Yes - the offending party, the wrongdoer, was the United States government (internment camps were a function of government policy), so it was paid for by that entity, which is funded by everyone.
EDIT: similar conceptually to suing the government. If the Army Corps of Engineers destroys your car, you sue the COE, not all the taxpayers of the US, who fund COE.
I may be splitting hairs again, but we (the people) aren’t just the coffers for the govt to spend. In theory, our govt is built upon the notion that it will enact the will of the people (or as often happens, the will of the few and inaction of the many). We are, by extension, “responsible” for our govt and its actions. In a collective “WE” sense, the buck stops with us.
I don’t disagree - but I’m not sure what you mean by that re: slavery reparations?
The U.S. put Japanese folks into camps.
The U.S. did not enslave people. Private citizens owned slaves.
Well let me open with, I don’t believe reparations to the AA community are a good idea in the slightest. I believe any positive gain will be far outweighed by the heightened racial tensions as fuel is added to the fire.
In the context of the Japanese camps, they happened from '42-'46. Reparations hit in 1988. So now in the sense of “who’s paying for it that isn’t guilty,” you’ve got everyone born from ~1926 (assuming average starting working age of 14) til 1988 that wasn’t responsible (in the sense that voters are responsible for the govt) for the WWII camps. Shakes out to ~95mil people that reach working age before reparations hit. 95 million people that had absolutely nothing to do with the camps, that had to “pay” for it.
This is obviously dumbed down as it doesn’t touch on mortality rates, immigration, etcetectc. but the concept that we’ve done part of this before isn’t new. The new part would be by paying the people that weren’t the DIRECT victims of slavery, which means you have to hash out who/when/how someone was impacted by Jim Crow and the monetary value of it. Toss in how inept pols are and you’ve got a tire fire that’ll burn for decades.
PUBLIC STATEMENT BY EIGHT ALABAMA CLERGYMEN
April 12, 1963
"We the undersigned clergymen are among those who, in January, issued “An Appeal for Law and Order and Common Sense,” in dealing with racial problems in Alabama. We expressed understanding that honest convictions in racial matters could properly be pursued in the courts, but urged that decisions of those courts should in the meantime be peacefully obeyed.
Since that time there had been some evidence of increased forbearance and a willingness to face facts. Responsible citizens have undertaken to work on various problems which cause racial friction and unrest. In Birmingham, recent public events have given indication that we all have opportunity for a new constructive and realistic approach to racial problems.
However, we are now confronted by a series of demonstrations by some of our Negro citizens, directed and led in part by outsiders. We recognize the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized. But we are convinced that these demonstrations are unwise and untimely.
We agree rather with certain local Negro leadership which has called for honest and open negotiation of racial issues in our area. And we believe this kind of facing of issues can best be accomplished by citizens of our own metropolitan area, white and Negro, meeting with their knowledge and experience of the local situation. All of us need to face that responsibility and find proper channels for its accomplishment.
Just as we formerly pointed out that “hatred and violence have no sanction in our religious and political traditions,” we also point out that such actions as incite to hatred and violence, however technically peaceful those actions may be, have not contributed to the resolution of our local problems. We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham.
We commend the community as a whole, and the local news media and law enforcement in particular, on the calm manner in which these demonstrations have been handled. We urge the public to continue to show restraint should the demonstrations continue, and the law enforcement official to remain calm and continue to protect our city from violence.
We further strongly urge our own Negro community to withdraw support from these demonstrations, and to unite locally in working peacefully for a better Birmingham. When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets. We appeal to both our white and Negro citizenry to observe the principles of law and order and common sense."
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09a/mlk_day/statement.html
[emphasis mine]
Agree completely. No good come of it.
Agreed, but when the wrongdoer is the government, that’s the nature of it. You can’t go back and get recompense from an earlier administration or the people who staffed it. The government “wrong” belongs to all of us, even those yet to be born.
Agreed. Even outside of the constitutional objections (which as I have said, I think are fatal), there are innumerable questions that make the enterprise a dumpster fire.
As I asked ED earlier, should Hispanics and Asians and white folks whose immigrant parents moved here post-slavery pay for the reparations? Surely we can all agree that whatever your thoughts on white people paying reparations, none of these folk should - that’s unfair to the point of being immoral.
What about white people who did their best to give blacks opportunities when racism was much more prevalent? Why should they pay? I think about the white Freedom Riders down south. That was ages ago, but many of them were white - many of them put their life on the line in the name of advancing civil rights for blacks, should they have to pay?
Turning the navel-gazing of slavery reparations into real-world application is simply impossible if you have any sense of justice or common sense.
And the reverse is true, too - this last week, I met with a high-dollar wealth management advisor (private banking guy - full disclosure, not for my wealth planning, he manages the big boys, not people like me), and he is black, and loaded. Does he get a check for reparations?
(This sets aside the actual economics of figuring out the amounts, which is simply a fantasy posing as finance.)
Another issue, one I raised @anon71262119 once not long ago - what about blacks that make it to college, but choose a major that puts them in a job that doesn’t pay much, like social work? Nothing wrong with that - they decided not to chase the highest income and instead wanted to make a difference in other ways. Why should they receive a check for reparations? If the point of reparations is that the vestiges of slavery have held blacks back from getting their chance to have the same wealth as whites, what about those who had every opportunity but simply prioritized something different?
No one can make sense of the countervailing variables. No one.
That’s one of the reasons the eight Alabama clergymen gave for why MLK should stop his activism. Wiki summarizes his response (ie, the relevant portion of his Letter from Birmingham Jail) thusly:
"The clergymen also disapproved of tensions created by public actions such as sit-ins and marches. To this, King confirmed that he and his fellow demonstrators were indeed using nonviolent direct action in order to create “constructive” tension. This tension was intended to compel meaningful negotiation with the white power structure, without which true civil rights could never be achieved. Citing previous failed negotiations, King wrote that the black community was left with “no alternative.” “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
“The word “slave” does not appear in the Constitution. The framers consciously avoided the word, recognizing that it would sully the document. Nevertheless, slavery received important protections in the Constitution. The notorious three-fifths clause—which counted three-fifths of a state’s slave population in apportioning representation—gave the South extra representation in the House of Representatives and extra votes in the Electoral College. Thomas Jefferson would have lost the election of 1800 if not for the Three-fifths Compromise. The Constitution also prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years. A fugitive slave clause required the return of runaway slaves to their owners. The Constitution gave the federal government the power to put down domestic rebellions, including slave insurrections.”
Further, slave labor built the White House, the Capitol, and many other structures.
No, the US did not own slaves. But it is deeply and ineluctably culpable for it. And like the National Debt, the debt of slavery ‘belongs’ to all Americans, no matter how long they’ve lived here.
First off, this isn’t even tomato-toMato, this is tomato-potato. Comparing MLK esque activism (when the law clearly didn’t provide equal protection in a wide number of areas) to current day push for reparations (literally paying people whom you can’t confirm suffered or were slighted to the same degree and assigning an arbitrary number to it) isn’t reasonable to my mind. But let’s assume they’re the same.
The difference to me being “constructive” tension. I recognize that it being accepted as “constructive” is a hindsight is 20:20 kinda thing, but that’s not to say that all tension is “constructive” in hindsight.
The reason I ultimately view/agree MLK level activism was “constructive” is because the LAW was written incorrectly, and every single pol that voted as such did a huge disservice to what it means for America to exist. As such, they’re simple a disgrace, and MLK had to start a multi generational push to rectify this problem. Simply put, the positives were ALWAYS going to outweigh the negatives, as the negatives were a systematic lack of equal rights.
Fast forward to reparations. You’re arbitrarily placing a value on the suffering (vastly different levels of suffering) of people whom are protected the same under the law. Whether or not the people accept this and treat minorities the same doesn’t speak to whether or not it’s openly allowed (ala Jim Crow).
Let’s posit a scenario. Reparation checks go out (obviously going to create absurd turmoil during the “assign a value” process), we’re pushed further into the negative regarding the federal budget, and a news article hits. “TV SALES UP 318% SINCE REPARATIONS GO OUT.” “CUSTOM CAR RIM INDUSTRY BOOMING AFTER REPARATIONS GO OUT.” Now, I recognize that ultimately the decision on how the AA community spends said money is up to them, but I also recognize ultimately that doesn’t matter re: racial tensions.
My question to you is this. Do you (ED), genuinely believe reparations would cause a net positive benefit to racial tensions in America? Or is this simply a targeted public assistance thought to you? Or some other thing I’m not saying?
I’m glad you recognize that this is a hindsight issue. But surely you have to agree that, by definition, you can’t make a hindsight statement about other forms of activism until, well, if/when you have some hindsight on them. So whether reparations would have been a positive step is answerable only well after if/when they are implemented. In other words, you can’t say ‘I already know that this would be a bad idea in hindsight,’ which is what you seem to be implying.
I think that’s revisionism. For example, at the time, the well-meaning clergymen who wrote the letter clearly didn’t think this was the case–it mos def seemed to them that the negatives of MLK’s activism were going to outweigh any positives that might accrue.
As ‘the arbitrary placing of a value on suffering’ forms the basis of our tort system, I’m not sure how this objection is dispositive (unless you’re arguing to condemn the tort system in general). Further, so far as the specific form reparations would take–who would benefit, and how much–you are way out over your skis. Such issues would be decided near the end of a discussion about reparations, not the beginning (much less prior to the discussion even starting).
Skis, again. Setting aside the rather presumptive nature of your scenario, no one has claimed that reparations would have to be in the form of payments to individuals.
No. That is, I am not convinced reparations are the best way forward. But I am convinced it is something that should be explored/studied, eg, via a Congressional committee.
To the contrary. I’m not implying anything. I’m explicitly stating I believe this will be a bad idea in foresight and will end up being a bad idea in hindsight.
Because they were thinking about the communities that existed today instead of the next 5 generations. As we’re all going to have to live with it, I think these issues should be considered almost exclusively in the long term.
Much agreed. I would go a step further and say that ANYONE that thinks they can place a correct value on it is out of their skis. There are far too many adjustment factors that come into play for any number to be remotely reasonable to apply across the board.
It’s not presumptive at all. The average consumer is extremely predictable. If you gave reparations to white/hispanic/asian/etc people it would result in the same scenario. Extra sales of things that are typically bought by said race will skyrocket in the short term. We see this literally every year with tax refunds. A decent chunk of the population will always increase spending on fringe items and forgo the ways that would avoid the generic headlines I suggested. If you genuinely believe “the right” wouldn’t immediately use this to score political points, it is you sir that is out over your skis. This may be a hypothetical, but it’s one I have absolute confidence in.
I’m glad you have enough faith in our politicians to not make this a complete dumpster fire. Given that I have nowhere near that much, we’ll have to agree to disagree here.
Just like the Birmingham clergy.
I assume you’re implying some sort of enormous, multigenerational debt incurred by the act of reparations?
Ironically, I do too. But I would respectfully suggest that, at best, your long-term thinking is incomplete, and isn’t even all that long-term in nature.
Certainly, there would never be a universally-agreed upon valuation. But that doesn’t mean a valuation can’t be settled upon. For example, it was decided to give each J-A internment survivor 20K. Why this particular valuation? At the time (and to this date), I’m sure there were (are) individuals who felt this valuation was ludicrously low, as well as some who thought (think) it was outrageously high. The lack of anticipation of a universally agreed-upon valuation is not a good a priori reason not to proceed.
They’d all buy flat-screen TVs and custom rims? Anyway, I already said that reparations need not be in the form of cash payouts to individuals.
Comparison grasped.
No I mean they were willing to sacrifice a net positive cultural change in the long run over maintaining the peace via no negative short term effects.
The long term benefits I’m not correctly valuing are what, exactly?
First off, this was made EXTREMELY easy by the nature of only awarding reparations to those that were directly imprisoned. As such, a calculation of “average time spent in camps” x “valuation per unit of time” becomes so easy a caveman can do it. The reason to be skeptical about a valuation is that the variance/std of “amount suffered” is exponentially different from that of the J-A community.
“All” is a bit harsh, and not even in the same hemisphere as what I actually said.
What are the options for said reparations, if not monetary in nature?
OK then, now I’m confused. You’ve stated such issues “should be considered almost exclusively in the long term,” but you’re praising the Birmingham clergy for their short-term thinking? Or have I misunderstood your point/stance completely?
First, and looking backwards, there’s the long-term damages experienced by the AA community. Second, (and more to your point) looking forwards, is 1) the continuing, long-term future damages that will be experienced by the AA community; and 2) the long-term extension of relatively poor race relations if we allow the status quo to limp along. (This one is of course debatable.)
You are glossing over the key step–determining the ‘valuation per unit time.’ There’s no universally agreed-upon way to determine it. Yet they did it.
Again, I have to say the problem of valuation is not insurmountable.
I didn’t say non-monetary–I said not cash payouts to individuals. Could be, say, a trust fund used to advance AA education, business development, housing, etc.
I’m not praising them for it, I’m criticizing. They wanted MLK to stop as they were considering the short term, as in the short term racial tensions caused by implementing and recovering from something like the civil rights movement.
I’m confused on this one. Reparations to the AA community causes a long term net gain how?
Does this mean the status quo would somehow CHANGE in a post reparations world due to those reparations?
Of course not. But arguing over those 2 metrics alone (avg time and cost per unit of time) aren’t themselves very harrowing tasks. That’s in large part due to how simple it is to calculate because the std/variance of “avg time” is so narrow. With a 4 year time period and well kept logs of ins-outs at these camps, you can very easily figure this aspect out. You’re then left arguing about “cost per unit of time.”
Now fast forward to the AA reparations. Do we consider immigrants 2 generations deep? 1? How about those that are mixed? Can you actually DEFINE who would be getting said reparations. Furthermore, you then have to account for age. Does a 90 yr old that lived through Jim Crow in Alabama get the same amount as a 9 yr old that grew up in a wealthy suburban neighborhood in CA? Do direct descendants of slaves get more?
This doesn’t even scratch the surface about how many questions need to be answered (all by the “elite” that comprise our highest echelon of govt) in order to come to a bottom line. The J-A questions requires the answer to 2 questions, both of which can EASILY be approached with a math based argument. By the very nature of the history of AAs, much of this will be centered around teh feelz.
You’re then left with the exact same problem, except in a different form of currency.
I’m confused by your confusion. The AA community is socioeconomically disadvantaged by dint of the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and de facto segregation. Reparations would, to coin a phrase, ‘socioeconomically advantage’ the community, with a goal of at least partially erasing their current disadvantage. In short, it would put them on the fast-track to being average Americans with respect to wealth, opportunity, mobility, etc.
That is a possibility, yes. (You will note I acknowledged it was a “debatable” point.)
Look, I am simply not going to come around to the notion that reparations for slavery are a nonstarter because of the valuation issue. Agree to disagree time.
The trust-fund approach obviates the ‘flat screens and custom rims’ portion of your objection.
How to achieve justice for Slavery and Jim Crow:
Give wealth to people who haven’t earned it and charge those who’ve not benefited from slavery or Jim Crow. Seems legit.
If you don’t think we (present-day white folk, especially those of us whose families have been here a while) have benefited tremendously from slavery, you haven’t studied the subject seriously.
“Tremendously” is a stretch and you know it. A very small percentage of southern whites owned slaves. Poor southern whites would have been hurt by slavery as it disrupted the labor market, pricing them out.
Northern whites would be indifferent to slavery at best. They would have had access to cheaper cotton, tobacco, rice and sugar. But then, the whole world would have.