The case for reparations

[Ten oz]

58 minutes ago, iNow said:

Cory Booker often speaks of a comment his dad used to make. 

“Stop acting like you hit a triple. You were born on 3rd base.”

It reminds me of this conversation. We can give everyone a bat, good cleats, access to food and training equipment, but the underlying issue remains:

Some people begin the run from home plate to 1st base. Others begin from 3rd base straight to home. 

The score remains handicapped and biased (whether or not passage is politically feasible). 

Some people will always be born with more advantages than others. No changing that. Simply having two healthy parents that love you is an advantage many don't get. In my opinion the problem isn't so much that some people are born on third base much as it is that so many who aren't born on third  hate themselves and each other for not being born on third. 

51 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I think you are reading it too narrowly. From your source...

AA was not just about equality and increasing diversity. Discrimination didn't just mean that blacks might be discriminated against in college admissions, it meant that blacks were often unqualified for college admissions due all the additional barriers blacks faced when trying qualify for college admission in the first place. As my first link and now your link point out, AA addresses past discrimination.

Segregation ended 50yrs ago. Throughout the country and in the south in particular there were many who preferred segregation. Many organizations had to be pressured to integrate. Many organizations resisted and the problem of discrimination remained at multiple levels. The current President lost a discrimination case in 73' where he disenfranchised black people seeking housing. That was in progressive/diverse New York City. Incentives and quotas were put into place to prevent further discrimination and attempt to undue the disparities created by years of discrimination. 

I think you are viewing AA through too narrow lense absent of context to what was happening at the time and who advocated for most of the laws associated with AA were written. Again, segregation ended 50yrs ago. It wasn't the ancestors of victims who were helped by AA. It was victims of discrimination in realtime who were helped by AA. Look at the time frame when the executive orders regarding AA starting rolling out in the 60's. They were in conjunction with civil rights. The aim was to end ongoing discrimination. AA was just one of numerous policies. 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Affirmative action, also known as reservation in India and Nepal, positive discrimination / action in the United Kingdom^[1], and employment equity (in a narrower context) in Canada and South Africa, is the policy of promoting the education and employment of members of groups that are known to have previously suffered from discrimination.^[2][3][4][5] Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve goals such as bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, promoting diversity, and redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances.

Ten oz - Can you please explain why you think Wikipedia doesn't correct their article on Affirmative Action when they say "...affirmative action has sought to achieve goals such as...redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances."

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Ten oz - Can you please explain why you think Wikipedia doesn't correct their article on Affirmative Action when they say "...affirmative action has sought to achieve goals such as...redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances."

I think the Affirmative Action in the United States wiki page is more relevant to the Affirmative Action as it has existed and been implemented here in the U.S..

Court rulings are good source to review if you are unclear about the aim of AA. Below are rulings for and against the use of AA. Both were ruled based on diversity and discrimination. Neither on past wrongs. 

Quote

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case in which the United StatesSupreme Court upheld the affirmative actionadmissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5–4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity. The Court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups", link

Quote

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the city of Richmond's minority set-aside program, which gave preference to minority business enterprises (MBE) in the awarding of municipal contracts, was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the city failed to identify both the need for remedial action and that other non-discriminatory remedies would be insufficient. Link

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Some people will always be born with more advantages than others. No changing that. Simply having two healthy parents that love you is an advantage many don't get.

This isn't about silver spoons in mouths and loving parents. As I wrote in the thread which led to this one:

The issue is much deeper than that. It's about centuries of systematic discrimination, how for centuries blacks have been financially harmed and held back, under educated, over jailed, and under served by government.. How conscious decisions by white legislatures have hindered wealth accumulation, property ownership, and even simpler things like availability of nutritious food. 

Giving everyone the same number of bandaids and same tubes of neosporin is a great start, but some have broken bones... bones that white privilege has broken with intention... and thus they may require more care.

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I don't think you and I disagree on what would be best. I'm just not sure we agree on whether going after 'the best' is the preferred strategy.

The time is always right to do what's right. We should always strive for the best, even when it's hard.

We shouldn't negotiate with ourselves here, either. Others will be more than happy to knock us back from our idealized perch anyway. We'll ask for 10, and hopefully get 3...

Reach for the stars, maybe we'll land on the moon... 

Edited March 20, 2019 by iNow

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

This isn't about silver spoons in mouths and loving parents. As I wrote in the thread which led to this one:

The issue is much deeper than that. It's about centuries of systematic discrimination, how for centuries blacks have been financially harmed and held back, under educated, over jailed, and under served by government.. How conscious decisions by white legislatures have hindered wealth accumulation, property ownership, and even simpler things like availability of nutritious food. 

Giving everyone the same number of bandaids and same tubes of neosporin is a great start, but some have broken bones... bones that white privilege has broken with intention... and thus they may require more care.

While I agree with your perspective I also consider it relative. Those born with a bad hand often aren't more concerned with others plights than there own. Cynical people exploit that by promising things like the return coal mining jobs to those who view prioritize their own hardships above all else. 

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

While I agree with your perspective I also consider it relative. Those born with a bad hand often aren't more concerned with others plights than there own. Cynical people exploit that by promising things like the return coal mining jobs to those who view prioritize their own hardships above all else. 

Likewise, I tend to agree with your perspective, as well.

I’m unsure what my position is here and am exploring this topic myself to see where I land.

One thing I do know for sure, however, is that saying, “this is toxic and politically unrealistic so we shouldn’t even bother exploring it” is not the right path. 

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

One thing I do know for sure, however, is that saying, “this is toxic and politically unrealistic so we shouldn’t even bother exploring it” is not the right path. 

I agree. 

How untenable reparations might be isn't at the heart thought process. It is just the easiest of my thoughts on the subject to express. 

In the same way a victim of a violent crime just wants to feel safe again I believe people, everyone, wants to feel safe, equal, and that things are fair. I think taking down Confederate statues, hiring police that are part of the community they police, ensuring that beautifying (gentrification) a neighbor doesn't mean removing people of color, and many other things along those lines would make those historically discriminated against feel safe, equal, and that things are fair. I think there is more opportunity for catharsis in simply removing symbols of division than in creating ways to apologise or reimburse. 

[iNow]

Points well made. Only pushback is slight, and specifically with that last part. We can both remove symbols of division and oppression AND create ways to offer retribution.  They’re not mutually exclusive, much like we can fight to make things equal while also in parallel advocating for addressing past wrongs. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Points well made. Only pushback is slight, and specifically with that last part. We can both remove symbols of division and oppression AND create ways to offer retribution.  They’re not mutually exclusive, much like we can fight to make things equal while also in parallel advocating for addressing past wrongs. 

Case by case when tangible I agree. In gentrification unduly displaces a family that family should be adequately compensated. In a person is injured by aggressive police they should be adequately compensated. It is harder to address as a catch all nationally. There might be common ways people have been disenfranchised but it is still a unique experience for everyone. Do all cases receive the same retribution? I don't think that is fair per se. The same prescription for all ills.

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

This isn't about silver spoons in mouths and loving parents. As I wrote in the thread which led to this one:

The issue is much deeper than that. It's about centuries of systematic discrimination, how for centuries blacks have been financially harmed and held back, under educated, over jailed, and under served by government.. How conscious decisions by white legislatures have hindered wealth accumulation, property ownership, and even simpler things like availability of nutritious food. 

Giving everyone the same number of bandaids and same tubes of neosporin is a great start, but some have broken bones... bones that white privilege has broken with intention... and thus they may require more care.

The time is always right to do what's right. We should always strive for the best, even when it's hard.

We shouldn't negotiate with ourselves here, either. Others will be more than happy to knock us back from our idealized perch anyway. We'll ask for 10, and hopefully get 3...

Reach for the stars, maybe we'll land on the moon... 

 The harm that has been caused to the inhabitants and descendants of the African continent cannot be overstated. I think the first step towards reparation is to just sit down and listen to what they want to say.

[iNow]

36 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think the first step towards reparation is to just sit down and listen to what they want to say.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that precisely what Coates, Warren, Castro, Conyers, and others are proposing with this House Bill?

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Do all cases receive the same retribution?

I’m not ignoring you. I’m still thinking about this point. 

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that precisely what Coates, Warren, Castro, Conyers, and others are proposing with this House Bill?

I haven't read anything about it; that was my thought OTTOMH.

Edited March 21, 2019 by StringJunky

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I haven't read anything about it; that was my thought OTTOMH.

Right on. No worries. Also, I had to look that up. I’m not hip with all your millennial lingo. Frfr 

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The harm that has been caused to the inhabitants and descendants of the African continent cannot be overstated. I think the first step towards reparation is to just sit down and listen to what they want to say.

All wouldn't say the same thing. Experiences differ and individuals internalizes things their own way. That said communities of color often stand in solidarity and are often ignored. 

African American's voices are for example are muted and it is so common most don't notice. For example 90% of all African Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore  yet they all still lost. No candidate for office has ever shored up support from 90% of White voters has ever come close to losing an election. It may read as a bad example because Whites are the majority so of course 90% of them would guarantee victory for nearly anything but that is also my point. Even when African American stand in unison they can still be ignored, still need the approval of Whites. The opposite is never true. During the big hubbub over Athletes kneeling during the National Anthem polling showed 80% of the African American public supported the kneeling, basically all the athletes participating in kneeling were African American, and the majority of all NFL Athletes are African American yet the NFL still passed a rule prohibiting it. Whites are always in a position to decree regardless of how strongly other groups feel. 

The authority held isn't merely a majority thing either as seen with our elections and system govt. Both Clinton and Gore won the popular vote and lost. California has a population 56x greater than Wyoming's (92% white) yet both States get the same number of representatives in the Senate. Democrats who overwhelming are supported by minorities represent 40 million more constituents in the Senate than Republicans yet Republicans are in the Majority. Think about that. The party that represents less people are in the majority. Structurally Whites are empowered over other groups. 

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

All wouldn't say the same thing.

Of course they wouldn't but one will get a sense of the common themes.

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m not ignoring you. I’m still thinking about this point. 

I too have been thinking on it. Trying to figure out how best to explain my objections. I do not have any problem with Congress taking the issue up for consideration. I don't think any conversation is off limits. One of my hang ups, I guess, is the involvement of Presidential Candidates. The President serves everyone, all communities throughout the nation, equally. For it to be a Presidential matter (in my opinion) there needs to be a case made that it is in the best interest of the whole nation. Community by community leaders can make individual decisions about how to best create equal opportunity and repay disenfranchised individuals. Our system already allows for that. What is the impetus for Presidential involvement? During segregation the impetus was that States were violating human rights and the Constitution. 

I suppose this is bit of a cross post with the Democratic Primary thread but I see a difference between activists and Presidents. MLK wasn't a President. Cesar Chavez wasn't a President. Activists are not responsible for the whole nation. Activists can be focused on more singular goals for singular groups of people. The ACLU, Green Peace, PETA, are all organizations doing good work but are not Govt Agencies. It don't think it is the Presidents place to take up the lead role of activist less it can be demonstrated to be in everyones best interest. Easy examples of such things in my opinion are Healthcare and Climate Change. 

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Of course they wouldn't but one will get a sense of the common themes.

As stated in the rest of my post the common themes we already have are being regularly ignored. 

[dimreepr]

reparations are fundamentally flawed because they can't repair, they can only compensate. And that is reverse  revenge.

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

reparations are fundamentally flawed because they can't repair, they can only compensate. And that is reverse  revenge.

Revenge means "The action of hurting or harming someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands", Link. Reparations does hurt or harm anyone. 

[dimreepr]

http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/kellogg/064a.html

Quote

Most fall into what he calls a "revenge effect," which is when technology has the exact opposite effect of the purpose for which it was introduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences

Quote

Perverse result: A perverse effect contrary to what was originally intended (when an intended solution makes a problem worse). This is sometimes referred to as 'backfire'.

•  

 

https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-droit-penal-2007-3-page-565.htm#

[Ten oz]

@dimreepr are you saying that what you meant was perverse effect/unintended consequence or trying to argue that Revenge is synonymous with an unintended consequence? 

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

@dimreepr are you saying that what you meant was perverse effect/unintended consequence or trying to argue that Revenge is synonymous with an unintended consequence? 

 

when does revenge solve anything?

[iNow]

Revenge is only confusing the discussion. Nobody but you is discussing revenge, dimreepr. We can agree that there my be unintended consequences, but calling this idea vengeful (revengeful) is hyperbolic and wrong.

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, iNow said:

Revenge is only confusing the discussion. Nobody but you is discussing revenge, dimreepr. We can agree that there my be unintended consequences, but calling this idea vengeful (revengeful) is hyperbolic and wrong.

2

On 3/21/2019 at 2:24 PM, dimreepr said:

reparations are fundamentally flawed because they can't repair, they can only compensate. And that is reverse  revenge.

When did reparations work?

 

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

When did reparations work?

 

Germany's 1952 Reparations agreement 

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Germany's 1952 Reparations agreement 

tell that to a Palestinian

Edited March 22, 2019 by dimreepr