Slavery Reparations: Is it time?

[amadeus]

But it's not really about replacing white jobs with black jobs, it's about breaking down discrimination in hiring practices, which in large part persists to this day.

The point is that what it's about doesn't matter, what matters are the effects. Racial quotas against whites and Asians are just as bad as discrimination against blacks. Past injustices aren't fixed by imposing new injustices on innocent people.

Libertarianism is a moral theory, or at least a theory of social justice. It attempts to give us a full appreciation of the demands justice imposes.You have said that we should not apply this theory consistently.

No, I said that it's application in this case is virtually impossible.

You seem to be attempting to take position 1. Unfortunately, this position is largely false. As I alluded to, if it were just to give the rightful property of slaves to those they would want it given, we can make a damn good stab at this. We can say with confidence who they would counter-factually like to give it to; their descendants. We can identify these people. In America, this is especially easy; the descendants of slaves are black.

luiz addressed some of the problems with this already, but there's another important part that's been overlooked: who owned what slaves? If slave A came from plantation A and you can show the historical relationship, then slave A's descendants would be entitled to whatever portion from plantation A's descendants.

Now, an additional problem is that the slave owners now have hundreds of descendants, as do the slaves themselves. Let's say slave owner A in 1865 had 20 slaves. Today, those 20 slaves have 500 descendants and the owners have 50 descendants. One slave descendant finds one owner's descendant. To what amount is the slave descendant entitled? Because there are 50 descendants, the lone found descendants shouldn't be liable for 100% of the reparations. Thus, the slave descendant is entitled to 2% (1/50) of whatever the total would be, right?

Wrong! There are 499 other wronged descendants out there, so the one that found the descended owner is entitled to .2% (1/500) of the 2% of the reparations. At this point, is it even worth pursuing? I think the slave descendants would find much better use of their time working in a regular job than trying to track down descendants of slave owners. This is not withstanding all of the problems about entitlements as far as descendants from mixed slave/non-slave relationships, etc. go.

In the libertarian theory of justice, in order to be eligible for restitution, you need to be able to show proof that a wrong has been done by a particular party. Being a black person in America and claiming that all non-blacks have done wrong doesn't cut it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Amadeus, I think one problem is that you are approaching the problem from one of the slaves, and their descendants, and the slave owners, and their descendants.
However, the problem of slavery was never a strictly private matter in the United States. Slavery, on a large scale, was always enforced through state and federal power, and the attempts to perpetuate it under a new name were likewise enforced by government authority.

I think we can both agree that the best way possible to settle this debt would be for the government to commit Seppuku, so we can be done with it. But, failing that, while they still exist, don't the federal and state governments owe a debt to the people who's rights and economic wellbeing were deliberately enfringed upon until oh...lets say 50 years ago, tops?

Hey, Kochmann wanted a suggestion, how about we start privatizing Federal Property and distributing it among the descendants of slaves?

 

[Zulu Impi]

Amadeus, I think one problem is that you are approaching the problem from one of the slaves, and their descendants, and the slave owners, and their descendants.
However, the problem of slavery was never a strictly private matter in the United States. Slavery, on a large scale, was always enforced through state and federal power, and the attempts to perpetuate it under a new name were likewise enforced by government authority.

I think we can both agree that the best way possible to settle this debt would be for the government to commit Seppuku, so we can be done with it. But, failing that, while they still exist don't the federal and state governments owe a debt to the people who's rights and economic wellbeing were deliberately enfringed upon until oh...lets say 50 years ago, tops?

Hey, Kochmann wanted a suggestion, how about we start privatizing Federal Property and distributing it among the descendants of slaves?

Totally right, the problem isn't that we had a few people profiting off the system(though that is a problem) but that our government not only allowed but sanctioned it. It was basically US law in the South up until well into the 20th century that blacks had less then human rights and were allowed to be essentially livestock, and the entire system profited off of it. There are most likely still people alive today that were imprisoned and forced into slavery in the late 30s for crimes they didn't commit. Its really a myth that the system came down at the end of the civil war, it just went on the shelf for the reconstruction, until whites could retake the vote from blacks and put a new face on the system of slavery.
Keep in mind, I'm not even a liberal, but a rather biased conservative, it has just been exposure to and research into this system that has given me my viewpoint.

With all the ridiculous spending that goes on in this country, reparations wouldn't even been on the list in terms of fraudulence or absurdity!

 

[Commodore]

Because I've never previously heard the expression outside of fascist or quasi-fascist rhetoric? I mean, if there's some more respectable conception that I'm missing, please elaborate (I guess you didn't catch the edit to that effect in my last post), but at present you may as well have said "Jewish Bolshevists".

Edit: Missed this.


"Minorities and women". Which is like 75% of the US population at this point. But very far from 75% of what, for want of a better word, I'll call "the elite".

More like 68%, but you're still right. While I don't consider women a minority, I did bring them into the discussion so I have to concede this point to you.

Here is a breakdown of ethic and gender representation in the US for men, women, blacks, whites, and hispanics. It would seem as though women in general regardless of race are the most under-represented group in the US. While there is under-representation for blacks and hispanics, the numbers aren't so bad that it could be attributed to discrimination.

Percentage of women in Congress- 17%
Percentage of women in the general population- 51%

Percentage of men in Congress- 83%
Percentage of men in the general population- 49%

Percentage of whites in Congress- 87%
Percentage of whites in general population- 72%

Percentage of blacks in Congress- 8%
Percentage of blacks in general population- 13%

Percentage of hispanics in congress- 5%
Percentage of hispanics in general population- 16%

Here are some business statistics for you too:

Percentage of businesses owned by white males- 49%
Percentage of white males in population- 32%

Percentage of businesses owned by minorities and women combined- 51%
Percentage of combined women/minorities in population- 68%

So it would seem the business world is more fair to women and minorities than government is. I would attribute that to the fact that it is the people who decide who will be in government and you can't really control who people vote for or why they vote the way they do. What I think these numbers show is that while we definitely still have some gender equality issues our society is more or less fair in it's representation of it's population.

One could even say the under-representation of women can be covered by lumping them into other demographics. For example: One could say that a black congressman/woman represents ALL black people, a white one ALL whites, etc. If we go one this logic then a single person could fall into several demographic categories. This would mean that, theoretically, while an individual may be under-represented in one category, they may be over-represented in another, thus making up the difference and assuring they are adequetly represented in society.

 

[Crezth]

Yeah, there's a crucial distinction to be made between noting that the people who call the shots are primarily white men, and saying that white men call the shots. I'm sure that Crezth is aware of this, but it's none the less necessary to keep that distinction clear, for the simple reason that you can't actually extract the questions of race and gender from questions of class and power. Trying to criticise the social hegemony of whites or of men in isolation just dissolves into dead-end identity politics.

Yes, this is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

So it would seem the business world is more fair to women and minorities than government is. I would attribute that to the fact that it is the people who decide who will be in government and you can't really control who people vote for or why they vote the way they do. What I think these numbers show is that while we definitely still have some gender equality issues our society is more or less fair in it's representation of it's population.

Wait, so, society elects men overwhelmingly more than women, and that's proof that society "is more or less fair in it's representation of it's population?"

How can you arrive upon this conclusion?

 

[Commodore]

Yes, this is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.



Wait, so, society elects men overwhelmingly more than women, and that's proof that society "is more or less fair in it's representation of it's population?"

How can you arrive upon this conclusion?

Read the paragraph underneath the one you quoted and you can see how it all works out in the end.

Plus, there are a lot of factors in an election that I think you are not considering. You look at the numbers and think that the reason there are so few women is because society is biased against women and refuse to vote for them based solely on the fact that they have a vagina. What I think you aren't considering are factors such as: How many women are actually running for office? Is their ideology palatable enough for the people to actually want to vote for them? How likable are they? Who are they running against? How much political experience do they have? How do they speak in public?

If the overwhelming majority of candidates are from one demographic, then it only makes sense that the overwhelming majority of those elected will be from that demographic.

 

[bhsup]

Just want to share here a little story I just shared on chat as well from something that just happened tonight...

<Vr> You know, I am opposed to reparations, but sometimes I think we should apologize to black people for white people just being stupid sometimes.
<Vr> Just came from Casey's. A black guy named Jeremy works there and has for at least a year now. I was in there checking out and this white kid walks in and starts calling him homie and all this and he's dressed stupid and... what is that word, wigga?
<Vr> Anyway, Jeremy just kinda looked at me and rolled his eyes. He was embarrassed, I was embarrassed, and that kid that walked in was just an embarrassment to the human gene pool in general.

So yeah, I'm actually more inclined to support payments to blacks as a way of apologizing for stupid white kids.

 

[Silurian]

More like 68%, but you're still right. While I don't consider women a minority, I did bring them into the discussion so I have to concede this point to you.

Here is a breakdown of ethic and gender representation in the US for men, women, blacks, whites, and hispanics. It would seem as though women in general regardless of race are the most under-represented group in the US. While there is under-representation for blacks and hispanics, the numbers aren't so bad that it could be attributed to discrimination.

Percentage of women in Congress- 17%
Percentage of women in the general population- 51%

Percentage of men in Congress- 83%
Percentage of men in the general population- 49%

Percentage of whites in Congress- 87%
Percentage of whites in general population- 72%

Percentage of blacks in Congress- 8%
Percentage of blacks in general population- 13%

Percentage of hispanics in congress- 5%
Percentage of hispanics in general population- 16%

Here are some business statistics for you too:

Percentage of businesses owned by white males- 49%
Percentage of white males in population- 32%

Percentage of businesses owned by minorities and women combined- 51%
Percentage of combined women/minorities in population- 68%

This would mean that, theoretically, while an individual may be under-represented in one category, they may be over-represented in another, thus making up the difference and assuring they are adequetly represented in society.

Hispanic women are not doing so good.

 

[Quackers]

..and remember it#s biologically impossible for a white man to represent a black man

 

[civ_king]

White people bought slaves which they viewed as property from black people who viewed slaves as property. If people in the US should pay reparations, so should West Africans.

 

[warpus]

Percentage of women in Congress- 17%
Percentage of women in the general population- 51%

.... other stats

The stats you list are the symptoms of a problem.

You won't fix the problem by masking the symptoms (i.e. artificially skewing the numbers with programs like AA). You have to address the problem itself.

 

[civ_king]

The stats you list are the symptoms of a problem.

You won't fix the problem by masking the symptoms (i.e. artificially skewing the numbers with programs like AA). You have to address the problem itself.

Which is that it is unlikely for a woman to win a political race if there are no women running in it?

 

[amadeus]

I think we can both agree that the best way possible to settle this debt would be for the government to commit Seppuku, so we can be done with it. But, failing that, while they still exist, don't the federal and state governments owe a debt to the people who's rights and economic wellbeing were deliberately enfringed upon until oh...lets say 50 years ago, tops?

Hey, Kochmann wanted a suggestion, how about we start privatizing Federal Property and distributing it among the descendants of slaves?

Well, I'd say privatize it but don't give any preference by race or former slave status. We've all been wronged. I'd rather just, as you say, abolish it and start anew.

 

[Hygro]

Ah, one brave soul answers!
And, are any points assigned due to race? Or are point total standards different by race?
State schools in particular...
So, the answer is, in fact, True, not false.

I don't know any admission office that adheres to a point system. I'm sure many state schools do, but for example the California State University system is purely test scores, grades, and extra curriculars. No essay, no race, etc. So they probably use a points system.

But the University of California probably depends on their campus. I know at Berkeley they don't consider race per se, they consider your essay and how it demonstrates your character. If you mention being a member of an identity that has correlated to greater life challenge, they might send you a follow up to expand on that question, plus give you the option of a letter of rec. This, I think, is usually done for students who might have something academically questionable but strike the office as worthy students of their schools. In my case, with a disability I no longer have, had less than half of high school completed, so they sent me additional application material to let me convince them I was fully qualified.

Different schools have different methods, but most competitive schools look at each applicant holistically and use a human element in deciding.

 

[Ayn Rand]

You mean "self-hating white people"?

Nope.

You think men are discriminated against because they get paid more for certain dangerous jobs (BTW, thanks to OSHA the bigger risks of injury on the jobs are motor vehicle accidents and deliberate violence, not the traditional industrial killers. Note that that does not apply to mining accidents, because mining is not covered by OSHA.)

I'm saying that men are over-represented in the most dangerous jobs, the top 23 most dangerous jobs in Britain being done 100% by men.

So, would you support legislation mandating that 50% of employees in these jobs be female?

because the US has a conservative dominated of low quality, a low quality education system biased towards white males, and men are expected to pay for their responsibilities in divorce?

I'm questioning the fairness of how those responsibilities are assigned and I'm basing it again on the UK, where 92% of separations involving children end with the female getting the children.

As for bias in American education towards males, I find that contentious but I don't know much about USA education system.

White people bought slaves which they viewed as property from black people who viewed slaves as property. If people in the US should pay reparations, so should West Africans.

I raised a similar point, it appears that not all historical crimes are equal and that reparations are determined by skin colour. This is a case where it seems "whites only" is not only acceptable but encouraged, as only white people seem to be held guilty in this area [and note that all white people are guilty - we remain trapped in essentially racist discourse despite our best attempts to end it, we have only flipped the terms around].

 

[kochman]

The government will enact some law, some people will complain about them, the people will follow the laws because the government has guns, and people don't like change, the enacted laws shall moderately improve the lot of African-Americans. If it doesn't, it's probably a bad solution, and people will try to work out a better one.
There you go.

Personally, I can't wrap my head around the kind of thinking that leads a man to believe that because someone doesn't know the solution, there isn't a problem.

Well, you and 6 other people agree there is a problem, and this is a heavily left leaning board... so, maybe you can wrap your head around the extremity of the position you take...
It matters not though.

@ZuluImpi
While blacks had less rights in the south until the CRA, they also had 1) the ability to leave the south, and 2) were not treated "as livestock", that is a gross exaggeration.
With all the "ridiculous spending", you don't think finding a way to pay back 13% of 300 million (39 million people, some of whom's entire family tree was still in Africa and in no way were ever slaves in the USA, but happen to be black) that were in no way effected by slavery, which is what the reparations are for (not poor treatment in one region of the country 50+ years ago), is a bit ridiculous? And who pays? The "system"? The system is funded by the tax payer... so you are basically asking me and the lady next to me, who you have never met, to pay you (or whoever) that we've never met for things that happened before anyone we ever talked to was alive... and you don't think that is ridiculous?

Do you think that harping on this sort of racial division, and continuing it by giving out money based solely on race and not experience, helps racial unity in the USA? Or hurts it? Do you think the recent Chinese immigrant is going to feel happy about some payout to blacks based 100% on skin color?

What about people who look completely white, with a black ancestor (grandfather, for example)? Should they get the money? They are 25% black... even if it doesn't show.

As a person of Germanic heritage, I want reparations from Italy for the attrocities of the Roman Empire. I also want money from France for all the damage Napoleon did... I won't ask for money from Russia just yet, as WW2 still has some people who experienced it alive.

I don't know any admission office that adheres to a point system. I'm sure many state schools do, but for example the California State University system is purely test scores, grades, and extra curriculars. No essay, no race, etc. So they probably use a points system.

But the University of California probably depends on their campus. I know at Berkeley they don't consider race per se, they consider your essay and how it demonstrates your character. If you mention being a member of an identity that has correlated to greater life challenge, they might send you a follow up to expand on that question, plus give you the option of a letter of rec. This, I think, is usually done for students who might have something academically questionable but strike the office as worthy students of their schools. In my case, with a disability I no longer have, had less than half of high school completed, so they sent me additional application material to let me convince them I was fully qualified.

Different schools have different methods, but most competitive schools look at each applicant holistically and use a human element in deciding.

And some don't... so the answer was, TRUE, not false. Race is an issue at some schools (congrats to CA for not making it one!).

 

[kochman]

Percentage of women in Congress- 17%
Percentage of women in the general population- 51%

Percentage of men in Congress- 83%
Percentage of men in the general population- 49%

Percentage of whites in Congress- 87%
Percentage of whites in general population- 72%

Percentage of blacks in Congress- 8%
Percentage of blacks in general population- 13%

Percentage of hispanics in congress- 5%
Percentage of hispanics in general population- 16%

Here are some business statistics for you too:

Percentage of businesses owned by white males- 49%
Percentage of white males in population- 32%

Percentage of businesses owned by minorities and women combined- 51%
Percentage of combined women/minorities in population- 68%

One thing these stats do not take into consideration...
To be in Congress, you generally have to be a certain age.
You are comparing todays demographics to the job status of people who were born decades ago, when the population was closer to the current job status... (other than for females).
This is only a small confounder... not a huge one... but it does need to be taken into consideration, in particular for hispanics...

We are definitely making strides in the right direction too, because 30 years ago, women weren't working as frequently, etc, and therefore would have less representation.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm saying that men are over-represented in the most dangerous jobs, the top 23 most dangerous jobs in Britain being done 100% by men.

So, would you support legislation mandating that 50% of employees in these jobs be female?

You're strawmanning again. Many of the jobs that are dangerous are also physically demanding. Men, on average, are bigger and stronger than women. So they often take those jobs. Saying that jobs should be apportioned by sex is a ridiculous distraction from the point. Men are not forced to take those jobs because they are dangerous. There is no, well, whatever point it is you were trying to make, I can't see it through all the flying straw. It is not discrimination that has men in these jobs and not women. And men typically get paid more for these low skill jobs, which is the compensation for the danger.

I'm questioning the fairness of how those responsibilities are assigned and I'm basing it again on the UK, where 92% of separations involving children end with the female getting the children.

As for bias in American education towards males, I find that contentious but I don't know much about USA education system.

You can make an argument that child custody favors women. That's a historical precedent in the Western nations because women do most of the child raising and men do most of the income earning. But the rest of the divorce laws don't really benefit women. A very large part of the welfare budget in the US exists because women are left in poverty by divorce. And men are better off financially in many cases than the women are.

 

[Silurian]

I'm saying that men are over-represented in the most dangerous jobs, the top 23 most dangerous jobs in Britain being done 100% by men.

This is not true.

Women do undertaken the most dangerous jobs in the UK.

 

[Bamspeedy]

We are definitely making strides in the right direction too, because 30 years ago, women weren't working as frequently, etc, and therefore would have less representation.

Only recently the number of women in the house went down, reversing the trend of ever increasing number of female representatives in the last 30 years (the Senate has increased for the last 30 years as well).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

The US is ahead of Japan, South Korea, Ireland and only 2.1% behind France, and 5.2% behind the UK to name a few.

http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm