|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 22 2016 07:39 Deathstar wrote:
I don't understand what the court case for this would even look like.
Defendant: White people in America
Plaintiff: Black people in America
Is reparations considered a serious claim? That, after 200 years, the modern day descendants of slaves are entitled to tax payer paid compensation? What is the logic?
I think the logic is generally that slavery left a huge legacy that affects people to this day. For example, following slavery there were a whole bunch of bullshit segregation and Jim Crow laws. People are alive today who were affected by those laws. It's pretty god damn hard to argue that their present-day economic outcome is independent of their experience with those laws. Judging by how much my current economic situation is affected by what my grandparents and parents experienced, it's easy to see how first and second generation descendants of those people would experience poorer economic outcomes, even if you assumed racism today doesn't exist.
And you don't even need to trust my personal anecdote. The effect that people's parents have on their economic outcome is objectively quantifiable, just look up the intergeneration earnings elasticity (or something similar to that, I can't remember specifically what it's called). I can spoil some of it for you, though: the US does poorly (kids with poor parents tend to stay poor), since you guys have crappy social programming and safety nets.
TL;DR: People are alive today who experienced bullshit racist laws (that are a legacy of slavery) that undeniably impacted their economic oppourtunity; the economic oppourtunities of first and second generation descendants are affected by their parents' economic oppourtunities. Boom. Ezpz argument for reparations that makes a ton of sense.
Now whether it's practical is another thing, but yeah, in my books shitty racist governments owe some people some moohlah for shitty things they did to those people. At least the ones that are alive today who went through that bullshit. At the very least some of the southern states with the worst (and most recent) laws should probably pay. Too bad they're also some of the poorer states.....
|
On January 22 2016 07:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2016 23:07 oneofthem wrote:
in the sense of some targeted development assistance of black communities and so on, reparation is absolutely justified. but for starters try not to actively siege and jail them This seems like the most reasonable position.
How about they not distribute drugs when it's illegal? Or, if they're going to, not be so blatant about it? Black people are the low hanging fruit for the police force.
Tactical considerations also encouraged the concentration of anti-drug resources in disadvantaged minority neighborhoods and the consequent disproportionate number of black drug offender arrests. Police departments point to the number of arrests as a measure of effectiveness. The circumstances of life and the public nature of drug transactions in low income urban neighborhoods make arrests far easier there than in other neighborhoods.95 In poor black neighborhoods, drug transactions are more likely to be conducted on the streets, in public, and between strangers, whereas in white neighborhoods -- working class through upper class -- drugs are more likely to be sold indoors, in bars, clubs, and private homes. "[I]n poor urban minority neighborhoods, it is easier for undercover narcotics officers to penetrate networks of friends and acquaintances than in more stable and closely knit working-class and middle-class neighborhoods. The stranger buying drugs on the urban street corner or in an alley, or overcoming local suspicions by hanging around for a few days and then buying drugs, was commonplace. Police undercover operations can succeed [in working and middle-class neighborhoods] but they take longer, cost more, and are less likely to succeed."
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm
|
On January 22 2016 07:54 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 07:24 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2016 23:07 oneofthem wrote:
in the sense of some targeted development assistance of black communities and so on, reparation is absolutely justified. but for starters try not to actively siege and jail them This seems like the most reasonable position. How about they not distribute drugs when it's illegal? Or, if they're going to, not be so blatant about it? Black people are the low hanging fruit for the police force. Show nested quote +
Tactical considerations also encouraged the concentration of anti-drug resources in disadvantaged minority neighborhoods and the consequent disproportionate number of black drug offender arrests. Police departments point to the number of arrests as a measure of effectiveness. The circumstances of life and the public nature of drug transactions in low income urban neighborhoods make arrests far easier there than in other neighborhoods.95 In poor black neighborhoods, drug transactions are more likely to be conducted on the streets, in public, and between strangers, whereas in white neighborhoods -- working class through upper class -- drugs are more likely to be sold indoors, in bars, clubs, and private homes. "[I]n poor urban minority neighborhoods, it is easier for undercover narcotics officers to penetrate networks of friends and acquaintances than in more stable and closely knit working-class and middle-class neighborhoods. The stranger buying drugs on the urban street corner or in an alley, or overcoming local suspicions by hanging around for a few days and then buying drugs, was commonplace. Police undercover operations can succeed [in working and middle-class neighborhoods] but they take longer, cost more, and are less likely to succeed."
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm
How about the police do some real work, rather than going after the low hanging fruit to bump their numbers? That report doesn't do anything but show that poverty is the larger issue, not the drugs.
|
On January 22 2016 07:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 07:39 Deathstar wrote:
I don't understand what the court case for this would even look like.
Defendant: White people in America
Plaintiff: Black people in America
Is reparations considered a serious claim? That, after 200 years, the modern day descendants of slaves are entitled to tax payer paid compensation? What is the logic? http://www.newsweek.com/slavery-reparations-could-cost-14-trillion-according-new-calculation-364141Its a talking point. If you take the number of slaves and the amount of unpaid labor caused by slavery, the prices is like 14 trillion. Which is a crazy number. But forget talking about it, just watch Season One, episode 18 of the West Wing, Six meetings before Lunch. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745677/You have a liberal white house staffer talking to black appointee for assistant attorney general for civil rights about reparations and not agreeing on the topic. It pretty much sums up how its not viable or realistic, but a good thing to talk about.
I'll watch the episode. But yeah, I understand why black people would talk about it.
The thing is, it wasn't a government program. The US government wasn't using slaves. It was individual slave owners. This isn't like the japanese internment camp situation in which the US government locked up japanese americans and so they deserve reparation.
|
On January 22 2016 08:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 07:54 Deathstar wrote:On January 22 2016 07:24 IgnE wrote:On January 21 2016 23:07 oneofthem wrote:
in the sense of some targeted development assistance of black communities and so on, reparation is absolutely justified. but for starters try not to actively siege and jail them This seems like the most reasonable position. How about they not distribute drugs when it's illegal? Or, if they're going to, not be so blatant about it? Black people are the low hanging fruit for the police force.
Tactical considerations also encouraged the concentration of anti-drug resources in disadvantaged minority neighborhoods and the consequent disproportionate number of black drug offender arrests. Police departments point to the number of arrests as a measure of effectiveness. The circumstances of life and the public nature of drug transactions in low income urban neighborhoods make arrests far easier there than in other neighborhoods.95 In poor black neighborhoods, drug transactions are more likely to be conducted on the streets, in public, and between strangers, whereas in white neighborhoods -- working class through upper class -- drugs are more likely to be sold indoors, in bars, clubs, and private homes. "[I]n poor urban minority neighborhoods, it is easier for undercover narcotics officers to penetrate networks of friends and acquaintances than in more stable and closely knit working-class and middle-class neighborhoods. The stranger buying drugs on the urban street corner or in an alley, or overcoming local suspicions by hanging around for a few days and then buying drugs, was commonplace. Police undercover operations can succeed [in working and middle-class neighborhoods] but they take longer, cost more, and are less likely to succeed."
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm How about the police do some real work, rather than going after the low hanging fruit to bump their numbers? That report doesn't do anything but show that poverty is the larger issue, not the drugs.
It says white people sell to friends and acquaintances while black people sell to strangers (literally on the streets broad daylight). You want the police force to look past the obvious?
|
There also seem to be two issues conflated here. Firstly, the fact that slavery & racism have left a lot of black people at an economic disadvantage, and that that disadvantage propagates through the generations due to how the system works.
And the second being a demand for damages due to abuse done by people who are dead for a hundred years to people who have been dead for a hundred years.
The first one is a valid point, the second one seems really ridiculous to me. And in my opinion, it would be a much better idea to solve the first problem through a non-race lense. Develop a program that helps people who grow up in shitty circumstances to become the best they can possibly be. Try to equalize chances between people born in different circumstances. This is not an easy thing to do, people have been trying to find a reasonable way to do this for ages, there are many complex interlocking issues that ultimately lead to these reduced chances in life.
But to me this seems like an infinitely better approach to the problem, which is much better suited to actually solve the situation in the long term. as opposed to any program that focuses on race. Because something like that is only going to lead to additional resentment. Imagine if there were a "Black people tax", that all, or possibly even only white people would have to pay to try to elevate black people out of poverty. The racism that something like that would spark is incredible.
On the other hand, if you have a program that approaches the same program as a societal problem of equalizing the chances of people born in ghettos and/or to poor/uneducated parents, you can achieve the exact same goal, without being polarizing about race.
To me, the best idea is still to try to solve the problems associated with past and present racism without trying to make everything only about racism at all times. This seems like the best way to eventually achieve a post-race society. If you have policies that treat people differently based on their race, i fail to see how that will help stop racism, as it is fundamentally a constant reminder that race does matter.
|
On January 22 2016 08:03 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 07:47 Plansix wrote:On January 22 2016 07:39 Deathstar wrote:
I don't understand what the court case for this would even look like.
Defendant: White people in America
Plaintiff: Black people in America
Is reparations considered a serious claim? That, after 200 years, the modern day descendants of slaves are entitled to tax payer paid compensation? What is the logic? http://www.newsweek.com/slavery-reparations-could-cost-14-trillion-according-new-calculation-364141Its a talking point. If you take the number of slaves and the amount of unpaid labor caused by slavery, the prices is like 14 trillion. Which is a crazy number. But forget talking about it, just watch Season One, episode 18 of the West Wing, Six meetings before Lunch. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745677/You have a liberal white house staffer talking to black appointee for assistant attorney general for civil rights about reparations and not agreeing on the topic. It pretty much sums up how its not viable or realistic, but a good thing to talk about. I'll watch the episode. But yeah, I understand why black people would talk about it. The thing is, it wasn't a government program. The US government wasn't using slaves. It was individual slave owners. This isn't like the japanese internment camp situation in which the US government locked up japanese americans and so they deserve reparation.
The US government sure as hell used slaves?!?. I suppose they left the part about slaves building the capital in that “A Birthday Cake for George Washington” version of history.
|
On January 22 2016 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 08:03 Deathstar wrote:On January 22 2016 07:47 Plansix wrote:On January 22 2016 07:39 Deathstar wrote:
I don't understand what the court case for this would even look like.
Defendant: White people in America
Plaintiff: Black people in America
Is reparations considered a serious claim? That, after 200 years, the modern day descendants of slaves are entitled to tax payer paid compensation? What is the logic? http://www.newsweek.com/slavery-reparations-could-cost-14-trillion-according-new-calculation-364141Its a talking point. If you take the number of slaves and the amount of unpaid labor caused by slavery, the prices is like 14 trillion. Which is a crazy number. But forget talking about it, just watch Season One, episode 18 of the West Wing, Six meetings before Lunch. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745677/You have a liberal white house staffer talking to black appointee for assistant attorney general for civil rights about reparations and not agreeing on the topic. It pretty much sums up how its not viable or realistic, but a good thing to talk about. I'll watch the episode. But yeah, I understand why black people would talk about it. The thing is, it wasn't a government program. The US government wasn't using slaves. It was individual slave owners. This isn't like the japanese internment camp situation in which the US government locked up japanese americans and so they deserve reparation. The US government sure as hell used slaves?!?. I suppose they left the part about slaves building the capital in that “A Birthday Cake for George Washington” version of history.
You have got to stop being so insulting when you post and treating people like idiots or racists.
|
|
|
Lol ok. Good luck with reparations goals.
|
Does anybody in this thread disagree with this?
+ Show Spoiler +On January 22 2016 08:24 Simberto wrote:
There also seem to be two issues conflated here. Firstly, the fact that slavery & racism have left a lot of black people at an economic disadvantage, and that that disadvantage propagates through the generations due to how the system works.
And the second being a demand for damages due to abuse done by people who are dead for a hundred years to people who have been dead for a hundred years.
The first one is a valid point, the second one seems really ridiculous to me. And in my opinion, it would be a much better idea to solve the first problem through a non-race lense. Develop a program that helps people who grow up in shitty circumstances to become the best they can possibly be. Try to equalize chances between people born in different circumstances. This is not an easy thing to do, people have been trying to find a reasonable way to do this for ages, there are many complex interlocking issues that ultimately lead to these reduced chances in life.
But to me this seems like an infinitely better approach to the problem, which is much better suited to actually solve the situation in the long term. as opposed to any program that focuses on race. Because something like that is only going to lead to additional resentment. Imagine if there were a "Black people tax", that all, or possibly even only white people would have to pay to try to elevate black people out of poverty. The racism that something like that would spark is incredible.
On the other hand, if you have a program that approaches the same program as a societal problem of equalizing the chances of people born in ghettos and/or to poor/uneducated parents, you can achieve the exact same goal, without being polarizing about race.
To me, the best idea is still to try to solve the problems associated with past and present racism without trying to make everything only about racism at all times. This seems like the best way to eventually achieve a post-race society. If you have policies that treat people differently based on their race, i fail to see how that will help stop racism, as it is fundamentally a constant reminder that race does matter.
|
On January 22 2016 09:06 Aquanim wrote:Does anybody in this thread disagree with this? + Show Spoiler +On January 22 2016 08:24 Simberto wrote:
There also seem to be two issues conflated here. Firstly, the fact that slavery & racism have left a lot of black people at an economic disadvantage, and that that disadvantage propagates through the generations due to how the system works.
And the second being a demand for damages due to abuse done by people who are dead for a hundred years to people who have been dead for a hundred years.
The first one is a valid point, the second one seems really ridiculous to me. And in my opinion, it would be a much better idea to solve the first problem through a non-race lense. Develop a program that helps people who grow up in shitty circumstances to become the best they can possibly be. Try to equalize chances between people born in different circumstances. This is not an easy thing to do, people have been trying to find a reasonable way to do this for ages, there are many complex interlocking issues that ultimately lead to these reduced chances in life.
But to me this seems like an infinitely better approach to the problem, which is much better suited to actually solve the situation in the long term. as opposed to any program that focuses on race. Because something like that is only going to lead to additional resentment. Imagine if there were a "Black people tax", that all, or possibly even only white people would have to pay to try to elevate black people out of poverty. The racism that something like that would spark is incredible.
On the other hand, if you have a program that approaches the same program as a societal problem of equalizing the chances of people born in ghettos and/or to poor/uneducated parents, you can achieve the exact same goal, without being polarizing about race.
To me, the best idea is still to try to solve the problems associated with past and present racism without trying to make everything only about racism at all times. This seems like the best way to eventually achieve a post-race society. If you have policies that treat people differently based on their race, i fail to see how that will help stop racism, as it is fundamentally a constant reminder that race does matter.
Tbh, I don't even know what he is trying to say. It's seems to be some sort of "what if there was a better way to stop racism. I think we shouldn't do anything until we find that."
|
I also don't know how you specifically address the issue of racism without addressing race, given how inequality and race tie together.
|
I'm pretty sure his argument boils down to "it is a better idea to help everybody who is in need, rather than helping people who are presumably in need because of the colour of their skin".
Racism does not have a monopoly on negatively impacting people's lives for reasons outside their control.
|
but to fight racism you can't just 'help everybody in need', you'll need to address racism specifically. Discrimination by the police force, under-representation of minorities in certain jobs and so on. If you meaningfully want to combat racism you can't just act like it doesn't exist.
In the GDR the slogan "you're betraying the class struggle" came up every time a feminist or a civil rights advocate tried to talk about something that seriously addressed any of these issues. The whole trope of "I'm really race-blind, the affirmative action people are the true racists!" reminds me of that attitude.
|
On January 22 2016 09:15 Aquanim wrote:
I'm pretty sure his argument boils down to "it is a better idea to help everybody who is in need, rather than helping people who are presumably in need because of the colour of their skin".
Racism does not have a monopoly on negatively impacting people's lives for reasons outside their control.
Then you'd be disagreeing with Lyndon Baines Johnson:
"Negro Poverty is not White Poverty"
|
If you meaningfully want to combat racism you can't just act like it doesn't exist.
That is true to some degree. The argument is that placing racism on a pedestal above other reasons for social/economic inequality is quite likely to incite people to further racism.
I am not saying not to acknowledge racism. I am saying that it should not be the only thing acknowledged.
If nothing else, from a purely tactical point of view that offers opponents the smallest possible chance to claim that any special privilege is being granted.
|
On January 22 2016 08:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2016 08:03 Deathstar wrote:On January 22 2016 07:47 Plansix wrote:On January 22 2016 07:39 Deathstar wrote:
I don't understand what the court case for this would even look like.
Defendant: White people in America
Plaintiff: Black people in America
Is reparations considered a serious claim? That, after 200 years, the modern day descendants of slaves are entitled to tax payer paid compensation? What is the logic? http://www.newsweek.com/slavery-reparations-could-cost-14-trillion-according-new-calculation-364141Its a talking point. If you take the number of slaves and the amount of unpaid labor caused by slavery, the prices is like 14 trillion. Which is a crazy number. But forget talking about it, just watch Season One, episode 18 of the West Wing, Six meetings before Lunch. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745677/You have a liberal white house staffer talking to black appointee for assistant attorney general for civil rights about reparations and not agreeing on the topic. It pretty much sums up how its not viable or realistic, but a good thing to talk about. I'll watch the episode. But yeah, I understand why black people would talk about it. The thing is, it wasn't a government program. The US government wasn't using slaves. It was individual slave owners. This isn't like the japanese internment camp situation in which the US government locked up japanese americans and so they deserve reparation. The US government sure as hell used slaves?!?. I suppose they left the part about slaves building the capital in that “A Birthday Cake for George Washington” version of history. You have got to stop being so insulting when you post and treating people like idiots or racists.
No. That's propagating an unhelpful at best idea it's okay for black people to talk about problems unique to them, but only if they do it in ways that don't make White people uncomfortable.
These two articles by Doug Muder do a decent job of elaborating on it. Also try this one. If GreenHorizons is confrontational and gets in people's face about things like correcting misinformation about the US government's usage of slaves or involvement with slave owners (spoiler warning: around 2/3 of the Presidents before Lincoln and the next two Presidents after Lincoln were slave owners), that's probably because it gets results.
|
On January 22 2016 09:22 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +If you meaningfully want to combat racism you can't just act like it doesn't exist. That is true to some degree. The argument is that placing racism on a pedestal above other reasons for social/economic inequality is quite likely to incite people to further racism. I am not saying not to acknowledge racism. I am saying that it should not be the only thing acknowledged. If nothing else, from a purely tactical point of view that offers opponents the smallest possible chance to claim that any special privilege is being granted.
Everyone agrees there are numerous problems in the US, some as big as racism. There are a lot of problem solvers in the world, we can handle two things at once. The issues with racism can be addressed on their own, without waiting to solutions to those other issues.
|
On January 22 2016 09:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 09:22 Aquanim wrote:If you meaningfully want to combat racism you can't just act like it doesn't exist. That is true to some degree. The argument is that placing racism on a pedestal above other reasons for social/economic inequality is quite likely to incite people to further racism. I am not saying not to acknowledge racism. I am saying that it should not be the only thing acknowledged. If nothing else, from a purely tactical point of view that offers opponents the smallest possible chance to claim that any special privilege is being granted. Everyone agrees there are numerous problems in the US, some as big as racism. There are a lot of problem solvers in the world, we can handle two things at once. The issues with racism can be addressed on their own, without waiting to solutions to those other issues.
My concern is that this attitude will not actually result in success. Perhaps I'm wrong, and it is possible to right this particular wrong without reference to the many other problems in society. I certainly hope for the sake of the people trying to go about it in this way that I am wrong.
It seems to me, though, that a cooperative lifting effort is more likely to result in success than if everybody is only concerned with their own load. Working to minimise arbitrary disadvantage is likely a far more popular goal than working to minimise arbitrary disadvantage for a particular subset of people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
