Whether or not blame is the intent doesn’t really matter does it? Setting aside that the practicality makes reparations near impossible, I can’t imagine anywhere near the amount of positive benefits needed to outweigh the divide it would create between whites and blacks. Validating racism with the current atmosphere of America sounds like chaos.
I don’t, but with each generation that effect becomes more attenuated, and many other things are intervening. Example? The black middle class was once a lot stronger, and it was so when our society was less tolerant of blacks. As race-relations have improved, the black middle class has declined. That’s a bad development, but how can it be driven by racial animus (as opposed to other factors) when racial animus is lessening?
It’s the causation problem again m.[quote=“EyeDentist, post:1388, topic:228119”]
If that were true, class-action lawsuits would not be possible.
[/quote]
Class actions, at the class certification stage, require certification of the class, and most attempted class actions fail precisely because of the reason I pointed out - causation and damages are too individualized to be litgated as a class. Happens regularly, and that’s with a set of events in a compressed time frame. Now imagine the idea of a “class action” (in principle) for millions of individuals whose circumstances have been individually and uniquely impacted over generations of events. It wouldn’t be a fair process to the people you’d try to hold liable.[quote=“EyeDentist, post:1388, topic:228119”]
Agreed. That is why I will re-emphasize that reparations are not about punishment.
[/quote]
The problem is, no matter what words you choose or you want to frame it, you don’t have the power to control whether it is perceived by those being held liable as punishment. [quote=“EyeDentist, post:1388, topic:228119”]
If I know I’m benefiting from ill-gotten gains that rightfully belong to you, but refuse to even discuss righting the wrong, then yes, I am culpable (morally if not legally).
[/quote]
Even though you’re benefiting without having any agency in the ill-getting?[quote=“EyeDentist, post:1388, topic:228119”]
Indeed. But this fact is irrelevant, as ‘making people discriminate less’ would not be the objective of reparations.
[/quote]
Ok, I appreciate that clarification - and I guess that’s where I come down: I only want to take actions that make people discriminate less. Generally, any action that doesn’t move us closer to that end isn’t worth the cost of pursuing.
I’m not saying that self ID is the correct way to do things. I’m saying the vast majority of the planet ACCEPTS self identification because a better system does not yet exist. (Within reason, as I said before)
If you believe 1) they experienced longstanding systemic institutional injustice related to their race; and 2) that strong evidence of tangible disadvantage (eg, a significant wealth gap) stemming from that injustice exists to this very day, I would encourage you to pursue reparations.
@NickViar: You ask some interesting questions. Grist for the (debate) mill.
Because “short-term effects” are just that–short term. I’m more concerned with the long game.
Even by your stringent ‘reparations only for people who personally experienced the injustice in question’ standard, there are still plenty of living AAs who experienced Jim Crow. Further, I assume you wouldn’t make the argument that the direct effects of Jim Crow vanished the day the Civil Rights Act was signed.
Grist for the mill.
You mean, other than wealth redistribution (ie, addressing the wealth gap)?
I see your point.
No, she would receive psychotherapy.
You are alluding to statistics with which I am not familiar, and frankly find dubious. Can you elaborate on this claim?
Who is claiming that it is “driven by racial animus”?
The notion of a class-action lawsuit was metaphorical. Reparations would not be adjudicated in that manner, so the standards you mention would not apply.
That is why a national conversation on the subject is vital.
Yes. I may not have any agency in the ill-getting, but I do have agency in the ill-maintaining.
Respectfully, if you were the one who was suffering (along with your children) economic hardship because of the wealth gap, I don’t think you’d dismiss the value of reparations on the grounds that ‘it wouldn’t make people discriminate less.’
You know the Jews went to great lengths to protect themselves after multiple attempts at ethnic cleansing. If race is a sociocultural thing, millions of poor indians would immediately identify as jewish, wear the hats and try to immigrate to Israel.
Through mass immigration of non-jews to Israel and intermarriage, the Jewish people would no longer exist in the way they have for thousands of years.
Thankfully, Israelis accept the biological construct of race and will continue to live on.
At best this means anyone born prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act should have to pay reparations to anyone that’s still alive and that was discriminated against pre-act.
No, but it’s been more than five decades and we’re at least 2 generations removed from it.
I don’t know what this means.
No, I mean what do you think will be accomplished by the redistribution.
Rachel Dolezel is not a descendant of an AA slave. Reperations would be available to descendents of AA slaves. There is no debating that the AA experience in America is unique.
If you were to rectify this via reparations, welfare and social programs don’t count, simply because they are not unique to African Americans. There are more White Americans on welfare than there are AA. White Women are the greatest benefactors of affirmative action.
There are even current NA treaties that pay reparations to NA and were supposed to pay to African Americans that were enslaved by these 6 “civilized tribes.” This has been in court for 7 years now. The Obama admin prevented in progress on the lawsuit (ha).
Would reparations improve Race Relations? Or change outcomes of poorer AA communities? Those are debatable.
However, from a “Moral Highground” standpoint which the U.S loves to take against foreign actors, the US never apologized to AA for 3+ centuries of slavery and discrimination, much less thought about reparations, but just 50 years after throwing Japanese folks in internment camps you get an apology and reparations.
Hell, in 1971 Inuits (Alaskan Natives) got $1 BILLION dollars and 44 MILLION acres of land.
Lastly, because we want to compare the life of AA to Native Africans and claim that is a justification for not paying reparations your logic is: hey we raped, murdered, castrated and enslaved your folks, but look! Even though you came here unwillingly, you benefit from it now. No way your life would’ve been better there.
They took away their liberty, and any aspect of choice. Let the American government take a White Man’s liberty and all hell will break lose. @zeb1 will fly in on a White Horse to give a 20 page critique of his loss of liberty.
Simply put, that logic is bullshit.
I think reparations do assign a “guilty party.” That is an unfortunate aspect that would be difficult to overcome regardless of how it is framed.
I think that the only way to ameliorate racial tensions in this country would be to give AA land like the Native Americans, so if you want to live 100% discrimination free you can. Otherwise, the history of racism will always be here. PC culture has tried to turn it on its head and the pendulum has swung far far further than it should have.
My final point though, the AA experience in this country was/is 100% unique, no one in this country has experienced anything like it. It cannot be justified by the shit other countries do because America is supposed to be “better” “American exceptionalism.” If you want to justify the shit that happens here based on other countries then you don’t believe in American exceptionalism.
This reply is to the whole thread, not Raj but the quote was so ludicrous
Is it fair to penalize the white Northerners - whose ancestors did not own slaves, did not participate in Jim Crow, and fought & died to help destroy the institution of slavery?
I’m not saying there wasn’t (isn’t) discrimination there.
