Should the US Pay Reparations for Slavery?

[D H]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marat, I have asked several times what made you raise this issue in the first place. No response. You wrote the opening post as if you were from the far right. From your last set of posts you appear be from the far left. Are you trolling?

 

Edited November 30, 2010 by D H

[Marat]

In the spirit of scientific inquiry it seems reasonable to shed light on any question from as many perspectives as possible, so as to locate the issues through a process akin to triangulation. The essence of scientific debate is that we are not ideologues but are open-minded and flexible in our thinking, so I adopt whatever approach seems likely to inspire the most interesting and useful contributions. If we had to adopt a consistent debating persona and stick to it through all posts and at all costs, this would be the opposite of a science forum, since no one would have an open mind.

[D H]

Aha. So trolling it is.

[swansont]

I think that within a topic, at least, you need to espouse a consistent position. Unless the discussion changes your mind, and you are clear that this has happened.

[Marat]

Well, the topic has wandered considerably from the OP. Initially I asked if the U.S. should pay reparations for slavery, and after a short reaction to that question, people got involved in a lengthy discussion of how capitalism works, which is at best tangentally related to the OP. But when someone developed a theory in the course of the capitalist section of the discussion which was so near Karl Marx's discussion of the importance of the freedom of labor (cf. Wikipedia article on 'Division of Labour,' section on Karl Marx), I felt it useful to point out the similarity, as an ancillary point.

 

I'm not really taking a position on either the topic of the OP or the division of labor and capitalism, I'm just proposing and testing arguments or putting them in context -- something like the way a scientist proposes and tests a working hypothesis.

[pioneer]

Say we wished to make reparations for slavery, it would need to done in a way that does not create a new round of injustice. For example, slavery ended in the 1860's in US. What that means is anyone who was an immigrant after that time may not have had anything to do with it, unless they were part of the slave trade. For example, a poor family from eastern europe fleeing the 1st world war, had nothing to do with slavery, with many being only a notch above slavery themselves. It would be unjust to assume they need to make reparations based only on their fair skin color. This means you really can't use tax dollars, since many descendants of immigrants would being paying for something they did not do, via tax burden.

 

What about white slave owners who had children with black mistresses. Their children are genetically half slave owner and half slave. The owner liked is daughter or son and gave him/her extra privileges but with in the context of local protocol? Does this cancel? Say someone was a black person in Africa who was being paid to round up slaves for the slave traders?

 

To make sure we don't exceed an eye for an eye, there would need to be a clear exemption list. If not, all we have done is create a future need for another round of reparations, which might enhance race tensions in the short term.

Edited December 3, 2010 by pioneer

[Marat]

This is the general problem with all efforts to achieve social justice by redistributing resources according to some principle of just desert or reparations for unfair distribution principles in the past. Since it would be administratively impossible to make the redistribution absolutely fair for everyone affected by it, absent a full-scale trial to determine the justice of each case, more injustice may be done by the redistribution than by leaving things alone.

 

For example, in the case of reparations for slavery, how do we treat Caucasions who can demonstrate that one or more of their ancestors were seized by the Black Barbary Pirates and sold into slavery in the slave markets of Oran or Constantinople in the 17th century? Ten percent as many Whites were seized from Europe and enslaved by Blacks as were Blacks seized and enslaved by Whites. Even for those Caucasions who had no relatives enslaved by Blacks, how many suffered by having to take precautions to protect themselves against the risks of being seized? What about Whites whose ancesters helped slaves escape through the Underground Railroad or who preached against slavery from the pulpits of New England? What about those whose ancesters died in the Civil War after the Emancipation Proclamation? What about the Black descendents of Blacks who served in the Confederate Army to help sustain the slavery system, as many (surprisingly!) did?

 

All historical interactions are infinitely complex after so much time has passed that you could never unravel all the skeins of responsibility to identify how much anyone now alive owed to whom. History abounds in examples of wealthy and successful families completely losing their fame and fortune in a single generation due to the misbehavior of the children, so if so much can change in one generation, how much unfair historical disadvantage or advantage can anyone really inherit after 150 years?

[ParanoiA]

In the spirit of scientific inquiry it seems reasonable to shed light on any question from as many perspectives as possible, so as to locate the issues through a process akin to triangulation. The essence of scientific debate is that we are not ideologues but are open-minded and flexible in our thinking, so I adopt whatever approach seems likely to inspire the most interesting and useful contributions. If we had to adopt a consistent debating persona and stick to it through all posts and at all costs, this would be the opposite of a science forum, since no one would have an open mind.

 

Precisely, and it's an admirable quality.

 

I think that within a topic, at least, you need to espouse a consistent position. Unless the discussion changes your mind, and you are clear that this has happened.

 

Why? It doesn't matter if someone argues 13 angles, it only matters that they are consistent within the context of individual exchange. If Marat is arguing an angle with you, then his argument with you should be consistent. If his next paragraph is in response to someone else, then it has nothing to do with your exchange and can counter it absolutely without impact on your discussion at all whatsoever.

 

Consistency beyond individual exchange only matters when you're competing, not discussing. If you're arguing and trying to win something, then evasive targets are frustrating. When you're discussing and critically analyzing a given subject, then multiple positions are exactly what you're looking for.

 

As usual, these demands say more about you...

 

To make sure we don't exceed an eye for an eye, there would need to be a clear exemption list. If not, all we have done is create a future need for another round of reparations, which might enhance race tensions in the short term.

 

Well put. Reparations require us to judge and discriminate and do exactly what was done in our history that we claimed to be ashamed of.

 

But, of course, we're not ashamed of it. We're only ashamed of the target. We, humans that is, love to group and label a minority, and then discriminate and punish. We called them negroes in the 1800's. We called them queers in the 1900's. We call them rich in the 2000's.

 

We're always looking for an external scapegoat for our problems. Minorites make great punching bags.

Edited December 4, 2010 by ParanoiA

[swansont]

Why? It doesn't matter if someone argues 13 angles, it only matters that they are consistent within the context of individual exchange. If Marat is arguing an angle with you, then his argument with you should be consistent. If his next paragraph is in response to someone else, then it has nothing to do with your exchange and can counter it absolutely without impact on your discussion at all whatsoever.

 

Consistency beyond individual exchange only matters when you're competing, not discussing. If you're arguing and trying to win something, then evasive targets are frustrating. When you're discussing and critically analyzing a given subject, then multiple positions are exactly what you're looking for.

 

If these were private conversations that wouldn't matter, but this a forum, and answers are seen by all and can be responded to by all. If someone asks a question that I was going to ask, I am not prone to repeat it (duplication is considered rude), but I think I should be able to assume I would get the same answer. At the very least it's arguing in bad faith. If it's moving the goalposts, it's a logical fallacy.

 

 

As usual, these demands say more about you...

 

Thank you.

[ParanoiA]

If these were private conversations that wouldn't matter, but this a forum, and answers are seen by all and can be responded to by all. If someone asks a question that I was going to ask, I am not prone to repeat it (duplication is considered rude), but I think I should be able to assume I would get the same answer. At the very least it's arguing in bad faith. If it's moving the goalposts, it's a logical fallacy.

 

You did not answer my question. Scroll back up to #33, stop dodging the question, and answer. Or your lack of effort will again out you for coming here to compete with people, instead of arguments.

 

Marat is very easy to follow. Just read. You appear to be calibrated to analyze a forum member, and their belief system, but public discussion boards are not about analyzing posters, but rather their arguments. One's ego often is responsible for such things.

 

When you remove the 'person' from the 'argument', you are left with multiple arguments. Marat's posts are essentially several different arguments - all are up for discussion and debate. Pick one and argue it. Or pick several. Hey, if it helps, make up little names for each argument and pretend a non-existent member posted them.

 

There is no functional problem with arguing multiple angles of a subject - except, if you're aim is to compete with the person making the argument.

[swansont]

You did not answer my question.

 

You asked "Why?" I answered.

[Dave]

You did not answer my question. Scroll back up to #33, stop dodging the question, and answer. Or your lack of effort will again out you for coming here to compete with people, instead of arguments.

 

Marat is very easy to follow. Just read. You appear to be calibrated to analyze a forum member, and their belief system, but public discussion boards are not about analyzing posters, but rather their arguments. One's ego often is responsible for such things.

 

When you remove the 'person' from the 'argument', you are left with multiple arguments. Marat's posts are essentially several different arguments - all are up for discussion and debate. Pick one and argue it. Or pick several. Hey, if it helps, make up little names for each argument and pretend a non-existent member posted them.

 

There is no functional problem with arguing multiple angles of a subject - except, if you're aim is to compete with the person making the argument.

 

ParanoiA, if you have a point to make then do so in a civil fashion. Insulting someone by inferring they have a big ego is not what is generally regarded as reasoned debate.

[ParanoiA]

You asked "Why?" I answered.

 

And your answer failed, logically, therefore I reason that a smart guy such as yourself must have avoided to answer it. You still have yet to argue successfully as to why Marat should *not* argue multiple angles simultaneously while staying consistent per exchange. You appear to want your target to stay fixed so you can attack it successfully. The problem is, your target is a person, not an argument.

 

Arguments don't move around and change - people do.

 

ParanoiA, if you have a point to make then do so in a civil fashion. Insulting someone by inferring they have a big ego is not what is generally regarded as reasoned debate.

 

You are correct. I do not believe Swansont is engaged in reasonable, honest debate about ideas. I believe Swansont prefers to compete with members. I conceive that his insistence that posters limit themselves to a single track of thinking serves only personal competition and does *not* serve a diverse exchange of ideas and critical analysis, both of which I have associated with the nature of science.

 

If this is incorrect, please correct me and I'll stop holding science in such high regard over talk radio.

Edited December 11, 2010 by ParanoiA

[mississippichem]

There's a bit of sport in debate. I think most here enjoy it as long as the sport stays "sportsman-like".

[Mr Skeptic]

Paranoia, I think you should stop attacking the person and focus on his argument. I heard from someone that it's better that way.

 

I sometimes have a problem with one person arguing multiple different and opposing arguments, sometimes not. It depends on whether they cause a lot of confusion (and so degrade the quality of debate) by doing so.

[swansont]

And your answer failed, logically, therefore I reason that a smart guy such as yourself must have avoided to answer it. You still have yet to argue successfully as to why Marat should *not* argue multiple angles simultaneously while staying consistent per exchange. You appear to want your target to stay fixed so you can attack it successfully. The problem is, your target is a person, not an argument.

(emphasis added)

 

If you refer to my answer, you must agree that I answered the question. So, logically, I could not have avoided answering it. What there some other question I missed? You asked "Why?" and I answered: I think it's arguing in bad faith; it's rude.

 

Why do I have to agree with you, or you with me? I'm just stating my opinion. I consider it to be rude, and if you don't, hey — I don't really care. But yes, if I am going to argue a point, I don't want the target to be moving. And you are wrong that my target is a person. My target is most decidedly NOT the person. It's the argument. I don't agree or disagree based on who makes a post.