The case for reparations

[Phi for All]

15 hours ago, iNow said:

Also, the issues extended well beyond slavery. That’s part of this study that’s getting so many folks worked up. 

The problems faced by US citizens in this instance aren't limited to those caused by the effects of slavery. Any change in the way we treat those with slave ancestry should include all non-whites. I'm not saying reparation is due to all, but if there is an attempt to re-educate the white population regarding tolerance and humanity, it should include how we treat people of any color skin.

Personally, I think there are a few more basic re-education opportunities here for all Americans, and including some of them in a reparations program might make it more palatable to some. We have a major problem with the negative perception of intellectualism. We have a major problem with extremist capitalist takeover/wealth disparity. We have a major problem with corruption in our politics at all levels. We have 25% of the world's prisoners in commercial operations that have little to do with justice. If we want to be extremely efficient, especially against the current administration, we should take a branded approach to these problems. Tackle them all because they're inter-related, and working to solve one helps solve the others. An overarching campaign to clean up our act is needed, something with even more lasting effects than Lady Bird Johnson's anti-littering efforts. There was a great example of something stupid we were doing that needed to be fixed on a national level. I have zero problems with the social engineering that today makes it impossible for me to throw trash on the ground.

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nobody is talking about perfection. Improvement is the goal. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Even you earlier suggesting equity and fairness is good and should be sought, yet here now you seem to be putting up obstacles against that, too. 

Improvements have been made. More are still needed. There will be costs, but there will also be benefits.

This is not linear, and nobody is expecting everyone to subscribe to my viewpoint (though it sure would be dandy if they did, or if they at least started looking for paths to success instead of continuing to introduce new and arbitrary... no, surmountable... reasons to avoid seeking it).

What obstacles am I putting up? I'm just recognizing some that are there, hidden or otherwise. 

There are pitfalls that should be avoided if you want to improve outcomes for African Americans.

If you can't see, or admit, or accept that then it might not turn out as dandy as you intend. I would hate to see Trump re-elected based on overreach and miscalculation, or a similar backlash after someone gets elected based on it.

My concerns are not the obstacles. I have no direct stake in this, nor any say in it. 

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There are pitfalls that should be avoided if you want to improve outcomes for African Americans.

There's always pitfalls/mines, but they're always discoverable and easily avoided; if you want too...

Edited June 23, 2019 by dimreepr

[iNow]

I wouldn’t say easily, only that discussing them endlessly is merely a distraction from us getting started in overcoming them. 

[CharonY]

20 hours ago, MigL said:

No I haven't backtracked at all INow.
I still don't think, given the current state of race relations in the US, that this is the right thing to do at this time.
It will only lead to more bitter relations in these polarized times.
I would like to see past injustices addressed and considered only in the scope of achieving equal treatment for all Americans; not reparations.
And I said that in my previous post.
 

The policy you are promoting could be considered the "ignore the issue until everyone involved is dead", which, to be fair was also attempted in Germany. The counter push was that because of that reparations had to be addressed sooner than later. The interesting bit here is that black folks in the US still suffer from the consequences. I.e. you are blatantly ignoring the effect of the past on the present and the future. It is not possible to have equity without addressing that and there is ample data on that. Saying we aim for equal treatment but not address the roots of inequality is empty rhetoric at best.

 

Quote

Incidentally, the irony of a group of Americans ( and one Brit ) lecturing two multicultural Canadians on race relations and inclusivity, seems to be lost on you guys.

I will point to the fact that in Canada the failure of the government to honor its treaties with First Nation is an hugely ongoing issue. While inquiries have been started in a number of aspects I will say that many Canadians have a less than inclusive view on First Nations. Only recently a report has indicated how the past treatment and ongoing situation can be considered a genocide (including police actions, or abuse of consent rules leading to sterilization). IOW lip service is not the same as taking action.

[J.C.MacSwell]

OK. Can we agree that, on average, descendants of slaves still have a residual disadvantage vs descendants of slave owners?

Let's hypothesize that 'x' amount of compensation should be provided to someone 100% descended from slaves, based on slavery alone (setting aside other effects from Jim Crow Laws etc, for now, to have them determined later)

How much do I get, as a percentage of 'x', if I am say 75% descended? 50%? 25%?

What if I am 25% descended from slaves, and 75% from slave owners? What about 25% each and 50% from more recent immigration?

Etc. Etc.

Now how much should 'x' be?

Then we consider Jim Crow Law affects...

Mortgages and access to business loans...

How much, if any, I have benefitted from affirmative action...

Wouldn't it be more productive for all concerned to focus on doing better going forward?

Edited June 23, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

I wouldn’t say easily, only that discussing them endlessly is merely a distraction from us getting started in overcoming them. 

Also to add to that, a common distraction is the "what about white/Jews/Chinese..etc" argument. Again, this is addressed in the article referenced in OP (almost as if Coates was very familiar with the subject). The key element here is to identify the mechanisms in play for each group and asses potential solutions. Lumping them all together (despite vastly different experiences, networks and trajectories) only allows to play one group against the other. Which, I do not doubt, is one of the purposes of these discussions.

Studies have shown that untargeted poverty relief policies have disproportionately benefitted the white majority, for example, which ultimately was an incentive to implement affirmative action policies as a targeted band-aid measure.

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

OK. Can we agree that, on average, descendants of slaves still have a residual disadvantage vs descendants of slave owners?

Let's hypothesize that 'x' amount of compensation should be provided to someone 100% descended from slaves, based on slavery alone (setting aside other effects from Jim Crow Laws etc, for now, to have them determined later)

How much do I get, as a percentage of 'x', if I am say 75% descended? 50%? 25%?

What if I am 25% descended from slaves, and 75% from slave owners? What about 25% each and 50% from more recent immigration?

Etc. Etc.

Now how much should 'x' be?

Then we consider Jim Crow Law affects...

Mortgages and access to business loans...

How much, if any, I have benefitted from affirmative action...

Wouldn't it be more productive for all concerned to focus on doing better going forward?

That point would be specifically the subject of an inquiry. One would need to address the wealth transfer, presumably focussing on most recent ones as these would be easiest to track. E.g. were the parents subject to racist housing laws?

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 

That point would be specifically the subject of an inquiry. One would need to address the wealth transfer, presumably focussing on most recent ones as these would be easiest to track. E.g. were the parents subject to racist housing laws?

If it is recent enough to have directly affected an individual or identifiable group then this might be something for the Courts. If not then it might be something for politicians to address, but I would suggest direct reparations cannot be accomplished equitably.

In any case, the reparations issue seems to be quite focused on slavery. (google "reparations" and see what comes up)

[zapatos]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

but I would suggest direct reparations cannot be accomplished equitably.

Of course we'll never know that for sure, or know how close we can get to doing reparations well, or know if the courts are the best avenue, without studying the issue. Which is why I don't understand the opposition to at least looking into it.

[CharonY]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

If it is recent enough to have directly affected an individual or identifiable group then this might be something for the Courts. If not then it might be something for politicians to address, but I would suggest direct reparations cannot be accomplished equitably.

In any case, the reparations issue seems to be quite focused on slavery. (google "reparations" and see what comes up)

Individual settlements are unlikely to happen as those in most need of it likely do not have the funds for legal representation. If you read a bit on reparations you will note that there are a number of models that have been proposed, including something similar to Jewish reparations. In that model, the wealth transfer from black to whites (including slavery) could be used to create funds specifically to address black issues (the German reparations were a significant part of Israel's GDP, for example), 

But none of that is really relevant at this juncture. What is being discussed to have a discussion into looking into this matter and how it may proceed (or not). Talking about practical implementation before even agreeing to at least investigate the matter is only disruptive. 

It is akin to stating that surgeries are risky, hence we should not make any kind of diagnoses. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

Individual settlements are unlikely to happen as those in most need of it likely do not have the funds for legal representation. If you read a bit on reparations you will note that there are a number of models that have been proposed, including something similar to Jewish reparations. In that model, the wealth transfer from black to whites (including slavery) could be used to create funds specifically to address black issues (the German reparations were a significant part of Israel's GDP, for example), 

But none of that is really relevant at this juncture. What is being discussed to have a discussion into looking into this matter and how it may proceed (or not). Talking about practical implementation before even agreeing to at least investigate the matter is only disruptive. 

It is akin to stating that surgeries are risky, hence we should not make any kind of diagnoses. 

Frankly. That is a crock. How are questions on implementation not part of the investigation? 

 

[MigL]

You may have been slightly offended by my comment on the way Americans treat their minorities as opposed to Canadians, CharonY, and didn't think your response trough.

Sure we have problems with the Government honouring treaties with First Nations.
But at least we didn't have an active program of extermination ( by disease and warfare ) like the Americans did during the 18th and the 19th century.

That was actual genocide.
( and this is off-topic )

 

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Frankly. That is a crock. How are questions on implementation not part of the investigation? 

 

I think you misunderstood. THIS conversation is not the "investigation". The concern is with using possible implementation issues to stop the investigation before it even begins. Otherwise how will we know if the implementation issues mentioned now are even something that will come up?

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

But at least we didn't have an active program of extermination ( by disease and warfare ) like the Americans did during the 18th and the 19th century.

That was actual genocide.
( and this is off-topic )

 

I won't let that stand, as the MMIWG report clearly stated something different even if you might diasgree. While the scope may have been different the goal of measures such as residential schools were nothing short of eradicating First Nation culture. I do not have direct knowledge,but even the little I hear from colleagues in the social sciences who work with Canadian First Nations on a variety of projects,  it is no laughing matter and pretty much actual genocide in all but the most restrictive definitions.

 

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Frankly. That is a crock. How are questions on implementation not part of the investigation? 

It is, therefore it is not a good argument not to start one before one has looked into it, no? And if you have no objections to the inquiry itself, and just want to state that it is going to be tricky, then fine. It is just a comment then and not an objection. I will note that in any inquiry the first step would be an assessment of damages and at best a recommendation to rectify them. It is rare that these are going to implemented directly (as it usually a different comission or group that works with actual budgets and policy makers more directly).

 

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Of course we'll never know that for sure, or know how close we can get to doing reparations well, or know if the courts are the best avenue, without studying the issue. Which is why I don't understand the opposition to at least looking into it.

It is baffling and at least in these threads there are a few themes. One is that is in the past and should remain (the do not rock the boat approach). Of course and unintentionally perhaps, it ignores the very real challenges folks face in favor of not upsetting the majority. Another is that it is difficult, but as you noted, it is not a good argument against looking into the matter. Folks my find it unsolvable, or may actually find a good model (and there is precedence for that). 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 

It is, therefore it is not a good argument not to start one before one has looked into it, no? And if you have no objections to the inquiry itself, and just want to state that it is going to be tricky, then fine. It is just a comment then and not an objection.

 

 

I certainly welcome it being discussed here. 

My objections are based more on the politicization of it in the wider forum (quite prominently in the Democrat Primaries) and a belief that it is a waste of time and effort to look at the past on that basis (slavery ended essentially with the civil war...few would wish to look at the civil war with the view of potentially ascertaining reparations in 2019)

I had asked...Can we agree that, on average, descendants of slaves still have a residual disadvantage vs descendants of slave owners?

I don't believe anyone would disagree with that.

I can't add much more other than to state that I would agree this disadvantage should be reduced where it still exists, if possible, if it can be done in a way that does considerably less harm than good; and to state I believe there are likely better ways to accomplish this than reparations as they are being discussed currently in the US...most of which I see as being promoted for political reasons, and with intent to be divisive for self serving reasons.

...and of course discussing other ways (Universal Basic Income etc) would be getting off topic here.

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Etc. Etc.

 Now how much should 'x' be?

Greater than 1

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Greater than 1

1 what? 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

1 what? 

TBD. What’dya say we study it and continue our discussion together as we learn more?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

TBD. What’dya say we study it and continue our discussion together as we learn more?

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I certainly welcome it being discussed here. 

 

 

[iNow]

According to Gallop, support for cash reparations is low, but also growing and significantly higher than it used to be. This is specific to the idea of cash, however, and doesn't neatly touch on other possible ways to address the issue through policy and access.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/261722/redress-slavery-americans-oppose-cash-reparations.aspx

Quote

While reparations could take many forms, the most straightforward would be cash payments by the government to descendants of American slaves. Most Americans (67%) say the government should not make such payments, but 29% say it should, including the solid majority of black Americans (73%).

<snip>

While the current 29% support among all Americans is low in absolute terms, more support the idea of reparations today than did so in 2002, when 14% were in favor as the subject was making news. Since then, support is up slightly among whites, from 6% to 16%, while it has increased more dramatically among blacks -- from a simple majority in 2002 to nearly three-quarters today.

 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

According to Gallop, support for cash reparations is low, but also growing and significantly higher than it used to be. This is specific to the idea of cash, however, and doesn't neatly touch on other possible ways to address the issue through policy and access.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/261722/redress-slavery-americans-oppose-cash-reparations.aspx

 

As much as I'm committed to the idea of reparations, I don't think direct cash payments is the way to address the injustice. To put it bluntly, most recipients will just piss it up the wall or satisfy short term wants. This is a uniquely American way of addressing issues imo: throw cash at the problem, job done. Money is the means to resolution but not the resolution itself.  I think the solution lies in sincere societal/institutional contrition by treating and enabling black people to travel through life with the same means and available opportunities of their white counterparts. The direction should be about altering behaviour and exercising a bit of positive discrimination until they are on a level footing.

Edited July 29, 2019 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

As much as I'm committed to the idea of reparations, I don't think direct cash payments is the way to address the injustice. To put it bluntly, most recipients will just piss it up the wall or satisfy short term wants. This is a uniquely American way of addressing issues imo: throw cash at the problem, job done. Money is the means to resolution but not the resolution itself.  I think the solution lies in sincere societal/institutional contrition by treating and enabling black people to travel through life with the same means and available opportunities of their white counterparts. The direction should be about altering behaviour and exercising a bit of positive discrimination until they are on a level footing.

There are actually different models on how that could work. But with regard to cash payments, I will add that this is a common assumption (folks will just piss away additional money) but studies on cash payments (including universal income type of models) show a far more mixed response. And I do think that Americans actually are rather hesitant to throw money at things (unless military perhaps),  but it is a bit of a perception issue. Not sure how much difference there really is in attitude and perception of government spending. There is a certain partisanship, depending on who is spending on what and it is sometimes difficult to get to the actual nuts and bolts of what is being used for what.

[iNow]

Some universities are picking up this issue seriously. Here’s a recent one of note:

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/10/20859407/virginia-theological-seminary-reparations-slavery-segregation

Quote

For the past several months, reparations have been at the forefront of an ongoing national conversation about what America owes to the descendants of the enslaved. While much of this talk has led to little else, Virginia Theological Seminary is moving forward with its own plans to provide restitution: Last week the school announced it has set up a $1.7 million fundto provide reparations.

<...>

The money, the school says, will be used to “repair the material consequences of our sin in the past.” 

According to the Washington Post, the fund “will help address the ‘particular needs’ of the descendants of slaves who worked at the seminary, to create programs that promote justice and inclusion, and to elevate the work and voices of African American alumni and clergy within the Episcopal Church, especially at historically black congregations.”

“We are deeply conscious of our past. It is a past which is an intertwined mixture of sin and grace. Part of our past is explicit racism,” the Very Rev. Ian S. Markham, PhD, dean and president of Virginia Theological Seminary, said in a statement. “We were a Seminary where enslaved persons worked. We participated fully in segregation. So we apologize; so we commit to a different future; but we need to do more. This fund is our seed — the first step.“

That’s pretty cool. I suspect people may find this idea far more palatable if the money isn’t coming from government?

[MigL]

Virginia's economy benefitted greatly from slavery during the time when it joined the Union ( 1770s ), to the abolishment ( 1860s ), so I would have no problem with the state Government paying reparations.
Especially now that the state economy seems to finally be in an upswing after the 2008-09 crash.

Edited September 11, 2019 by MigL

[Raider5678]

On 3/19/2019 at 12:55 PM, CharonY said:

In a different thread posters mentioned the excellent article "The case for Reparations" by Coates. Here, I urge everyone to read it. While there are points were folks are going to disagree, the overall article is excellent and provide important perspective. It is far more than only an argument, but rather an exquisite mix of historic and sociological characterization of a group interspersed with  individual accounts. A summary would not do it proper justice, so again, I suggest folks to read it in whole. While not specifically this article, many of the contents and studies described within the article have over the years changed my mind on many things (including affirmative actions).

 

 

 

Done? Good. Then I would like to provide a quote that seems to be at the essence of it 

The key issue here is not slavery in itself, but also the consequences of the time after that, Jim Crow, racist (intentional or not) policies and policing, economic sanctions (such as redlining) which resulted in black folks facing entirely different socioeconomic situations, even if they have the same income level as their peers. It is also about the acknowledgement of these injustices, too often they are brushed aside by focusing on the abolition of slavery or that everything was in the past. The effects are here and now and while there is increasing recognition of this fact (now by some of the US presidential candidates) it still faces severe backlash, especially from the right. This includes measures that try to directly address these issues (if imperfectly) such as affirmative action, that are seen as unfair to non-minorities (and often implying that black folks are given an unfair advantage).

In many ways similar arguments, though with a different historic and sociological background could be made for the situation of indigenous people, who currently also suffer the consequences of historic actions and they too are often blamed for their current situation while all the mechanisms leading to that situation are often misunderstood or ignored. So for those interested, I think this is a good place to discuss the case for reparations or perhaps more generally, a reckoning between how a nations sees itself morally and how its action have affected folks in a targeted way (even if unintentionally).

I don't believe we should pay reparations to African Americans because of what our parents/grandparents/Great Grandparents have done.

However it's probably not for the reasons you think. So please read my entire post(directed at anyone not CharonY in particular) before you assuming I'm just a typical member of the right whining about some other thing that's unfair to White people.

 

    The first(but not primary) reason I don't think we should pay reparations to African Americans is because I don't honestly believe we could possibly give enough (when talking direct benefits. I.E. Cash/Housing/College Education) to fix all the disadvantages they've received from generations of systematic abuse. Additionally, I don't think we'd have a good way of giving those reparations fairly. There are hundreds if not thousands of nuances to account for. However, assuming we could pay enough in reparations and could do it fairly, I don't honestly believe a majority of Americans would ever agree to watch millions of people be given massive benefits for something that most of those receiving the benefits never directly experienced, even if they're experiencing side effects of it currently.

     As for secondary reparations, such as affirmative action, I believe they're causing harm just as much as they're helping. As long as we entertain the idea of "Positive Discrimination", which is just negative discrimination against others that works in your favor, people will continue to complain about unfair advantages of those of a particular race. And in many aspects, it's a logical complaint. If race is being used as a factor in something like college acceptance, then it is a racist system. It is using race, something that nobody can control about them selves, to determine suitability. And I believe a large percentage of people realize that. This in turn just fuels more discrimination. 

     So by practicing "positive discrimination", such as affirmative action, we're just fueling further discrimination against those we're trying to help. At the end of the day I'd be willing to bet it's a net neutral effect(albeit virtually impossible to measure.) And this same concept applies to virtually any case for reparations:

By providing reparations to a particular race, you are more then likely increasing the racial divide; further hurting the race you're trying to help.

 

    With all that being said however, I do believe we should be doing something to fix the generations of systematic abuse we've caused African Americans. However that help doesn't have to come in a race focused approach. My proposal, which is outside the bounds of this topic because it's not reparations, would be to provide benefits via economic standing. African Americans are disproportionately poor. So a program focused on solely benefiting the poor would disproportionately benefit African Americans. I would also venture to bet that affirmative action based on economic standing would cause far less racial tension then one based on race. Economic standing is something much easier for people to see and comprehend. Much more so then racial based benefits/disadvantages that exist in society. That would then in turn help to reduce feelings fueling discrimination because people wouldn't feel it's as unfair. 

     This same concept should be applied to reparations of any sort. Giving reparations based on race simply won't work(In my opinion only) because it'll simply further fuel more discrimination, resulting in more racial divide and placing us in a position just as bad as where we started. However, what I would propose to do isn't reparations because it's not focusing on race. Therefore, by logical conclusion, I must not be in favor of reparations then.