5 ms·

There's probably a very good case for reparations, but I don't believe it will ever be workable politically. The age of Trump has shown not only a divisiveness

There's probably a very good case for reparations, but I don't believe it will ever be workable politically. The age of Trump has shown not only a divisiveness but a racism from all quarters. A reparation based policy is inherently racial (obviously) and how do you get that across to the other 50% who if they don't agree might even be outright racists? This problem of discrimination and a lack of opportunity is not racial, it extends beyond those lines, I feel like if it was approached from a broader perspective like that, it would have much more possibility of working. Politics based on race only end up dividing people and used by those in power. The biggest problem in this country isn't racial (though it is an issue), it is social. There's the haves and the have nots. The haves continually use racial and other issues to divide the have nots, and the have nots remain with nothing. The response to Kanye's latest stuff has been really enlightening. The following is also from Coates. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/05/im-not-black-im-kanye/559763/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/05/im...

tptacek 8y ago
Read the article. For this thread, reparations aren't the point. I'm simply saying Ta-Nehisi Coates has done a better job than any other writer explaining how segregation extended far beyond the legal conclusion of government-mandated segregation.
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  You're not wrong, I'm just surprised when educated people aren't aware of this stuff. Jim Crow was discussed in high school here in the South and there was plenty of opportunity to learn about it in college. The only way people can't know of this is if they haven't actually interacted with minorities that much, which I guess is possible in certain places. Similarly, this was really great, as it shows the outlash King got when he tried to approach wider social issues as well as the outright hostility against him in places we don't usually consider "racist". https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/king-in-the-wilderness https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/king-in-the-wilderness
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Forget Jim Crow! Everyone knows about Jim Crow. Coates traces segregation almost into the 1980s.
rayiner 8y ago
There are two separate issues. Ongoing racism, and the lasting impact of past racism, segregation, and slavery. Per capita income for Africa Americans is 1/3 lower than the national average. Even among liberals it’s not a popular idea to say that a big chunk of that gap is not due to ongoing racism but lasting effects of past wrongs. The idea of paying reparations seems radical. But legally it’s not that odd. It would basically be paying money damages for state and federal governments’ past torts and constitutional violations. When slavery was ended, the government should have paid, under common law tort theories, a bunch of money for false imprisonment. When segregation ended, state governments should have been liable for damages for constitutional torts (what would now be 1983 liability).
- learc83 8y ago
  >Per capita income for Africa Americans is 1/3 lower than the national average And if you look at household wealth the disparity is even greater--much greater.
- giardini 8y ago
  Perhaps the most memorable attempt at reparations created a common phrase,"40 acres and a mule", which unfortunately proved to have no resolution behind it: "The Truth Behind ’40 Acres and a Mule’" http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/the-truth-behind-40-acres-and-a-mule/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cro... from the article: 'And what happened to this astonishingly visionary program, which would have fundamentally altered the course of American race relations? Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor and a sympathizer with the South, overturned the Order in the fall of 1865, and..."returned the land along the South Carolina, Georgia and Florida coasts to the planters who had originally owned it” — to the very people who had declared war on the United States of America.'
dnomad 8y ago
This understanding of reparations is backwards. Reparations are not a democratic process, there is no need to persuade voters to vote for reparations. Reparations is a legal process. They are executed in courts. Especially in cases of "forced labor" laws both Federal and international have been quite clear that reparations are required. The only "problem" here is that US courts have consistently claimed that the centuries of slavery -- probably the greatest crime in the history of the republic -- are in fact a "political question." (It's worth noting that the question of standing is an aside. Former slaves themselves, nevermind their descendants, were denied restitution and sometimes killed for attempting to seek it.) > Politics based on race only end up dividing people and used by those in power. This is very, very easy for people who have never been victims of racism to say. The self-serving backwardness of this logic doesn't just violate basic moral precepts it also ignores the most basic legal precepts. If a group of people are subjected to centuries of abuse they should be awarded redress. It doesn't get more basic than that. To say that now is the time to "look beyond race" and ignore the the many crimes is just abhorrent. (Ironically the whole situation does highlight that the worst crimes evade justice. If the slaves had been part of a foreign country that was conquered and enslaved then there would be no question about reparations. But because the slaves were themselves "Americans," where slavery was conviently not a crime, they will likely never be awarded justice.)
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  Reparations can be a legal or a political issue. To get the proper court setup to rule in favor of reparations, you need to appoint the correct justices (if you know a way of appointing Supreme Court justices that doesn't come through election and confirmation by elected officials, speak up). As shown in the Brown v Board of Education discussion here, even if the courts make such a ruling, without broader support, it's essentially powerless. If the SC or any other court today decided that reparations were i order, who holds the purse and who is in charge of executing that? Elected officials who are very beholden to the public. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollow_Hope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollow_Hope Reparations have been argued for throughout the world, with very limited success. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery In 1999, the African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission called for the West to pay $777 trillion to Africa within five years.[23] Needless to say, that's not going to happen any time soon. My point is that an action such as reparations is very, very difficult. There are other ways of righting those wrongs, such as through political action which sees proper funding go to inner city schools in minority areas, and better social/economic support for the lower class. This can be a racial argument, but these are issues for all races (even those in the rural majority demographic), which is why that's a broader strategy with a better chance of winning than dying on the hill that is reparations. This is very, very easy for people who have never been victims of racism to say. The self-serving backwardness of this logic doesn't just violate basic moral precepts it also ignores the most basic legal precepts. If a group of people are subjected to centuries of abuse they should be awarded redress. It doesn't get more basic than that. To say that now is the time to "look beyond race" and ignore the the many crimes is just abhorrent. This is emotional reasoning to make me look like I'm immoral because I don't support dividing people up. I believe we have more in common than we have different. That's the opposite of racism. It's not that I don't support African Americans fighting for their rights, it is that I believe the most effective way of doing so is by banding together with other people with similar concerns and needs. That's more effective, it's always been more effective. It's the basis of winning coalitions in politics. I just have a different viewpoint than you, it doesn't mean I'm "self-serving", "backwards" or "violating basic moral precepts". I care about this issue,I consider myself a humanist, I just believe there are more effective strategies than fighting a racial conflict. Casting out others becuase they are more moderate is not a winning strategy. I'm all about reality in politics. You too? (Ironically the whole situation does highlight that the worst crimes evade justice. If the slaves had been part of a foreign country that was conquered and enslaved then there would be no question about reparations. But because the slaves were themselves "Americans," where slavery was conviently not a crime, they will likely never be awarded justice.) This is by no means universally true regarding conflicts, and in the case of reparations in regards to slavery, it certainly isn't true (see the above Wiki link).

tptacek 8y ago

Read the article. For this thread, reparations aren't the point. I'm simply saying Ta-Nehisi Coates has done a better job than any other writer explaining how segregation extended far beyond the legal conclusion of government-mandated segregation.

aaron-lebo 8y ago
You're not wrong, I'm just surprised when educated people aren't aware of this stuff. Jim Crow was discussed in high school here in the South and there was plenty of opportunity to learn about it in college. The only way people can't know of this is if they haven't actually interacted with minorities that much, which I guess is possible in certain places. Similarly, this was really great, as it shows the outlash King got when he tried to approach wider social issues as well as the outright hostility against him in places we don't usually consider "racist". https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/king-in-the-wilderness https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/king-in-the-wilderness
- tptacek 8y ago
  Forget Jim Crow! Everyone knows about Jim Crow. Coates traces segregation almost into the 1980s.

rayiner 8y ago

There are two separate issues. Ongoing racism, and the lasting impact of past racism, segregation, and slavery. Per capita income for Africa Americans is 1/3 lower than the national average. Even among liberals it’s not a popular idea to say that a big chunk of that gap is not due to ongoing racism but lasting effects of past wrongs. The idea of paying reparations seems radical. But legally it’s not that odd. It would basically be paying money damages for state and federal governments’ past torts and constitutional violations. When slavery was ended, the government should have paid, under common law tort theories, a bunch of money for false imprisonment. When segregation ended, state governments should have been liable for damages for constitutional torts (what would now be 1983 liability).

learc83 8y ago
>Per capita income for Africa Americans is 1/3 lower than the national average And if you look at household wealth the disparity is even greater--much greater.
giardini 8y ago
Perhaps the most memorable attempt at reparations created a common phrase,"40 acres and a mule", which unfortunately proved to have no resolution behind it: "The Truth Behind ’40 Acres and a Mule’" http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/the-truth-behind-40-acres-and-a-mule/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cro... from the article: 'And what happened to this astonishingly visionary program, which would have fundamentally altered the course of American race relations? Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor and a sympathizer with the South, overturned the Order in the fall of 1865, and..."returned the land along the South Carolina, Georgia and Florida coasts to the planters who had originally owned it” — to the very people who had declared war on the United States of America.'

dnomad 8y ago

This understanding of reparations is backwards. Reparations are not a democratic process, there is no need to persuade voters to vote for reparations. Reparations is a legal process. They are executed in courts. Especially in cases of "forced labor" laws both Federal and international have been quite clear that reparations are required. The only "problem" here is that US courts have consistently claimed that the centuries of slavery -- probably the greatest crime in the history of the republic -- are in fact a "political question." (It's worth noting that the question of standing is an aside. Former slaves themselves, nevermind their descendants, were denied restitution and sometimes killed for attempting to seek it.) > Politics based on race only end up dividing people and used by those in power. This is very, very easy for people who have never been victims of racism to say. The self-serving backwardness of this logic doesn't just violate basic moral precepts it also ignores the most basic legal precepts. If a group of people are subjected to centuries of abuse they should be awarded redress. It doesn't get more basic than that. To say that now is the time to "look beyond race" and ignore the the many crimes is just abhorrent. (Ironically the whole situation does highlight that the worst crimes evade justice. If the slaves had been part of a foreign country that was conquered and enslaved then there would be no question about reparations. But because the slaves were themselves "Americans," where slavery was conviently not a crime, they will likely never be awarded justice.)

aaron-lebo 8y ago
Reparations can be a legal or a political issue. To get the proper court setup to rule in favor of reparations, you need to appoint the correct justices (if you know a way of appointing Supreme Court justices that doesn't come through election and confirmation by elected officials, speak up). As shown in the Brown v Board of Education discussion here, even if the courts make such a ruling, without broader support, it's essentially powerless. If the SC or any other court today decided that reparations were i order, who holds the purse and who is in charge of executing that? Elected officials who are very beholden to the public. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollow_Hope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollow_Hope Reparations have been argued for throughout the world, with very limited success. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery In 1999, the African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission called for the West to pay $777 trillion to Africa within five years.[23] Needless to say, that's not going to happen any time soon. My point is that an action such as reparations is very, very difficult. There are other ways of righting those wrongs, such as through political action which sees proper funding go to inner city schools in minority areas, and better social/economic support for the lower class. This can be a racial argument, but these are issues for all races (even those in the rural majority demographic), which is why that's a broader strategy with a better chance of winning than dying on the hill that is reparations. This is very, very easy for people who have never been victims of racism to say. The self-serving backwardness of this logic doesn't just violate basic moral precepts it also ignores the most basic legal precepts. If a group of people are subjected to centuries of abuse they should be awarded redress. It doesn't get more basic than that. To say that now is the time to "look beyond race" and ignore the the many crimes is just abhorrent. This is emotional reasoning to make me look like I'm immoral because I don't support dividing people up. I believe we have more in common than we have different. That's the opposite of racism. It's not that I don't support African Americans fighting for their rights, it is that I believe the most effective way of doing so is by banding together with other people with similar concerns and needs. That's more effective, it's always been more effective. It's the basis of winning coalitions in politics. I just have a different viewpoint than you, it doesn't mean I'm "self-serving", "backwards" or "violating basic moral precepts". I care about this issue,I consider myself a humanist, I just believe there are more effective strategies than fighting a racial conflict. Casting out others becuase they are more moderate is not a winning strategy. I'm all about reality in politics. You too? (Ironically the whole situation does highlight that the worst crimes evade justice. If the slaves had been part of a foreign country that was conquered and enslaved then there would be no question about reparations. But because the slaves were themselves "Americans," where slavery was conviently not a crime, they will likely never be awarded justice.) This is by no means universally true regarding conflicts, and in the case of reparations in regards to slavery, it certainly isn't true (see the above Wiki link).