4 ms·

I think the idea that your people/ancestors/country is uniquely horrible is itself a kind of bizarre and twisted sublimated notion of superiority. Human histor

I think the idea that your people/ancestors/country is uniquely horrible is itself a kind of bizarre and twisted sublimated notion of superiority. Human history all over the world is rife with genocides, slavery, torture, forced expulsions, institutionalized discrimination and hateful treatment of minorities, and notions of ethnic supremacy. America isn't the slightest bit special in that regard. Every nation on Earth is built on the blood of somebody, and most of them aren't wallowing in guilt over it, nor should they. It's the normal human condition. I also don't think it's productive. People are not amenable to the idea that they should share guilt for crimes that happened before they were born - the moral sentiment that crimes pass down through blood is mostly extinct, so that line of argument tends to alienate people. Further, it places the past in an anachronistic lens of modern morality - in today's moral universe, every single person of the past was wicked. So what's the point of harping on it? None of us would be here without them, nor would today's moral universe even exist, so people are necessarily going to feel some gratitude for those that came before, so again, you're alienating people who might otherwise be sympathetic. If you want change, just make the argument for that change and look forward, not back.

sudosysgen 6y ago
While crimes do not pass by blood, wealth does. This is the argument for some kind of reparations.
- Amezarak 6y ago
  I don't think that's a winning argument. Many (perhaps most) people will be able to show that they did not benefit from any inherited wealth. Many people (including black people!) did not have ancestors in America at the time. For example, under this argument, would Obama be entitled to reparations, given his mother was white and his father an international student from Kenya? Should people have to prove they had enslaved ancestors? What if a black person's ancestors were themselves slaveowners? It seems much simpler and more honest to say: black people face systemic racism today and therefore we're going to pay each person identifying as black $x every y or at one time. This way you only have to win two arguments: that systemic racism exists, and that people deserve reparations because of it. You don't have to put people on the defensive about their ancestors and whether or not they should feel guilty and in some way personally responsible for reparations, nor do you have to worry about people proving they had ancestors personally affected by slavery or racism. This will be pretty divisive by itself - a few people don't believe systemic racism is a meaningful concept, or will argue it applies to other groups as well, including white people, and special treatment of any group of people solely because their race will never be very popular. But your approach is extremely divisive and polarizing: putting people on notice that it's their fault and they benefited from this system (whether they did or not, and most people will be quite convinced they did not, and some of them will be right) is about as polarizing as you can get. I don't see any advantage to it. It will foster extremism on both sides.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Of course, reparations could not be on the basis of race. Many white people too have very low generational wealth. Race is not the only privilege. I think doing reparations in the form of a wealth tax and possibly inheritance tax combined with strong social programs focused on underserved communities would be functionally identical to reparations in reducing generational wealth inequities while also fixing other problems and not causing the issues you described.

sudosysgen 6y ago

While crimes do not pass by blood, wealth does. This is the argument for some kind of reparations.

Amezarak 6y ago
I don't think that's a winning argument. Many (perhaps most) people will be able to show that they did not benefit from any inherited wealth. Many people (including black people!) did not have ancestors in America at the time. For example, under this argument, would Obama be entitled to reparations, given his mother was white and his father an international student from Kenya? Should people have to prove they had enslaved ancestors? What if a black person's ancestors were themselves slaveowners? It seems much simpler and more honest to say: black people face systemic racism today and therefore we're going to pay each person identifying as black $x every y or at one time. This way you only have to win two arguments: that systemic racism exists, and that people deserve reparations because of it. You don't have to put people on the defensive about their ancestors and whether or not they should feel guilty and in some way personally responsible for reparations, nor do you have to worry about people proving they had ancestors personally affected by slavery or racism. This will be pretty divisive by itself - a few people don't believe systemic racism is a meaningful concept, or will argue it applies to other groups as well, including white people, and special treatment of any group of people solely because their race will never be very popular. But your approach is extremely divisive and polarizing: putting people on notice that it's their fault and they benefited from this system (whether they did or not, and most people will be quite convinced they did not, and some of them will be right) is about as polarizing as you can get. I don't see any advantage to it. It will foster extremism on both sides.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Of course, reparations could not be on the basis of race. Many white people too have very low generational wealth. Race is not the only privilege. I think doing reparations in the form of a wealth tax and possibly inheritance tax combined with strong social programs focused on underserved communities would be functionally identical to reparations in reducing generational wealth inequities while also fixing other problems and not causing the issues you described.