3 ms·

> 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 abst

by 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.
- dnomad 8y ago
  > 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? Certainly not my intention. I apologize. I try to separate the ideas from the person. Alas, it's an emotional topic. It's interesting to note that the proposition, "racial crimes require racial justice" is not on its face so controversial. If the victims are all of one race then surely any legitimate response would be similarly focused, right? But as you point out such race-based thinking frightens and divides people. But, I maintain, these feelings of fear and division are not sufficient to deny the cause of justice. I belabor this point precisely because very often in modern democracies -- though it's true of all governments -- the majority will do not do the right thing. In the face of great injustice there will always be calls to accept the political reality. Such calls are calls to accept injustice. The great injustices of slavery and systemic racism were not eliminated by accepting political realities. It's doubtful that any great injustice can be eliminated in such a manner.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    Reparations is an odd concept for me. How do you compute them? Intuitively, you would look at the wealth of descendants of slavery and compare it to the wealth of the countries from which their ancestors came; however, I’m pretty sure that calculus would leave black Americans indebted, which seems ridiculous. Maybe for all it’s horrors and atrocities, slavery had a net positive effect on black Americans even if there are racial disparities among Americans? If that’s true, does that mean economic justice (which I understand to be the point of reparations) has been served already?
  - aaron-lebo 8y ago
    No worries. It is an emotional and complicated topic as you said. We should not accept inequality nor injustice. We've just gotta find the best way (or ways) of combating it, which we may disagree about. I linked an HBO doc about King in another comment. It's really interesting to see how strongly other civil rights leaders disagreed with his view on nonviolence, so there are probably many valid approaches. If that kind of action was possible 50 years ago, certainly there's a lot of possibilities today.

by dnomad 8y ago

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.

dnomad 8y ago
> 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? Certainly not my intention. I apologize. I try to separate the ideas from the person. Alas, it's an emotional topic. It's interesting to note that the proposition, "racial crimes require racial justice" is not on its face so controversial. If the victims are all of one race then surely any legitimate response would be similarly focused, right? But as you point out such race-based thinking frightens and divides people. But, I maintain, these feelings of fear and division are not sufficient to deny the cause of justice. I belabor this point precisely because very often in modern democracies -- though it's true of all governments -- the majority will do not do the right thing. In the face of great injustice there will always be calls to accept the political reality. Such calls are calls to accept injustice. The great injustices of slavery and systemic racism were not eliminated by accepting political realities. It's doubtful that any great injustice can be eliminated in such a manner.
- weberc2 8y ago
  Reparations is an odd concept for me. How do you compute them? Intuitively, you would look at the wealth of descendants of slavery and compare it to the wealth of the countries from which their ancestors came; however, I’m pretty sure that calculus would leave black Americans indebted, which seems ridiculous. Maybe for all it’s horrors and atrocities, slavery had a net positive effect on black Americans even if there are racial disparities among Americans? If that’s true, does that mean economic justice (which I understand to be the point of reparations) has been served already?
- aaron-lebo 8y ago
  No worries. It is an emotional and complicated topic as you said. We should not accept inequality nor injustice. We've just gotta find the best way (or ways) of combating it, which we may disagree about. I linked an HBO doc about King in another comment. It's really interesting to see how strongly other civil rights leaders disagreed with his view on nonviolence, so there are probably many valid approaches. If that kind of action was possible 50 years ago, certainly there's a lot of possibilities today.