3 ms·
> The United States, an entity that is legally distinct from its people, was culpable for enabling slavery and segregation. It can be held liable and forced to
by xyzzyz 6y ago
> The United States, an entity that is legally distinct from its people, was culpable for enabling slavery and segregation. It can be held liable and forced to pay for its part.
Ignoring for a while a bunch of practical (though probably solvable to a large degree) problems with this, like on what basis exactly we decide who is paid, and how much are the damages exactly, a more interesting question to me is: what's next? Does this settle the claim completely? Do we consider the descendants of slaves, who get this settlement, to be made whole, and any further claims of the descendants of slaves are to be dismissed with prejudice? Are we supposed to no longer give any racial preferences and special treatment (beyond ensuring equal treatment that's a right of all American people regardless of their ancestry) to the descendants of slaves, given that any of their claims are settled in full? And finally, what do we do if the settlement does not close the gap completely? Are we then allowed to throw up our hands in the air, and say that the United States has settled its claims, and is not obligated to entertain any new ones beyond ensuring that those of actual unequal treatment are properly litigated?
My opinion here is that while settling the liability might look desirable from certain moral point of view, I sincerely doubt that it will bring a long term resolution of the problem attributed to the legacy of slavery. What I expect is that once settlement is paid up, everything about the issue will soon go back to exactly where it has been. This is not an argument against doing such settlement, but rather against high hopes for any positive long lasting change it is purported to bring about.
- rayiner 6y ago> like on what basis exactly we decide who pays The way we pay for everything else—we have the Fed print money.
- xyzzyz 6y agoSorry, I meant "who is paid" there.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago> what's next? Does this settle the claim completely? That would be the idea, yes. > Do we consider the descendants of slaves, who get this settlement, to be made whole, and any further claims of the descendants of slaves are to be dismissed with prejudice? It would depend on the specifics of the settlement, this is actually seriously discussed among reparations advocates. Its not all about writing checks to individuals. People want to put money in a fund that makes small business loans to qualified individuals. > Are we supposed to no longer give any racial preferences and special treatment (beyond ensuring equal treatment that's a right of all American people regardless of their ancestry) to the descendants of slaves, given that any of their claims are settled in full? That would do a lot to put an end to the racial animus in this country. > And finally, what do we do if the settlement does not close the gap completely? Are we then allowed to throw up our hands in the air, and say that the United States has settled its claims, and is not obligated to entertain any new ones beyond ensuring that those of actual unequal treatment are properly litigated? I'm not sure anyone is obligated to do anything but these questions will need to be addressed and conclusive answers may elude us but the existence of these questions doesn't invalidate the claim. > My opinion here is that while settling the liability might look desirable from certain moral point of view, I sincerely doubt that it will bring a long term resolution of the problem attributed to the legacy of slavery. What I expect is that once settlement is paid up, everything about the issue will soon go back to exactly where it has been. This is not an argument against doing such settlement, but rather against high hopes for any positive long lasting change it is purported to bring about. This is a good point and it may depend on the form of the settlement.