Slavery Reparations: Is it time?

[NedimNapoleon]

Too long too late, there really is no reason to give current African Americans reparations.

 

[Disgustipated]

You don't think white men literally rule the world?

They won't in about 20 more years. Chinese will rule the world, and Europe and the U.S. will still be around, but will be plagued by unemployment and the resulting social unrest.

 

[Ayn Rand]

White men; The true victims of racial injustice

All victims of racial injustice are real victims. But fundamentally, this is more about the psychological role that scapegoating plays in providing an easy and simplistic target for people who perhaps have a chip on their shoulder for whatever reason.

 

[useless]

You mean "self-hating white people"?

 

[Traitorfish]

Kinda hard to say there is a white male hegemony when there are a significant number of minorities and women at all levels of both business and government.

The fact that the demographic categories that constitute a large majority of the population have only a "significant" presence is rather the exception that proves the rule, don't you think?

 

[Crezth]

Because people misunderstand it. I don't necessarily oppose AA but I do oppose its supporters, if that makes sense. I oppose its supporters because some of them try to make people think that racial equality now is no better than before the Civil Rights Movement. Since this claim is most assuredly false, I refuse to throw my lot in with AA supporters.

I think that's not a bad point, but I don't typically see "supporters of AA" pushing that type of agenda. That there remains a degree of inequality is certainly still true, and, I think, it is necessary to point that out to people who don't understand the purpose of AA et al, or whose opposition to it is based in some sudden love of meritocracy.

 

[wolfigor]

That there remains a degree of inequality is certainly still true, and, I think, it is necessary to point that out to people who don't understand the purpose of AA et al, or whose opposition to it is based in some sudden love of meritocracy.

So AA is fighting some (disappearing) inequality with other inequality of a different polarity?

Maybe some people really appreciate meritocracy and resents every artificial construct, like many AA programs, that limit it.

 

[Crezth]

So AA is fighting some (disappearing) inequality with other inequality of a different polarity?

Maybe some people really appreciate meritocracy and resents every artificial construct, like many AA programs, that limit it.

So has it yet occurred to you that that inequality is disappearing in part because of AA?

The reason the catch-all response "oh let's just make it all merit-based" doesn't apply is because humans aren't robots and won't evaluate applicants purely on their skill. There will always be biases, many unseen, that tip the scales this way or that. In the case of employment, that is a very general preference against hiring blacks, or a tendency to pay women less; problems that stem from social mores that won't work themselves out in the course of a single generation.

 

[kochman]

True or false...
Based SOLELY on race, different quantitative standards (GPA, test scores, etc) are applied to applicants when seeking college entrance?
End of story.

Not many answerers to this simple question.

And discrimination both past and present gives bonuses to certain groups over others, but you can't deny they exist. Do the "bonuses" of AA overcome the bonuses of other factors? No.

This wasn't a direct answer, but it was a "true".

False, because every prestigious college has their own but very holistic view of applicants to determine if they are an appropriate fit for their school. There are many different ways of measuring merit, and some of those methods require a more human understanding than test scores can provide.

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.

 

[Cutlass]

Worst statistic ever. You might want to point out the massive inequalities men suffer such as doing the most dangerous jobs, a biased education system and media, or massively losing out on property and children in unfair divorce settlements and so on.


But then again, white men are to blame for everything - so let's scapegoat them for that as well and make them all take women's history month, pay reparations and go to jail for hate speech if they don't agree with everything they're told. That will solve everything.

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.) 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?

 

[Ajidica]

Note that that does not apply to mining accidents, because mining is not covered by OSHA

Completely unrelated, but what organization enforces workplace safety for miners?

 

[warpus]

You don't think white men literally rule the world?

I'm a white man, do I rule the world? No. Do I have it good? Sure.

 

[Cutlass]

Completely unrelated, but what organization enforces workplace safety for miners?

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). And it doesn't have the budget or the mandate of OSHA, even though superficially it would seem that it should. It's fairly close to a toothless tiger. Which is why mining accidents are still common.

 

[lovett]

It isn't an excuse. If you are going to be consistent in applying libertarian theory, then people are entitled to restitution for past wrongs done by the Romans and the Mongols. The lack of practical application of libertarian theory here justifies my rejection of the idea that we should start what would amount to be a wild goose chase.

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. There are two ways you can support this point.


1) We cannot apply libertarian theory in this case; we cannot fulfill the demand of justice.

Or;

2) Justice (or liberty; libertarianism equates the two) is not the only thing of importance.

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.

It is more difficult, but by no means impossible, to say who currently possessed this expropriated property. The descendants of those who benefited from slavery. We can, with some confidence, make conclusions about this geographically and racially. The wealth of white southerners is partly dependent on the slave-ownership of their ancestors. Not fully, obviously. But then, no one has claimed that one should take all of someone's wealth to finance reparation. And we can be confident that a part of it (on right-libertarian theory) rightfully belongs to the descendants of slaves. Perhaps very partial reparation is all that is possible, but that does not mean partial reparation should not be enacted. If partial reparation was demanded by libertarianism, then a libertarian should support partial reparation.

So you can't really hold onto position 1. That commits you to position 2. However, if one holds on to position 2 the normative values of libertarian theory is rather destroyed. Presumably, what overrides the importance of libertarian justice (or liberty) in this case is general welfare considerations. Full, and even partial, reparation would be damaging to the general welfare and the social fabric of the nation.

But if we can override the value of libertarian justice in this respect on this point, there is no reason we could not override its value on other points in the same respect. Plausibly, there are many (at least hypothetical) cases in which re-distribution of property will greatly increase the general welfare or prevent a great decrease. The poor, after all, receive much greater marginal utility from consumption. Plausibly, the US is in such a situation right now.

This leaves you in a bit of a pickle. If you are committed to a right-libertarian political philosophy (which includes extensive property rights) you must support, at least partial, reparation. Not doing so is inconsistent.

 

[kochman]

I'm a white man, do I rule the world? No. Do I have it good? Sure.

Seriously... where can I sign up for this "white man rules" the world organization? I'd really like to start reaping the benefits. I've had to work my arse off to get what I've got, and I don't have much!

If this is what you call ruling, we really aren't very good at it, and I think we should invite women to join us.

 

[luiz]

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.

No, it is pretty much impossible to do that. Not all blacks are descendants of slaves, and not all descendants of slaves are black. Additionally, many black Americans who are descendants of slaves are NOT descendants of American slaves, and thus if they are to receive any reparations those should come from somewhere else.

It is more difficult, but by no means impossible, to say who currently possessed this expropriated property.

No, it is by all means impossible to do that and I'll demonstrate why.

The descendants of those who benefited from slavery. We can, with some confidence, make conclusions about this geographically and racially. The wealth of white southerners is partly dependent on the slave-ownership of their ancestors. Not fully, obviously. But then, no one has claimed that one should take all of someone's wealth to finance reparation. And we can be confident that a part of it (on right-libertarian theory) rightfully belongs to the descendants of slaves. Perhaps very partial reparation is all that is possible, but that does not mean partial reparation should not be enacted. If partial reparation was demanded by libertarianism, then a libertarian should support partial reparation.

No, it is impossible to determine that aside from a very few exceptional cases. A single slave-owner may have hundreds of living descendants today. Quite a few are probably black, given the dynamics of slave ownership. So a lot of people descend at the same time from owner and slave.

Not only that, it is ridiculous to assume that anyone who descends from slave owners benefited from that (even if you could realistically track down everyone who does descend from them). Say your great-great-great grandfather was a slave-owner. His children burned down his wealth behaving irresponsibly and the last generations of your family, including you, were born into poverty. How are you benefiting from any stolen property? Those who did benefit are long dead and by the time your grandfather was born there was nothing left. Should you pay for the exploitation of your great-great-great grandfather and the stupidity of your great-great-grandfather?

In other words, those reparations are technically impossible and morally wrong.

Not only that, but if you are to defend this nonsense, why stop there? African slaves were not the only people wronged in the last few centuries. Virtually everyone descends from someone who was wronged, or someone who wronged somebody else.

 

[warpus]

Seriously... where can I sign up for this "white man rules" the world organization? I'd really like to start reaping the benefits. I've had to work my arse off to get what I've got, and I don't have much!

If this is what you call ruling, we really aren't very good at it, and I think we should invite women to join us.

See, the thing is that most of the powerful men in the world ARE white men. Old white men.

But that doesn't mean that "white men" rule the world. The guys in charge don't give two craps about me or you.

 

[kochman]

That's the point, it isn't done because of racism... if it was, we'd be in the group.

They could care less (most of them) what color you are... they care more about what you can do for them, as their ambition is generally what got them that far...
Obama included... anyone who tries for the presidency in fact.

What's the saying, anyone who seeks the power is the last who we should give it to? Something to that effect.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm a white man, do I rule the world? No. Do I have it good? Sure.

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.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm still waiting for someone to complain about how wrong it was that the Irish received reparations. I mean, if it would be so awful, surely someone has complaints to make how it was so unfair to the people forced to sell their property.