40 Acres and a Mule, but you're free! THAT is "social justice" without economic justice.

[Bonobo]

Sure, I am aware that women and minorities do not actually HAVE the social justice that is implied here, but it doesn't really change the fact that it amounts to a weak gesture when you do not provide economic justice WITH social justice.

Money is a thing that can change hands. It is real, material and not open for debate. As such, economic justice is easily quantifiable and measurable. It can be seen in charts and graphs. It cannot be pretended.

Changing minds and hearts is not as concrete. Social justice is NOT easy to achieve, measure or quantify. It is indeed the goal, inseparable from economics.

If things had been made right when black slaves were freed, that justice would more than likely have provided some or all of the social justice that is needed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Posted to for later.

Last edited Fri Jun 5, 2015, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Okay, I'm back and yep ... the above is still dreck.

Freeing the slaves and honoring the 40 acres and the mule promise would have been nothing with out the social mechanisms to keep them.

[Dems to Win]

2. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Fri Jun 5, 2015, 09:12 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

40 Acres and a Mule, but you're free! THAT is "social justice" without economic justice.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026787645

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is divisive, flame baiting garbage clearly intended to put a black poster who dared to post her thoughts about race and the economy in her "place". http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026783758 This is ignorant divisive flame bait and is exactly the kind of post that the remaining minority posters here say that they deplore.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jun 5, 2015, 09:22 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Then rebut. This is a discussion group. Perhaps you can educate others who would read it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hopefully his fourth hide, Bonobo maybe you'll be taking a well deserved break soon. Please stop with the OTT posts, and again it seems to be somewhat sexist. I sense a theme here.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh for Heaven's sake! Itchy alert finger.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post could be re-written to be more clear, that's for sure. But I don't think it is offensive, so I say leave it. The post referenced in the alert, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026783758 is just as much 'divisive flame bait' as this one, with its arrogant disdain for poor people. DU is a pretty divisive place these days. The Admins could probably work to solve these problems, if they wanted to, but they seem to only be interested in the profit created by lots and lots of clicks. So, it is for each of us to decide if this place is too mean and nasty to continue to post here. I'm close to leaving, myself.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Bonobo]

4. I never even saw that OP. nt

[alphafemale]

8. And people still claim their is not a purge afoot.

There is DU group that alerts on any minor offense and prays for the luck of the jury.

"Hopefully his fourth hide, Bonobo maybe you'll be taking a well deserved break soon. Please stop with the OTT posts, and again it seems to be somewhat sexist. I sense a theme here."

[Bonobo]

9. I am definitely being stalked. nt

[Duckhunter935]

26. A few of us have been

Mine is an active host in my opinion

[bravenak]

3. If we had been white, we'd have gotten that 40 acres and a mule.

Being black means no economic justice. We never get any because, racism.

[Recursion]

5. OMG why are you fighting this so hard?

Seriously? What motivates you to do this?

Take a second and just say "black lives matter" and "minorities face discrimination" without adding a damn caveat.

[Bonobo]

6. Actually I advocate for slave reparations. What exactly do you think I am fighting?

Why?

Because Black Lives Matter and minorities face discrimination.

[Recursion]

7. Thank you (nt)

[Travis_0004]

27. I dont know anybody alive today who was a slave in the US?

If we are going to do reperations what about 1st generation black immigrants from the carribean that never had family who were slaves.

What about somebody who immigrated in 1900?

What about the indians, they have had issues too.

The thing about reperations is there just isnt enough money. Giving every person 20k would bankrupt us, and I doubt even an amount that large would have effects that last more than 5 years for most people.

[raouldukelives]

10. Indeed. It takes education, patience and time.

With the economic justice will come more freedom to battle social injustice the only way I am sure it can be, by education. One on one if need be.

But I fear for all people under threat of prejudice or hate. Even if laws are passed, they mean nothing without enforcement. I am afraid the silly, stupid people will always fear the unknown to themselves. Be it skin tones, sexual identification, weight, height, faith or hairy feet.

With economic justice comes a greater ability to stand toe to toe against that senseless fear. Or at the very least, to insulate ones self against evil until together we can stand.

[gollygee]

11. Has anyone actually said that economic justice isn't important?

I read the point of view of a person of color who said that, for her, social justice was more important because racial injustice is more of an immediate threat. Her family is in danger due to it. That's a personal statement about her situation and should be taken as a wake-up call about the how bad racial injustice is, not as a statement that she doesn't care about economic injustice.

They are both important, but it's important to remember that for people of color, there can't be economic justice unless there is already social justice. Racism is a large part of what keeps them from achieving economic justice. Without social justice, they're kept out.

[socialist_n_TN]

12. What's the answer when the social INjustice is perpetrated...

by the economic and political system? Racial injustice is so bad (and it IS ban, murderously bad) because there always has been and still is profit to the owners to be made off of it. And I disagree with your last paragraph. I don't see how you can have social justice without economic justice or, more properly stated, economic democracy. Capitalism has had centuries to solve social justice issues and it hasn't.

With economic democracy, also called socialism, then bigotry becomes just a personal failing with little to no means to affect anyone's life.

Now this doesn't mean that you don't fight for as much social justice as possible under the parameters that are laid out under capitalism. It just means that social justice problems won't be SOLVED until the profit in exploitation has been done away with. I think it's highly ironic that it's the socialists that are on the front lines in solidarity of most of the social justice fights being waged today, but that way too many of those fighting for social justice are some of the biggest supporters of capitalism around. They seem to want social justice under an inherently exploitative system. I don't expect the socialists to change their support because it's ingrained into the fight against exploitation in general. One can only hope that the supporters of capitalism eventually change. Then we might get both social and economic justice.

[gollygee]

14. So long as human beings are in charge of hiring, firing,

education, banking, selling, etc., racism will affect people's economic status.

[socialist_n_TN]

16. Not if it's the workers themselves who do the hiring, firing........

etc. It's only when there's a miniscule sliver of owners who have ALL of that power that you have the systemic injustice of racism. The black members of labor unions are the MOST equal economically of all of that particular subset of Americans. And that's because unions are democratic institutions (more or less). But they still operate under the system of capitalism, so it's STILL unequal and exploitative. A true bottom-up workers government would be fairer to all workers because the majority would rule on these decisions.

How much economic exploitation would happen in the labor market if EVERY citizen had an annual stipend paid for by expropriating the wealth of the richest? If everybody had $30k per year guaranteed would it matter if some boss was a Klansman or fascist? It would not. You could just ignore those people because you wouldn't NEED their largesse just to live.

Now if you're talking about "private" property and the ownership of the means of production, as in capitalism, then yes I would agree that racism will always affect people's economic status.

[gollygee]

21. You're assuming those workers in charge of that

won't also be affected by our racist society. If there are people involved and we haven't dismantled racism in our systems and structures, people of color will be adversely affected by it.

[socialist_n_TN]

29. I've been in unions and worked for unions off and on for 40+ years now.....

Even back during the late 60s and early 70s in the deep south and I can guarantee you that the majority of workers would not put any sort of legal restrictions on people because of skin color. And I seriously doubt that there would even be any tacit restrictions on people because of color. At least in the major economic areas of making a living. I also think that the majority of workers all across the country would not allow ANY sort of color restrictions by ANY union without calling them on it. And finally, quite frankly, I would argue that it's worth a shot because what we HAVE (the economic, political, and social dictatorship of capital) certainly hasn't worked to destroy racism.

Now, I do agree that that DID happen in the early part of the last century, when race divided the working class and you had "separate, but equal" worker organizations and/or unions, but at least since the 70s that's not true for the majority of workers. That was also a reflection of the Jim Crow system of legal restrictions on black people in general.

And if I can't prove a hypothetical (worker control of society would quickly eliminate racism) then neither can you, i.e., that the majority of workers would be just as racist as the owners are. But worker control would at least be different that what we have now WHICH IS CLEARLY NOT WORKING TO ELIMINATE RACISM!

[JaneyVee]

13. No no no. What you wrote is economic "justice" WITHOUT social justice.

[KingCharlemagne]

15. I've often said the Revolution of 1865 was only half-successful. What would have made

a more succfessful revolution would have been the expropriation of all land, property and assets belonging to the traitorous plantation-owning class and their transfer with clear title to the newly-freed bondsmen.

Historically, down through time, one penalty for treason had been forfeiture of property. Another penalty was the hangman's noose. Neither really obtained for the Southern traitors and, arguably, the second should not have (keeping in mind Lincoln's comment about 'malice for none and charity for all). But labor and life had been stolen from the bondsmen. What was to be done to make them whole?

[jwirr]

18. Now that is tying the two issues together. A lot of the posts I have read in this thread do connect

the two even if they do not realize it. This issue is extremely divisive and I suspect it really has nothing about how we actually feel about the issue. Is there a reason why we cannot support both at the same time?

[bettyellen]

17. Gleefully explaining how civil rights don't matter much- from someone who has always had them.

Dismissive attitude to real life concerns you can't begin to empathize with. Not buying it.

[boston bean]

19. Actually, this post is so backwards and the OP doesn't even realize it.

I would laugh, but it's to sad to be funny.

40 acres and a mule, was suppose to be the economic justice.

However, didn't happen, cause guess what.... the social injustice of racism.

[bettyellen]

20. It's grasping at straws- and fake "ally" behavior that betrays a deep lack of interest or

Knowledge about racism in the USA.
Embarrassing, but he'll come back with a pretzel logic explainstion after someone feeds him one.

[boston bean]

25. I'm ashamed, that AA members here have to put up with this crap.

For real, some person going to teach them a lesson about their own history and lived experiences. blech.

[gollygee]

22. +1000

[1939]

23. 40 acres and a mule

was never national policy. It was a part of the military government/civil affairs efforts of the occupying army under General Sherman. Congress never made it a provision of law and it did not survive the end of the war. Post war, it was an "urban legend" that a lot of people believed.

[boston bean]

24. right, so?

[bigtree]

28. what about constitutional justice?

...of course, social justice and economic justice go hand in hand.

However, the argument by many recently is about demanding adherence by police, officials in government, businesses, and others, to the rule of law in arrests and detention, employment, voting rights - protection and redress against discrimination and exclusion in housing and other purchases, medical care and access to health services, educational opportunities, and more.

You can pass as many increases in the minimum wage as you're able, for example, but those make no difference at all in the prosperity of those who are denied the opportunity for employment. As for civil rights, there's little that can be achieved economically which serves to guarantee those rights. It should be recognized that affluent blacks have been subjected to the same discriminatory practices by police and others that less affluent and poor blacks Americans have suffered.

Moreover, there isn't any provision in the constitution which says that we must respect each other in the expectation of equal treatment under the law. All folks are asking for is an adherence to those laws, not any demand that we 'change hearts and minds' beforehand.