Slavery Reparations: Is it time?

[Traitorfish]

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

Tell me, would you be saying that if we were talking about an observed preference for white candidates over black candidates?

 

[useless]

Didn't you get the letter Traitorfish? It's a "post-racial" America now, because there is/has been a black president! Decades of racial inequalities have been washed away.

 

[kochman]

Tell me, would you be saying that if we were talking about an observed preference for white candidates over black candidates?

Are skin color and gender the same?
Answer that and you have my answer.

 

[Traitorfish]

Are skin color and gender the same?
Answer that and you have my answer.

Why is it acceptable to have preferences based on gender, but not on race? Discrimination is discrimination.

 

[kochman]

Why is it acceptable to have preferences based on gender, but not on race? Discrimination is discrimination.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth.

At no point did I say that it is acceptable to prefer one gender over another (other than in your personal relationships that is!). EQUAL but different. Men have penises, women have vaginas... we are not the same, but we are equal.

I said sometimes genders tend to have a self-determined preference for something... like, women tend to prefer fashion design, and men tend to prefer law enforcement... doesn't mean I am espousing limiting fashion to women and LE to men...

You are twisting my words, again, to make it seem like I said the latter, which I absolutely didn't.

 

[Traitorfish]

But you just implied that you thought it was acceptable. Why did you claim that racial preferences are ethically distinct from gender preferences if you think both are unacceptable?

(Also, I don't really understand the connection between differentiated genitalia and occupational tendency. But imagine that's not what's important right now.)

 

[kochman]

But you just implied that you thought it was acceptable. Why did you claim that racial preferences are ethically distinct from gender preferences if you think both are unacceptable?

(Also, I don't really understand the connection between differentiated genitalia and occupational tendency. But imagine that's not what's important right now.)

I didn't imply that. If you think race and gender are the same category, I could understand why you would think that was the implication. If you can't understand why different genders prefer different things... Females tend to prefer Justin Beiber... I don't think anyone can explain that.

Listen, I'm done with this conversation. Completely unproductive.

If you really want to discuss it, in a mature manner, please figure out your point/question, and PM it to me...

 

[Traitorfish]

I didn't imply that. If you think race and gender are the same category, I could understand why you would think that was the implication.

Then why didn't you say that in the first place?

If you can't understand why different genders prefer different things... Females tend to prefer Justin Beiber... I don't think anyone can explain that.

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

The specific mechanisms at work require a bit more explanation, of course, but the point is that it's not something mystical, something totally beyond human understanding. It's not like we're talking about the tides.

 

[ghostmaker650]

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.

I am using them interchangeably, by US government and people of the United States I mean the United States of America as a whole. The US government is the people, the people are the US government.

There is no Black nation, White nation, Asian nation or anything else nation, it's just the people of the United States. So we can't have the US pay reparations to "black people" or the "Black nation" because the is no "black people" or "Black nation". To think otherwise is to maintain a separation.

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

Not sure I follow. Perhaps we are using differing definitions of race? I'm referring to race as "Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics" as in the only use the terms "African American" or "black" should have is to describe an individuals physical appearance. For no other reasons do those terms need to be used.

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

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

Yes and yes. But how does maintaining a separation help solve these issues at all? How can we erase the lines of division if we keep redrawing them? We can't keep turning everything into "them, and us".

 

[Traitorfish]

I am using them interchangeably, by US government and people of the United States I mean the United States of America as a whole. The US government is the people, the people are the US government.

There is no Black nation, White nation, Asian nation or anything else nation, it's just the people of the United States. So we can't have the US pay reparations to "black people" or the "Black nation" because the is no "black people" or "Black nation". To think otherwise is to maintain a separation.

In all frankness, I think that you're confusing ideology with political reality. The United States government may be formally defined as the expression of the collective will of the American citizenry, but that doesn't mean that the actual state apparatus can be directly interchanged with them, any more than the British state can be interchanged with its legal sovereign, the Queen-in-parliament. Your argument here isn't actually a substantial criticism of the pro-reparations position, but an attempt to uphold a particularly literalistic form of popular-republican ideology against the contradictions to it which are implicit in the pro-reparations position, and so amounts to an appeal for an idealised vision of the United States rather than a realist one. And that's not much of an argument.

Not sure I follow. Perhaps we are using differing definitions of race? I'm referring to race as "Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics" as in the only use the terms "African American" or "black" should have is to describe an individuals physical appearance. For no other reasons do those terms need to be used.

That's what I mean- there are no "major divisions of mankind". The concept of discrete biological race was discredited decades ago. You can talk in broad terms about associated physiological characteristics, but that's something else altogether. "Black", then, only has meaning insofar as it denotes a social category associated with certain characteristics, and "African-American" can either refer to a particular ethnic group, or to any blacks in the United States.

 

[Yeekim]

You can talk in broad terms about associated physiological characteristics, but that's something else altogether.

So, I am to say "people who share between themselves a number of broad physiological characteristics, formerly attributed to now-discredited concept of "race""?

EDIT: also, saying that "black" should denote SOCIAL CATEGORY is, frankly not only completely crazy, but also sounds like something a pro-slavery racial supremacist would want people to say. The irony.

 

[Traitorfish]

So, I am to say "people who share between themselves a number of broad physiological characteristics, formerly attributed to now-discredited concept of "race""?

I don't know, what's the context?

EDIT: also, saying that "black" should denote SOCIAL CATEGORY is, frankly not only completely crazy, but also sounds like something a pro-slavery racial supremacist would want people to say. The irony.

Um, what?

 

[HannibalBarka]

I don't think anyone needs to pay any reparation for slavery because of one single reason: it is too late. The crime was committed too along ago and no one that had suffrerd from it directly is alive today, you need to go back many generations ago to find the first "direct" victims.
It's not a matter of there is no "Black Nation" or "But who is Black" or "Who is responsible" because the same could be said about the Haulocost, that did not made the german reparation impossible.
After all, why did Germany pay reparation to Israel, a state that was not even existant during the crime. Why would an indian jew benefit form the reparation? and why would a newly naturalized German participate to the payment?

 

[ghostmaker650]

In all frankness, I think that you're confusing ideology with political reality. The United States government may be formally defined as the expression of the collective will of the American citizenry, but that doesn't mean that the actual state apparatus can be directly interchanged with them, any more than the British state can be interchanged with its legal sovereign, the Queen-in-parliament. Your argument here isn't actually a substantial criticism of the pro-reparations position, but an attempt to uphold a particularly literalistic form of popular-republican ideology against the contradictions to it which are implicit in the pro-reparations position, and so amounts to an appeal for an idealised vision of the United States rather than a realist one. And that's not much of an argument.

My argument is, the US government should not make any designations based on race/ethnicity/color/heritage to any US citizens over other US citizens. And they definitely shouldn't make any rules, laws, exceptions, favors, etc, etc, based on race/ethnicity/color/heritage. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand your argument is; 'Ideally they shouldn't but in reality they do, so it doesn't matter'. Please elaborate how that makes a better argument than mine. Or please elaborate if I misunderstood you.

That's what I mean- there are no "major divisions of mankind". The concept of discrete biological race was discredited decades ago. You can talk in broad terms about associated physiological characteristics, but that's something else altogether.

I don't know what word you would use to talk about associated physiological characteristics between people but the rest of us will use the word race. Now you may be right, and seeing that I have no desire for debate on this as I don't have any interest in the subject much past the 30 minutes of googling I did, I shall back out and declare you the winner of this little side debate fine sir. So I shall correct myself, "With that I am done using the terms African American people or black people for anything other than to describe physical race [insert appropriate word here]".

"Black", then, only has meaning insofar as it denotes a social category associated with certain characteristics, and "African-American" can either refer to a particular ethnic group, or to any blacks in the United States.

Yes some people use "black" to describe certain social categories, and that's exactly how I said the term shouldn't be used. But just because our definition of race may differ doesn't mean that's the only usage. It's also widely used in the english language to describe a race whether or not anyone agrees on what race is. "African American" is a term used (obviously) in the US to replace the term "black" as it's seen to be more politically correct. In the US when asked to describe the appearance of someone, you have your pick (if applicable) of using the term "black" or "African American", which ever tickles your fancy at the time. I use both randomly with out a conscious thought process when I'm required to describe the physical appearance of someone.

The terms "black" or "African American" should not be used for anything other than physical descriptive purposes is all I'm saying. While better terms indeed need to be realized, I don't trip when "black" or "African American" is used, because they are currently the easiest and most widely known way of getting your meaning across.

EDIT: also, saying that "black" should denote SOCIAL CATEGORY is, frankly not only completely crazy, but also sounds like something a pro-slavery racial supremacist would want people to say. The irony.

Um, what?

I think he as well as I (for a moment) thought you meant that "black" should denote a social category. I would hope that's not what you meant.

 

[Traitorfish]

My argument is, the US government should not make any designations based on race/ethnicity/color/heritage to any US citizens over other US citizens. And they definitely shouldn't make any rules, laws, exceptions, favors, etc, etc, based on race/ethnicity/color/heritage. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand your argument is; 'Ideally they shouldn't but in reality they do, so it doesn't matter'. Please elaborate how that makes a better argument than mine. Or please elaborate if I misunderstood you.

My argument was that your direct identification of the government of the United States with its citizenry was spurious. It had nothing to do with whether the US government should or should not address race, it was a criticism of your argument for why they shouldn't. I've no idea how you inferred what you did from my post, but it had nothing to do with what you're talking about here.

I don't know what word you would use to talk about associated physiological characteristics between people but the rest of us will use the word race. Now you may be right, and seeing that I have no desire for debate on this as I don't have any interest in the subject much past the 30 minutes of googling I did, I shall back out and declare you the winner of this little side debate fine sir. So I shall correct myself, "With that I am done using the terms African American people or black people for anything other than to describe physical race [insert appropriate word here]".

But, see, that's the problem: there isn't an appropriate word for what you're talking about, because what you're talking about doesn't exist. There is no objective physical "blackness" or "whiteness", hence the absence of any commentary on such categories before the Early Modern period. Our identification of certain physiological characteristics with these racial monoliths depends entirely on the presupposition of their existence; on the trumping of empiricism by inherited social ideology. So in all your eagerness to avoid talking about race, you are in your uncritical attitude towards race as such reproducing the concept far more effectively than those of us who adopt a more critical orientation on the subject.

I think he as well as I (for a moment) thought you meant that "black" should denote a social category. I would hope that's not what you meant.

I'm not even sure what it means.

 

[ghostmaker650]

My argument was that your direct identification of the government of the United States with its citizenry was spurious. It had nothing to do with whether the US government should or should not address race, it was a criticism of your argument for why they shouldn't. I've no idea how you inferred what you did from my post, but it had nothing to do with what you're talking about here.

I apologize for misunderstanding you, but I don't see how my identification of the US government with it's people is relevant to the point I was making anyway. My argument was quite simply that the US government shouldn't be involved in any reparations for descendants of slaves. As for the why, the only explanation I offered was that the US government should make no such designations between it's people. I fail to understand how the US governments relation to it's citizens in anyway negates my view that the US government shouldn't make any designations based on race/ethnicity/color/heritage to any of it's citizens over other citizens.

But, see, that's the problem: there isn't an appropriate word for what you're talking about, because what you're talking about doesn't exist.

I think a forensic anthropologists would tell you otherwise. There are very real objective physiological differences between "major groups" of people. More than just the color of skin. The term we use in place of "major groups" is "race".

There is no objective physical "blackness" or "whiteness", hence the absence of any commentary on such categories before the Early Modern period. Our identification of certain physiological characteristics with these racial monoliths depends entirely on the presupposition of their existence; on the trumping of empiricism by inherited social ideology.

I don't know why you've started talking about the literal meaning of black and white, I don't think any one would argue that someone is literally black or white in color. Yes Black is a Modern term, primarily used to describe someones "race"/physical appearance. The term "black" isn't just referring to the color of someones skin, there are other distinctive physical traits that go along with determining if someone is "black" or "white" or "asian" etc. "Race" is determined physically by more than just skin color. I don't know where you got the idea that "black" is purely a social construct. Referring to people of sub-Sahara African decent as "black" is not some term fathomed by "white people" for the purpose of discrimination, "black" was actually adopted by African Americans to be the preferred term to be identified as, instead of "negro", which at the time was the common term used.

I agree more appropriate terms need to be realized but currently no such appropriate terms exist, even so it wont make any difference when relating to physical description. Whether "black" or the word lamp is used, my descriptive meaning will have the exact same meaning.

So in all your eagerness to avoid talking about race, you are in your uncritical attitude towards race as such reproducing the concept far more effectively than those of us who adopt a more critical orientation on the subject.

I never attempted to avoid talking about race, I never denied such a thing as race, you did. I said social "race" doesn't exist and has no place in a society (the US; in this discussion) where everybody is to be considered equal. I've stated physiological "race" in fact does exist, to deny this you'd have to literally be blind, and there is nothing wrong with having words to describe these physiological differences.

 

[Traitorfish]

I apologize for misunderstanding you, but I don't see how my identification of the US government with it's people is relevant to the point I was making anyway. My argument was quite simply that the US government shouldn't be involved in any reparations for descendants of slaves. As for the why, the only explanation I offered was that the US government should make no such designations between it's people. I fail to understand how the US governments relation to it's citizens in anyway negates my view that the US government shouldn't make any designations based on race/ethnicity/color/heritage to any of it's citizens over other citizens.

That's grand, but just stating "X shouldn't do Y" isn't an argument, it's just a claim. The only argument you've put forward so far is the one I criticised previously, and you are now apparently unwilling to defend.

I think a forensic anthropologists would tell you otherwise. There are very real objective physiological differences between "major groups" of people. More than just the color of skin. The term we use in place of "major groups" is "race".

Hardly the same thing. Some physical anthropologists talk in very broad terms of "Mongolid", "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" physiologies, but those map incredibly poorly onto conventional definitions of race- a Maori is Negroid but not black, a Mayan is Mongoloid but not Asian, and an Arab is Caucasoid but not white. It describes broadly associated physiological tendencies, not a set of physical archetypes, and only functions as a set of academic generalisations, far from taking into account every ethnic group, let alone every individual, and certainly doesn't indicate any biological monoliths within the human race. The only way that you could square this with your previous comments is if you decided that you were going to use "African-American" to encompass Pacific Islanders and some South Asians, which I'm presuming you're not likely to do.

I don't know why you've started talking about the literal meaning of black and white, I don't think any one would argue that someone is literally black or white in color. Yes Black is a Modern term, primarily used to describe someones "race"/physical appearance. The term "black" isn't just referring to the color of someones skin, there are other distinctive physical traits that go along with determining if someone is "black" or "white" or "asian" etc. "Race" is determined physically by more than just skin color. I don't know where you got the idea that "black" is purely a social construct. Referring to people of sub-Sahara African decent as "black" is not some term fathomed by "white people" for the purpose of discrimination, "black" was actually adopted by African Americans to be the preferred term to be identified as, instead of "negro", which at the time was the common term used.

I agree more appropriate terms need to be realized but currently no such appropriate terms exist, even so it wont make any difference when relating to physical description. Whether "black" or the word lamp is used, my descriptive meaning will have the exact same meaning.

I'm talking about what the term denotes, not the word itself.

I never attempted to avoid talking about race, I never denied such a thing as race, you did. I said social "race" doesn't exist and has no place in a society (the US; in this discussion) where everybody is to be considered equal.

This is what I mean: you don't want to talk about the social dimension of race, which is in practice to avoid talking about race in any substantial way. Your attachment to an idealised image of the United States prevents you from engaging critically with race as such, which leaves you unwittingly perpetuating it.

I've stated physiological "race" in fact does exist, to deny this you'd have to literally be blind, and there is nothing wrong with having words to describe these physiological differences.

Again, this isn't about words, it's about concepts. It's entirely possible to construct a physiological vocabulary without having to discredited quack science.

 

[Yeekim]

But, see, that's the problem: there isn't an appropriate word for what you're talking about, because what you're talking about doesn't exist. There is no objective physical "blackness" or "whiteness", hence the absence of any commentary on such categories before the Early Modern period. Our identification of certain physiological characteristics with these racial monoliths depends entirely on the presupposition of their existence; on the trumping of empiricism by inherited social ideology.

I am pretty sure we are all able to tell a person of Scandinavian ancestry from another of Sub-Saharan ancestry, after just a glance. So there most definitely is a difference. Care to explain why it is not "objective" (or "physical")?

 

[Traitorfish]

I am pretty sure we are all able to tell a person of Scandinavian ancestry from another of Sub-Saharan ancestry, after just a glance. So there most definitely is a difference. Care to explain why it is not "objective" (or "physical")?

Because that's not what "race" means.

 

[Yeekim]

Because that's not what "race" means.

You said that there is no "objective physical "blackness" or "whiteness"". I brought examples to the contrary.