Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?

[Marat]

Some have suggested that the United States government, via increased taxes on the present population, should pay reparations to the descendants of slaves kept in the U.S. up to 1865 for all the injury caused to them by this inhumane treatment.

 

There are some problems with this suggestion, however. First, many of those now living in the U.S. are in no way implicated in the wrongs of slavery, since their ancesters came with the vast waves of immigrants who poured into the U.S. after the end of the Civil War. It would seem unfair for Kurdish refugees from Saddam Hussei's attacks, for example, to be confronted with a bill for U.S. slavery on coming to the U.S.

 

Second, the nexus between those now alive and the injuries committed by those who profited from slavery is quite tenuous, since no one now living ever contributed to the maintenance or advancement of slavery.

 

Third, the link between present-day American Blacks and their slave ancestors is also quite tenuous, since the effects of even severe mistreatment are considerably mitigated by 150 years of history.

 

Fourth, even slavery itself was not entirely the fault of Whites committed against Blacks, since the slave trade to America operated via Black and Arab slave traders catching slaves deep in Africa and transporting them to the coasts where the White Americans merely picked them up for their final transshipment.

 

Fifth, about 10% of the world slave trade consisted of Blacks from among the Barbary Pirates seizing Whites and selling them into slavery, so any damages paid would have to be discounted for this effect.

 

Sixth, the exact magnitude of the reparations due would be almost impossible to calculate, given all the historical cross-currents of vast economic forces between then and now.

 

Seventh, if slavery was legal up to 1865 in parts of the U.S., was slavery really still wrong in a sense permitting damages to accrue in a U.S. court against the U.S. government? After all, many White workers were also employed until a few generations ago at wages far below what we would now regard (in constant dollars) as a morally just wage, given that there used to be no minimum wage laws, so wouldn't the descendants of these people also have to be compensated by the same principle that would compensate the Blacks? Where would all the compensations for past injustices stop? -- E.g., if unfair tariffs, unfair contract laws, unfair labor safety laws, unfair welfare protections, unfair railroad safety statutes, etc., injuried families in the past, wouldn't that all have to be compensated in making a just society?

[lemur]

The entire OP reads like a summary of well-known reactionary defenses against slavery reparations. None of them have convinced proponents that reparations are not legitimate; why? because they sound like excuses coming from the mouth of someone who feels guilty for wrongdoing but doesn't want to take responsibility for it.

 

Nevertheless, it is true that children and grandchildren, etc. can't be legitimately held responsible for the actions of their ancestors. Still, the argument that still works is that the racism in slavery has evolved into a racism of privilege and anti-privilege. In other words, a meritocracy has evolved in which the racialized privileges of slavery have been maintained simply by a system that allows people whose ancestors secured certain social-economic positions to maintain those positions for their offspring.

 

Privilege wouldn't be such a problem if the privileges weren't linked to an economy that requires services to provide those privileges. Thus, the privilege of going out to eat requires restaurant service, eating prepared food required food-service, staying in a hotel/motel requires maid service, working in an office requires office-janitors, etc. etc. The fact that the economy has evolved to rely on a service class and the fact that some people avoid participating in such labor while others get relegated to it makes classism an issue and the fact that social-economic class is racialized raises the question of the legacy of slavery.

 

The problem with paying reparations for slavery is that it does nothing to address modern-day economic exploitation. If people receive monetary compensation for the uncompensated labor of their ancestors, there is a good chance they will expect to enjoy this wealth by consuming the privileges of a service-rich economy. This would thus require either an exchange of class-roles OR an influx of a new subservient class of people.

 

Lincoln and the civil war era republicans wanted to redeem slavery by land-grants (40 acres and a mule) so that former slaves would be able to engage in economic production for themselves, with only themselves as masters. That approach made sense because it addressed the whole problem of economic subordination but the problem is that no one can imagine such economic independence today.

 

So the problem remains of how to end the culture of occupational/class racialization so that color will no longer be a distinguishing factor of class status. Personally, I would like to see class status addressed as well but the only way for that to happen, as far as I know, would be for people to perform multiple tasks, some managerial class and others service/working class. Otherwise, people are necessarily going to get relegated into servitude and management, which is basically a modernized version of slavery anyway.

[zapatos]

Who would you pay reparations to? The current living generation of decendants of slaves? If those reparations did not erase the vestiges of slavery, would you continue to pay all generations until no one was affected any longer?

[lemur]

Who would you pay reparations to? The current living generation of decendants of slaves? If those reparations did not erase the vestiges of slavery, would you continue to pay all generations until no one was affected any longer?

That's a good point. You could just pay anyone in an unwanted service job enough money that they would have the choice not to do that job. You could keep doing this until the industries that rely on undesirable jobs vanish. But then what would we do without fast food, motel rooms, and clean offices to work in?

Edited November 28, 2010 by lemur

[Mr Skeptic]

If any such reparations were to be made, I think they would have to be for the effects of slavery on the current populations. As they say, "you need money to make money", and the slave-owners profited at the expense of the slaves, and likewise from said wealth differences the slave-owner's ancestors still have the advantage over the slave's descendants, due to said slavery. However, if you compare the slave's descendants to people still in Africa, perhaps their plight isn't really so dire. I'm sure that there's plenty of Africans who would love to immigrate here even if they had to give up all their material possessions in the process.

[lemur]

If any such reparations were to be made, I think they would have to be for the effects of slavery on the current populations. As they say, "you need money to make money", and the slave-owners profited at the expense of the slaves, and likewise from said wealth differences the slave-owner's ancestors still have the advantage over the slave's descendants, due to said slavery. However, if you compare the slave's descendants to people still in Africa, perhaps their plight isn't really so dire. I'm sure that there's plenty of Africans who would love to immigrate here even if they had to give up all their material possessions in the process.

So what you're basically saying is that it's ok to have class-immobility in the US because at least it's better than living in the worst parts of Africa?

 

Also, you say "it takes money to make money," but what do you think the economy would look like if everyone had enough money to live by investment? If everyone was free to leave any job they didn't like, would there be food-service? maid-service? janitorial-service? Would the wages of these kinds of jobs rise to a level sufficient to entice independently wealthy investors to do them? If not, don't you need poverty and a criminal justice system to put people in the position of NEED so that they will take such jobs?

 

Personally, I am for reforming economic activities in a way that dispenses with the need for undesirable labor. But for everyone who accepts this aspect of the economy as indispensable, would they be willing to put new people in the position of servitude in order to let others have the freedom to choose to live off investment instead of much-needed wages?

[Pangloss]

The entire OP reads like a summary of well-known reactionary defenses against slavery reparations. None of them have convinced proponents that reparations are not legitimate; why? because they sound like excuses coming from the mouth of someone who feels guilty for wrongdoing but doesn't want to take responsibility for it.

 

So what you're basically saying is that it's ok to have class-immobility in the US because at least it's better than living in the worst parts of Africa?

 

There you go again, chastising people for their opinions and reading between the lines to make people sound evil. It isn't necessary to make your argument, and it undermines your case. And you also need to stop doing it because it's a violation of board policy. Marat can lay out the case without being a "reactionary" and "guilty" person. Mr Skeptic can observe the fact that people emigrate and do menial labor without implying that it's okay that it's hard to become rich these days.

 

Thanks.

[pioneer]

How about doing it this way. The US government allowed slavery. This pivotal decision had to come from very high up in the power structure; main branches of government. Therefore, only the current representatives and senators need to pay reparations, simply because they are also senators and representatives. Rather than use a racist standard of all whites taxed to pay all blacks, the above standard is not racists since some representative and senators are also black.

 

The difference is like saying I broke the window, therefore everyone in the playground has to pay for damages, even the kids who can't hit the ball. Or should the biggest kid who can wield that powerful bat, be the one who has to pay.

Edited November 28, 2010 by pioneer

[D H]

Some have suggested that the United States government, via increased taxes on the present population, should pay reparations to the descendants of slaves kept in the U.S. up to 1865 for all the injury caused to them by this inhumane treatment.

Who, exactly, has suggested this recently? The only ones I can see are a few kooks on the left, quite a few more kooks on the right who are afraid that those kooks on the left have any influence, and quite a few more disreputable types who see those kooks on the left and right as useful idiots.

 

Reparations is a stupid idea. If it somehow did get passed as law, opponents would tied it up in the courts on constitutional issues before one single dime could be disbursed. The ensuing voter backlash would ensure a Republican supermajority in Congress and a Republican presidency for a long, long time. While Democrats might be dumb (what politician isn't?), they are not stupid and they are not wont to commit political suicide. Reparations is a non-issue.

 

 

 

[Marat]

An important distinction made by the 'Radical Republicans' in the 1860s was that reparations for slavery should come from selling off the property of the large slave-owning plantations, who clearly bore the greatest guilt for sustaining the slave system and also enjoyed the greatest profits from it. They did not feel that poor Whites in the South who did not own slaves and who were often subject to economic exploitation of a milder sort than the slaves endured from rich Whites in the South should also have to pay reparations.

 

The problem now with the idea of general reparations is that some impoverished Whites cleaning toilets would be forced to pay increased taxes for reparations which would be paid in part to upper class Blacks. If the injustice of the legacy of slavery is now economic, and economic disadvantage in the U.S. today does not perfectly correspond to racial identity, then it is not clear whether the reparations due should aim solely at redistribution of wealth (socialism/communism), or solely at racial identity (a kind of tax-based affirmative action program). And how would we count disadvantaged races who had not suffered any deprivations from slavery, such as Latinos, Native Americans, Jews, Asian Americans, recent immigrants to America from Africa, etc.? It would seem odd to require the present-day grandchildren of Holocaust survivors to pay a special tax to compensate the present-day great-great-great-great-great grandchildren of slaves for the inherited effects of a disadvantage now 150 years distant, when no one was paying them for the inherited effects of a disadvantage only 70 years distant.

[D H]

Why made you raise this topic, Marat? There is no meaningful reparations movement afoot. There was such a movement a few years, but even in its heyday it never did gain much backing outside the fringe left. It had pretty much died even before Obama announced during his candidacy that he was not in favor of reparations. From searching on the web it appears that reparations has now shifted from being a stupid idea proposed by the fringe left to being a boogieman used by the kook right.

[swansont]

How do you get past due process and ex-post facto restrictions in the constitution? While reprehensible, it wasn't illegal, and you can't make it so retroactively.

[D H]

Exactly. That is why I said in post #9 that opponents would tie up a reparations law in the courts. It is a stupid idea.

 

Not only is reparations stupid, it, like slavery, is reprehensible. Slavery starts as indentured servitude. The next step is to let the supposed debt build up over time. Slavery starts when the indebtedness is inherited. That debt cannot be inherited is one key impediment to slavery. Reparations would be a form of inherited debt. Adding insult to injury, my ancestors came to the US in the early 1900s and immediately became four of millions of dirt poor immigrants. What, exactly, did they do to inherit the supposed debt of rich white slave owners earned more than 40 years before they first stepped on American soil?

[Mr Skeptic]

So what you're basically saying is that it's ok to have class-immobility in the US because at least it's better than living in the worst parts of Africa?

 

No. What I am saying is that if you measure the amount of reparations by comparing the prosperity of previous slaves vs those who remained in Africa, it might be the descendants of the previous slaves that would have to end up paying for the "favor" of being "allowed" to "immigrate". Which would be extremely distasteful, impractical, and an insult to everyone. When compared to the average American they would still be worse off though.

 

As for the actual slavery, as repugnant as it is now, it was legal then and the people involved are all dead, and we don't inherit blame for crimes, no matter how bad they may be. Hence why I said any reparations would have to be for the currently ongoing effects only, rather than for past deeds.

 

Also, you say "it takes money to make money," but what do you think the economy would look like if everyone had enough money to live by investment? If everyone was free to leave any job they didn't like, would there be food-service? maid-service? janitorial-service? Would the wages of these kinds of jobs rise to a level sufficient to entice independently wealthy investors to do them? If not, don't you need poverty and a criminal justice system to put people in the position of NEED so that they will take such jobs?

 

Personally, I am for reforming economic activities in a way that dispenses with the need for undesirable labor. But for everyone who accepts this aspect of the economy as indispensable, would they be willing to put new people in the position of servitude in order to let others have the freedom to choose to live off investment instead of much-needed wages?

 

Actually, I think the best way to make "reparations" for slavery would be to have a progressive taxation system, so that the rich people end up paying some of the poor people's share of the taxes. We could also have publicly funded education, to make up for the fact that the economically disadvantaged would otherwise not be able to afford the same education as the wealthy which would also perpetuate these disadvantages. As a bonus, this system would improve class mobility so even the wealthy have to make some effort rather than coast on their inherited wealth. If you like this idea, you should lobby your congressman to implement it as soon as possible.

[John Cuthber]

How about doing it this way. The US government allowed slavery. This pivotal decision had to come from very high up in the power structure; main branches of government. Therefore, only the current representatives and senators need to pay reparations, simply because they are also senators and representatives. Rather than use a racist standard of all whites taxed to pay all blacks, the above standard is not racists since some representative and senators are also black.

 

The difference is like saying I broke the window, therefore everyone in the playground has to pay for damages, even the kids who can't hit the ball. Or should the biggest kid who can wield that powerful bat, be the one who has to pay.

 

The one who broke the window should obviously pay because they are responsible for the damage.

 

However, in the case of slavery, the people responsible for the damage are long dead. The moment is lost; we can no longer bring those people to the table and hold them to account. Even if we could they would simply say that it is, in their frame of reference, perfectly reasonable to have slaves.

 

Any attempt at "payment" for the barbarous way in which slaves were treated seems patronising to me. It seems to be saying "My (great)^n grandparents did things that were bad; I feel bad about that. Here is some money to assuage my conscience.

It doesn't make the evil of slavery go away.

 

If we really want to say that we now realise that slavery is a bad thing we would do a better job of showing it by spending the money to abolish slavery that still exists today.

http://www.antislavery.org/english/

[lemur]

There you go again, chastising people for their opinions and reading between the lines to make people sound evil. It isn't necessary to make your argument, and it undermines your case. And you also need to stop doing it because it's a violation of board policy. Marat can lay out the case without being a "reactionary" and "guilty" person. Mr Skeptic can observe the fact that people emigrate and do menial labor without implying that it's okay that it's hard to become rich these days.

 

Thanks.

Apologies. I can be too hasty because I've read and analyzed such statements so many times, always to the same conclusion. Still, I also don't appreciate it when people are able to deploy subtleties with discriminatory undertones and then chastize me for holding them accountable. Can anyone at least admit that it is irritating when someone makes an implicitly racist statement about, say, Obama and then pretends that the insinuation was meant completely innocently? It would sadden me if I was falsely attributing this kind of behavior to people who aren't doing it, but it would at least be nice to hear someone state that they understand the kind of discourse that I'm critical of.

[swansont]

The difference is like saying I broke the window, therefore everyone in the playground has to pay for damages, even the kids who can't hit the ball. Or should the biggest kid who can wield that powerful bat, be the one who has to pay.

 

If you want a truly American approach to the issue you sue the manufacturer of the ball and bat.

[lemur]

What, exactly, did they do to inherit the supposed debt of rich white slave owners earned more than 40 years before they first stepped on American soil?

My impression is that there are various mechanisms that help connect white racial identity with higher class status and economic privilege. One is the fact that whites tend to divest in more racially mixed areas and invest in more white-dominant ones, which creates a disparity in property values. Another is that relative occupational segregation has continued in such a way that even recent immigrants are likely to track into "racially appropriate" careers based on racial identity. This means that racial identity continues to play a role even after slavery was outlawed and race proven to be a scientifically empty concept. So it's not that post civil-war immigrants are to blame for slavery or not; it is that they have benefitted from a racialized system of economic privilege that persists in influencing social outcomes.

 

 

No. What I am saying is that if you measure the amount of reparations by comparing the prosperity of previous slaves vs those who remained in Africa, it might be the descendants of the previous slaves that would have to end up paying for the "favor" of being "allowed" to "immigrate". Which would be extremely distasteful, impractical, and an insult to everyone. When compared to the average American they would still be worse off though.

I think you underestimate how many present-day people who identify as having slave-ancestors are quite proud of the work their ancestors did to "build the nation," and how superior they feel to Africans living in Africa. This actually gets into the issue of nationalist racism against Africa and the global critique of how European diaspora has generally harmed Africa and helped retard its development. The US slavery issue is really part of a global discourse, but so many have nationalist-blinders on that they tend to ignore or eschew the global level, either consciously or unconsciously.

 

As for the actual slavery, as repugnant as it is now, it was legal then and the people involved are all dead, and we don't inherit blame for crimes, no matter how bad they may be. Hence why I said any reparations would have to be for the currently ongoing effects only, rather than for past deeds.

Well, what happens unfortunately is that people who identify with historically constructed minority identities can view themselves of heirs of past injustice. So, for example, some people look at property lost by their parents or relatives in Auschwitz as presently belonging to someone, so why not them? Some people look back the same way at property burned in Atlanta during the civil war or to property nationalized in Cuba by the revolutionary government. Such losses can either be chalked off as casualties of war or people can question why someone benefitted from them but not them personally. Then there is the problem that some people benefited from losing family members to war, e.g. life insurance or G.I. bill etc., while others received no such benefits. These are all the issues of disparities in inheritances. They are hard to resolve one way or the other. The best solution, imo, is to create a better economy where people are satisfied with the opportunities available to them as being fair and sufficient. The problem is, imo, that most people want more than is possible for everyone to have so disparities are practically guaranteed.

 

Actually, I think the best way to make "reparations" for slavery would be to have a progressive taxation system, so that the rich people end up paying some of the poor people's share of the taxes.

The problem is that this kind of tax-spending economy tends to favor those in the position of collecting revenues and profiting form the spending. So the poor may be getting some free money, but once they spend it the money goes into the pockets of the rich and perpetuates the class-hierarchies.

 

We could also have publicly funded education, to make up for the fact that the economically disadvantaged would otherwise not be able to afford the same education as the wealthy which would also perpetuate these disadvantages.

Right, but if everyone got a world-class education and a world-class economic position to go with it, who would serve french fries to whom? Who would clean whose motel rooms so who could travel comfortably? Who would clean whose offices so who could leave the office without having to worry about coming in to a dirty office the next morning? Education is great, but how many people do it for intellectual enrichment so that they can perform a low-wage service job?

 

As a bonus, this system would improve class mobility so even the wealthy have to make some effort rather than coast on their inherited wealth. If you like this idea, you should lobby your congressman to implement it as soon as possible.

This isn't an issue of the wealthy having to make "some effort." This is about the wealthy, middle-class, AND poor giving up the culture of relying on others for work that they do not want to perform themselves. Congress would not need to do anything if people would stop consuming such services to begin with. Until this happens, there will be social class differences that divide people into desirable and undesirable jobs. Then, as long as people are desperate to make the cut, they will play race cards and any other card in the deck to avoid getting stuck in the lower classes. This is unfortunate, but there's really no way to achieve equality in a system of economic subjugation, imo.

 

 

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

Right, but if everyone got a world-class education and a world-class economic position to go with it, who would serve french fries to whom? Who would clean whose motel rooms so who could travel comfortably? Who would clean whose offices so who could leave the office without having to worry about coming in to a dirty office the next morning? Education is great, but how many people do it for intellectual enrichment so that they can perform a low-wage service job?

 

If there are less people willing to do these jobs (just because they now have more opportunities), the wages paid for the job need simply be increased until someone is willing to do them. There's no real reason why a manager must be paid more than a janitor -- it's just an issue of supply and demand. Sure, if there's less people wanting to do the "crappy" jobs, then perhaps some of them will get done a little less, but there will also be more people doing the better jobs, and everyone gets paid better.

[lemur]

If there are less people willing to do these jobs (just because they now have more opportunities), the wages paid for the job need simply be increased until someone is willing to do them. There's no real reason why a manager must be paid more than a janitor -- it's just an issue of supply and demand. Sure, if there's less people wanting to do the "crappy" jobs, then perhaps some of them will get done a little less, but there will also be more people doing the better jobs, and everyone gets paid better.

I would personally find it quite interesting to see how the economy would change if people had the freedom to refuse undesirable jobs without losing their housing, etc. However, I think what would happen if the poor suddenly received middle-class (investment) income without having to go to a dead-end job is that most fast food and restaurants would lose all their employees, as would hospitality services, janitors, etc. Then how high would you have to bid to get someone to clean the bathroom at your office? How high would you have to pay people to clean fryers and make burgers until the late hours of the night?

 

Now, let's assume that people would actually pay the high price demanded for such labor. What would be the purpose of doing such work except to increase your net worth (i.e. savings). So, if some people were trying to accumulate capital/savings by providing services to other people of equal means, how long would it be until the people consuming the services would run out of money and NEED to take a job to make back the money they spent/lost? So, you would end up in the same situation with some people taking "low" jobs because they need the money and others avoiding them because they don't.

 

That's just the way that capitalism works. The people with money try to invest it to get more from others and drive them into poverty so they'll have more leveraging power to purchase those people's labor for less. Haven't you ever played monopoly? When you have hotels on Boardwalk, you hope your opponent will land on them so you can take their money. Then, when they run out of money, you offer them pennies on the dollar or high-interest loans to sell their property. Eventually you own everything and the game is over, which is how capitalist economy works except for the people who lose everything can still be hired to serve you for minimum wage just to avoid having to steal and go to jail.

 

 

The game always works this way, even when everyone starts with the same amount of money and property.

Edited November 29, 2010 by lemur

[mississippichem]

That's just the way that capitalism works. The people with money try to invest it to get more from others and drive them into poverty so they'll have more leveraging power to purchase those people's labor for less. Haven't you ever played monopoly? When you have hotels on Boardwalk, you hope your opponent will land on them so you can take their money. Then, when they run out of money, you offer them pennies on the dollar or high-interest loans to sell their property. Eventually you own everything and the game is over, which is how capitalist economy works except for the people who lose everything can still be hired to serve you for minimum wage just to avoid having to steal and go to jail.

 

 

The game always works this way, even when everyone starts with the same amount of money and property.

 

I don't know about that. Where is the motivation to drive employees into poverty? There is no company with that kind of market power (controlling the asking price for wages). If a conglomerate of companies ally to do such they are practicing illegal and unethical business. Of course companies want to pay less in wages, they exist to make a profit. However, that's really the beauty of the open market, a company that doesn't offer enough compensation to employees will not attract any talented, or any at all, workers. No one is forced to work for anyone. People who are in the position of not having a choice [needing the job desperately] are in that position because of their own devices. I worked a menial secretary job for three years straight as I was in school (I still am, I tutor now), I had to work that job because I didn't have a degree. I will have a degree very soon and won't be forced into less than attractive employment hopefully.

 

Many minorities have already received reparations in the form of minority scholarships and affirmative action. I think the playing field here in the states is very level when compared to some other nations in the western world that are often considered more progressive. I might be making an overstatement (please correct if so) but we do have many legislated active defenses in the US against discrimination.

[Marat]

With reference to the earlier point about the legal problems of introducing reparations for slavery, I think it would be quite simple. Just add a few percentage points to federal income taxes and then spend the additional money collected only in the form of federal scholarships, federal aid to first home buyers, federal welfare benefits, federal grants for starting new businesses, etc., which would be directed only to Blacks. Some of this already exists, such as federal grants for minority businesses. If progressive federal taxation is legal and federal affirmative action programs are legal, what would be illegal about combining the two? The Supreme Court has been fussy only about aggressive affirmative action programs by the states (as in the Webber decision), which have always been more strongly suspected by the highest Court of discriminatory practices.

[JohnB]

Apologies. I can be too hasty because I've read and analyzed such statements so many times, always to the same conclusion. Still, I also don't appreciate it when people are able to deploy subtleties with discriminatory undertones and then chastize me for holding them accountable.

 

Lemur, it is not the fault of others if you see "sublties" and "discriminatory undertones" that do not exist.

Edited November 30, 2010 by JohnB

[lemur]

I don't know about that. Where is the motivation to drive employees into poverty? There is no company with that kind of market power (controlling the asking price for wages). If a conglomerate of companies ally to do such they are practicing illegal and unethical business. Of course companies want to pay less in wages, they exist to make a profit. However, that's really the beauty of the open market, a company that doesn't offer enough compensation to employees will not attract any talented, or any at all, workers. No one is forced to work for anyone.

No, it's just a dynamic of the free market. Poverty seduces people into crime and criminal records prevent people from working except in certain low-wage jobs. Prison-avoidance motivates people to keep the low-wage jobs to avoid going back to prison by choosing again for a life of crime.

 

People who are in the position of not having a choice [needing the job desperately] are in that position because of their own devices. I worked a menial secretary job for three years straight as I was in school (I still am, I tutor now), I had to work that job because I didn't have a degree. I will have a degree very soon and won't be forced into less than attractive employment hopefully.

Right, but as long as someone with money is willing to pay for that service, the job will exist for someone.

 

Many minorities have already received reparations in the form of minority scholarships and affirmative action. I think the playing field here in the states is very level when compared to some other nations in the western world that are often considered more progressive. I might be making an overstatement (please correct if so) but we do have many legislated active defenses in the US against discrimination.

US ideology has always strived against injust power. There's no profit in condemning or praising the US vs. any other national ideology or government. The issue really comes down to a human one: are people ever willing to accept downward social mobility to allow others to trade places with them? I don't think they are, so that leaves the question of whether their are systematic ways of preserving privilege and servitude and preventing mobility between the two classes? A truly value-free scientist will always question the results of such research because they know that people who wish to preserve their position of privilege have the strongest interest in proving that they achieved their position fairly.

 

Personally, I think the only way the interest to define the playing field as level will ever be truly neutralized is if there was no division of labor into labor classes. If office workers cleaned their own offices and people prepared their own food, they would not worry about whether it was fair that they had to take care of themselves. As long as people are divided into different sectors and classes, I think there will be conflict over who has to get stuck in the bad jobs and who gets the privilege of having the good jobs. Racial identity may not always be the determining factor; it just has been because the people in the greatest danger of losing their class privilege tend to be the ones who embrace race-blaming to elevate their own status to identify with those who are prosperous (primarily white).

 

 

[Marat]

This is of course exactly what Karl Marx said: "In the morning I will fish for my food, in the afternoon farm, in the evening write for a newspaper, and on weekends practice as a surgeon," or something to that effect. His general point was that class inequality is created not just by different financial rewards for each type of work but also by different qualities of work, with those doing dangerous, dirty, intellectually crippling, subordinate, uncreative, and stultifying jobs paying twice over for their low status, getting both less income and less personal reward for their work. This was why the highest paid wage laborers in the Soviet Union were not factory managers but coal miners.