Slavery Reparations: Is it time?

[Traitorfish]

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

No, you gave examples of physiological features that are associated with whiteness or blackness. That doesn't say anything about the objectivity of the associations themselves.

 

[Yeekim]

No, you gave examples of physiological features that are associated with whiteness or blackness. That doesn't say anything about the objectivity of the associations themselves.

Because all I (and ghostamaker, as far as I understand him) have been trying to say, is that there is nothing to "whiteness" or "blackness" beyond these same physiological features. Having a certain set of these features means being objectively/physically white or black (or possibly neither/mixed). Period.

 

[mitsho]

You Americans forced us Swiss to pay Reparations to the Jews for the "Nazi Gold" (= Jewelry, money and other stuff stolen by Nazis from the Jews they brought into the Konzentrationslager) which was put into Swiss Banks. And don't get me wrong. That was the right thing to do. The problem is, there's still much money of that floating around, ten years after the payment was made. It's just too difficult to find Jewish Citizens personally affected. And they now get a lot of money since their number is lower than expected...

So Reparations is really a bad idea, as who should get the money? It will certainly be unfair and it won't help the economy or the society as a whole in particular. Should the US say "I'm Sorry!"? Yes, certainly. And why not spend some money for an institution doing projects, remembrance or so. But the "I'm sorry" is the least part. If every nation around the globe has to do it, so does the US. (See for another example the constant demands towards Turkey re the Armenian Genocide).

 

[kochman]

You Americans forced us Swiss to pay Reparations to the Jews for the "Nazi Gold" (= Jewelry, money and other stuff stolen by Nazis from the Jews they brought into the Konzentrationslager) which was put into Swiss Banks. And don't get me wrong. That was the right thing to do. The problem is, there's still much money of that floating around, ten years after the payment was made. It's just too difficult to find Jewish Citizens personally affected. And they now get a lot of money since their number is lower than expected...

So Reparations is really a bad idea, as who should get the money? It will certainly be unfair and it won't help the economy or the society as a whole in particular. Should the US say "I'm Sorry!"? Yes, certainly. And why not spend some money for an institution doing projects, remembrance or so. But the "I'm sorry" is the least part. If every nation around the globe has to do it, so does the US. (See for another example the constant demands towards Turkey re the Armenian Genocide).

Did the Swiss government pay using tax revenue?
Or did the Nazi banks accounts in Switzerland pay the tab?
It's not Swiss reparations if it is the latter...

 

[Traitorfish]

Because all I (and ghostamaker, as far as I understand him) have been trying to say, is that there is nothing to "whiteness" or "blackness" beyond these same physiological features. Having a certain set of these features means being objectively/physically white or black (or possibly neither/mixed). Period.

And that's what I'm disputing. Conventional racial categories are not self-evidently derived from the physical characteristics in question, so you can't locate our identification of these physical characteristics with certain "races" in any process of objective, empirical analysis. They must develop on some other level, and I would identify that as a social level. I feel that the evidence, the shifting conceptions of race over time and between societies, bears this out. What would your objection to this be?

 

[ghostmaker650]

That's grand, but just stating "X shouldn't do Y" isn't an argument, it's just a claim.

Understood, please then allow me to rephrase... The US government shouldn't can not make any designations based on race/ethnicity/color/heritage to any of it's citizens over other citizens. I make that argument based on the United States of Americas official and legal view on equality.

The only argument you've put forward so far is the one I criticised previously, and you are now apparently unwilling to defend.

(I presume you're talking about my identification of the US government with it's citizenry?) I can't understand how you found that to be an argument on my part seeing as how I dropped that part of the discussion due to irrelevancy, but since we've come back to it... Could you please elaborate further on how my identification of the US government being created by the people for the people and run by the people is spurious? Am I right in that you say I'm "confusing ideology with political reality"? If so, how so? From what I understand the US government was created by the people, specifically for the benefit of the people, and "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". And on that I still fail to realize how that affects my argument that the US government does not make any designations based on race/ethnicity/color/heritage(and a few other things) to any of it's citizens over other citizens.

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.

Could you please for the record, state what definition of race you use?

Would you say that proven objectifiable methods of bone analysis for assessing geographic racial affinities(using conventional criteria of race; black, white, asian, native american etc.) with a high degree of accuracy is quack science? and further more to say that the use of these biological criteria to assess race, has no basis in biological reality? Also how can somebody objectively look at some bones having no type of social indicators, and determine the geographical ancestry/race of that person if there is no such thing as race biologically or otherwise?

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.

Indeed I don't want to talk about race as a social construct because I find it to be unfounded nonsense. Now that's my opinion. Do some people use social constructs when determining race? Of course, I never disputed that. As I said before, I don't use social means of identifying race, as well I also added nobody should. Many people including myself contrary to what you seem to believe, can objectively look at superficial physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, and cranial features to determine what "race" somebody would be identified as. With that I see no reason to bring a social dimension into this discussion since I made it perfectly clear this was about the physiological dimension of race. Social race =/= race.

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 would disagree, it just seems you have a "politically correct" but mistaken belief that race some how promotes racism(not that you have accused me or anyone of racism). So in your eagerness to be politically correct you're unwittingly(or intentionally) turning anything to do with "race" into a social concept, and thus are unable to have a critical view of race, free of social concepts.

 

[mitsho]

Did the Swiss government pay using tax revenue?
Or did the Nazi banks accounts in Switzerland pay the tab?
It's not Swiss reparations if it is the latter...

Sounds like an excuse, since the two are interconnected in so many ways. It's just that the US is very prone to accuse others but seldomly looks in their own backyard. See the outcry over the Russian and Chinese vetoes on the Syria Resolution and the countless American vetoes defending Israel. Not to excuse the Chinese and Russian vetoes, dn't get me wrong.

Besides that, I do argue that Government Reparations are not the way to go, because who would be the recipient? But an excuse for the governments role in it and some investments into institutions that are tasked help remember and help out.

(And the Swiss government was heavily involved with a 300 Million CHF special fund, there was blackmail against all the Swiss Banks by the New York State Attorney, there was a settlement, so no official judgment, see wiki. But that is not the point of this thread, so...)

 

[kochman]

Sounds like an excuse, since the two are interconnected in so many ways. It's just that the US is very prone to accuse others but seldomly looks in their own backyard. See the outcry over the Russian and Chinese vetoes on the Syria Resolution and the countless American vetoes defending Israel. Not to excuse the Chinese and Russian vetoes, dn't get me wrong.

Besides that, I do argue that Government Reparations are not the way to go, because who would be the recipient? But an excuse for the governments role in it and some investments into institutions that are tasked help remember and help out.

(And the Swiss government was heavily involved with a 300 Million CHF special fund, there was blackmail against all the Swiss Banks by the New York State Attorney, there was a settlement, so no official judgment, see wiki. But that is not the point of this thread, so...)

Private bank accounts and public coffers are not at all related.

Syria is a rogue nation, subverting another nation (Lebanon), mass murdering its population to keep the ruling party in power (see why China and Russia support them?), etc. You can hardly say Israel is nearly as bad as Syria...

 

[Traitorfish]

Understood, please then allow me to rephrase... The US government shouldn't can not make any designations based on race/ethnicity/color/heritage to any of it's citizens over other citizens. I make that argument based on the United States of Americas official and legal view on equality.

Well, that's one that you'll have to take up with a constitutional scholar. I don't have much interest in the topic.

(I presume you're talking about my identification of the US government with it's citizenry?) I can't understand how you found that to be an argument on my part seeing as how I dropped that part of the discussion due to irrelevancy, but since we've come back to it... Could you please elaborate further on how my identification of the US government being created by the people for the people and run by the people is spurious? Am I right in that you say I'm "confusing ideology with political reality"? If so, how so? From what I understand the US government was created by the people, specifically for the benefit of the people, and "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". And on that I still fail to realize how that affects my argument that the US government does not make any designations based on race/ethnicity/color/heritage(and a few other things) to any of it's citizens over other citizens.

You're either changing your claim, or you don't really know what you were claiming in the first place. It's possible- if a tragically naive- to claim that the United States was created "by and for" its people, and that they ultimately call the shots, but that's not the same thing as saying that they are the state as such. Similarly, a person might build a machine, and he might operate the machine, but that doesn't mean he is the machine. It maintains an existence independent of him, however subservient an independence that may be. So unless the United States has, in the last few days, dissolved all state apparatus and reformed as a series of anarchist communes, then I can only assume that this is also true in this case.

Could you please for the record, state what definition of race you use?

Not the sort you're after. I understand race as something which emerges in how individuals relate to each other, a form of monolithic stratification developed on ethnic lines, and that's something shifting and relative, rather than general and positive. A person is not just black in and of themselves, they are black because they exist in a social environment in which they are identified as being black (or, more precisely, as not being white).

Would you say that proven objectifiable methods of bone analysis for assessing geographic racial affinities(using conventional criteria of race; black, white, asian, native american etc.) with a high degree of accuracy is quack science? and further more to say that the use of these biological criteria to assess race, has no basis in biological reality? Also how can somebody objectively look at some bones having no type of social indicators, and determine the geographical ancestry/race of that person if there is no such thing as race biologically or otherwise?

You're begging the question. Noting that different populations display different physiological tendencies, and that you associated these tendencies with certain "races" doesn't imply that your association is based on objective biological analysis. You may as well say that, for example, your association of the colour pink with femininity means that pink is objective feminine. It simply doesn't follow.

Indeed I don't want to talk about race as a social construct because I find it to be unfounded nonsense.

Care to elaborate?

Now that's my opinion. Do some people use social constructs when determining race? Of course, I never disputed that. As I said before, I don't use social means of identifying race, as well I also added nobody should. Many people including myself contrary to what you seem to believe, can objectively look at superficial physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, and cranial features to determine what "race" somebody would be identified as. With that I see no reason to bring a social dimension into this discussion since I made it perfectly clear this was about the physiological dimension of race. Social race =/= race.

Again, subjective associations don't imply objective relationships. To argue as much is to assume your conclusion as part of your premise.

I would disagree, it just seems you have a "politically correct" but mistaken belief that race some how promotes racism(not that you have accused me or anyone of racism). So in your eagerness to be politically correct you're unwittingly(or intentionally) turning anything to do with "race" into a social concept, and thus are unable to have a critical view of race, free of social concepts.

Trite. And not helped by the fact that you don't seem to know what "politically correct means".

 

[CaptainF]

One of the greatest "reparations" we could immediately grant to all minorities is to legalize drugs.

Minorities, and in particular black people are arrested and jailed over bogus or trifling illegal drug allegations far more often per-capita than whites, even though white people use far more drugs far more often than any minority ever will.

The Drug War is one of the biggest racist jokes ever played on the American people. Except, it's not funny.

 

[ghostmaker650]

You're either changing your claim, or you don't really know what you were claiming in the first place. It's possible- if a tragically naive- to claim that the United States was created "by and for" its people, and that they ultimately call the shots, but that's not the same thing as saying that they are the state as such.

I thought my claim would have been clear. So are you to say you can't deduce, that I, in my "attachment to an idealised image of the United States" claiming "The US government is the people, the people are the US government", couldn't have possibly been referring to a widely popular "idealised image of the United States" that "the US government being created by the people for the people and run by the people"? Seeing as how you didn't make the assumptions of my American ideals till a bit after the discussion was started, I can see how you didn't find my meaning clear in the beginning. For that I apologize, I admit I could have been a bit clearer.

Similarly, a person might build a machine, and he might operate the machine, but that doesn't mean he is the machine. It maintains an existence independent of him, however subservient an independence that may be. So unless the United States has, in the last few days, dissolved all state apparatus and reformed as a series of anarchist communes, then I can only assume that this is also true in this case.

If that machines function, abilities and operation relies entirely on the person, and that person is removed, the machine essentially ceases to be a machine, no machine exists anymore merely a useless heap of metal. So the machines existence is not independent but depends entirely on the person. The machine is no more than a tool; an extension of the user, in essence he is the machine. No?

Not the sort you're after. I understand race as something which emerges in how individuals relate to each other, a form of monolithic stratification developed on ethnic lines, and that's something shifting and relative, rather than general and positive. A person is not just black in and of themselves, they are black because they exist in a social environment in which they are identified as being black (or, more precisely, as not being white).

Now is this how you find race to used? Or is this how you feel it should be used? In other words, do you find this to be the correct way of having any type of race concept? or do you find it wrong/unnecessary or meaningless to have any type of race concept?

You're begging the question. Noting that different populations display different physiological tendencies, and that you associated these tendencies with certain "races" doesn't imply that your association is based on objective biological analysis. You may as well say that, for example, your association of the colour pink with femininity means that pink is objective feminine. It simply doesn't follow.

I simply asked does using objective biological criteria to assess "X" not give it some type of basis in biological reality? You've explained no it doesn't, fair enough. You've yet however, to address whether or not you believe that, using proven objectifiable methods of bone analysis to prove that "different populations display different physiological tendencies", is as you say, quack science.

Care to elaborate?

Certainly. There is no objective evidence that anybody is born with predetermined social traits or characteristics that can define them in any racial category. Nobody is born "socially black" or "socially white". This isn't to say social race doesn't exist, just that it has no real objective basis. As well it is simply prejudice and racist.

 

[kochman]

One of the greatest "reparations" we could immediately grant to all minorities is to legalize drugs.

Minorities, and in particular black people are arrested and jailed over bogus or trifling illegal drug allegations far more often per-capita than whites, even though white people use far more drugs far more often than any minority ever will.

The Drug War is one of the biggest racist jokes ever played on the American people. Except, it's not funny.

I find this statement to smack of racism.

It's basically saying, those minorities are going to do drugs, so let's make it legal, lest we put those minorities in jail for doing drugs...

Also, can we get a source for "Minorities, and in particular black people are arrested and jailed over bogus or trifling illegal drug allegations far more often per-capita than whites."

You also understand there is a difference between users and pushers/smugglers, right?
Which do you think cause more crime, per capita? How many users are killing rival users for territory, etc? Did you hear about that Wall Street cokehead who killed another Wall Street stoner because they both wanted to do drugs at their own houses, clubs they frequented, etc?

 

[Traitorfish]

I thought my claim would have been clear. So are you to say you can't deduce, that I, in my "attachment to an idealised image of the United States" claiming "The US government is the people, the people are the US government", couldn't have possibly been referring to a widely popular "idealised image of the United States" that "the US government being created by the people for the people and run by the people"? Seeing as how you didn't make the assumptions of my American ideals till a bit after the discussion was started, I can see how you didn't find my meaning clear in the beginning. For that I apologize, I admit I could have been a bit clearer.

Fair dos.

If that machines function, abilities and operation relies entirely on the person, and that person is removed, the machine essentially ceases to be a machine, no machine exists anymore merely a useless heap of metal. So the machines existence is not independent but depends entirely on the person. The machine is no more than a tool; an extension of the user, in essence he is the machine. No?

...True. But I think what that proves is that my analogy was a poor one, rather than affirming your identification of citizenry and state. The key would be the first sentence, when you talk about the machine depending entirely on the operator; that isn't the case with the state, which exercises a significant degree of autonomy even in the most democratic, accountable forms. The citizenry associated with that state can set the terms in which it operates, but they do not actually carry out its functions, or at least not collectively, in their capacity as the citizenry-in-itself. The state is necessarily in possession of a relative autonomy, and this means that it exists as something separate from the citizenry, individually or collectively. A better analogy, then, might be to a trained dog, which may be highly trained and thoroughly obedient as much as it might be feral, but will in ether case possess the same essential autonomy.

Now is this how you find race to used? Or is this how you feel it should be used? In other words, do you find this to be the correct way of having any type of race concept? or do you find it wrong/unnecessary or meaningless to have any type of race concept?

I don't think this is a clear question. It seems to muddle two points, that of how race is or should be discussed, and that of how race is or should function in society. If we're talking about the first, how we should discuss race, then I think we should discuss it as something social, because that is the only coherent conception of race available to us. If we're talking about the second, the role I think that race should play in society, then I think it should be abolished. My contention is that the former is the necessary prerequisite of the latter.

I simply asked does using objective biological criteria to assess "X" not give it some type of basis in biological reality? You've explained no it doesn't, fair enough. You've yet however, to address whether or not you believe that, using proven objectifiable methods of bone analysis to prove that "different populations display different physiological tendencies", is as you say, quack science.

I'm saying that this doesn't constitute race science. You can reject racialism without rejecting physical anthropology, just as you can reject homoeopathy without rejecting medicine.

Certainly. There is no objective evidence that anybody is born with predetermined social traits or characteristics that can define them in any racial category. Nobody is born "socially black" or "socially white". This isn't to say social race doesn't exist, just that it has no real objective basis. As well it is simply prejudice and racist.

Who is making the claim that they are "born socially X", exactly? It appears to be the total and precise inversion of how I understand the social theory of race. I think that maybe you're not as familiar with the social theory of race as you assume?

 

[CaptainF]

I find this statement to smack of racism.

The drug war is certainly racist, was founded on racism, and continues to be racist.

It's basically saying, those minorities are going to do drugs, so let's make it legal, lest we put those minorities in jail for doing drugs...

Everyone does drugs. People like doing drugs, not because they are addicted to them, but because they LIKE doing them. Always has been the case, always will be.

Or do you want to deny this?

Also, can we get a source for "Minorities, and in particular black people are arrested and jailed over bogus or trifling illegal drug allegations far more often per-capita than whites."

One source out of many.

You also understand there is a difference between users and pushers/smugglers, right?

Duhuhuh NOPE!

Which do you think cause more crime, per capita?

Drug users/holders are far, far more likely to be arrested than any drug dealer.

Link

The War on Drugs is a war primarily on casual drug users, not on the big-time traffickers who rarely get pinched.

How many users are killing rival users for territory, etc? Did you hear about that Wall Street cokehead who killed another Wall Street stoner because they both wanted to do drugs at their own houses, clubs they frequented, etc?

Now you're just not making any sense.

In all likely hood, the Wall Street cokehead and stoner are the same person. After all, when you've got that much money, you can do all the drugs you want! You also don't have to worry about the cops who are off in Harlem or the Bronx busting colored people for dime bags.

 

[kochman]

The drug war is certainly racist, was founded on racism, and continues to be racist.

Source? That's merely opinion. You think trying to stop the flow of drugs into the USA is based on racism, and not trying to, whether you agree with it or not, protect the citizenry?
Ok...

Everyone does drugs. People like doing drugs, not because they are addicted to them, but because they LIKE doing them. Always has been the case, always will be.Or do you want to deny this?

Is there a point to this? No kidding. I'm not defending the drug war... I'm talking about how you paint it as some racist convention... Too much Ron Paul in your coffee this morning?

One source out of many.

Oh, see, I looked at your sentence, and thought you actually had some realistic source for the specific words you used...
"Minorities, and in particular black people are arrested and jailed over bogus or trifling illegal drug allegations far more often per-capita than whites"

Also, your brilliantly unhelpful article... it includes alcohol in the math. We are talking about illegal drugs right? The war on drugs doesn't target alcohol last time I checked.

Duhuhuh NOPE!

Because you don't seem to....

Drug users/holders are far, far more likely to be arrested than any drug dealer.

Guess why? There are many many more of them? How many users can one dealer supply?
This is simple.

It's like saying more straight people do drugs than gay... No kidding, they also completely outnumber them.
Also, people on drugs, they tend to do stupid stuff at times... dealers who are not necessarily using, and obviously know they are breaking the law, they are way more careful.

 

[Traitorfish]

Source? That's merely opinion. You think trying to stop the flow of drugs into the USA is based on racism, and not trying to, whether you agree with it or not, protect the citizenry?
Ok...

Why is it an opinion when somebody else makes a claim, but self-evident fact when you make a claim?

 

[CaptainF]

Source? That's merely opinion. You think trying to stop the flow of drugs into the USA is based on racism, and not trying to, whether you agree with it or not, protect the citizenry?
Ok...

It's not merely opinion. It's historical fact. Look it up. The first drug laws in this country were in San Francisco in the 1870's enacted to prevent whites from smoking opium. The law made no mention of Chinese smoking opium, because they didn't care about that. They just wanted to make sure that Whites weren't mingling with Chinese whilst smoking. Pure racism, nothing to do with "protecting the citizenry".

How can you believe the ridiculous notion that the drug war is to protect the citizenry anyway? When drugs are cheaper, more available and more potent than ever?

Is there a point to this? No kidding. I'm not defending the drug war... I'm talking about how you paint it as some racist convention... Too much Ron Paul in your coffee this morning?

The Drug War is racist. You not believing it, doesn't make it so.

Oh, see, I looked at your sentence, and thought you actually had some realistic source for the specific words you used...
"Minorities, and in particular black people are arrested and jailed over bogus or trifling illegal drug allegations far more often per-capita than whites"

Also, your brilliantly unhelpful article... it includes alcohol in the math. We are talking about illegal drugs right? The war on drugs doesn't target alcohol last time I checked.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6
Link 7
Link 8
Link 9
Link 10
Link 11

There. That should be quite educating for you.

Because you don't seem to....

Why? Because I don't have your stereotypical view of drug users as crazed lunatics?

Drug users are normal people.

Guess why? There are many many more of them? How many users can one dealer supply?
This is simple.

It also has to do with lazy cops preferring to go after the easy targets of users and not have to put in the work to investigate and take down a supplier.

Also, people on drugs, they tend to do stupid stuff at times... dealers who are not necessarily using, and obviously know they are breaking the law, they are way more careful.

A lot of drug users are arrested every day while walking down the street minding their own business. If they are black chances are that a racist, bored cop will stop them, frisk them and find a dimebag in their pocket. Or, in New York the dirty trick the piggies would pull is command people to empty their pockets and thus brandish marijuana in public view, which is an arrestable offense unlike simply possessing marijuana.

 

[kochman]

The roots of drugs being made illegal are quite pointless in this day and age.
Yes, drugs are better and cheaper, because the drug war is a failure, I'm not arguing against that... I'm arguing that it is a "racist" thing.

When you talk about drug use, also, you have to consider what drugs are being used, because they are not the same... it's way more important than race is in the equation.

Anyhow, I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do... I'm just saying it isn't institutional racism that makes illegal drugs illegal today.

 

[innonimatu]

You can hardly say Israel is nearly as bad as Syria...

No, Israel has consistently been [/I]worse than Syria. Over the past few months they killed what, a couple thousand Palestinians? Where's the outcry, in western media, about that government slaughtering its population?

You also charged Syria of subverting Lebanon. True. What about outright, repeated invasions of Lebanon? Guess which country did that.

 

[rah]

When the punishment for possessing crack cocaine is higher than regular cocaine, you know there's a little racism behind it. So much so that now its a big deal in a lot of places to make the penalties more equal, since it was so darn blatant.