The case for reparations

[iNow]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

As would I.

However not if it just hurts the African Americans more. 

Fair enough. Hard to disagree with that. I’m simply not as convinced as you that the potential harm would outweigh the obvious benefit. 

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fair enough. Hard to disagree with that. I’m simply not as convinced as you that the potential harm would outweigh the obvious benefit. 

And that's a very valid disagreement.

My view may be biased. I grew up in a largely conservative area, and heard a lot of people complaining about affirmative action being unfair, and how it puts into question the qualifications of those who get those degrees. What good does the degree do you, if people question it's legitimacy because there are policies in place that use your race?

Now, I fully understand affirmative action(it's an easy thing to use as an example) has nothing to do with how they get degrees(You still need to make the grades). But it seems that for some reason that matters little to people if they don't think the person got in fairly in the first place.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Raider5678

[iNow]

We can’t please all of the people all of the time. We must simply try hard to do our best to do what is right and to stand steadfastly in defense of what is just. 

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

As would I.

However not if it just hurts the African Americans more. 

I may be wrong but I'm guessing the struggling/suffering African Americans are not going to prioritize the feelings of entitled whites over better economic opportunities.

I think most whites are absolutely clueless when it comes to understanding the shit African Americans go through on a daily basis. If someone pisses on your leg every day you don't really give much thought to the health of their bladder when they are forced to quit.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

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.

The policy can be mechanistically race blind, yet in the outcome it can be heavily biased. For example, the decision to have higher penalties for consumption of cocaine vs crack seems to be independent of race. Yet, since cocaine is more commonly consumed by white folks, it created a huge disparity in drug-related penalties. In other words, if you want to employ fair policy that are race-neutral in outcome, it requires a mechanism that take race-differences into account. 

A measure that can elevate a white family out of poverty, can fail a poor black family. In contrast, certain other actions, including measures improving generational wealth, which could include criminal justice reform, could disproportionately benefit black folks. In other words, if we only use poverty as measure, the likelihood is high that specific issues pertaining to specific groups are simply not addressed, resulting in ineffective policies.

Think of it that way, if I wanted to prescribe you medicine but only diagnose based on your body temperature, I will probably prescribe you stuff that actually won't help you. Whether folks like it or not, the difference between black and white has more factors than one (i.e. poverty). Poverty is only the culmination of many other factors, such as elevated temperature could be the result of all sorts of inflammation reactions. I order to find a cure, a diagnosis is needed. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

 

 

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. 

 

6 hours ago, iNow said:

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

 

Well...no one fits that description

6 hours ago, iNow said:

 

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

If you are suggesting equality in outcomes it is far from slight.

A guaranteed basic income would substantially reduce the requirement for a welfare safety net. It wouldn't pull someone out of poverty on it's own but could make a significant difference to their efforts.

[mistermack]

Americans are full of crap, all this bleeding heart guilt over black Americans, while actively colluding with and supporting the Israelis in their never-ending brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing. Forget the historical atrocities. Stop doing it now, and cut out the blatant hypocrisy.  

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Americans are full of crap, all this bleeding heart guilt over black Americans, while actively colluding with and supporting the Israelis in their never-ending brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing. Forget the historical atrocities. Stop doing it now, and cut out the blatant hypocrisy.  

This OP is just a hypothetical discussion initiated by Charon for SFN members and not an active policy. Although I agree with the essence of your thoughts regarding the US establishement and Israel, it is an unnecessary distraction in this discussion.

Edited September 17, 2019 by StringJunky
Edited to add

[iNow]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Well...no one fits that description

Populations of whites have disproportionately benefited for centuries. Individual white people still benefit today. Regardless of which dataset under consideration, my comment remains valid. 

In much the same way, populations of blacks have been disproportionately harmed for centuries. Individual black people are still being harmed today. They’re working from a policy created deficit.

If we agree to give everyone $1,000 per month, then sure that helps everyone. If we’re trying to correct... or even just improve... the centuries long disproportions in experience I just cited above, however, then this isn’t the most effective approach. 

If Person A starts with a cache of +$5,000 and Person B starts with a debt of -$5,000, then giving both of them the exact same monthly stipend of $1,000 will help them both, but it won’t magically bring back the return of proportionality and equity being sought.

I know you’re a Yang fan and this is the drum he’s beating, but more is needed. We can agree UBI might be a good start, but we can’t agree that it’s sufficient. 

[MigL]

We seem to have different visions of the society we want to live in...

Seems JC and I favor equal opportunity for all.
INow and Zapatos are in favor of equal outcomes for all.
And that just isn't going to happen ( because of the multitude of factors involved ).

Don't have a clue what Mistermack wants

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

We seem to have different visions of the society we want to live in...

Seems JC and I favor equal opportunity for all.
INow and Zapatos are in favor of equal outcomes for all.

I'm not sure this is a fair summary of any of our positions, but if we assume for purposes of this discussion that it is, then it's worth noting that creating a society with equal opportunity for all would be a totalitarian nightmare, and we'd have no way of measuring it even if we accept that risk (we can only measure the outcomes).

Here's an article I read a while back that helped further open my eyes to some of the involved challenges with the approach. Given your interest, you might enjoy the read, too: https://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9334215/equality-of-opportunity

[zapatos]

29 minutes ago, MigL said:

INow and Zapatos are in favor of equal outcomes for all.

Not me. I favor equal opportunity for all. I also favor justice for all, which possibly you don't.

Edited September 17, 2019 by zapatos

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

We seem to have different visions of the society we want to live in...

Seems JC and I favor equal opportunity for all.
INow and Zapatos are in favor of equal outcomes for all.
And that just isn't going to happen ( because of the multitude of factors involved ).

Equal opportunities for all is unrealistic as a solution, since we're not all equal, both metaphorically and litterally.

INow and Zap and CharonY are suggesting equity for all, which only seems unrealistic, because we're currently afraid it's not economically viable; much like immigration (kinda full circle)...

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

Americans are full of crap, all this bleeding heart guilt over black Americans, while actively colluding with and supporting the Israelis in their never-ending brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing. Forget the historical atrocities. Stop doing it now, and cut out the blatant hypocrisy.  

Only room for one crusade per thread.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

We seem to have different visions of the society we want to live in...

Seems JC and I favor equal opportunity for all.
INow and Zapatos are in favor of equal outcomes for all.
And that just isn't going to happen ( because of the multitude of factors involved ).

As mentioned, I doubt this is a fair characterization. And as a matter of fact, if you are for equal opportunity, you appear to be in favour of removing road blocks that may inhibit the opportunity for success. That,  in turn would actually favour reparation and not be against it. As it stands, it is clear that equal opportunity does not exist, especially not when it comes to the vast majority of African American families who have lived through the historic black experience (more recent immigrants have a different trajectory).

The equal outcome vs equal opportunity discussion seems to be misguided in my mind. After all, if the opportunities were the same you would expect largely similar outcomes aside from random fluctuations based on individual decisions. However, studies suggest that this not the case, there are structural differences (which means that opportunities are not equal).

In short, if we give 1,000 to a black person and a white person with the same income, and monitor their trajectory, most studies suggest that the trajectory will be quite different. Historically, this was explained by the assumption that black folks make bad decisions, which obviously had a rather racist worldview at its heart. As we now know  is that African American community structures have been systematically devastated by policies, some of which are still active now. Even when opportunities are provided,  there are systemic differences. Looking at college graduates, for example, same income level, same degree but in a few years a white graduate will amass more fortune than a black counterpart. One important reasons is that black folks are embedded in a poorer network whom they might have to supported. Whereas the white person is more likely to have connections with folks of equal or higher income. This will also translate into later steps into the career where white folks outpace their black counterparts.

In other words, if one really wanted to have the same opportunity the paths should not diverge so massively otherwise can we call the opportunity truly equal? Unless, of course, we are led to believe that folks with different melanin content are more prone to make errors in their career steps, but we are not going there, are we?

Going back to Coate's article, the argument is made that not only are black folks held back, but rather there was material transfer from black to white communities (the equivalent to transfer of Jewish wealth in Nazi Germany was made) and that this is at the center of the call for reparations. There is a need to look how the transfer was made, which mechanisms still pertain to it and how it could be addressed. Again the call was for looking into it in more detail, whilst acknowledging that the patterns of white poverty are different from black poverty. Thus, addressing poverty intrinsically has to take that into account. This is borne from a slew of studies who have started to take finer grained look into poverty in the US, which have identified systematic disparities that alter trajectories. As such I feel the equal outcome argument rather tired, as it somehow implies that we should ignore the outcome and focus on opportunity. But how can you evaluate opportunity if you do not measure outcomes?

 

 

[iNow]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

I'm not sure this is a fair summary of any of our positions, but if we assume for purposes of this discussion that it is, then it's worth noting that creating a society with equal opportunity for all would be a totalitarian nightmare, and we'd have no way of measuring it even if we accept that risk (we can only measure the outcomes).

Here's an article I read a while back that helped further open my eyes to some of the involved challenges with the approach. Given your interest, you might enjoy the read, too: https://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9334215/equality-of-opportunity

I don’t mind getting neg rep, but I’m genuinely curious what in this post motivated it.

If anyone is willing to comment openly and explain, perhaps we can continue the discussion and learn from one another / move forward together?

[zapatos]

I didn't give the neg rep, but your comment prompted me to read the article at the end of your link. Hence my comment now.

The description of 'equal opportunity' (EO) given in the article is not one I've ever considered, and I'm guessing many others have not viewed EO that way either.

The article suggests that EO would mean that if one person received a million dollar inheritance then true EO would mean that all people would have to receive a million dollar inheritance.

I've always viewed EO as "the policy of treating employees and others without discrimination, especially on the basis of their sex, race, or age."

Given there exists the EEOC in the US, I suspect that is part of the reason for my view of EO.

While full EO may cover all possible scenarios (like inheritances), I suspect most people aren't using such a robust definition when they hear 'equal opportunity'.

[iNow]

Thanks for taking the time and offering a thoughtful reply. We agree there. 

Details matter. 

[MigL]

Just got back on and haven't read your link yet, INow, but I intend to.
I feel I need to explain the equal opportunity/equal outcome comment.

Equal opportunity means everyone who wishes to become a doctor has access to education/funding/support to achieve that goal.
The hard work and commitment required to achieve that goal is up to them.
And if reparations enable this, I'm all for them.

Equal outcome means everyone who wishes to be a doctor becomes one.
Even if they choose not to apply themselves  to the task. It is simply 'handed' to them, because, otherwise, they would be disadvantaged.
IOW everyone is given a suitable box to stand on and watch the game from outside the fence, so they don't have to make the effort of buying a ticket.

Which doctor would you prefer operating on you ?

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Equal opportunity means everyone who wishes to become a doctor has access to education/funding/support to achieve that goal.
The hard work and commitment required to achieve that goal is up to them.
And if reparations enable this, I'm all for them.

I think that is at the core of the social justice debate. I.e. providing folks with the same level opportunities. (The fact that this may not be straightforward is discussed in iNow's link, though I do think that the author is conflating several issues.) 

Nonetheless, the case for reparations is at least somewhat in line what you just wrote, MigL. Black folks are hindered to achieve similar goals as white folks, because their families have been structurally deprived over generations. Which means that to provide them the same opportunities, more must be done to make it work, even compared to a white family with a similar socioeconomic status. Once these barriers are gone (which again, is a case for reparations) purely income-oriented measures should provide similar benefits regardless of skin colour. The difficulty is that we need to look at outcomes to figure out where these barriers lie. For example, let's assume more black folks enter medical school, but a disproportionate amount dropped out. Is it because they work less, or is it because of other issues? Because the latter would also need to be addressed. For example, if a black student is more likely to have to care for their parents than a white student, we again have a structural issue. I.e. just providing them enough to enter an pipeline (be it medical school or another career), is often insufficient. And here again, the idea reparations is basically also overcome these issues.

[MigL]

Just finished reading your link INow ( thanks ), but I don't agree with it either.

I see the Government ( and society ) providing equal opportunity; what you bring to the table whether it's inheritance, a work ethic, intelligence, willingness to take risks, etc. is totally up to you, and in a large way, determines the outcome.
( inheritance might be a bit problematical in this discussion because we are discussing historical disadvantages that directly lead to inheritances for the privileged )

Take the first example of L Ellison's daughter.
She may have been given an unfair advantage of opportunity ( 2 Bill worth !!! ), and she'll probably never be disadvantaged, but do you really think she'll be a good producer ( I don't know, but I've never even heard of her ) ?

Not everyone is equally abled and it's not the purpose of Government or society to level the playing field of ability.
Just of opportunity.

 

[zapatos]

One reason we may not be coming to any kind of consensus is that we are not really getting specific on what reparations would look like. I doubt any kind of reparations could erase the problems caused by various levels of state and Federal governments over the years, but they could probably be used as a step in the right direction. Reparations does not necessarily mean cash to individuals. But if we started talking about a specific scenario we might be able to hash out what each of us objects to, and possibly find some common ground.

Reparations could mean cash to individuals. It could be something like the Small Business Administration we have in the US that helps small businesses with loans and expertise, but be geared toward blacks in business, education, whatever. Perhaps it would involve funding of a lobbying organization for black causes.

Also, just making the effort and acknowledging that past actions have affected people today, we may be able to generate some good will.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

One reason we may not be coming to any kind of consensus is that we are not really getting specific on what reparations would look like

I think the issue is rather a presumption on what it could be. As outlined in  OP and since then articulated is that it would be important to take a look at a) what types of wealth transfer has happened, b) policies that enabled those and thereby evaluate what could be reasonably owed. In fact, the equal opportunity argument is not one being made by Coates. The argument is bluntly speaking, you stole money, acknowledge and document it and then repair the damage. In the end it reads to me like a moral argument, you stole it, now give it back. I have perhaps a more practical view on it (i.e. I see the benefits of systematic inequalities being undone and if reparations are the way to do it, fine). But then I also understand the underlying sentiment and perhaps addressing that issue is as important as the practical ones.

 

[zapatos]

Just read an article in Smithsonian magazine about the biggest slavery reparations verdict of its kind.

Quote

On April 17, 1878, twelve white jurors entered a federal courtroom in Cincinnati, Ohio, to deliver the verdict in a now-forgotten lawsuit about American slavery. The plaintiff was Henrietta Wood, described by a reporter at the time as “a spectacled negro woman, apparently sixty years old.” The defendant was Zebulon Ward, a white man who had enslaved Wood 25 years before. She was suing him for $20,000 in reparations.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/henrietta-wood-sued-reparations-won-180972845/

[MigL]

That is the case of a victim claiming damages from an 'assailant' who enslaved her.
I would suggest the outcome of the lawsuit would have differed had it been brought by a descendant of H Wood.

As an example, if I were to get assaulted, and lose the ability to work for a period of time, I could sue the assailant for damages.
If this resulted in my not being able to make investments which generate wealth for my children, do you think my children could possibly win a lawsuit to reclaim that 'lost' wealth ?

Note that this is not an argument against reparations, but a question as to the suitability of your example and its application to future generations.
Reparations for ancestral victimization is still in uncharted waters, and will require careful navigation, or it may cause more problems than it fixes.

Edited September 27, 2019 by MigL

[zapatos]

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

Note that this is not an argument against reparations, but a question as to the suitability of your example and its application to future generations.

I was not trying to make any kind of statement at all by posting the story. I had never heard of Henrietta and thought people in this thread would find the story interesting like I did.

If anything I was surprised she did not seek criminal charges against the perpetrator(s).