The case for reparations

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

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

 

This argument appeals to many because it puts the blame on people long dead. But reparations isn't about you and me giving money to blacks.

Reparations is typically focused on the government making up for the role they played, and the government is not dead and therefore cannot escape culpability.

[Raider5678]

Just now, zapatos said:

This argument appeals to many because it puts the blame on people long dead. But reparations isn't about you and me giving money to blacks.

Reparations is typically focused on the government making up for the role they played, and the government is not dead and therefore cannot escape culpability.

Perhaps, but the government is funded by the people. So it always comes back to us paying the reparations. Either way though, it doesn't matter who's guilty, looking at my post. In my opinion reparations will simply be ineffective/simply cause more discrimination. We need to change how people think. And that'll start with ensuring people are actually treated equally, regardless of race. And that means reparations, such as affirmative action, are changed to not use race to determine anything.

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Perhaps, but the government is funded by the people.

Using that argument no one should ever be held responsible for anything. Ford can say they shouldn't have to compensate for exploding gas tanks in Pintos because the money to pay compensation comes from customers.

[MigL]

No Zap, it comes from Ford's profits.
They can choose to pass it onto the customers, but then they lose customers.

The Government doesn't/shouldn't have 'profits'.
This difference makes your argument unsuitable.

[zapatos]

So the profits don't come from their customers?

[MigL]

Ultimately it all comes from the same place.

The difference is Ford customers have the option of not buying Ford products if the costs of fixing Ford's bad engineering is passed onto them.
Do you have the option of not paying your taxes for bad Government decisions ???

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Ultimately it all comes from the same place.

The difference is Ford customers have the option of not buying Ford products if the costs of fixing Ford's bad engineering is passed onto them.
Do you have the option of not paying your taxes for bad Government decisions ???

Well, I could vote for it...

In the good old days...

[zapatos]

38 minutes ago, MigL said:

Ultimately it all comes from the same place.

The difference is Ford customers have the option of not buying Ford products if the costs of fixing Ford's bad engineering is passed onto them.
Do you have the option of not paying your taxes for bad Government decisions ???

I might be missing your point, but are you saying that entities (such as governments) shouldn't be held liable for misdeeds if their funds come from people who have no choice but to contribute? But if you do have a choice whether or not to contribute to the entity, then the entity can be held liable?

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Do you have the option of not paying your taxes for bad Government decisions ???

What you do is vote for a different government (or even become part of it). But the argument of paying for someone's sin's is not a particularly strong one for several reasons.

A) the labour and wealth stolen from African Americans was not transferred to a small part of the population nor ended it up in the hands of the government. It built the American economy and the USA as a whole entity benefited from it at the exclusion of African Americans.

B) it is not simply a thing of the past as the repercussions are still there. It is like finding after decades that an sunken Exxon tanker is still leaking. But we don't address it because the folks who were on board are not working there anymore.

The other arguments were at least partially also addressed in the article by Coates. I will just say A) race based policies are not the same as affirmative actions (more about that later) and as the fact that race-independent poverty countermeasures do not benefit African American much. As Coates wrote in his article: 

Quote

VIII. “Negro Poverty is not White Poverty”

And he is right, studies show that almost all race-blind poverty strategies help lift poor whites (and other ethnicity to various degrees) but black folks tend to be left behind.

Improving black neighborhoods by providing better schools and other opportunities would be more important. However, these neighborhoods are the in the state they are because of structural issues (theft of black wealth, marginalization, policies and policing), some of which are still ongoing (criminal justice reform is one of the battlegrounds). Policies targeting poverty in a would as likely target these areas as well as, say impoverished white rural communities. And history has shown rather consistently who would benefit more. The background is that many poverty measures are based on the majority experience, which differs from many minorities and especially African American ones. For policies to have an effect they would have to be adjusted specifically to the issues facing black communities.

Also it is wrong to assume that if we just do not talk about race, all racial inequality would vanish. This is a very naive (if understandable view). For example, studies have shown that (white) folks are more positive about housing benefits when they see a white family on the pamphlets but much less so when it is an African American family. In other words, regardless what you think, biases exist in every step of theses decisions, so just ignoring them would do little to ease racial tensions.

Also, I feel that you (and many folks to tbh) do not seem to clearly understand the scope of affirmative action. It is not simply a race-based benefit, nor is it a quota or something similar. SCOTUS decisions have made it really clear. What affirmative action can do is using race as a factor in the overall package as it relates to e.g. something in their CV (a common example is something like being in a black student union). And I do not blame you if you confuse those, as it is indeed a bit obscure and I myself only got a better understanding after talking to admission officers for a bit. Also it depends on the personal story you can tell. Since there are so few African American applicants as a whole, they may have background stories that are different from the majority, given them a bit of a boost. However, you will find that quite a significant proportion of black students are Africans, rather than African Americans, in a number of schools. Paradoxically the African experience is closer to the Asian student experience than to the African American experience (who went through Jim Crow and redlining, for example).

[MigL]

What I am  saying is that taxpayers shouldn't be held liable for Government misdeeds because people have no choice but to contribute, Zap.

Not sure if your post is addressing me or Raider CharonY.
We can talk about race ( ? ) all we want, CharonY, we can even have biases, or dislikes for a particular group of people; That is all allowed, as long as we don't incite hatred. What we CANNOT do is act on those biases; and trying to level the playing field for past injustices by favoring one group over another IS reverse discrimination ( you are free to call it what you want ).

I also don't follow your arguments about improving minority neighbourhoods by better schools/opportunities.
I'm going to need a reference to account for your dismissal of such programs.

That being said, I really don't have an issue with reparations.
Most Confederate States were able to fund a war with the wealth acquired from slavery.
( see my previous post about Virginia )

As always, the devil is in the details, and keeping things fair for everyone.

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

As always, the devil is in the details, and keeping things fair for everyone.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, MigL. The sticky wicket is that word “fair” since you and I may define it differently, and we may even apply it differently ourselves from one situation to the next.

I tend toward seeking equity and am reminded of this great image:

 

[MigL]

Wouldn't lowering the fence, for EVERYBODY, serve the same purpose ?

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

Wouldn't lowering the fence, for EVERYBODY, serve the same purpose ?

What would that look like in terms of reparations?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

What would that look like in terms of reparations?

Universal Basic Income. Based on equality, but has the most effect on the "short guy" without the stigma...or anyone telling them which game they must watch...in fact it might allow them to choose to get in a game and play.

 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Thanks for the thoughtful post, MigL. The sticky wicket is that word “fair” since you and I may define it differently, and we may even apply it differently ourselves from one situation to the next.

I tend toward seeking equity and am reminded of this great image:

 

I think the cartoon does not really apply well to the case of reparations. After all, it is not about folks that are disadvantaged due to some intrinsic property (being short or even poor) but because there was and partially still is a system that has robbed them off their generational income (slavery, Jim Crow, redlining etc.). So the result is that they are not only held back, but due to a number of associated factors (e.g. predatory lending, worse access to healthcare and schooling, etc.)  they are, in fact in a hole. That is the reason why throwing boxes at everyone or even lowering the fence disproportionately helps help white folks (and in some cases also new generation immigrants), but does poorly in addressing systematic issues of the African American population. 

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, CharonY said:

the result is that they are not only held back, but due to a number of associated factors (e.g. predatory lending, worse access to healthcare and schooling, etc.)  they are, in fact in a hole. That is the reason why throwing boxes at everyone or even lowering the fence disproportionately helps help white folks

A very good point. The fence could be eliminated entirely, but since the hole they’re in is so deep they’d still be unable to watch the game. They’re essentially below sea level and viewing requires being above sea level. 

The fence is an additional barrier, but it’s not the primary one. 

EDIT: I agree the fence image is lacking and prefer this approach to describing privileges, but the graphic doesn’t so easily fit into a post: https://www.boredpanda.com/lesson-about-privilege-awareness/

 

45 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Universal Basic Income. Based on equality, but has the most effect on the "short guy" without the stigma...or anyone telling them which game they must watch...in fact it might allow them to choose to get in a game and play.

It could surely help, but for the reasons just outlined in my exchange with CharonY, it’s hardly a panacea. Such an approach would still disproportionately favor those who have already enjoyed disproportionate favors for centuries. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by iNow

[CharonY]

Just now, iNow said:

The fence is additional barrier,  it not the primary one. 

Indeed. Contrary to my initial understanding of the situation, there is an increasing body of evidence that African Americans have indeed faced rather unique challenges that were, for the longest time, not acknowledged before. One of the reasons being that often minorities were lumped together in previous studies (and there are metrics which appear very similar between, say, Hispanics and African Americans). Coates highlighted those with anecdotes but academic studies have shown that these effects very real repercussions.

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

A very good point. The fence could be eliminated entirely, but since the hole they’re in is so deep they’d still be unable to watch the game. The fence is an additional barrier,  it’s not the primary one. 

It could surely help, but for the reasons just outlined in my exchange with CharonY, it’s hardly a panacea. Such an approach would still disproportionately favor those who have already enjoyed disproportionate favors for centuries. 

I don't know many people that old...

Obviously you are trying to include their ancestors...but how does that work?

Many slaves were son's and daughters of their masters...you can't track it all...so ultimately you are judging based on their (apparent) race.

Better to treat everyone equally...differentiating only to ensure a degree equal opportunity where and when it clearly doesn't exist.

UBI isn't perfect, but it has levelling affects without requiring someone to make judgements...a mess that really should be avoided...especially when it comes to something as potentially divisive as judging people based on race.

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

don't know many people that old...

Obviously you are trying to include their ancestors

Not really, no. I’m referring to people still alive today who’ve benefited due merely to being white. 

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Better to treat everyone equally

This is the same issue I raised above with the concept of fairness, and which Charon and I just referred to with the idea of sea level and being in a hole. 

What equal means to you is likely different from what it means to me... even if only slightly. 

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

What I am  saying is that taxpayers shouldn't be held liable for Government misdeeds because people have no choice but to contribute, Zap.

Okay, I understand what you are saying but I don't understand why the Government should get a free pass in that instance.

If the government goes to war, we have to pay. If the government spends money on a wall, we have to pay. If the government agrees to fund rebels in Nicaragua, we have to pay. If the government decides to fund Medicaid , we have to pay. But if the government steals from someone, we don't have to pay. In other words we have to pay for all the decisions, good or bad, except for this narrow and ill-defined version of misdeeds.

Prosocuter conspires with the police to put an innocent man in jail for 20 years. Tough luck, no compensation.

CIA assassinates some poor farmer in Central America because he saw their illegal activity. Too bad, no compensation for their family.

Some cop beats you nearly to death because the department hired some psycho and covered up his previous misdeeds over the years. Hope you didn't think the government was going to help with the bills. 

The Canadian government lies about taxes you paid so they could seize your property and sell it to a developer. Guess you'll just have to start over.

Seems like a scary world to me.

 

[Raider5678]

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

And he is right, studies show that almost all race-blind poverty strategies help lift poor whites (and other ethnicity to various degrees) but black folks tend to be left behind.

If the poverty policies are seemingly only benefiting only white rural communities, then they're obviously not race blind. 

Additionally, most of those policies that I'm aware of, are localized policies. I.E. A county institutes some new policies to focus money on poorer townships, etc. However, the counties that have money to do this, tend to be primarily white. As a result, they primarily help white people in their counties. A country focused poverty initiative that truly focused on helping our poorest communities, would obviously benefit African Americans proportionately more. Unless of course, they are biased. Which I'm not claiming they're not.

 

However, I still stand by my other point. Creating race focused policies only leads to more people complaining about "reverse discrimination" (And they're logically correct in doing so), which in turns usually just widens racial divides. Larger racial divides almost always helps the majority, not the minority. This in turns dilutes the effects of the race focused policy in the first place. And in an economy where hiring practices play a large part in who is impoverished and who is not, not creating a larger racial divide is key.

I don't think discrimination will flat out disappear either. It won't, and I understand that. However adding more fuel to a fire you're trying to extinguish is a bad idea, even if there is just other fuel the fire will feed on.

[MigL]

Yes, it is a scary world, Zap.
Seems like everyone is responsible for their own misdeeds.
Unless you work for some Government institution, where, all of a sudden, you cease to have personal responsibility for your actions, and 'society' ( or taxpayers ) assume all responsibility.

That's why I said "shouldn't be held liable"

[zapatos]

Were you thinking that the individuals shouldn't also share responsibility? Again, I don't quite understand your point.

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Creating race focused policies only leads to more people complaining about "reverse discrimination" (And they're logically correct in doing so), which in turns usually just widens racial divides

If I’m forced to choose, I’ll gladly accept some handful of entitled white people complaining over far larger numbers of deserving black people struggling and/or suffering. 

[Raider5678]

Just now, iNow said:

If I’m forced to choose, I’ll gladly accept some handful of entitled white people complaining over far larger numbers of deserving black people struggling and/or suffering. 

As would I.

However not if it just hurts the African Americans more.