so we educated ourselves on a lot of the laws quickly. I was 22 at the time, and often the most informed person on Voter Reg at work or with friends. They purposely aren't making information available. I was in Austin, and the county is very blue. But now I'm in Dallas, so it's even worse. But 2008 taught Texas not to encourage any "get out the vote" effort. Which is why the laws were passed in 2011, just in time before the next election.

[ChromaKelly]

I live in Maryland and I've never even had to show my voter registration card. We also do motor voter here, where you can register to vote when you get your driver's license. Also, when you renew your license online a thing will pop up asking you if you would like to register to vote. This stuff in TX sounds insane.

[Granny58]

Wow, Texas sounds really horrible!  From your DMV to your voting corn maze.  I am so glad I live in Pennsylvania!  Also, our polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., not just during business hours.  Voter credentialing doesn't need to be as difficult as Texas has made it, but I still believe it needs to be done.  

[ExplainItAgain]

I live in North Carolina and the state got its hand smacked a few months ago. They tried to institute a voter ID law, but an appeals court struck it down as being discriminatory. When I voted in the primary, they asked me for my ID, even though it wasn't required yet. There were signs up all around saying that ID was not required yet, but it would be in November, get ready, etc. When I questioned asking for my ID, they said, oh, yeah, you don't need it today, just make sure to have it for November. It felt sneaky to me.

The voter ID law would have also severely restricted early voting times/days because early voting is disproportionally lower income (aka, not going to vote for the incumbents). In August the law was struck down by the appeals court and the Supreme Court refused to reinstate it. Luckily, our early voting days/times have been restored and we don't have to show ID next month.

North Carolina is mired in other political issues (way off topic for this forum) that make it seem like backwater hicktown. Sometimes it's an embarrassment living here.

I appreciate black-ish's attempts to call attention to some of these issues - it's so awesome that a sitcom can tackle this stuff in a funny, relatable way.

[vibeology]

7 hours ago, Granny58 said:

what makes a group protected?

Before the 5 Republican appointed Supreme Court judges rolled huge parts of it back, the Voting Rights Act protected voting rights for racial minorities.

 

7 hours ago, Granny58 said:

I can totally appreciate that it can be difficult....but the time frame is not unexpected.  We know EXACTLY when elections are.  There are 4 years between them.  In all that time it should be do'able.  Being an actual citizen is too important.  I remember in Middle East countries where voting was new people risked their lives to do it, and then proudly wore the purple thumb of participation.  If it is important, it can be done. 

There are people still living who risked their life to vote in the US and now because they're older and they no longer have photo ID, we're asking them to fight some more now that they're older and it's even harder. Nope. I think that's so wrong.

To say if something is important it can be done suggests that you don't appreciate how difficult these situations can be for people, especially seniors who are often less mobile and may not have the documents you need to get a voter ID. If you move often (something lower income people deal with more often than others), it's easy to lose some of those key documents. If you're a women who has gotten married, you need double the documents to account for a name change. Many seniors never had the right paperwork in the first place being born at home and not in a hospital. I'm going to leave this one here too, because when you tell a Veteran he can't vote using his VA card as ID, you've gone nuts. This man risked his life for freedom now has to jump through hoops just to vote because the ID he already has doesn't count.

And I think the big thing is in-person voter fraud isn't a thing! It doesn't happen! 31 cases out of 1 billion votes cast is statistically zero. No one passing these laws is actually worried about in person voter fraud because they all know it has no impact on elections. It's political and done to disenfranchise students, seniors and minorities, groups that tend to vote Democrat.

[ExplainItAgain]

8 hours ago, Granny58 said:

what makes a group protected?

There are federally protected classes for nondiscrimination purposes. Age, race, religion, color, etc. The NC voter ID law was struck down because it was found to be discriminatory toward blacks. The legislature actually asked for data on voting habits based on race before passing the law. Not saying this applies in other states with voter ID laws, this is specific to this NC case.

4 minutes ago, vibeology said:

And I think the big thing is in-person voter fraud isn't a thing! It doesn't happen! 31 cases out of 1 billion votes cast is statistically zero. No one passing these laws is actually worried about in person voter fraud because they all know it has no impact on elections. It's political and done to disenfranchise students, seniors and minorities, groups that tend to vote Democrat.

It is more of a problem with absentee voting, which never requires ID. That said, it's still statistically near zero, as you've stated @vibeology.

[Granny58]

I never said a VA card couldn't count as ID, and besides - that's probably a photo ID anyway. But, after reading these comments I see that photo ID is not even necessarily indicated.  But to say fraud doesn't happen much isn't right either.  

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440817/voter-fraud-real-dangerous-threat

My goodness!  Couldn't you come in to vote and bring a long a piece of mail with your name on it?   Even the elderly get something from Social Security.  Somebody using your identify likely wouldn't have that.  Plus, it seems that the registration roles are also a landmine (per article).  

Edited October 7, 2016 by Granny58

[LJonEarth]

8 hours ago, Granny58 said:

There are 4 years between them.  

You're only thinking of presidential elections. If you include special elections, state, local, runoffs, primaries, etc., you could be voting multiple times a year.

For every article that says voter fraud is a rampant national threat, there's one that says it's statistically a non-issue. All you have to do is look up "prevalence of voter fraud."

I think, if the powers that be didn't have such an awful history of shadiness and outright racism in voter laws and how elections were handled, we could probably give them an inch and the benefit of the doubt when they try to roll things back like early voting or add requirements. But, like they said on Black-ish, you give an inch and they take a mile and we are effectively disenfranchised.

Edited October 7, 2016 by LJonEarth

[Granny58]

I am concerned primarily with federal elections, but once you had your ID in place for that, the rest could follow.  

I agree....for every link I can give saying fraud is a problem, there's a link saying it isn't.  So there's no resolution here.  

I understand what you're saying about the past though.  Just want to express sincerely that for people like me, it has NOTHING to do with racism and EVERYTHING to do with citizenship. 

[NYCFree]

3 hours ago, Granny58 said:

I am concerned primarily with federal elections, but once you had your ID in place for that, the rest could follow.  

I agree....for every link I can give saying fraud is a problem, there's a link saying it isn't.  So there's no resolution here.  

I understand what you're saying about the past though.  Just want to express sincerely that for people like me, it has NOTHING to do with racism and EVERYTHING to do with citizenship. 

I appreciate and believe your own personal beliefs are not about race, unfortunately there is evidence that race is exactly what is motivating some state legislatures to change their voter ID laws.  One example is Alabama, in 2015, after it changed the law to require state issued ID to vote, the state then shut down 8 of the 10 DMV offices in predominantly black counties.  

[RedheadZombie]

On October 7, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Granny58 said:

I can totally appreciate that it can be difficult....but the time frame is not unexpected.  We know EXACTLY when elections are.  There are 4 years between them.  In all that time it should be do'able.  Being an actual citizen is too important.  I remember in Middle East countries where voting was new people risked their lives to do it, and then proudly wore the purple thumb of participation.  If it is important, it can be done. 

As pointed out above, many Americans risked their lives to vote.  And I loved new Middle Eastern voters, especially the women, proudly showing off their purple thumb.  Perhaps that's the answer for supposed voter fraud by multiple voting (which I doubt really happens), let's start dipping our own thumbs in ink.  It's inexpensive, and non-discriminatory.  

[topanga]

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but why do Dre's able-bodied parents live with them? Neither of them is disabled, nor do they have serious health issues. And judging but the way they dress, they're not destitute. I would hate, hate for my in-laws (or my parents) to live with me if they could live elsewhere. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

39 minutes ago, topanga said:

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but why do Dre's able-bodied parents live with them? Neither of them is disabled, nor do they have serious health issues. And judging but the way they dress, they're not destitute. I would hate, hate for my in-laws (or my parents) to live with me if they could live elsewhere. 

I think Ruby is the only one who lives in the same house. I believe Pops lives in the guest house. Unless that's changed?

[topanga]

Yes, a guest house isn't bad, but doesn't Dre still pay Earl's utility bills and feed him?

[Kimmel77]

On ‎14‎/‎11‎/‎2014 at 10:07 PM, OnceSane said:

My sisters, brother, and I all have African first names. It makes sense, my dad is West African and my mom is white.

Does it? You would presumably take his West African surname.

[OnceSane]

1 hour ago, Kimmel77 said:

Does it? You would presumably take his West African surname.

It does when my mother also has a connection to Africa (it's where they met) & she wasn't attached to any English names.

[Kimmel77]

4 minutes ago, OnceSane said:

It does when my mother also has a connection to Africa (it's where they met) & she wasn't attached to any English names.

Ah, okay, got ya.

[Driad]

PBS recently aired a documentary "Against All Odds: The Fight for a Black Middle Class."  It got me thinking that in most of the TV shows about black folks, they are either poor or rich.  (The family in Black-ish is rich by my standards; if they are short of money it is because they wasted it on sneakers and takeout food.)  Trying to think of a show about a middle class black family.  Are middle class people considered less interesting?

[Tiger]

22 minutes ago, Driad said:

PBS recently aired a documentary "Against All Odds: The Fight for a Black Middle Class."  It got me thinking that in most of the TV shows about black folks, they are either poor or rich.  (The family in Black-ish is rich by my standards; if they are short of money it is because they wasted it on sneakers and takeout food.)  Trying to think of a show about a middle class black family.  Are middle class people considered less interesting?

The family on NBC's The Carmichael Show is relatively middle class.  I believe it's coming back for a third season this summer.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Tiger

[Dee]

4 hours ago, Driad said:

Trying to think of a show about a middle class black family. 

There are many shows about middle class black families, but most of them are/were sitcoms (Roc, Frank's Place, Atlanta, Living Single, Family Matters, Smart Guy, That's My Mama, 227, That's So Raven, The Carmichael Show, Kenan & Kel, Moesha, Hangin With Mr. Cooper, Martin, What's Happening, Amen, Let's Stay Together, Sister Sister, One On One, Half & Half, The Parent Hood, In The House, etc)

There are/were also the occasional middle class black dramas but they were (until recently) fairly rare (Soul Food, Lincoln Heights, The Get Down, Queen Sugar).

Edited May 1, 2017 by Dee

[jhlipton]

On 4/30/2017 at 5:43 PM, Dee said:

There are/were also the occasional middle class black dramas but they were (until recently) fairly rare (Soul Food, Lincoln Heights, The Get Down, Queen Sugar).

The families on Queen Sugar are rich (Charlie), poor (Ralph Angel) and somewhere in between (Nova and Vi).  If you average them out, they're middle class. LOL

[Dee]

The Bordelon's (Ralph Angel included) are decidedly middle class; with Charley's financial situation, and corresponding lifestyle, being an ongoing issue with the rest of her working class family.

[jhlipton]

35 minutes ago, Dee said:

The Bordelon's (Ralph Angel included) are decidedly middle class; with Charley's financial situation, and corresponding lifestyle, being an ongoing issue with the rest of her working class family.

We're off the topic here...  So I'll just say YMMV

[BoogieBurns]

On 4/30/2017 at 4:19 PM, Driad said:

Are middle class people considered less interesting?

Maybe they are, as far as scripts are concerned. A lot of shows with any race family as the lead seem to prefer to go upper middle class, high upper. Lawyers and doctors, I'm thinking Modern Family. Sex and the City had two girls with crazy successful careers, and the other two married well (with their own not shabby careers too). It's hard to have people just pick up and go to Disneyland on an ABC show if the family is not rolling in dough. Every ABC show eventually has to go there. Plenty of "white" shows are middle class, but I think the disposable income allows for more fun storylines.

I'm solidly middle class and boring as hell, if that helps.

[topanga]

16 hours ago, BoogieBurns said:

Maybe they are, as far as scripts are concerned. A lot of shows with any race family as the lead seem to prefer to go upper middle class, high upper. Lawyers and doctors, I'm thinking Modern Family. Sex and the City had two girls with crazy successful careers, and the other two married well (with their own not shabby careers too). It's hard to have people just pick up and go to Disneyland on an ABC show if the family is not rolling in dough. Every ABC show eventually has to go there. Plenty of "white" shows are middle class, but I think the disposable income allows for more fun storylines.

I'm solidly middle class and boring as hell, if that helps.

Boring is better than dodging bill collectors, according to my...friend. It's nice not to jump when the phone rings. LOL 

The Winslows (Family Matters) were supposed to be middle class, I guess. Carl was a police officer. But if that's the case, how'd they afford that big-ass house in Chicago?

Its funny that Ruby and Pops complain about money but are living rent-free and eating for free off of André and Bow. Johan lives the same way but claims to reject the corporate machine  

--and how did Johan  get $6000 to pay his life coach?

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm surprised at you, @topanga! For shame! You didn't cite the show which had the character that is your moniker!??Boy Meets World! I think they were middle class, along with the Taylors in Home Improvement. The Keatons come to mind. The only poor or blue collar family I can think of from the 80s are the Connors from Roseanne. I stopped watching sitcoms after The Cosby Show ended and other than this show, don't watch any others.

[Raja]

On 3/22/2017 at 10:02 AM, topanga said:

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but why do Dre's able-bodied parents live with them? Neither of them is disabled, nor do they have serious health issues. And judging but the way they dress, they're not destitute. I would hate, hate for my in-laws (or my parents) to live with me if they could live elsewhere. 

The single generation family unit is the worldwide exception, not the rule. In Dre's case it would mean while he lives the life of Riley his parents remain in Compton. While nowhere near as dangerous as the time when Dre, or Anthony grew up it is still not the place a star buys his mother a house in either. How far the Black family goes towards the American norm and not their own sub group ethnic norm is of course the subject of the show.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

On 10/12/2017 at 1:35 PM, ZaldamoWilder said:

Nothing in this resolution (A) authorizes or supports any claim against the United States; or (B) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.”

6 hours ago, ZaldamoWilder said:

This is the only instance I've ever heard of whereby they are barred from pursuit.   Least they could've done was make it a separate document

Obviously, if part (A) had not been included, there would have been no resolution, as there would have been an explosion of cases attempting to use the resolution as precedent.

However, I think people are ignoring (B):  the resolution also does not serve as a settlement of any claim against the US, so although a successful lawsuit would be extremely unlikely, this resolution does not, in and of itself, preclude said potential lawsuit from being brought.

It's an acknowledgement of obvious past wrongs, nothing more.

Edited October 16, 2017 by ItCouldBeWorse

[ZaldamoWilder]

17 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

Obviously, if part (A) had not been included, there would have been no resolution, as there would have been an explosion of cases attempting to use the resolution as precedent.

However, I think people are ignoring (B):  the resolution also does not serve as a settlement of any claim against the US, so although a successful lawsuit would be extremely unlikely, this resolution does not, in and of itself, preclude said potential lawsuit from being brought.

It's an acknowledgement of obvious past wrongs, nothing more.

And I just got through saying legalese is the stuff not said lol.   I should be paying closer attention to own thought bubbles.   That nothing precludes the suit is an excellent point! thanks for making it.

Considering so much of the history of other reparations claims precedes 2009, why'd they include it, do you think? 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

37 minutes ago, ZaldamoWilder said:

18 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

Obviously, if part (A) had not been included, there would have been no resolution, as there would have been an explosion of cases attempting to use the resolution as precedent.

However, I think people are ignoring (B):  the resolution also does not serve as a settlement of any claim against the US, so although a successful lawsuit would be extremely unlikely, this resolution does not, in and of itself, preclude said potential lawsuit from being brought.

It's an acknowledgement of obvious past wrongs, nothing more.

And I just got through saying legalese is the stuff not said lol.   I should be paying closer attention to own thought bubbles.   That nothing precludes the suit is an excellent point! thanks for making it.

Considering so much of the history of other reparations claims precedes 2009, why'd they include it, do you think? 

Do you mean, why did they include (B)?

If so, I believe they wanted to "apologize" for our history of slavery, certainly did not want to provide a basis for lawsuits, but also wanted to be "balanced" by declaring that the apology was not a settlement of any claim that might exist. I have no personal knowledge of the history of this resolution, but I would hypothesize that the people who sat around the table drafting this resolution, some of whom were doubtless lawyers, thought about it very carefully.  I found the following quote in http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1866&context=adan:

"Democratic Senator Roland Burris, the lone African-American in the Senate, argued that the disclaimer should not prohibit future congressional action on the issue of reparations."

[ZaldamoWilder]

43 minutes ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

Do you mean, why did they include (B)?

If so, I believe they wanted to "apologize" for our history of slavery, certainly did not want to provide a basis for lawsuits, but also wanted to be "balanced" by declaring that the apology was not a settlement of any claim that might exist. I have no personal knowledge of the history of this resolution, but I would hypothesize that the people who sat around the table drafting this resolution, some of whom were doubtless lawyers, thought about it very carefully.  I found the following quote in http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1866&context=adan:

"Democratic Senator Roland Burris, the lone African-American in the Senate, argued that the disclaimer should not prohibit future congressional action on the issue of reparations."

Yes, that's what I meant, but more specifically, why include it to ward off claims for which precedents had already been set? 

[SoMuchTV]

Not quite sure where to post this, it’s not technically season 6. ... I’ll admit Blackish may have seemed a little preachy at times, but they really hit it out of the park with the two reruns they showed tonight (6/2/2020). And kinda sad that they have so much in the archives that’s still so relevant. 

[mtlchick]

On 6/2/2020 at 8:53 PM, SoMuchTV said:

Not quite sure where to post this, it’s not technically season 6. ... I’ll admit Blackish may have seemed a little preachy at times, but they really hit it out of the park with the two reruns they showed tonight (6/2/2020). And kinda sad that they have so much in the archives that’s still so relevant. 

As a Canadian, I never even heard of Juneteeth until this episode.  And yesterday the CEO of Twitter said that Juneteeth will a company holiday.  

The show can be preachy, but I have a feeling this upcoming season may be the standout show it's meant to be.   And maybe, we will finally see the Colin Kaepernick episode that got pulled 2 years ago.  Even if they have to adjust it because it's been more than 2 years since it was filmed.  

[SoMuchTV]

I just got a notice that my Friday trash pickup has been moved to Saturday, due to the Juneteenth holiday.  Nothing ever changes.  Until sometimes it does.