5 ms·

To say that the New York Times is "wrong" is a bit misleading. The NYT article was written in order to promote reparations. It was never meant to be accurate.

To say that the New York Times is "wrong" is a bit misleading. The NYT article was written in order to promote reparations. It was never meant to be accurate. Many journalists and even some historians claim that American economic prosperity would have been unattainable without slavery. If you truly believe that, and you look at the billions of lives that have been lifted out of poverty thanks to this prosperity, then a callous calculus could conclude that the abuses of slavery were a cost we had to pay. But economists do not believe this claim. In fact, economists believe at best slavery did not provide any growth benefits over free labor and at worst it impeded America's economic development. If slavery was not responsible for American economic prosperity, one of the left's main arguments for reparations falls.

pr0zac 4y ago
Not expressing an opinion on the topic in either direction but I don't really see a reason the argument for reparations would require slavery to be a more economically productive mode of labor vs it simply factually being the mode of labor used at the time. The argument for reparations is they are owed because the value of the slaves' economic productivity was stolen from them (and thus also their descendants), its not at all dependent on slavery producing a higher economic output compared to a hypothetical situation in which slaves received fair compensation. Sorta similar to how wage theft is illegal because its stealing earned economic value not because doing so increases productivity.
- wahern 4y ago
  True, you don't need that argument to make the case for reparations. But the left still relies heavily on it nonetheless. It's used to justify monetary reparations (as opposed to other kinds) with higher dollar figures. But more importantly, it complements the premise of black Americans as merely an oppressed, victimized, outsider class; ironically, a premise that modern leftist identity politics happens to strongly promote. Identity politics is built around the notion of victimhood and standing outside the dominate (i.e. "white", male) social and economic system, and tuned to bolster the sympathy and guilt factor, which notions of agency and independent contribution tend to diminish. Given that narrative, it's unsurprising that when making the case for positive contributions to the shared, national identity, they're going to heavily emphasize contributions via the institution of slavery. But to be fair, slavery and peanut butter is basically how most Americans understand the black contribution to the American story. The dominate narrative on the left, after failing[1] with peanut butter in the 20th century, simply reverted back to slavery. Of course, the black contribution and place in the American story is infinitely more complex, substantial, and pervasive than that. We just haven't figured out to how to get out of that rut. (And one of the primary arguments against reparations is that not only would reparations not address that, it would further it. I think even many proponents, such as Ta-Nehisi Coates, would agree with the first part of that claim. Coates admits that reparations wouldn't actually fix anything; rather, he argues that achieving reparations would be the proof that we materially reconciled ourselves with and •changed* the narrative. IOW, from that perspective the solution is not in the reparations, per se, but the process of coming to an agreement on reparations. The reparations themselves are just the stakes, so people aren't just making idle, abstract commitments--talk [alone] is cheap.) [1] Or believing that they failed. The project of creating a shared sense of inclusive history is ongoing. I cringe at proclamations of first black this or first female that. But it's the proclamations that are cringe worthy and, I think, counter-productive, not the fact itself. (The proclamations are a double-edged sword--they draw attention to particular instances of representation of a group, but the proclamation also reinforces passivity and lower status of the group.) Taking affirmative action to improve inclusion across society is extremely important, though obviously it's in tension with notions of equal treatment and so I don't necessarily agree with all forms of formal institutionalization of affirmative action. If you look at countries where an oppressed class (minority or majority) has achieved formal, institutionalized preferences--Malaysia, South Africa, Rwanda, etc--it clearly doesn't achieve the goals and even tends to solidify hierarchy and economic disparity. Apropos Haiti, one theory for why Haiti has never properly developed is because the society strongly internalized a victimhood mentality from the very beginning. Long after slavery ended the national identity is still centered around enslavement and oppression, rather than on a positive sense of construction and cooperation. That makes the society easy prey for demagogues and avaricious elite--internal and external.
mynameishere 4y ago
I've never heard any arguments for reparations that even approach the plausible. The real reason is obviously the grift. As for slavery: Its economic advantage is obvious when you compare the United States, especially the Southern United States, with Canada (proportionately of course). There is no economic advantage. In fact there is an economic detriment. (For arguments that suggest some disadvantage is thrust upon the descendants of the slaves one need only compare the economic status of American blacks with African blacks.)
- pessimizer 4y ago
  African blacks weren't slaves. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you making the case that African blacks have been able to overcome the slavery of American blacks, therefore enslavement isn't harmful?
  - dbrueck 4y ago
    I'm guessing the post is differentiating modern black people in the U.S. vs Africa? I don't really know. But I'm not sure I understand your comment of "African blacks weren't slaves" - plenty of African blacks were slaves. African slavery was a thing long before Europeans and Americans became customers and continued long after (IIRC, slavery wasn't outlawed in Ethopia til the 1930s). Heck, even today there's something like 30 million slaves worldwide, with many of them in Africa (though I think the majority of current slaves are in Asia).
- potatoz2 4y ago
  This is a particularly weak set of arguments: Canada and the Southern US have many _other_ core differences that could explain their different outcome, and so do African Americans and Africans (neither of which are homogeneous by the way, and especially not the latter). On top of that, it doesn't matter for reparations-purposes whether slavery was, overall, efficient. What matters is whether an institution harmed someone and therefore owes them compensation.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
I always find it simple minded to say something like "slavery is responsible for America's wealth" when America has a half dozen other major things going for it. That's what turns would be sympathizers off is the hyperbola and that they are coming for your wallet "you goddamn POS colonizer". Yeah sorry that doesn't work except in the that 1-5% of extremists. I see the need for social programs for those areas which are poor and have been hidden from wealthier parts of America whether white, black, or brown. We don't need to be communist to fix what ails us, just be compassionate, there is far more than enough prosperity to spread it around starting domestically at first.
MomoXenosaga 4y ago

pr0zac 4y ago

Not expressing an opinion on the topic in either direction but I don't really see a reason the argument for reparations would require slavery to be a more economically productive mode of labor vs it simply factually being the mode of labor used at the time. The argument for reparations is they are owed because the value of the slaves' economic productivity was stolen from them (and thus also their descendants), its not at all dependent on slavery producing a higher economic output compared to a hypothetical situation in which slaves received fair compensation. Sorta similar to how wage theft is illegal because its stealing earned economic value not because doing so increases productivity.

wahern 4y ago
True, you don't need that argument to make the case for reparations. But the left still relies heavily on it nonetheless. It's used to justify monetary reparations (as opposed to other kinds) with higher dollar figures. But more importantly, it complements the premise of black Americans as merely an oppressed, victimized, outsider class; ironically, a premise that modern leftist identity politics happens to strongly promote. Identity politics is built around the notion of victimhood and standing outside the dominate (i.e. "white", male) social and economic system, and tuned to bolster the sympathy and guilt factor, which notions of agency and independent contribution tend to diminish. Given that narrative, it's unsurprising that when making the case for positive contributions to the shared, national identity, they're going to heavily emphasize contributions via the institution of slavery. But to be fair, slavery and peanut butter is basically how most Americans understand the black contribution to the American story. The dominate narrative on the left, after failing[1] with peanut butter in the 20th century, simply reverted back to slavery. Of course, the black contribution and place in the American story is infinitely more complex, substantial, and pervasive than that. We just haven't figured out to how to get out of that rut. (And one of the primary arguments against reparations is that not only would reparations not address that, it would further it. I think even many proponents, such as Ta-Nehisi Coates, would agree with the first part of that claim. Coates admits that reparations wouldn't actually fix anything; rather, he argues that achieving reparations would be the proof that we materially reconciled ourselves with and •changed* the narrative. IOW, from that perspective the solution is not in the reparations, per se, but the process of coming to an agreement on reparations. The reparations themselves are just the stakes, so people aren't just making idle, abstract commitments--talk [alone] is cheap.) [1] Or believing that they failed. The project of creating a shared sense of inclusive history is ongoing. I cringe at proclamations of first black this or first female that. But it's the proclamations that are cringe worthy and, I think, counter-productive, not the fact itself. (The proclamations are a double-edged sword--they draw attention to particular instances of representation of a group, but the proclamation also reinforces passivity and lower status of the group.) Taking affirmative action to improve inclusion across society is extremely important, though obviously it's in tension with notions of equal treatment and so I don't necessarily agree with all forms of formal institutionalization of affirmative action. If you look at countries where an oppressed class (minority or majority) has achieved formal, institutionalized preferences--Malaysia, South Africa, Rwanda, etc--it clearly doesn't achieve the goals and even tends to solidify hierarchy and economic disparity. Apropos Haiti, one theory for why Haiti has never properly developed is because the society strongly internalized a victimhood mentality from the very beginning. Long after slavery ended the national identity is still centered around enslavement and oppression, rather than on a positive sense of construction and cooperation. That makes the society easy prey for demagogues and avaricious elite--internal and external.

mynameishere 4y ago

I've never heard any arguments for reparations that even approach the plausible. The real reason is obviously the grift. As for slavery: Its economic advantage is obvious when you compare the United States, especially the Southern United States, with Canada (proportionately of course). There is no economic advantage. In fact there is an economic detriment. (For arguments that suggest some disadvantage is thrust upon the descendants of the slaves one need only compare the economic status of American blacks with African blacks.)

pessimizer 4y ago
African blacks weren't slaves. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you making the case that African blacks have been able to overcome the slavery of American blacks, therefore enslavement isn't harmful?
- dbrueck 4y ago
  I'm guessing the post is differentiating modern black people in the U.S. vs Africa? I don't really know. But I'm not sure I understand your comment of "African blacks weren't slaves" - plenty of African blacks were slaves. African slavery was a thing long before Europeans and Americans became customers and continued long after (IIRC, slavery wasn't outlawed in Ethopia til the 1930s). Heck, even today there's something like 30 million slaves worldwide, with many of them in Africa (though I think the majority of current slaves are in Asia).
potatoz2 4y ago
This is a particularly weak set of arguments: Canada and the Southern US have many _other_ core differences that could explain their different outcome, and so do African Americans and Africans (neither of which are homogeneous by the way, and especially not the latter). On top of that, it doesn't matter for reparations-purposes whether slavery was, overall, efficient. What matters is whether an institution harmed someone and therefore owes them compensation.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

I always find it simple minded to say something like "slavery is responsible for America's wealth" when America has a half dozen other major things going for it. That's what turns would be sympathizers off is the hyperbola and that they are coming for your wallet "you goddamn POS colonizer". Yeah sorry that doesn't work except in the that 1-5% of extremists. I see the need for social programs for those areas which are poor and have been hidden from wealthier parts of America whether white, black, or brown. We don't need to be communist to fix what ails us, just be compassionate, there is far more than enough prosperity to spread it around starting domestically at first.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago