The case for reparations

[MigL]

Meanwhile back at the OP... 

Again, back on the first page of this discussion, Ten oz, you state...
"While I feel reparations are justified in theory I don't think it is practical as a policy."

You have still not explained why you think they are impractical.
Are you going to do so anytime soon ?

All you've done since the first page is attack people who agreed with your opinion, and who made some attempt to explain why they are impractical.
All we got from you is something about Confederate symbols being still out there, and how some whites are disenfranchised also.
Then have the gall to claim others 'dropped a turd' and don't explain themselves.
( no, I'm not letting it go )

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

That is what reperations speaks to, you get something because you think you have been offended from someone who had nothing to do with it. The children pay for the sins of the father. And must accept that, because they are children of the father, that they were born guilty. Isn't that racism? Should I call it justice?

Reparations is not about assigning guilt. It is about, among other things, making up for a wrong that was done. No one is asking only the sons of slave owners to pay reparations. No one is asking only white people to pay reparations. This is largely about the government taking responsibility for policies it allowed which resulted in problems faced by blacks today, and in some small way, making it up to them.

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

Meanwhile back at the OP... 

Again, back on the first page of this discussion, Ten oz, you state...
"While I feel reparations are justified in theory I don't think it is practical as a policy."

You have still not explained why you think they are impractical.
Are you going to do so anytime soon ?

All you've done since the first page is attack people who agreed with your opinion, and who made some attempt to explain why they are impractical.

Both of the below quotes are from page two and expand on the very thing you are claiming I haven't expanded on.

On 3/20/2019 at 7:27 PM, Ten oz said:

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 apologize or reimburse. 

 

On 3/20/2019 at 8:52 PM, Ten oz said:

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.

 

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Meanwhile back at the OP... 

All we got from you is something about Confederate symbols being still out there, and how some whites are disenfranchised also.
Then have the gall to claim others 'dropped a turd' and don't explain themselves.
( no, I'm not letting it go )

Yes, turd is word I used. You stated a list of issues saying "some people" would like to discuss them while adding "not me, I'll be keeping my distance". You brought those items up for discussion while claiming you wouldn't be discussing them. I consider that a turd. Just say what you have to say. Posting about what others might say, the average American sees (you used that turd as well), and so is all unnecessary. Just speak for for yourself and spit it out already. 

On 3/22/2019 at 1:50 PM, MigL said:

If any reparations are to be made to 'correct' past inequalities/injustices, they would have to be sizeable.
20 dollars apiece and an apology isn't going to do squat to correct the inequalities inherent in the system.

That being said, the government does NOT have any of its own money that it can dish out.
It is all taxpayer money that the government re-distributes, and any that goes towards reparations either comes at the expense of other programs, or has to be re-payed by our children. So although Dimreepr is being his usual terse self, he makes a valid point and sizeable reparations could hurt others.

Why not simply have equal standards going forward, that people are people, not black or white.
Only those qualities which directly affect a person's performance/actions is to be considered, not their skin color, sexual orientation, ethnic background, etc. 

Even what Ten oz did in a previous post, breaking down  voting and sports affiliation, while seemingly done to show the inherent inequalities, would be considered racist if done in other areas, such as crime statistics. So you can see the dilemma in trying to have a 'conversation' about reparations; you don't come off as being genuine if you make some areas of discussion off-limits.
Some people ( not me, I'll be keeping my distance ) will no doubt want to discuss the role/influence  black-on-black violence, and absent fathers, have on the current inequalities.
It may start out as a conversation/discussion, but in the current political climate, it would likely degenerate into race wars.
Does the US really need that problem also ?

 

[jajrussel]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You feel this is happening in the U.S.?

Yes.

 

54 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If the question is related to the Oscars than my answer is no. I don't think anyone should win an Oscar based on race.

But in general it's okay? Exactly, when is it okay for someone to be entitled because of their race? Is it ethnically okay? 

[Ten oz]

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

All you've done since the first page is attack people who agreed with your opinion, and who made some attempt to explain why they are impractical.

The below quote is also from the second page

On 3/21/2019 at 10:21 AM, Ten oz said:

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. 

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

 

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Reparations is not about assigning guilt. It is about, among other things, making up for a wrong that was done. No one is asking only the sons of slave owners to pay reparations. No one is asking only white people to pay reparations. This is largely about the government taking responsibility for policies it allowed which resulted in problems faced by blacks today, and in some small way, making it up to them.

This gave me thought. What if assets could be traced back through a family and it be shown how they benefited from Slavery and or Segregation. Should those assets be taken away? For example post Slavery families kept their plantations. I'd imagine some of that real estate remains in the hands of descendants to this day and continues to be a source of wealth. Would the govt striping individuals of such assets be a good idea? 

This is not a rebuttal of any kind to your post. It is literally just a thought which popped into my head. I am not advocating for it much as just exploring it. Might be a sobering slap in the face for many you argue they never owned slaves and haven't benefited directly from slavery. Losing valuable antiques, property, homes, and etc which have enriched heirs for generations might be quite the slap in the face. 

20 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Yes.

I disagree. I don't think their is any sort of anti white movement afoot in U.S. media or popular culture. Whites regularly are able to win political elections, star in movies, manage successful social media accounts, host news programs, record successful pop music, and etc. 70% of the population of the U.S. is White. So unless you believe a significant amount of Whites in the U.S. are self hating the majority of the U.S. is not anti White. 

25 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

But in general it's okay? Exactly, when is it okay for someone to be entitled because of their race? Is it ethnically okay? 

I didn't say it was in general. I am trying to address the specific scenario you are referencing. I am not capable of imagining every possible scenario which may exist.

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

when is it okay for someone to be entitled because of their race?

I think you’re raising a good point. Unless I’m blind to some deep ignorance, you’re clearly referring to white people here, right? The entitlement you reference is centuries old, and the persistence of white supremacy is a direct reason we are having this discussion at all. 

[jajrussel]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Activists are not responsible for the whole nation

How does the President compare to the ACLU, Green peace, PETA, Chavez, and MLK? You forgot Gandhi. There is no comparison. Who said there was. Where is the link?

Actually, how does the ACLU , Green Peace, and PETA even compare to Chavez, MLK, and once again let's not forget Gandhi. There is no comparison.

Why wave that flag unless you have an agenda?

[MigL]

I'm not American Ten oz.
Any 'conversation' your government and your people may have concerning reparations for the continuing after-effects of slavery, is not one I'll be a part of.
And yes, a lot of Americans will see it as an attack on their way of life.
Your President is proof of that, and shares those sentiments, no matter how many statistics you 'preach to the choir'.

But it seems that if someone says that they may not want to get involved in a discussion that will degenerate into bickering and name calling, you consider that 'dropping a turd'.
Furthering that discussion towards bickering and name calling.
Well done

[jajrussel]

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

I think you’re raising a good point. Unless I’m blind to some deep ignorance, you’re clearly referring to white people here, right? The entitlement you reference is centuries old, and the persistence of white supremacy is a direct reason we are having this discussion at all. 

What? Have you read history? Maybe I misunderstood you? I am a little slow sometimes,maybe you should say it more slowly in such a way that I can understand it without having to worry that I might needlessly offend you. Certainly you are not suggesting that the white race is the only race to have ever owned slaves and that all of us have a sense of superiority. In the presence of all other races and I suppose you believe that that is not racism? 

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm not American Ten oz.
Any 'conversation' your government and your people may have concerning reparations for the continuing after-effects of slavery, is not one I'll be a part of.
And yes, a lot of Americans will see it as an attack on their way of life.
Your President is proof of that, and shares those sentiments, no matter how many statistics you 'preach to the choir'.

But it seems that if someone says that they may not want to get involved in a discussion that will degenerate into bickering and name calling, you consider that 'dropping a turd'.
Furthering that discussion towards bickering and name calling.
Well done

Lol, yes but you  sounded so damn American. Well, you know how we sound. I can see why he was confused

Edited March 23, 2019 by jajrussel

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm not American Ten oz.
Any 'conversation' your government and your people may have concerning reparations for the continuing after-effects of slavery, is not one I'll be a part of.
And yes, a lot of Americans will see it as an attack on their way of life.
Your President is proof of that, and shares those sentiments, no matter how many statistics you 'preach to the choir'.

Yes, a lot of people will see it that way. No argument there. My objection was to you citing average Americans. Trump lost the popular vote. His supporters are no more average Americans than those who opposed him are. Your use of average Americans was redundant at best and had some undisclosed loaded meaning at worst. 

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

But it seems that if someone says that they may not want to get involved in a discussion that will degenerate into bickering and name calling, you consider that 'dropping a turd'.
Furthering that discussion towards bickering and name calling.
Well done

Well done, lol. You asserted that people would want to discuss certain things and brought those things in. Also I don't feel saying you dumped a turd is the same thing as name calling. I am not calling you a turd. 

Anyway you challenged me to elaborate on my comments from page one and I gave you 3 posts from page 2 where I did. Did you find the answers you asked for or do you need further clarification? 

[iNow]

26 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Certainly you are not suggesting that the white race is the only race to have ever owned slaves and that all of us have a sense of superiority

Correct. I’m certainly not suggesting that.

Please avoid reading words I didn’t actually write. This isn’t jazz (h/t swansont)

[jajrussel]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Correct. I’m certainly not suggesting that.

Please avoid reading words I didn’t actually write. This isn’t jazz (h/t swansont)

Well then it should be clear that I am confused and was unable to arrive at the correct interpretation. If it isn't jazz can you tone and time it down to maybe the blues. Two chords is best but I can usually follow three chords it also helps if there are words that I can understand. Chick Corea was a little too complex for me.

Do you need an apology for my ignorance?

And what does he/t mean?

Edited March 23, 2019 by jajrussel

[iNow]

I’m unsure why you’re trying to pick a fight with me, but have no interest in it. 

H/t = hat tip

[jajrussel]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m unsure why you’re trying to pick a fight with me, but have no interest in it. 

H/t = hat tip

Okay. My bad. Have a great day...

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

This gave me thought. What if assets could be traced back through a family and it be shown how they benefited from Slavery and or Segregation. Should those assets be taken away? For example post Slavery families kept their plantations. I'd imagine some of that real estate remains in the hands of descendants to this day and continues to be a source of wealth. Would the govt striping individuals of such assets be a good idea? 

As long as slavery was legal I don't think it is reasonable to expect that any assets derived from it should be subject to forfeiture.

Not all segregation has been legal and if someone can prove harm I would imagine they could make an argument in court for compensation.

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

As long as slavery was legal I don't think it is reasonable to expect that any assets derived from it should be subject to forfeiture.

Not all segregation has been legal and if someone can prove harm I would imagine they could make an argument in court for compensation.

Starting in 1938 with the Property Registry the Germany govt passed many laws that disenfranchised Jewish people and stole their wealth. Many atrocities have happened under than banner of law.  

Property is one of the top manner in which wealth is created and moved down through generations. The combined value of all the real estate in the U.S. is $30 trillion. Massive amounts of land were given to White families for free. Families literally were able to just stake land claims. Something Natives, African Americans, and Chinese weren't able to do. Whites in the South didn't only own slave but also stole vast amounts of land from Native. The Indian Removal Act  forced Natives out of the South leading to the Trail of Tears  and gave White Southerners ownership of the property. 

Segregation may have only existed in the South but mortgage discrimination was nation wide. Blacks, even those who could afford to it, were prevented from buying homes is a variety neighbors with better prospects for equity growth and education. As mentioned in an earlier post the current President was proven guilty in a court of law of discriminating against African Americans in his real estate dealings. The problem continues to this day. African Americans have been and continue to be denied a fair opportunity to compete for a slice of that $30 trillion in real estate. During the Civil War African Americans had been promised land and in some cases given land but post Reconstruction that was mostly all reversed. 

Quote

 

Forty Acres and a Mule refers to a promise made in the United States for agrarian reform to former enslaved black farmers by Union General William Tecumseh Sherman on January 16, 1865. It followed a series of conversations between Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and Radical Republican abolitionists Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens[1]following disruptions to the institution of slavery provoked by the American Civil War. Many freedmen believed and were told by various political figures that they had a right to own the land they had long worked as slaves, and were eager to control their own property. Freed people widely expected to legally claim 40 acres (16 ha) of land (a quarter-quarter section) and a mule after the end of the war, long after proclamations such as Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 15 and the Freedmen's Bureau Act were explicitly reversed.

Some land redistribution occurred under military jurisdiction during the war and for a brief period thereafter. However, federal and state policy during the Reconstruction eraemphasized wage labor, not land ownership, for blacks. Almost all land allocated during the war was restored to its pre-war white owners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_acres_and_a_mule

 

 

White families are more likely to receive an inheritance than black families and among those who receive an inheritance white families receive a much bigger inheritance. Property is the most easily traced source of wealth I can think of. We have seen arguments in this thread that reparation is akin to revenge or that is unduly punishes people for something they neither participated in or benefited from. Going back and looking at where sources of wealth came from and how those sources do directly still benefit people today and are still impacting wealth inequality today might (maybe, still just exploring the idea) be a healthy step. 

Quote

The figure below shows median wealth for households with and without an inheritance. White families are twice as likely to receive an inheritance as black families, and that inheritance is nearly three times as much. Even among black families who inherit wealth, the racial wage gap is much larger, compared to white families who inherit wealth. For families with an inheritance, median white wealth is 7.5 times larger than for black families. Comparatively, white families have 5.4 times more wealth than black families without an inheritance. The importance of inheritances to the wealth position of white families is staggering. At the median, an inheritance increases wealth by more than $100,000 for white families and only $4,000 for black families. Link

Identifying ill gotten and/or maintained land (taken via native removal or promised to Slave pre Reconstruction) seems more practical to me than a standardized from of payment/benefit based purely on race. In many cases, perhaps most cases, the slaves promised that land or the Natives removed from lands can be identified. 

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, jajrussel said:

The media is constantly trying to rally people around an anti white banner.

where do you live?

18 hours ago, jajrussel said:

That is what reperations speaks to, you get something because you think you have been offended from someone who had nothing to do with it. The children pay for the sins of the father. And must accept that, becauseno are children of the father, that they were born guilty.

3

no, they need only accept their father was wrong to judge.

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

White families are more likely to receive an inheritance than black families and among those who receive an inheritance white families receive a much bigger inheritance.

 

and that's why a line needs to be drawn.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

and that's why a line needs to be drawn.

I am not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? 

If you read my whole post I am saying it is worth looking at property which was promised to but never given to African Americans and property forcibly taken from Natives.

[dimreepr]

Quote

politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.

getting money from the rich is like...  If you promise a line drawn that won't cost them, it may work.

 

[iNow]

Separate, but related:

What about people mistakenly locked away in prison for decades, then later exonerated for being shown to have been falsely convicted; when evidence comes forth confirming their innocence from day 1... should the state pay any reparations to this population?

[Ten oz]

On 3/20/2019 at 8:52 PM, Ten oz said:

Case by case when tangible I agree. In gentrification unduly displaces a family that family should be adequately compensated. If 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.

 

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

Separate, but related:

What about people mistakenly locked away in prison for decades, then later exonerated for being shown to have been falsely convicted; when evidence comes forth confirming their innocence from day 1... should the state pay any reparations to this population?

I think it fits in with what I previous mentioned.

On 3/24/2019 at 8:36 AM, Ten oz said:

Identifying ill gotten and/or maintained land (taken via native removal or promised to Slave pre Reconstruction) seems more practical to me than a standardized from of payment/benefit based purely on race. In many cases, perhaps most cases, the slaves promised that land or the Natives removed from lands can be identified. 

 What do you think of the govt returning land previously belonging or promised to Natives & Slaves?

[zapatos]

43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 What do you think of the govt returning land previously belonging or promised to Natives & Slaves?

Not only would returning the land never be acceptable to the electorate, it would probably be illegal.

If we returned all the land previously belonging to the natives the rest of us would have to leave the continent. It's a non-starter.

 

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Not only would returning the land never be acceptable to the electorate, it would probably be illegal.

If we returned all the land previously belonging to the natives the rest of us would have to leave the continent. It's a non-starter.

 

Not all land was inhabited by native thus not all land was taken from them. Some land was even given to the English and French via agreement or trade with varies Native tribes. Post revolutionary War after the Country was established there were established native communities recognized by the Govt.. It is that land I am referencing. Like the land taken via the Indian Removal Act. 

Likewise for slaves specific things were promised people by the government. For example during the Civil War many freed slaves were promised land and some who fought were even rewarded land for their service. Then after the war the land was taken from them and returned to white owners, Link. 

I think the electorate could accept the idea if it was handled specifically enough. It would just be all the land returned to all native and slaves. Rather it would be specific land that was promised or taken from Natives or slaves and is still owned (past down through heirs) by the same families. Land which has long since become part of a park, property of the county, owned by a utility, and etc, etc, etc would be left out of it. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I think it fits in with what I previous mentioned.

Okay. I'm trying to gauge willingness to pay reparations to those individuals wrongly locked up for years/decades, and potentially to their family/children who also suffered from the mistake. Curious what others think, as well.

[zapatos]

46 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Not all land was inhabited by native thus not all land was taken from them. Some land was even given to the English and French via agreement or trade with varies Native tribes. Post revolutionary War after the Country was established there were established native communities recognized by the Govt.. It is that land I am referencing. Like the land taken via the Indian Removal Act. 

Likewise for slaves specific things were promised people by the government. For example during the Civil War many freed slaves were promised land and some who fought were even rewarded land for their service. Then after the war the land was taken from them and returned to white owners, Link. 

I think the electorate could accept the idea if it was handled specifically enough. It would just be all the land returned to all native and slaves. Rather it would be specific land that was promised or taken from Natives or slaves and is still owned (past down through heirs) by the same families. Land which has long since become part of a park, property of the county, owned by a utility, and etc, etc, etc would be left out of it. 

Your line is arbitrary and your footing is weak on whether or not land was "given" or "stolen using the pretext of trade with people who had a different understanding of land ownership or understood the implications of what they were agreeing to". 

Even if you could get the government to pursue and the electorate to accept, you'll never get past the ownership rights of people today.

It is still a non-starter.