Slavery Reparations: Is it time?

[ghostmaker650]

The biggest flaw I find on this subject is the implied separation of "Black people" from the United States. The idea that black people are somehow a separate entity from the US is the real problem. I find it quite damaging for the government to partake in this; "well here we have the group called black people and here is the US government, the US government should pay reparations to this group". As far as I'm concerned and as far as anyone else should be concerned African American people are not separate from the people of the United States.

The US government doesn't owe anything to "Black people", saying otherwise is to imply that African Americans are a group separate from the US.
It would be a different story if African Americans chose to split off and maintain their own distinctive separation from the US like Native Americans did (which is why government involvement in their reparations or "Treaties" makes sense), but black people absorbed into American society, not smoothly or easily but nonetheless.

Now if a descendant of a slave want's to seek reparations, then that's a private matter between him or her and what ever slave owner descendants they find at fault. It's not a government matter.

With that I am done using the terms African American people or black people for anything other than to describe physical race.

 

[Commodore]

The biggest flaw I find on this subject is the implied separation of "Black people" from the United States. The idea that black people are somehow a separate entity from the US is the real problem. I find it quite damaging for the government to partake in this; "well here we have the group called black people and here is the US government, the US government should pay reparations to this group". As far as I'm concerned and as far as anyone else should be concerned African American people are not separate from the people of the United States.

The US government doesn't owe anything to "Black people", saying otherwise is to imply that African Americans are a group separate from the US.
It would be a different story if African Americans chose to split off and maintain their own distinctive separation from the US like Native Americans did (which is why government involvement in their reparations or "Treaties" makes sense), but black people absorbed into American society, not smoothly or easily but nonetheless.

Now if a descendant of a slave want's to seek reparations, then that's a private matter between him or her and what ever slave owner descendants they find at fault. It's not a government matter.

With that I am done using the terms African American people or black people for anything other than to describe physical race.

Exactly. This is just one of many good arguments against reparations that I really don't see how anyone could support the idea of it.

 

[Traitorfish]

The biggest flaw I find on this subject is the implied separation of "Black people" from the United States. The idea that black people are somehow a separate entity from the US is the real problem. I find it quite damaging for the government to partake in this; "well here we have the group called black people and here is the US government, the US government should pay reparations to this group". As far as I'm concerned and as far as anyone else should be concerned African American people are not separate from the people of the United States.

The US government doesn't owe anything to "Black people", saying otherwise is to imply that African Americans are a group separate from the US.

You appear to be using "US government" and "people of the United States" interchangeably. Was that intentional? If so, would you be able to elaborate on this? And if not, then why does the distinction between African-Americans and the US government imply a distinction between African-Americans and the United States as a nation? As far as I can see, the mainstream conception of the state as existing above civil society is not negated by its interaction with a specific part of that society.

With that I am done using the terms African American people or black people for anything other than to describe physical race.

Even though that's the one thing that they are not...

 

[downtown]

The US and state govts had no problem singling black people for specific discrimination throughout the 20th century...

 

[Ayn Rand]

You appear to be using "US government" and "people of the United States" interchangeably. Was that intentional? If so, would you be able to elaborate on this? And if not, then why does the distinction between African-Americans and the US government imply a distinction between African-Americans and the United States as a nation? As far as I can see, the mainstream conception of the state as existing above civil society is not negated by its interaction with a specific part of that society.

He never said otherwise. His point was clear enough wasn't it?

 

[Traitorfish]

He never said otherwise. His point was clear enough wasn't it?

No. Which is why I asked...?

 

[Cutlass]

The biggest flaw I find on this subject is the implied separation of "Black people" from the United States. The idea that black people are somehow a separate entity from the US is the real problem. I find it quite damaging for the government to partake in this; "well here we have the group called black people and here is the US government, the US government should pay reparations to this group". As far as I'm concerned and as far as anyone else should be concerned African American people are not separate from the people of the United States.

The US government doesn't owe anything to "Black people", saying otherwise is to imply that African Americans are a group separate from the US.
It would be a different story if African Americans chose to split off and maintain their own distinctive separation from the US like Native Americans did (which is why government involvement in their reparations or "Treaties" makes sense), but black people absorbed into American society, not smoothly or easily but nonetheless.

Now if a descendant of a slave want's to seek reparations, then that's a private matter between him or her and what ever slave owner descendants they find at fault. It's not a government matter.

With that I am done using the terms African American people or black people for anything other than to describe physical race.

Black people are only separate in the US because white people forced them to be separate.

 

[Crezth]

The biggest flaw I find on this subject is the implied separation of "Black people" from the United States. The idea that black people are somehow a separate entity from the US is the real problem. I find it quite damaging for the government to partake in this; "well here we have the group called black people and here is the US government, the US government should pay reparations to this group". As far as I'm concerned and as far as anyone else should be concerned African American people are not separate from the people of the United States.

Maybe the one-hundred years of segregation had something to do with it.

 

[Tee Kay]

Maybe the one-hundred years of segregation had something to do with it.

Then again, segregation was supposed to end.

 

[useless]

Officially, yes, unofficially? It did not.

 

[Tee Kay]

Officially, yes, unofficially? It did not.

There's segregation and there's segregation. I hope you are not seriously suggesting that nothing has changed in the last hundred years.

Reinforcing the notion of a separate Black Nation in the United States is not going to end segregation...

 

[kochman]

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

Of course, you can't make women run for office. It tends to be a male dominated arena, also because men run for office at a much higher rate.

If we looked at all women candidates and their victory rate, and that was heavily lopsided, you'd have a point...

 

[Traitorfish]

Of course, you can't make women run for office. It tends to be a male dominated arena, also because men run for office at a much higher rate.

If we looked at all women candidates and their victory rate, and that was heavily lopsided, you'd have a point...

You don't think that this might itself have something to do with sexism?

 

[civ_king]

You don't think that this might itself have something to do with sexism?

Nah, probably has to do with men tending towards having a more inflated ego than women.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nah, probably has to do with men tending towards having a more inflated ego than women.

That's a bit glib, don't you think?

 

[kochman]

Sexism? No.

Cultural values that are slowly changing? Yes.

It's like saying it's sexism that the fashion industry is dominated by women... women are more likely to go to fashion than men.

 

[Traitorfish]

Sexism? No.

Cultural values that are slowly changing? Yes.

Sexism isn't a cultural value?

It's like saying it's sexism that the fashion industry is dominated by women... women are more likely to go to fashion than men.

I'd say that's rooted in sexism, yeah. Just of a more complicated kind than men, collectively, overtly picking on women, collectively.

 

[kochman]

Agree to disagree.
Gender based preference is to be expected, and celebrated... we are equal but different.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Remember that even if the mainstream attitude of sexism lessens, politics is mostly full of old people, people who've been in office 20-30 years. It'd make sense for gender equality in the upper echelons of Congress to lag behind gender equality in other areas. My guess is if everyone here just thinks like me, we can be completely rid of sexism in 50 years, tops.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Of course, you can't make women run for office. It tends to be a male dominated arena, also because men run for office at a much higher rate.

If we looked at all women candidates and their victory rate, and that was heavily lopsided, you'd have a point...

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was showing that the number of women in congress for the past 30 years goes up every year or at least stays the same and doesn't drop (until they lost one recently).

And my comparison to some other first world countries was to show America is by far not alone in low % of females in politics.

Spoiler :

I guess we have to strive to be like Rwanda....