3 ms·

> direct reparations are the best approach to resolving the continuing racism in America This conflates two separate issues. One is about a financial debt owed

by runako 6y ago

> direct reparations are the best approach to resolving the continuing racism in America This conflates two separate issues. One is about a financial debt owed to people. This is owed for forced labor and land thefts which continued into the 20th century. Like the OP said, for the most part this is well documented. Debts are repaid in cash or like goods. Racism is a separate topic, which I agree should be approached differently. Conflating the two issues is not helpful for understanding best approaches. If you ask, many Black families will tell you about these thefts, which again are in the public record as title transfers. Here's an example from the 20th: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce%27s_Beach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce%27s_Beach . Events like this were common for decades in the 20th century. Even if you just limited to quasi-legal property theft via eminent domain, there's billions of documentable dollars owed and easily tracked. There's absolutely no reason not to give the land back to those families, or a cash payment for its fair market value.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
What about the treaties we broke with Native Americans, stealing their land after we agreed they could have it in perpetuity? This happened dozens of times in different parts of the country. Do we repay them as well? And how many trillions (since that’s there value of such land now, with or without interest)
- runako 6y ago
  I know this is supposed to be a gotcha, but I would suggest the burden is on the thief to justify why a documented theft should stand. Put it in writing. Codify it into law. How long does one need to hold stolen property before it conveys under the law? Was this a one-time allowable theft? Was it only allowable to steal from certain people during the applicable time? During what time period? How do we define precisely who it was acceptable to steal from? We live in a legal regime where it's not even permissible to take sunken treasure that's near countries, even after centuries at sea. But somehow land stolen from indigenous people and Black people more recently is somehow unrecoverable? We need to at least write down in our laws the rationale for this. More immediately pertinent: why were these thefts substantially different from those the Supreme Court ruled against in Oklahoma? If we're not willing to at least do that much, yeah we should just give it back. The alternative is choosing lawlessness, which is not something we are bound to do. We don't have to worry about converting to dollars because we can just return title to the land itself. The Supreme Court did the same this year in Oklahoma, so it wouldn't even be unprecedented. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-oklahoma/us-supreme-court-deems-half-of-oklahoma-a-native-american-reservation-idUSKBN24A2BE https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-oklahoma/us-suprem...

by runako 6y ago

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago

What about the treaties we broke with Native Americans, stealing their land after we agreed they could have it in perpetuity? This happened dozens of times in different parts of the country. Do we repay them as well? And how many trillions (since that’s there value of such land now, with or without interest)

runako 6y ago
I know this is supposed to be a gotcha, but I would suggest the burden is on the thief to justify why a documented theft should stand. Put it in writing. Codify it into law. How long does one need to hold stolen property before it conveys under the law? Was this a one-time allowable theft? Was it only allowable to steal from certain people during the applicable time? During what time period? How do we define precisely who it was acceptable to steal from? We live in a legal regime where it's not even permissible to take sunken treasure that's near countries, even after centuries at sea. But somehow land stolen from indigenous people and Black people more recently is somehow unrecoverable? We need to at least write down in our laws the rationale for this. More immediately pertinent: why were these thefts substantially different from those the Supreme Court ruled against in Oklahoma? If we're not willing to at least do that much, yeah we should just give it back. The alternative is choosing lawlessness, which is not something we are bound to do. We don't have to worry about converting to dollars because we can just return title to the land itself. The Supreme Court did the same this year in Oklahoma, so it wouldn't even be unprecedented. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-oklahoma/us-supreme-court-deems-half-of-oklahoma-a-native-american-reservation-idUSKBN24A2BE https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-oklahoma/us-suprem...