3 ms·

Yes, but the problem is that the British have options for fixing that situation that are both effective (just give it back, if those governments want it) and do

Yes, but the problem is that the British have options for fixing that situation that are both effective (just give it back, if those governments want it) and don't do too much collateral harm. It's an oversimplified comparison. The effects of slavery can't just be undone, and the indirect steps we can try to take (force diversity in business/education) do other harm, which some of those harmed will (totally understandably) not tolerate. On top of that, we can only try to force a theoretical ideal - as you say, "if everything were fair there'd be an equivalent wealth distribution when comparing races". But many things are not fair, and the effect of slavery is only one thing contributing to that, so it's an ineffective indicator that the effects of slavery have been undone. And frankly, even if we magically fixed everything unfair, there could still easily be racial differences in wealth distribution by simple correlation of harmless factors (i.e. if there is any racial correlation in types of jobs preferred). It's practically an impossible problem - both to completely fix and even just to discuss. Of course we should do what we can and what is reasonably fair, but ultimately, voters (who are at no fault for the historical situation) must largely agree to what "fair" means. Good luck on that one.

ethbr0 3y ago
I picked the British Museum because they aren't even willing to give things back. Low hanging fruit and dual-purpose example. The way I look at it is that if ones goal is equality of economic opportunity, and one accepts that (a) education is the strongest method to create economic opportunity & (b) that access to education is gated by factors that are heavily influenced by family economics, which are historically influenced by race, then you arrive at affirmative action. It's absolutely a racist policy. It's absolutely unfair to those not advantaged by it. But it's also the only way of getting from (everyone not in these groups has generational advantage) to (equality of economic opportunity). It's impossible to afford direct redress of ~200 years of lost wages and restriction / destruction of economic opportunity for ~15% of the US population. Advantaging still-disadvantaged members of those groups for a few generations seems the next best thing. I can't look at the racial wealth inequality statistics [0] and feel ethical about advocating anything less. I do think that it should be done in a meritocracy within advantaged groups, rather than lifting the minimum and applying to everyone within the advantaged group -- that is, we should broaden those with access (i.e. +X% should go to college, versus non-advantaged) and outcome (i.e. success should be +X% successful, versus non-advantaged) but there should still be winners and losers within the group. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_Uni...

ethbr0 3y ago

I picked the British Museum because they aren't even willing to give things back. Low hanging fruit and dual-purpose example. The way I look at it is that if ones goal is equality of economic opportunity, and one accepts that (a) education is the strongest method to create economic opportunity & (b) that access to education is gated by factors that are heavily influenced by family economics, which are historically influenced by race, then you arrive at affirmative action. It's absolutely a racist policy. It's absolutely unfair to those not advantaged by it. But it's also the only way of getting from (everyone not in these groups has generational advantage) to (equality of economic opportunity). It's impossible to afford direct redress of ~200 years of lost wages and restriction / destruction of economic opportunity for ~15% of the US population. Advantaging still-disadvantaged members of those groups for a few generations seems the next best thing. I can't look at the racial wealth inequality statistics [0] and feel ethical about advocating anything less. I do think that it should be done in a meritocracy within advantaged groups, rather than lifting the minimum and applying to everyone within the advantaged group -- that is, we should broaden those with access (i.e. +X% should go to college, versus non-advantaged) and outcome (i.e. success should be +X% successful, versus non-advantaged) but there should still be winners and losers within the group. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_Uni...