Reperations for slavery?

[Lexicus]

^Exactly. I believe I noted some time ago that to many people posting here "race relations are getting worse" means "stoking white resentment."

In my view race relations in the US are at an all-time high.

 

[MobBoss]

A more politic way of expressing what I meant:

That a policy will make some white people angry is not a valid reason for not enacting the policy. I find claims that it will "harm race relations" to be an absurd, possibly racist argument.

I find that actually thinking paying reparations for slavery will solve anything at all is just silly. It won't. That kind of payoff never does.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I find that actually thinking paying reparations for slavery will solve anything at all is just silly. It won't. That kind of payoff never does.

The only time it would have worked was directly after the Civil War in which Lincoln proposed Black slaves received federal land and a Mule. But then someone decided to shot Lincoln in the back of the head and that was the end of that. It comes out to about 10 acres per slave (I assume family groups would get about 40 acres and a old army mule)

Good to see a Lincoln Republican, how is retirement treating you ?

 

[MobBoss]

The only time it would have worked was directly after the Civil War in which Lincoln proposed Black slaves received federal land and a Mule. But then someone decided to shot Lincoln in the back of the head and that was the end of that. It comes out to about 10 acres per slave (I assume family groups would get about 40 acres and a old army mule)

Good to see a Lincoln Republican, how is retirement treating you ?

Not bad! Taking more trips to nice places lately, and hiking some. Keep pretty busy actually!

 

[luiz]

Whether you frame it as one or not, especially as it pertains to education you're going to be pretty exclusively transferring money spent on white kids to being spent on black kids.

Education is also never going to be equal without bussing, which necessarily requires racially-based policy. Simply ensuring equal funding is not, on its own, going to make education truly equal.

Any kind of redistribution scheme, including the ones which already exist in the US, on average transfer money from whites to blacks. This happens because whites are on average richer. It's the same reason why on average you also see transfer of money from cities to rural areas, from some states to others, etc. Any expansion of redistribution further increases these dynamics.

Which is why there is never any need to frame these issues in a racial manner. Any redistribution automatically benefits blacks more than whites. At the end of the day the problem is not that there are X% poor blacks and Y% poor whites, with X>Y. The problem is that are lots of poor people. The percentage that is black, white or whatever shouldn't matter, because people are people. People should be helped, not "black people" or "white people". Dividing people in races only serves bad purposes. Americans are quite unique in their insistence on sticking to this division, across the whole political spectrum. In most countries this is characteristic of the far right only. As I said some countries don't even collect statistics on "race", and I'm talking of very diverse countries.

These three countries are well-known paradises for people of color

Surely better than the USA in that regard. Try seeing a bit of the world some day.

 

[metalhead]

Any kind of redistribution scheme, including the ones which already exist in the US, on average transfer money from whites to blacks. This happens because whites are on average richer. It's the same reason why on average you also see transfer of money from cities to rural areas, from some states to others, etc. Any expansion of redistribution further increases these dynamics.

Which is why there is never any need to frame these issues in a racial manner. Any redistribution automatically benefits blacks more than whites. At the end of the day the problem is not that there are X% poor blacks and Y% poor whites, with X>Y. The problem is that are lots of poor people. The percentage that is black, white or whatever shouldn't matter, because people are people. People should be helped, not "black people" or "white people". Dividing people in races only serves bad purposes. Americans are quite unique in their insistence on sticking to this division, across the whole political spectrum. In most countries this is characteristic of the far right only. As I said some countries don't even collect statistics on "race", and I'm talking of very diverse countries.

I disagree, I think X>Y is a problem, because there is no reason why this should be so, other than X is discriminated against. It points to a gap in opportunity that the status quo continues to perpetuate. People of color are at a permanent economic disadvantage.

The institutions themselves perpetrate discrimination and inequality. That's a big part of the problem. So any extra money you funnel through the system as it is currently constructed is going to have a disparate impact, and be of more assistance to white people than black people. That's really the fundamental moral argument behind reparations, in any form - it's not just that slavery happened and people deserve compensation, it's that the legacy of slavery to this day has a tangible impact on the lives of the descendants of slaves in America.

All people should be helped, I totally agree with you there. But if you're going to endeavor to spend the resources to help people, it makes more sense to me (in fact in my opinion it requires) - IF you believe in constitutional guarantees of equal protection and rights to life liberty and property - that you do so in a way that elevates everyone to a place of true equality. It doesn't just correct the wrongs of slavery, it socially normalizes the idea that we don't leave people behind because of their race. Only then does it make sense not to collect statistics on race.

I agree that in an ideal society, such ideas of race and color and ethnicity would be pieces of one's personal identity and nothing more. But we aren't there yet, and sadly, society does not seem to be moving towards that in any meaningful way on its own. It needs a push.

Surely better than the USA in that regard. Try seeing a bit of the world some day.

Eh, my impression of Western Europe at least is that racism is far more overt, and far more ingrained and socially acceptable. I have no idea if discrimination is institutionalized there to the degree it is here, but the countries you cited are far from pillars of racial equality. The U.S. is a pretty segregated place, but far less so when it comes to immigrants. I don't think you can say the same for much of Europe.

 

[luiz]

I disagree, I think X>Y is a problem, because there is no reason why this should be so, other than X is discriminated against. It points to a gap in opportunity that the status quo continues to perpetuate. People of color are at a permanent economic disadvantage.

The institutions themselves perpetrate discrimination and inequality. That's a big part of the problem. So any extra money you funnel through the system as it is currently constructed is going to have a disparate impact, and be of more assistance to white people than black people. That's really the fundamental moral argument behind reparations, in any form - it's not just that slavery happened and people deserve compensation, it's that the legacy of slavery to this day has a tangible impact on the lives of the descendants of slaves in America.

All people should be helped, I totally agree with you there. But if you're going to endeavor to spend the resources to help people, it makes more sense to me (in fact in my opinion it requires) - IF you believe in constitutional guarantees of equal protection and rights to life liberty and property - that you do so in a way that elevates everyone to a place of true equality. It doesn't just correct the wrongs of slavery, it socially normalizes the idea that we don't leave people behind because of their race. Only then does it make sense not to collect statistics on race.

I agree that in an ideal society, such ideas of race and color and ethnicity would be pieces of one's personal identity and nothing more. But we aren't there yet, and sadly, society does not seem to be moving towards that in any meaningful way on its own. It needs a push.

It's not necessarily true that blacks are poorer just because of continuing racism. Or rather, let me rephrase it: it's not necessary for there to be continued racism for blacks to be on average poorer. On average if your ancestors were dirt poor there's a bigger chance you'll be poor yourself, even several generations down the line. Slaves qualify as "dirt poor". Of course there's also the racism that existed after slavery, but even without it, blacks would most likely still be poorer on average, which wouldn't be a problem if there were no racism and the sole cause was a historical legacy.

So I totally disagree that policies should specifically divide people in races, and I also disagree that making sure "the average black income" is the same as the "average white income" is a worthy goal. It is in fact an absurd goal, because we don't even know all the factors that contribute to that (here's a big one: there is a disproportionate number of blacks in poor states such as Alabama and Mississippi and a disproportionate low number in rich states such as Connecticut).

So instead of pursuing racial politics, which are inherently unfair (not all blacks need help, we can't quantify the "disadvantage" of being black, etc etc) it would be better to simply fight discrimination and enforce universalist policies that help everyone in need.

Eh, my impression of Western Europe at least is that racism is far more overt, and far more ingrained and socially acceptable. I have no idea if discrimination is institutionalized there to the degree it is here, but the countries you cited are far from pillars of racial equality. The U.S. is a pretty segregated place, but far less so when it comes to immigrants. I don't think you can say the same for much of Europe.

The US has less problems with immigration (in my opinion mostly because the immigrants the US receive are very different from those Europe receives), but not with "race relations". Go to the richest neighborhood of Paris or Munich and you'll see people of all colors. But try going to a rich neighborhood in Cleveland, or even Houston for that matter.

I think "racism" in the sense of disliking people because of their ethnic origin is very very low in Western Europe. There's a lot of tension due to culture and religion, but not "race". And this is a crucial distinction. You can see that the degree the "races" mix in Europe is orders of magnitude higher than it is in the US (except for Asian Americans). And that's because people don't usally think in terms of race to begin with.

 

[metalhead]

It's not necessarily true that blacks are poorer just because of continuing racism. Or rather, let me rephrase it: it's not necessary for there to be continued racism for blacks to be on average poorer. On average if your ancestors were dirt poor there's a bigger chance you'll be poor yourself, even several generations down the line. Slaves qualify as "dirt poor". Of course there's also the racism that existed after slavery, but even without it, blacks would most likely still be poorer on average, which wouldn't be a problem if there were no racism and the sole cause was a historical legacy.

So I totally disagree that policies should specifically divide people in races, and I also disagree that making sure "the average black income" is the same as the "average white income" is a worthy goal. It is in fact an absurd goal, because we don't even know all the factors that contribute to that (here's a big one: there is a disproportionate number of blacks in poor states such as Alabama and Mississippi and a disproportionate low number in rich states such as Connecticut).

So instead of pursuing racial politics, which are inherently unfair (not all blacks need help, we can't quantify the "disadvantage" of being black, etc etc) it would be better to simply fight discrimination and enforce universalist policies that help everyone in need.

But it's such a pervasive problem. Being black makes it harder to get loans; black people get higher interest rates and more frequent rejections than equally situated whites. Having a stereotypical "black" name makes one less likely to get accepted to college, less likely to get a job interview or get hired for a job. Less likely to get approved on a rental application. To say nothing of how black people are more likely to get prison time as opposed to probation, more likely to be arrested period, for doing the same exact things and committing the same exact crimes as white people.

Those are just a few of the disadvantages black people will face, and it is all inextricably tied to race. You can say you want equal, color-blind policies, but if you give a black person and a white person $100, the white person will get more benefit from it.

Obviously the preferable solution is to fight discrimination and end those problems, but as I've pointed out repeatedly, 50 years on from the Civil Rights Act and they are still a pervasive problem. Society doesn't seem to me to be particularly capable of fixing these things on their own. It will take another 50? 100? 200? years or more until this type of discrimination no longer happens.

Also, it's incorrect to say that policy would divide people. This is a common refrain. People are already divided by race. Racially-based policies that, say, encourage lenders to give black people more favorable loan terms, or employment, or a spot in a college class aren't creating new divisions, merely recognizing divisions that already exist. What I hear when people say they don't want policy to divide people by race is basically that they want to close their eyes and pretend that racial discrimination doesn't exist. But that just isn't the reality.

 

[Recon Rover]

Although I think it is in the interest of those involved with Black Lives Matter to provide suggestions on methods to improve economic and social disparities between blacks and all other races, the idea of reparations was obviously not well thought through.

Indeed as bogus as the idea of reparations is, I've witnessed numerous poorly thought through communications from this group, among them labeling pride a party mostly for gay white males and thus their continued interference with a movement for other marginalized individuals.

Providing more bursaries and scholarships for potential and current minority students in post-secondary would be far more worth its weight in effort and time than redirecting the conversation towards reparations.

I honestly do not see the Black Lives Matter movement existing in its larger current form much longer if it cannot find the cohesion within itself to focus on realistic objectives. That its platform in the United States includes reparations for slavery is a sign already that it has lost direction.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I disagree, I think X>Y is a problem, because there is no reason why this should be so, other than X is discriminated against. It points to a gap in opportunity that the status quo continues to perpetuate. People of color are at a permanent economic disadvantage.

No, the poor are at a permanent economic disadvantage and this group of people, for historical reasons, has a different ethnic makeup than the rich or the middle classes, with a higher proportion of coloured people. This doesn't mean that it's their non-whiteness that is leading to economic disadvantage, nor does it mean that the white members of this group don't also suffer the same economic disadvantage. (As usual I suppose I have to add the caveat that this does not mean I am denying that racism exists at all, before anyone says as much.)

If the problem you want to fix is poverty then focusing on poverty would seem to be the wise choice, not finding something that poverty loosely correlates with and then focusing on that thing instead.

 

[Lexicus]

As I have already noted in this thread the problem is not just that poor people are more likely to be black. Black poor people are on average poorer than white poor people. Then there is a large body of research demonstrating that there is active and ongoing discrimination against people of color in hiring, school admissions, housing, just about every social sphere you can think of.

 

[metalhead]

Yeah, it really is their non-whiteness that is leading to economic disadvantage, or at least contributing to it. Perhaps even more depressingly, it is their non-whiteness that makes it harder to lift themselves out of poverty than it is for poor white folks. It's factually incorrect to say otherwise. There is far, far more to it than simply "being poor," not everyone who is in the class of "the poor" is equally situated. Far from it. And, of course, there are issues that black middle class folks also have a harder time of it than their white counterparts.

The thing that I think people need to recognize is that poverty isn't the problem that we're seeking to solve. Disproportionate poverty is obviously one of the biggest issues, but policies that address racial inequality and racial injustice directly are needed for many more people of color than simply those we're labeling "poor." And we want to solve it for the sole purpose of having a more equal and just society. To boil the whole issue down simply to "poverty" is to rather miss the point.

 

[Traitorfish]

So is the objection that people are suffering from poverty, or that poverty is not spread in an even-handed enough way?

It can be hard to tell, sometimes, from the sort of arguments presented here.

 

[metalhead]

Poverty isn't the issue at all. The issue is racial inequality. Saying you want to spend more money on the impoverished is a fine idea, but that isn't going to help solve the problem of racial inequality, or mitigate its effects. Depending on what your solutions are, it can even make the problem worse.

 

[Traitorfish]

If poverty isn't the issue, then what is the significance of the disproportionate impoverishment of black people?

 

[christos200]

Chinese should ask the Mongols for reparations about the Mongol invasion of China. Greeks should also ask Pesians for reparations.

In short: it is silly to get money from white people who themselves had nothing to do with slavery and give it to people who have never been slaves and have never suffered. I would say that putting a tax on white people to pay black people for something that ended in the 1860's is theft.

 

[luiz]

Poverty isn't the issue at all. The issue is racial inequality. Saying you want to spend more money on the impoverished is a fine idea, but that isn't going to help solve the problem of racial inequality, or mitigate its effects. Depending on what your solutions are, it can even make the problem worse.

I think that is the key issue here. If you get past the racial angle, then poverty is the issue. There are proportionally more poor blacks because of the legacy of slavery and racism, but not all poor people are black, and not all blacks are poor. So if you're not focused on the racial angle, and I really think nobody should focus on that, then you should focus on poverty. By alleviating poverty for all you are automatically helping blacks disproportionally, and also on average transferring money from white people to black people, but those are side effects and not at all the point.

It's been said before that even middle class and rich black people have a harder time than whites of the same wealth level. Be that as it may, for most people it would seem as very unreasonable and unfair to further enrich a black millionaire because he is also occasionally victimized by racism. It's a fine thing to fight discrimination, promote diversity in schools and etc so that nobody, rich or poor, is the victim of racism. But to give money to a middle class or rich black person because they face racism or had a harder time getting wealthy than they would if they were white? That's not sensible. I mean, ugly people also have a harder time becoming wealthy and also face discrimination. As do fat people, short men, etc etc.

So we should help people based on their need, not on how many "wrongs" they had to endure. Because those are impossible to quantify, and because it simply would not be fair.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

As I have already noted in this thread the problem is not just that poor people are more likely to be black. Black poor people are on average poorer than white poor people.

Those are two equivalent statements.

Then there is a large body of research demonstrating that there is active and ongoing discrimination against people of color in hiring, school admissions, housing, just about every social sphere you can think of.

Then surely the goal should be to fix the overt racism you refer to, not just thrown money at black people en masse. Throwing them a few extra dollars is hardly much of a recompense if they can't get a house or a job, and those who already have a decent house and job and haven't faced any of that wouldn't appear to be entitled to it anyway. Again you don't appear to want to directly tackle the actual problems, you just want to correlate them with race and then treat entire races as a whole differently. I don't get how you can't see what's wrong with that.

 

[metalhead]

I think that is the key issue here. If you get past the racial angle, then poverty is the issue. There are proportionally more poor blacks because of the legacy of slavery and racism, but not all poor people are black, and not all blacks are poor. So if you're not focused on the racial angle, and I really think nobody should focus on that, then you should focus on poverty. By alleviating poverty for all you are automatically helping blacks disproportionally, and also on average transferring money from white people to black people, but those are side effects and not at all the point.

It's been said before that even middle class and rich black people have a harder time than whites of the same wealth level. Be that as it may, for most people it would seem as very unreasonable and unfair to further enrich a black millionaire because he is also occasionally victimized by racism. It's a fine thing to fight discrimination, promote diversity in schools and etc so that nobody, rich or poor, is the victim of racism. But to give money to a middle class or rich black person because they face racism or had a harder time getting wealthy than they would if they were white? That's not sensible. I mean, ugly people also have a harder time becoming wealthy and also face discrimination. As do fat people, short men, etc etc.

So we should help people based on their need, not on how many "wrongs" they had to endure. Because those are impossible to quantify, and because it simply would not be fair.

You're still stuck on giving people money as the only policy option. It's one, and maybe not the best one, but for racially-based policy more generally, you should absolutely want to ensure that middle class and rich black people don't suffer unequal treatment. Inequality is unaccaptable, regardless of who it affects.

Money as compensation for inequality is not the best solution, I agree with you there, but there is far more you can do to tackle racial inequality than simply write checks, that still transfer wealth to black people and directly address the discrimination they face.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Poverty isn't the issue at all. The issue is racial inequality. Saying you want to spend more money on the impoverished is a fine idea, but that isn't going to help solve the problem of racial inequality, or mitigate its effects. Depending on what your solutions are, it can even make the problem worse.

So you would be fine with any arbitrary number of people in abject poverty, so long as the ethnic makeup of that group was in proportion to that of rich/comfortable people? I have to ask... why is that your priority?

Edit: I should say that I doubt that you actually think that when put in those terms, but it is in effect what you are saying and you can't blame anyone for reading it that way so it is a fair question to ask.