4 ms·

There are two huge differences in the Japanese internment issue. One, it's more recent and many of the victims are still alive. Two and most important, reparati

by yucky 5y ago

There are two huge differences in the Japanese internment issue. One, it's more recent and many of the victims are still alive. Two and most important, reparations for direct victims wouldn't be based on race, it would be based on if they were actually in an internment camp. Not all Japanese Americans were placed in these camps, so those who were not would not need reimbursement for what FDR and the Democrat Administration did to them in the 1940's. That last part is key. CRT makes no difference between abolitionist and slaveowner, it simply judges based on skin color. That is racist.

eesmith 5y ago
I think you missed where I wrote "I take it you are against any sort of reparations for those people still alive today whose lives were directly harmed by racist laws?" Jim Crow laws weren't abolished until the 1960s. People alive today suffered from those laws. Do you think they should get reparations, and if not, why not? The Japanese-Americans were in internment camps because of mid-20th century views on race. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which legislated reparation explicitly names "race prejudice" as one of the factors. See https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/442 https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/442 . I've read a decent amount now about CRT, from the people who have developed the concept over the last few decades. It does not do what you say it does. What I have seen is how the popular nay-sayers use it as bogeyman term used to reject or diminish any examination of systemic racism. That said, EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, do you think reparations for living people based on harms caused by historical race prejudice is itself racist? It seems that if you do, then you think the internment reparations of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 was racist. And if you do not think it's racist, then you agree with Kendi, LBP, and Justice Blackmun. Here's a more specific example. In 1924 the city seized the beach resort own by the Bruce family. The owners were Black, and it was one of the few places in California where Black could get into the water. Quoting https://www.npr.org/2021/10/10/1043821492/black-americans-land-history https://www.npr.org/2021/10/10/1043821492/black-americans-la...: > White residents set up barricades to keep Black beachgoers from getting to the ocean, and the Ku Klux Klan, active along the California coast, reportedly planned attacks against the Bruce's resort. > "They slashed tires, they burned mattresses under the porch of the resort, they tried to blow up a gas meter of one of the residents here," Shepard says. "They had 24/7 phone campaigns and made threats against Willa and her family." This made the news because the California legislature passed a law to return the land to the family, long after the owners were dead. Is this law a form of reparation? Is this law racist? Personally, I see it as a form of reparation, and not racist, but rather trying to right an historic wrong based on race prejudice. What do you think?
- yucky 5y ago
  Kendi's comments and the CRT framework in general are COLLECTIVE, not individual. That is the issue. It assigns collective blame based on skin color, not actual individual culpability. It also assumes oppression based on race/ethnicity, not on actual experiences of an individual. We know there were black slaveowners for instance, so how does that affect the calculus? There is no non-racist way to blame people for something they had no part in simply based on the color of their skin.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    You are not being blamed. It's not your fault. CRT is very clear to point out how historical racist structures can persist even if no one is racist. Why do you think Oregon has so few Black people? CRT does not assign collective blame based on skin color. You have provided not one whit of evidence for this. Instead you've totally misunderstood a quote from Kendi, which I've tried to explain here. We are all, collectively, Americans. We, collectively, still live with the effects of deliberate collective racial discrimination[1]. Some alive today were explicitly targeted by racist Jim Crow laws, with actual experiences. It is our American responsibility to right this historical wrong as best we can. Is paying reparations to those living people racist? Is paying reparations to the living children of those people racist? Are non-monetary reparations in the name of those people also racist? If you agree with any sort of reparations for racial injustice, including the interned Japanese-Americans, then you agree with Kendi's quote. I repeat: You don't stick a knife in a man's back then pull it out and say that that treating his wounds would be discriminate against those who had never been knifed. The promissory note is long overdue. Let's pay it now. [1] As a white person, even I am affected, because of the deliberately constructed lies about American race history taught to me in school, including lies of omission.
    - yucky 5y ago
      >Is paying reparations to those living people racist? Is paying reparations to the living children of those people racist? Are non-monetary reparations in the name of those people also racist? How does that work, in your mind. Who pays? If you say "taxpayers" then you are saying the victims need to pay reparations as well. That seems logical to you? Also, how do you prove direct harm? In the Japanese internment example it's easy to say "I was sent to an internment camp by FDR". Ok cool, easy enough. But then there is "my dad was sent to an internment camp by FDR, and as a result my parents became risk averse and potentially never earned as much as they could, which may have indirectly impacted my opportunities". And then there is "My mom was raised by someone who's parents were sent to an internment camp" and that has somehow trickled down to impact me in some undefined way." And then we need to discuss how this impacts the offspring of mixed parentage, are they equally victim/beneficiary? How far down the rabbit hole do we go?

by yucky 5y ago

eesmith 5y ago

I think you missed where I wrote "I take it you are against any sort of reparations for those people still alive today whose lives were directly harmed by racist laws?" Jim Crow laws weren't abolished until the 1960s. People alive today suffered from those laws. Do you think they should get reparations, and if not, why not? The Japanese-Americans were in internment camps because of mid-20th century views on race. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which legislated reparation explicitly names "race prejudice" as one of the factors. See https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/442 https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/442 . I've read a decent amount now about CRT, from the people who have developed the concept over the last few decades. It does not do what you say it does. What I have seen is how the popular nay-sayers use it as bogeyman term used to reject or diminish any examination of systemic racism. That said, EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, do you think reparations for living people based on harms caused by historical race prejudice is itself racist? It seems that if you do, then you think the internment reparations of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 was racist. And if you do not think it's racist, then you agree with Kendi, LBP, and Justice Blackmun. Here's a more specific example. In 1924 the city seized the beach resort own by the Bruce family. The owners were Black, and it was one of the few places in California where Black could get into the water. Quoting https://www.npr.org/2021/10/10/1043821492/black-americans-land-history https://www.npr.org/2021/10/10/1043821492/black-americans-la...: > White residents set up barricades to keep Black beachgoers from getting to the ocean, and the Ku Klux Klan, active along the California coast, reportedly planned attacks against the Bruce's resort. > "They slashed tires, they burned mattresses under the porch of the resort, they tried to blow up a gas meter of one of the residents here," Shepard says. "They had 24/7 phone campaigns and made threats against Willa and her family." This made the news because the California legislature passed a law to return the land to the family, long after the owners were dead. Is this law a form of reparation? Is this law racist? Personally, I see it as a form of reparation, and not racist, but rather trying to right an historic wrong based on race prejudice. What do you think?

yucky 5y ago
Kendi's comments and the CRT framework in general are COLLECTIVE, not individual. That is the issue. It assigns collective blame based on skin color, not actual individual culpability. It also assumes oppression based on race/ethnicity, not on actual experiences of an individual. We know there were black slaveowners for instance, so how does that affect the calculus? There is no non-racist way to blame people for something they had no part in simply based on the color of their skin.
- eesmith 5y ago
  You are not being blamed. It's not your fault. CRT is very clear to point out how historical racist structures can persist even if no one is racist. Why do you think Oregon has so few Black people? CRT does not assign collective blame based on skin color. You have provided not one whit of evidence for this. Instead you've totally misunderstood a quote from Kendi, which I've tried to explain here. We are all, collectively, Americans. We, collectively, still live with the effects of deliberate collective racial discrimination[1]. Some alive today were explicitly targeted by racist Jim Crow laws, with actual experiences. It is our American responsibility to right this historical wrong as best we can. Is paying reparations to those living people racist? Is paying reparations to the living children of those people racist? Are non-monetary reparations in the name of those people also racist? If you agree with any sort of reparations for racial injustice, including the interned Japanese-Americans, then you agree with Kendi's quote. I repeat: You don't stick a knife in a man's back then pull it out and say that that treating his wounds would be discriminate against those who had never been knifed. The promissory note is long overdue. Let's pay it now. [1] As a white person, even I am affected, because of the deliberately constructed lies about American race history taught to me in school, including lies of omission.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >Is paying reparations to those living people racist? Is paying reparations to the living children of those people racist? Are non-monetary reparations in the name of those people also racist? How does that work, in your mind. Who pays? If you say "taxpayers" then you are saying the victims need to pay reparations as well. That seems logical to you? Also, how do you prove direct harm? In the Japanese internment example it's easy to say "I was sent to an internment camp by FDR". Ok cool, easy enough. But then there is "my dad was sent to an internment camp by FDR, and as a result my parents became risk averse and potentially never earned as much as they could, which may have indirectly impacted my opportunities". And then there is "My mom was raised by someone who's parents were sent to an internment camp" and that has somehow trickled down to impact me in some undefined way." And then we need to discuss how this impacts the offspring of mixed parentage, are they equally victim/beneficiary? How far down the rabbit hole do we go?