Should the US pay reparations to African-Americans? (Part III) - Political Forum

dellgines · #1 (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 04:01 PM

I agree. I am glad this is the first thread that I saw on this board. When you look at the concept of reparations in relation to the history of America attempting to 'make whole' other wronged and damaged groups the anti-rep arguments just don't fly.

Why have Jews, Native Americans, Japanese etc. all receiving some form of government reparations in an attempt to make them 'whole'.

The majority of arguments if you haven't notice Xibit revolve around the supposed difficulty of distribution of reparations and not on the validity of reparations in the first place.

My argument has always been let us determine the validity first then after that let us deal with the application.

Ceci · #2 (**permalink**) 08-25-2007, 01:38 AM

Xibit, I have finally gathered my thoughts on this thread to answer it. I think that when people argue against reparations for black people, they don't take truly into account how deeply ingrained the system of slavery actually had become. Not only that, how it devestating affected the lives of African Americans throughout the generations.

I was looking through my books tonight, and I found a great passage that might demonstrate the depravity of what slavery has done to African-Americans. It's an old book, but chock full of information. It is from Frank Tannenbaum and called Slave and Citizen: The Negro in the Americas (yes, it is that old :P) :

Quote:

Under the law, a slave could not acquire property by earning it, by gift, or by inheritance. Not having any property,he could make no will, and could not take by descent, :there beingin him no inheritable blood." In South Carolina, slaves were described as "chattels personal...to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever." In Louisiana, the slave "...can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anything but what must belong to his master." In 1806, slaves were defined as real estate. The same principle ruled in Kentucky, but except for purposes of sale and execution of debts they were considered chattel. Most of the states defined slaves as chattel, and the laws of Maryland (1791) declared that "In case the personal property of a ward shall consist of specific articles such as slaves, working beasts, animals of any kind, stock furniture, plate, books, and so forth, the court....may at any time pass an order for the sale thereof."

In fact, the issue of female slaves in Maryland was considered part of the use, like that of other female animals. Court decisions are cited to the effect: "Suppose a brood mare is hired for five years, the foals belong to him who has a part of the use of the dam. The slave in Maryland, in this respect, is placed on no higher or different grounds." In fact, the breeding of slaves for sale as if they were mere cattle came to be part of the recognized practice of slave and plantation-owners in somer, perhaps most, of the slave states.

In 1830, Virginia was credited with exporting 8,500 slaves annually. Thomas Jeffereson Randolph said: "It is a practice, and an increasing practice in parts of virginia, to rear slaves for market." And the protagonist of slavery Thomas R. Dew, who became president of William and Mary College in 1836, said with pride that "Virginia is in fact a negro raising state for other states; she produces enough for her own supply, and six thousand for sale....Virginians can raise [them] cheaper than they can buy; in fact, it [raising slaves] is one of their greatest sources of profit."

--Tannenbaum, Frank. Slave and Citizen: the Negro in the Americas. New York: Vintage Books, 1946 :79-81.

With historical information like that, I think that when people say that Blacks don't deserve to even entertain reparations, they have no clue of the indignity that Black people have faced since they were brought here. And they have no clue how that indignity continues to happen daily especially when the legislatures and even the Congress cannot bring themselves to discuss this issue.

It is high time that reparations needs to be introduced into the national dialogue.

Alun · #3 (**permalink**) 08-25-2007, 09:35 PM

I'd say empathy is a prerequisite for understanding, not to mention addressing, emotional damage. The assumption that people who oppose reparations lack empathy is baseless. The main reason people oppose anything is because of a surplus of complacency, not a lack of humanity.

To the OP: Reparations would amount to, what, $100 trillion? If all of the money the government spent last year were spent every year to pay reparations until they were completed, they might be paid out by the end of 2027. What use are reparations if paying them undermines the economy upon which they're based?

The logistics aside, while the crimes against slaves were unforgivable, does it ever make sense to directly punish the progeny for the crimes of the fathers? While I think the country as a whole owes a debt to African-Americans, what it should afford them is equality, not monetary reparations, because a lack of equality is what persists; that is what we are responsible for.

Alun · #4 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeT

We wouldn't be acting responsibly if we crashed our economy by pouring into the hands of some people. Reparations doesn't advocate that, Alun, I'm not sure why you believe this is something that anyone is after.

Certain demands for reparations do not take into account the potential for economic disruption, despite calling for several to many trillions of dollars in direct monetary reparations to individuals. My criticism of possible negative economic effects only applies to those specific types of reparations.

Quote:

Xibit said way back in the beginning, and I agreed with him and quoted him later, that Reparations should be paid at whatever amount, for however long it takes to achieve justice.

That means, we don't just call up the Federal Reserve, Fort Knox, what have you, and hand over an entire nation's accumulated wealth to black people. That's not even close to what is being asked--in either amount or action.

But that's not quite the truth, as blacks are presently favored by many forms of government programs that give away money; that isn't fast enough to assuage you. You obviously think that some minimum degree of speed is reasonable, and I agree, but you've got to specify to make the claims Xibit did. This is why I was repeatedly arguing that calling all opponents of reparations irrational is unjustified when a proposal for reparations' implementation hasn't even been made: There are many ways to attempt reparations that would be impractical or ineffective, and that's what the economic stability argument was aiming to point out. It is not and was never intended to be an argument against reparations, of any form, in general.

Quote:

I agree. But this has nothing to do with reparations.

If you agree, then you're lying when you say, "Reparations isn't meant to dictate education for black people--that is Alun's view of how the money is better spent." Because I'm clearly not trying to "dictate education for black people," I'm trying to permit them access to it.

Quote:

In the end, however, Alun, blacks have the right to decide for themselves how much (or how little) education they want.

You say you understand that I'm not trying to force education on blacks, and yet come back again implying the contrary? I've never proposed forcing blacks to follow through on higher education; I've never said they shouldn't have the right to decide. Obviously people can and should make their own decisions. So why are you telling me this?

Quote:

Education does not equate intellect.

Again, I've never implied the contrary, as I don't believe it. Why are you telling me this?

Quote:

Really? And why do you think that blacks are exposed to educational systems that aren't equal to white's are exposed to? Property taxes? Location? Access to private schools? Perhaps an unequal opportunity to options made available to those with higher incomes--or even percieved as having higher incomes?

All of those things.

Quote:

Btw, I believe it has less to do with the amount of education and more to do with the socially applied labels of "quality" education.

Are you implying that children in an underfunded inner city school tend to get the same education as children in a suburban parochial school, and society only thinks one is better than the other?

Quote:

You cited poor education as the reason blacks would not be able to use the reparations to their benefit.

No, I said poor education was why blacks couldn't simply replace whites in today's society; they've been too disadvantaged for cash on hand to make that leap. Blacks wouldn't be able to use reparations to pursue education on equal footing with whites or solve other problems that have established racial disparity, but they could still obviously find ways to use the money to their benefit.

Quote:

So you're saying that a black person with enough money to buy themselves a decent education would be banned from gaining that education by white society?

No, I'm saying, and I've been saying, that there presently are not enough good schools for the majority of black children who are forced to go to terrible inner city schools to suddenly go to good private schools. There is also not enough room for those same children to then go to good colleges. Thus the money would have to somehow challenge the present system, and I just don't see how individuals could do that without having enforced legislation on their side.

Quote:

In our justice system, we have mainly two types of courts that are pertinent to this discussion: criminal and civil. When a person is convicted of a crime in criminal court, they can be sued in civil court for monetary/punitive damages.

Reparations are the "civil court" side of this. What you're advocating--the eradication of unconstiutional systemic racism--is the "criminal court" side of the issue.

Compensatory and punitive damages are to the victim and against the perpetrator respectively; neither of these positions is filled in the vast majority of cases of damages against blacks in the U.S, as they're mostly dead. What remains is the negligence of the government in implementing fair schooling and other such means of opportunity; that is not a criminal level of negligence because it didn't lead to the initial crime. A civil court also orders conditions or injunctions by which the plaintiff can be afforded rights and the defendant can be ordered to uphold or pursue actions; my position is that the current negligence, which results from the past crimes of slavery et. al., is best redressed by "ordering" the government to undo the effects of the initial crime.

Quote:

They [reparations] are there to restore past economic injustice and hopefully will jumpstart the dialogue necessary to bring about the eradication of the systemic racism and discrimination borne of that history.

The result of that economic injustice was not primarily the reduction of the assets of individuals; it was the building up of basic economic systems of opportunity in a way that excluded those individuals.

Quote:

They [reparations] are there to restore past economic injustice...Here is the definition of reparations:...restoration to good condition [or] repair

So the question is: How do you repair the economic system or balance which past offenses (e.g. slavery) have plagued with disparity? Right? I think the way to right the disparity is to modify the systems that offer access to the economy, like education; you think the way to right the disparity is to relocate assets. Right?

meffy,

Quote:

Originally Posted by meffy

You said exactly this ["blacks wouldn't know how to use the money well"] and you know that

Bullshit. If I've said exactly that, why don't I see you quoting my saying exactly that?

Quote:

Do you even realize, that for you whites are in the determinative center? That all should be about them? Until they fixed the system, until they feel prepared to pay reparations etc.

No, I'm advocating that, until everyone has fixed the system which some whites in the past screwed up, paying out to blacks would still leave most blacks disadvantaged economically.

MikeT · #5 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alun

Certain demands for reparations do not take into account the potential for economic disruption, despite calling for several to many trillions of dollars in direct monetary reparations to individuals. My criticism of possible negative economic effects only applies to those specific types of reparations.

Possible negative economic effects shouldn't be the measure of whether or not monetary reparations should be paid at all. The measure should be how much damage was inflicted and what amount justice demands to right that damage.

Quote:

But that's not quite the truth, as blacks are presently favored by many forms of government programs that give away money; that isn't fast enough to assuage you.

What "give-aways" do black people enjoy that white people don't?

I've never heard of a black person just being able to walk up to some government counter and receive money for nothing. Please enlighten me on this one.

Quote:

You obviously think that some minimum degree of speed is reasonable, and I agree, but you've got to specify to make the claims Xibit did.

No I don't. I can simply say that a "reasonable" speed is what is necessary here. There is no reason to for me to get into the details of exactly how much and when in a debate about "if".

Quote:

This is why I was repeatedly arguing that calling all opponents of reparations irrational is unjustified when a proposal for reparations' implementation hasn't even been made:

I never said all opponents of reparations are irrational. Never. Not once. I've stated some of the arguments made by the opponents aren't legitimate or logical. But never that the opponents themselves are "irrational."

Quote:

There are many ways to attempt reparations that would be impractical or ineffective, and that's what the economic stability argument was aiming to point out. It is not and was never intended to be an argument against reparations, of any form, in general.

Yes. This is why one of the very first things I asked you about was if you were for reparations. When you said yes--I took you at your word and have debated with you from that position.

Quote:

If you agree, then you're lying when you say, "Reparations isn't meant to dictate education for black people--that is Alun's view of how the money is better spent." Because I'm clearly not trying to "dictate education for black people," I'm trying to permit them access to it.

My apolgies if that was not clear. What I was trying to say is that there are many different ways being debated about how reparations could be made (I even suggested a house for every black American who's grandparents were citizens) and that "education" was what you were advocating--but not the definition of reparations itself.

Quote:

You say you understand that I'm not trying to force education on blacks, and yet come back again implying the contrary?

At first, I didn't understand that to be true, Alun. After you clarified that for me, I understand it now.

Quote:

I've never proposed forcing blacks to follow through on higher education; I've never said they shouldn't have the right to decide. Obviously people can and should make their own decisions. So why are you telling me this?

Because if you're focusing on education for future generations as a way of paying reparations, then you're not focusing on the adults who still have to contend with disparity created by federal discrimination as they work to provide assets and options to their children on par with what white children are receiving. While education is important, it's not the sole area that needs addressing.

Which is missing the point of reparations--it's not an action meant to correct damage that hasn't been caused yet.

Quote:

Again, I've never implied the contrary, as I don't believe it. Why are you telling me this?All of those things.Are you implying that children in an underfunded inner city school tend to get the same education as children in a suburban parochial school, and society only thinks one is better than the other?

No, that's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that a black child in sixth grade has had six years of school--it's not about quantity but quality.

Education fails for two reasons:

1) Lack of quality teachers
2) Student-to-Teacher ratios.

If Black communities could build the assets to attract more quality teachers in greater quantity, then the schools the inner-city students attend (which aren't all black, btw) would improve.

But this is just one small, aspect of the work that needs to be done--and something that reparations--in of themselves--aren't designed to address.

Quote:

No, I said poor education was why blacks couldn't simply replace whites in today's society; they've been too disadvantaged for cash on hand to make that leap.

Here's where you and I differ. I believe that blacks have lived in our white society for a very long time and in many cases, because of their special perspective in this country as a targeted group for discrimination (as opposed to whites who are not) they may be even more capable of handling the jobs that white people do than white people are.

I also believe that no one is proposing that black people "replace" white people. They are proposing that black people be equal to whites.

Reparations, on the other hand, isn't about equality--it's about federal wrong-doing and justice for that wrong-doing. We don't tell the woman who is found to be deserving of monetary damages in a lawsuit that because we don't think she would be capable of replacing the person she sued, she won't get monetary compensation, but instead, society will spend that money to "train" her to become more capable of doing a job she may not even be interested in doing.

That's not how it works.

Quote:

Blacks wouldn't be able to use reparations to pursue education on equal footing with whites or solve other problems that have established racial disparity, but they could still obviously find ways to use the money to their benefit.

Again, reparations aren't meant to bring about equality or eradicate discrmination. I'm unsure why you keep espousing that criteria.

Reparations are meant to pay for the injustice visited on blacks by the federal government.

Quote:

No, I'm saying, and I've been saying, that there presently are not enough good schools for the majority of black children who are forced to go to terrible inner city schools to suddenly go to good private schools.

Because you believe we lack enough good schools in this country to educate all our children--you're against monetary reparations?

Alun, reparations aren't and shouldn't be offered by where you think they'll be of the most benefit.

That's the responsibility of those who receive the reparations, not yours.

Quote:

There is also not enough room for those same children to then go to good colleges.

Not enough room for black children to gain a higher education?

Not enough room for them?

What are you saying, Alun?

We should we withhold monetary reparations simply because we can't make room for black children in our education system?

Quote:

Thus the money would have to somehow challenge the present system, and I just don't see how individuals could do that without having enforced legislation on their side.

Since we're supposing here, why not suppose that having the money on their side will enable to lobby for that enforced legislation?

Quote:

Compensatory and punitive damages are to the victim and against the perpetrator respectively; neither of these positions is filled in the vast majority of cases of damages against blacks in the U.S, as they're mostly dead.

No, they aren't "mostly dead" as has been clarified time and again. By your own advocacy you don't stand by that form of measurement. You stated you wanted reparations for those who suffered under segregation and up to present-day discrimination as well. Those people are very much alive.

Quote:

What remains is the negligence of the government in implementing fair schooling and other such means of opportunity; that is not a criminal level of negligence because it didn't lead to the initial crime.

It is unconstutional and if the government fails to uphold the constitution, we the people need to enforce the constitution and demand justice for the unconstitutional practices that damaged our country.

Quote:

A civil court also orders conditions or injunctions by which the plaintiff can be afforded rights and the defendant can be ordered to uphold or pursue actions; my position is that the current negligence, which results from the past crimes of slavery et. al., is best redressed by "ordering" the government to undo the effects of the initial crime.

And I have agreed with you--but I have also made clear how that is a separate issue to reparations.

Quote:

The result of that economic injustice was not primarily the reduction of the assets of individuals; it was the building up of basic economic systems of opportunity in a way that excluded those individuals.

Agreed, as I have stated before. Reparations is to repair the damages caused by the historic economic injustices created by our federal government.

Quote:

So the question is: How do you repair the economic system or balance which past offenses (e.g. slavery) have plagued with disparity? Right? I think the way to right the disparity is to modify the systems that offer access to the economy, like education; you think the way to right the disparity is to relocate assets. Right?

It's both--reparations AND correcting the systems that created the disparity.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #6 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 12:21 AM

So, for the sake or argument, let's say we go with these figures:

"There are reparations proponents asking for $12 trillion ($370-500k per adult I think)"

Let's assume $2 million per household.

How do you forsee blackfolk spending/investing this money?

Alun · #7 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 12:53 AM

Err...blacks would presumably invest and spend along all the lines whites (and blacks) do today, with some general reduction for the 'why not just live off of this money' factor, except those of the mega-rich, of which there are very few blacks. The difference would be of concentrations. All of this according to the 2002 U.S. census (pdf):

"Over one-half (52 percent) of all Blacks lived in a central city within a metropolitan area, compared with 21 percent of non-Hispanic Whites." The geography of the residential economy would be forced to shift towards inner cities from suburbs, or blacks would move out in mass to compensate. On a larger scale, "The majority of Blacks lived in the South (55 percent)" whereas "33 percent [of whites] lived in the South."

The sharp differences continue throughout (family structure, age distribution, family size, marital status/age), but I think they generally stem from a central, self-sustaining combination: "Of the 20.4 million Blacks and 133.4 million non-Hispanic Whites 25 and older, a lower percentage of Blacks had earned at least a high school diploma (79 percent and 89 percent, respectively)"; "the unemployment rate for Blacks was twice that for non-Hispanic Whites (11 percent and 5 percent, respectively)" similarly, more than twice the fraction of blacks are below the poverty line; and "the proportion of non-Hispanic White men employed in managerial and professional specialty occupations (33 percent) was higher than that of Black men (18 percent)."

Specialized and managerial jobs would be strained by demands for higher salaries, but they would be serving very different demographics; a person with a high school diploma buys different things than one without, especially in long-term investments. A person without a bachelor's even more so (blacks are half as likely to attain one). That said, I'm not an economist by any stretch; it just seems to me common sense that giving enough money to a very different demographic will result in a very differently balanced economy, not an equalized replica of our present one, and that if enough things get unbalanced in an economy, it crashes.

Ceci · #8 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

I'll just answer this. The purpose of the forum is to have political discussions without trolling.

I am having a political discussion. And I am not a troll.

Quote:

It is simply not right for a good person to suffer someone taking a crap upon their honor just for someone else's benefit

Tell me about it.

Quote:

It's just not right for decent people to be maligned.

Tell me about it.

Quote:

It would be possible to make a million indirect insults towards a black person, the same way you imply that someone else is a racist.

I don't know who you are talking about, but it isn't me.

Quote:

Stereotypes of welfare queen, crackhead, and much much worse could be employed.

That's true. And from my experience, these stereotypes about Black people are used constantly without staff intervention to stop such derogatory talk. I wonder why that is. Do you know why?

Quote:

I don't think you would like that, so that's how a person falsely accused of racism feels too.

You act as if I wasn't accused of racism. I was accused before, but I am very secure with myself. And I have enough self-esteem to know how I am. I don't worry about what other people label or call me. And I certainly do not worry how others define me. I define myself. Are you confident? Do you let others define who you are? Or do you do it yourself?

As for such accusations, I blow it off and keep on discussing the topic. I am, suffice it to say, rather tough-skinned and minded, especially when it comes to anti-racism discussions.

Unfortunately, I extend my empathy to others who are not as strong and resilient as I am in this area.

Others might have a problem with being called racist because they aren't that confident in their attitudes about people. They might not even have the skills to deal with others of a different race.

I clearly don't have that problem. I have dealt with people from all walks of life. And, they know my attitudes and my opinions about things.

I also empathize with people who feel badly after being accused of racism, but I'm not the instigator here.

As of now, I would like to get back to addressing the topic of the thread.

So, I stand in support with the others here to do that. I do not want to be a hinderance to this important issue.

I know you'll probably have more to say to me. I expect it. But I am simply going to go back to the thread and discuss the topic from now on.

I apologize that we weren't able to get to a consensus here. But, we'll have to agree to disagree here as well. Thank you very much for you time. I've learned a lot.

Now, truly, I hope we can discuss the topic.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #9 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceci

That's true. And from my experience, these stereotypes about Black people are used constantly without staff intervention to stop such derogatory talk. I wonder why that is. Do you know why?

It doesn't exist, not to any significant degree. We disagree about the existence of these stereotypes on the forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceci

You act as if I wasn't accused of racism. I was accused before, but I am very secure with myself. And I have enough self-esteem to know how I am. I don't worry about what other people label or call me. And I certainly do not worry how others define me. I define myself. Are you confident? Do you let others define who you are? Or do you do it yourself?

Due to you insinuating others as racist. As for others defining me, no I don't let them do that. I generally get really aggressive when people attempt to mis-define me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceci

Unfortunately, I extend my empathy to others who are not as strong and resilient as I am in this area.

Others might have a problem with being called racist because they aren't that confident in their attitudes about people. They might not even have the skills to deal with others of a different race.

It's not a question of confidence. Calling someone a racist when they're not is tantamount to fighting words. I would definitely curse someone out in public if they said that about me. It's not a question of your proclaimed strength. It's that you have drawn first blood and so it's not quite as offensive to you when someone gets you back, since you already struck first. People who don't stoop to race-card playing also find the entire exercise distateful. A person who plays the race card and talks about being strong in tolerating accusations of racism is analogous to a pig proclaiming strength in rolling around in the slop. Not calling you a pig, I am actually just making an analogy to make clear my point.

Maybe you consider it "strong". Others consider it playing dirty, and people don't want to kneel to a low level just to win such a wretched contest. Playing that sort of game is to have already been defeated.

MikeT · #10 (**permalink**) 09-13-2007, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

It doesn't exist, not to any significant degree. We disagree about the existence of these stereotypes on the forum.

This is an endemic problem with white privilege. It's so ingrained, that derogatory statements about black people in general (racism) go largely unnoticed.

If you'd like, I will gather the many, many, many quotes that are racially disparaging and post them together so that you might be able to see them.

One example is the belief that because black people get welfare, they've already received justice. That's disparaging. No one would have said that the families that sued O.J. should just have gon on welfare. It wouldn't even cross their minds to make such a horrendous suggestion that welfare would serve justice in that case.

Another example is that reparations shouldn't be paid because black men abandon their families because they're too horny to stick around and have to leave their children fatherless so they can have sex with as many women as possible. This was described as a reason why reparations shouldn't be paid--because systemic racism has nothing to do with the lack of social mobility blacks face, it's all their fault due to their bad character.

Also, I would like to point out that because of my pro-reparations stance, I've been called a racist thief on these forums.

Web, I would call you're attention to Libertarian's posts on this thread. That is the embodiment of trolling. His behavior on these threads is truely trolling, not Ceci's sometimes heated, but otherwise on-topic and often very detailed posts.

If you need me to, I can create a list of Libertarian's posts as well.

I think my concern here, however, is that simply because you're not seeing what others are, or that Ceci and myself aren't prone to run to the moderator's every time someone says something insulting, (like: "in your fucked-up mind it is" said to me) that somehow the racially derogatory statements or insults aren't happening.

The opposite is true and I'm offering to help you with that, if you're interested.