5 ms·

This understanding of reparations is backwards. Reparations are not a democratic process, there is no need to persuade voters to vote for reparations. Reparatio

by 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).
- dnomad 8y ago
  > I believe we have more in common than we have different. Your feelings and beliefs are irrelevant to the question of reparations. Again, this may be an abstract issue that can be dismissed with platitudes to you but many people -- especially the victims -- do not feel this way. Whose feelings merit greater consideration? > But reparations for the crimes against them aren't incoming, nor do I believe they should be. Not sure what this has to do with anything. I guess because some criminals escape justice it's not worth pursuing any justice? > Get off your high horse. Your argument boils down to "Get over it." You might dance around with it platitudes about common goals (in fact African Americans are still subject to systemic oppression in many states) but, just to be clear, this is what you are advocating. Again, it's the sort of argument which is only possible from an extraordinary position of privilege and the goal is not justice but rather to perpetuate that privilege. > I care about this issue,I consider myself a humanist, I just believe there are more effective strategies than fighting a racial conflict. I'd suggest that more often than not, thinking in terms of some monolithic "racial conflict" is not an effective way to initiate change. Focus on real people, their lives, and their struggles. Name names. Get concrete. Otherwise you risk glossing over the crucially important details and perpetrating the very injustices you might seek to fight. [1] Though there are some who suggest slavery wasn't a crime before the 13th amendment. This argument is at least honest though it leads to the conclusion that all state-sanctioned genocides aren't illegal. Then you've got those who suggest the Federal government wasn't the perpetrator of said crimes. This is actually a position I think is quite tenable. But it's all the more reason to let the courts do what they do best. Investigate the evidence, compel discovery, establish clear chains of evidence and harm, rule on the facts, identify the perpetrators and deliver justice. What's truly extraordinary is not just that the USA never offered redress slaves and their children but that there has never even been any kind of official commission to establish the facts.
  - aaron-lebo 8y ago
    Your feelings and beliefs are irrelevant to the question of reparations. Again, this may be an abstract issue that can be dismissed with platitudes to you but many people -- especially the victims -- do not feel this way. Whose feelings merit greater consideration? Unfortunately, feelings are irrelevant to real world politics and legal issues in many cases. I'm only trying to explain to you why I feel this way. If the feelings of victims were enough, that Wiki page would have at least one example of reparations. Your argument boils down to "Get over it." You might dance around with it platitudes about common goals (in fact African Americans are still subject to systemic oppression in many states) but, just to be clear, this is what you are advocating. Again, it's the sort of argument which is only possible from an extraordinary position of privilege and the goal is not justice but rather to perpetuate that privilege. It's not saying "get over it". It's saying let us address this another way. You don't know who I've helped in the last months or year or during my life, so please don't patronize me. You are intentionally or not distorting what I'm saying. I'd suggest that more often than not, thinking in terms of some monolithic "racial conflict" is not an effective way to initiate change. Focus on real people, their lives, and their struggles. Name names. Get concrete. Otherwise you risk glossing over the crucially important details and perpetrating the very injustices you might seek to fight. Which is why I study politics for a living and why I cited sources in my post, you know, concrete things. Would you do the same? If you're just going to castigate and isolate people who have different view than you (but maybe have the same goal as you), what's the point? If you want to get concrete, let's do it, but you're mainly saying stuff like I'm "devoid of basic moral precepts" which is insulting and absurd. I'd like to discuss this, but not if its just going to turn into that.
skookumchuck 8y ago
The Civil War cost the deaths of 600,000 Americans - 360,000 northern, 258,000 southern. 40,000 of the Union war dead were African Americans. The southern economy was utterly destroyed in the process. America has already paid a very high and bitter price to end slavery, in the usual currency for freedom - blood.
- jrochkind1 8y ago
  How much do you know about the Reconstruction period? Where, after a couple decades where Black people could vote and many Southern state legislatures were majority Black, white terrorism (literally, read up on it) returned the Southern Black population to economic dependency, political subjugation, and daily physical insecurity?
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  Half of America paid that price to keep slavery though, it’s just that they lost. Then that half invested new ways to screw over the same people for another hundred+ years.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    320,000 Northern white men died to free the slaves. 258,000 Southern white men died for being slavers. It's a pretty high price any way you want to look at it.
    - chickenfries 8y ago
      The Union wasn't just executing southerners for being slavers, they were putting down a treasonous rebellion.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      The other way to look at it is that hundreds of thousands of Southern white men demanded a blood price of half a million lives to relinquish a right to chattel slavery that most of them could merely aspire to execute --- that such was the depth the depravity undergirding slavery reached.
weberc2 8y ago
Justice is an odd question when you consider that for millennia humans were conquering and enslaving each other until things began to get abruptly better with the industrial revolution. We all have oppressors and oppressed in our ancestry; but some were lucky to have oppressor ancestors more recently than oppressed ancestors. Temporal proximity of this sort seems like an odd basis for “justice”, does it not?
- tptacek 8y ago
  This is the flimsiest rationalization I think I've ever read. "The past is full of injustices, so why care about recent injustice?" Really?
  - weberc2 8y ago
    You’re misrepresenting me. I don’t understand why recent injustices are more worthy of reparations than older injustices, and when does the statute of limitations expire? I just don’t understand how the accounting works. This is clearly different than “not caring about recent injustices”.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Rayiner clearly answered this upthread.
      - weberc2 8y ago
        What? Here[1]? That was posted an hour after my post. I get that you feel strongly about your opinions, but you’re coming off as rude. Apologies if I’m mistaken. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17053707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17053707
        tptacek 8y ago
        You're mistaken.

by dnomad 8y ago

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).

dnomad 8y ago
> I believe we have more in common than we have different. Your feelings and beliefs are irrelevant to the question of reparations. Again, this may be an abstract issue that can be dismissed with platitudes to you but many people -- especially the victims -- do not feel this way. Whose feelings merit greater consideration? > But reparations for the crimes against them aren't incoming, nor do I believe they should be. Not sure what this has to do with anything. I guess because some criminals escape justice it's not worth pursuing any justice? > Get off your high horse. Your argument boils down to "Get over it." You might dance around with it platitudes about common goals (in fact African Americans are still subject to systemic oppression in many states) but, just to be clear, this is what you are advocating. Again, it's the sort of argument which is only possible from an extraordinary position of privilege and the goal is not justice but rather to perpetuate that privilege. > I care about this issue,I consider myself a humanist, I just believe there are more effective strategies than fighting a racial conflict. I'd suggest that more often than not, thinking in terms of some monolithic "racial conflict" is not an effective way to initiate change. Focus on real people, their lives, and their struggles. Name names. Get concrete. Otherwise you risk glossing over the crucially important details and perpetrating the very injustices you might seek to fight. [1] Though there are some who suggest slavery wasn't a crime before the 13th amendment. This argument is at least honest though it leads to the conclusion that all state-sanctioned genocides aren't illegal. Then you've got those who suggest the Federal government wasn't the perpetrator of said crimes. This is actually a position I think is quite tenable. But it's all the more reason to let the courts do what they do best. Investigate the evidence, compel discovery, establish clear chains of evidence and harm, rule on the facts, identify the perpetrators and deliver justice. What's truly extraordinary is not just that the USA never offered redress slaves and their children but that there has never even been any kind of official commission to establish the facts.
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  Your feelings and beliefs are irrelevant to the question of reparations. Again, this may be an abstract issue that can be dismissed with platitudes to you but many people -- especially the victims -- do not feel this way. Whose feelings merit greater consideration? Unfortunately, feelings are irrelevant to real world politics and legal issues in many cases. I'm only trying to explain to you why I feel this way. If the feelings of victims were enough, that Wiki page would have at least one example of reparations. Your argument boils down to "Get over it." You might dance around with it platitudes about common goals (in fact African Americans are still subject to systemic oppression in many states) but, just to be clear, this is what you are advocating. Again, it's the sort of argument which is only possible from an extraordinary position of privilege and the goal is not justice but rather to perpetuate that privilege. It's not saying "get over it". It's saying let us address this another way. You don't know who I've helped in the last months or year or during my life, so please don't patronize me. You are intentionally or not distorting what I'm saying. I'd suggest that more often than not, thinking in terms of some monolithic "racial conflict" is not an effective way to initiate change. Focus on real people, their lives, and their struggles. Name names. Get concrete. Otherwise you risk glossing over the crucially important details and perpetrating the very injustices you might seek to fight. Which is why I study politics for a living and why I cited sources in my post, you know, concrete things. Would you do the same? If you're just going to castigate and isolate people who have different view than you (but maybe have the same goal as you), what's the point? If you want to get concrete, let's do it, but you're mainly saying stuff like I'm "devoid of basic moral precepts" which is insulting and absurd. I'd like to discuss this, but not if its just going to turn into that.

skookumchuck 8y ago

The Civil War cost the deaths of 600,000 Americans - 360,000 northern, 258,000 southern. 40,000 of the Union war dead were African Americans. The southern economy was utterly destroyed in the process. America has already paid a very high and bitter price to end slavery, in the usual currency for freedom - blood.

jrochkind1 8y ago
How much do you know about the Reconstruction period? Where, after a couple decades where Black people could vote and many Southern state legislatures were majority Black, white terrorism (literally, read up on it) returned the Southern Black population to economic dependency, political subjugation, and daily physical insecurity?
DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
Half of America paid that price to keep slavery though, it’s just that they lost. Then that half invested new ways to screw over the same people for another hundred+ years.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  320,000 Northern white men died to free the slaves. 258,000 Southern white men died for being slavers. It's a pretty high price any way you want to look at it.
  - chickenfries 8y ago
    The Union wasn't just executing southerners for being slavers, they were putting down a treasonous rebellion.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    The other way to look at it is that hundreds of thousands of Southern white men demanded a blood price of half a million lives to relinquish a right to chattel slavery that most of them could merely aspire to execute --- that such was the depth the depravity undergirding slavery reached.

weberc2 8y ago

Justice is an odd question when you consider that for millennia humans were conquering and enslaving each other until things began to get abruptly better with the industrial revolution. We all have oppressors and oppressed in our ancestry; but some were lucky to have oppressor ancestors more recently than oppressed ancestors. Temporal proximity of this sort seems like an odd basis for “justice”, does it not?

tptacek 8y ago
This is the flimsiest rationalization I think I've ever read. "The past is full of injustices, so why care about recent injustice?" Really?
- weberc2 8y ago
  You’re misrepresenting me. I don’t understand why recent injustices are more worthy of reparations than older injustices, and when does the statute of limitations expire? I just don’t understand how the accounting works. This is clearly different than “not caring about recent injustices”.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Rayiner clearly answered this upthread.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      What? Here[1]? That was posted an hour after my post. I get that you feel strongly about your opinions, but you’re coming off as rude. Apologies if I’m mistaken. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17053707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17053707
      - tptacek 8y ago
        You're mistaken.