9 ms·

In the United States, a lot of times the individual situation is correlated to their skin color. The condition of being descendants of slaves, or people who fa

In the United States, a lot of times the individual situation is correlated to their skin color. The condition of being descendants of slaves, or people who faced other forms of official discrimination cited in the prevention of intergenerational wealth such as redlining, blockbusting or unfavorable treatment in the GI bill, etc., is ultimately an individual situation for each individual affected. The idea that you can dismiss that as not an individual hardship -- though it kind of is for those impacted -- strikes me as pretty much a word game, nothing more. Not unlike the word games American laws started to use when they could no longer punish people de jure for their race.

axlee 3y ago
How many slaves in the family tree should someone have to qualify? Do white slaves count? How far back should we go? Would citizens whose families have immigrated to this country after the deed be also on the hook for reparations? Should reparations only be given to struggling people, or should they be given out regardless of the situation of the descendant of a slave? It's a lot easier to quantify and equalize the situation here and now rather than to try to make up for a future that could have been, and for which no living being is responsible. The past is complex and blurry, and families aren't a straight line. And generally, people aren't bound by their ancestor's misdeeds. Poor people should get more help from society in the US, that's a fact: race might be a strong predictor for poverty, but the best signal for poverty remains income and wealth, right here and right now. Why bother looking at anything else? Are poor whites or asians somehow more blameable for their poverty than poor blacks? Should a successful black person get reparations from a white hobo, simply based on their lineage (that none of them have control on)?
- asveikau 3y ago
  I agree, it's hard to codify. But there is undoubtedly a large group of people, often identified by their race, that face disproportionate hardship and continued to be legally discriminated against well after slavery was abolished. And note that I mentioned other, post-slavery problems, and you jump right into "how many slaves??"
- themitigating 3y ago
  There were racist laws all the way up to late 1960s.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    That doesn't address his questions. If you're going to codify these things into law, then you should be able to answer questions like this. My paternal grandfather was discriminated against for being black. In truth he was half black, but that didn't temper the racism he faced from people who considered him to be black. For the purposes of reparations, am I 1/4th black or 1/8th black? Because he was my paternal grandfather and family wealth has traditionally been passed on predominantly through father to son, does my paternal grandfather count more than my maternal grandmother? And if I marry a white woman, will my son be 1/8th black or 1/16th black for the purposes of reparations? Does he get any? These are sticky questions, but if you're serious about reparations being law then you should be prepared to give some straight-forward answers without deflection.
    - themitigating 3y ago
      I'm not serious reparations I'm simply pointing out that the economic suffering of blacks didn't stop when the civil war ended.
- nomat 3y ago
  > the best signal for poverty remains income and wealth, right here and right now. i am having a difficult time understanding this sentence. Poverty by definition is a lack of income and wealth. Why are you saying it's a signal?
  - axlee 3y ago
    Because other people seem to be pushing the idea that race is the signal, as they are pushing for a redistribution along racial lines rather than economic lines.
- troupe 3y ago
  It is very possible to have someone with dark skin today who is descended equally parts from former slaves and Africans who were responsible for selling the slaves to the Europeans.
lolinder 3y ago
I don't think anyone here is denying that there is a correlation, but there's a very legitimate question over whether policy should target the correlated trait (skin color) or the hardship itself (poverty) when trying to fix the problem.
- asveikau 3y ago
  The issue is, a lot of problems have been nominally "fixed". But the black community on average has not caught up with the gaps created and re-enforced by these earlier systems. eg. They didn't get to participate as much as white peers in housing booms due to redlining, blockbusting, etc. So if you started out European-American in 1930 [random 20th century year], or having the same wages and being black in that same year, odds are pretty good descendants of the latter are doing poorer, due to multiple racist housing policies.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    If they haven't caught up, that's presumably true as measured by several concrete metrics, correct? So the question still is: why target skin color (the correlated trait) instead of those metrics? I'm not staking out a position here, I haven't made up my mind myself. I'm just pointing out that OP raised a valid point which you didn't really address.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  It's a hard question to answer because the two are entertwined. Hence the term socio-economics. Poverty is disproportionately in minorities' court due to historical discrimination based on skin color. That doesn't mean that there aren't poor white people. But it does mean that actions targeting minorities end up overlapping a lot with poverty. The main reason it's relatively easy to target skin color is, well, visuals. Another can of worms in and of itself, but for the most part it's pretty easy to look at a certain minorities and pin them as such.Meanwhile financials are private and it's not like every millionaire is driving a fancy car with a suit and tie.
  - lolinder 3y ago

axlee 3y ago

How many slaves in the family tree should someone have to qualify? Do white slaves count? How far back should we go? Would citizens whose families have immigrated to this country after the deed be also on the hook for reparations? Should reparations only be given to struggling people, or should they be given out regardless of the situation of the descendant of a slave? It's a lot easier to quantify and equalize the situation here and now rather than to try to make up for a future that could have been, and for which no living being is responsible. The past is complex and blurry, and families aren't a straight line. And generally, people aren't bound by their ancestor's misdeeds. Poor people should get more help from society in the US, that's a fact: race might be a strong predictor for poverty, but the best signal for poverty remains income and wealth, right here and right now. Why bother looking at anything else? Are poor whites or asians somehow more blameable for their poverty than poor blacks? Should a successful black person get reparations from a white hobo, simply based on their lineage (that none of them have control on)?

asveikau 3y ago
I agree, it's hard to codify. But there is undoubtedly a large group of people, often identified by their race, that face disproportionate hardship and continued to be legally discriminated against well after slavery was abolished. And note that I mentioned other, post-slavery problems, and you jump right into "how many slaves??"
themitigating 3y ago
There were racist laws all the way up to late 1960s.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  That doesn't address his questions. If you're going to codify these things into law, then you should be able to answer questions like this. My paternal grandfather was discriminated against for being black. In truth he was half black, but that didn't temper the racism he faced from people who considered him to be black. For the purposes of reparations, am I 1/4th black or 1/8th black? Because he was my paternal grandfather and family wealth has traditionally been passed on predominantly through father to son, does my paternal grandfather count more than my maternal grandmother? And if I marry a white woman, will my son be 1/8th black or 1/16th black for the purposes of reparations? Does he get any? These are sticky questions, but if you're serious about reparations being law then you should be prepared to give some straight-forward answers without deflection.
  - themitigating 3y ago
    I'm not serious reparations I'm simply pointing out that the economic suffering of blacks didn't stop when the civil war ended.
nomat 3y ago
> the best signal for poverty remains income and wealth, right here and right now. i am having a difficult time understanding this sentence. Poverty by definition is a lack of income and wealth. Why are you saying it's a signal?
- axlee 3y ago
  Because other people seem to be pushing the idea that race is the signal, as they are pushing for a redistribution along racial lines rather than economic lines.
troupe 3y ago
It is very possible to have someone with dark skin today who is descended equally parts from former slaves and Africans who were responsible for selling the slaves to the Europeans.

lolinder 3y ago

I don't think anyone here is denying that there is a correlation, but there's a very legitimate question over whether policy should target the correlated trait (skin color) or the hardship itself (poverty) when trying to fix the problem.

asveikau 3y ago
The issue is, a lot of problems have been nominally "fixed". But the black community on average has not caught up with the gaps created and re-enforced by these earlier systems. eg. They didn't get to participate as much as white peers in housing booms due to redlining, blockbusting, etc. So if you started out European-American in 1930 [random 20th century year], or having the same wages and being black in that same year, odds are pretty good descendants of the latter are doing poorer, due to multiple racist housing policies.
- lolinder 3y ago
  If they haven't caught up, that's presumably true as measured by several concrete metrics, correct? So the question still is: why target skin color (the correlated trait) instead of those metrics? I'm not staking out a position here, I haven't made up my mind myself. I'm just pointing out that OP raised a valid point which you didn't really address.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
It's a hard question to answer because the two are entertwined. Hence the term socio-economics. Poverty is disproportionately in minorities' court due to historical discrimination based on skin color. That doesn't mean that there aren't poor white people. But it does mean that actions targeting minorities end up overlapping a lot with poverty. The main reason it's relatively easy to target skin color is, well, visuals. Another can of worms in and of itself, but for the most part it's pretty easy to look at a certain minorities and pin them as such.Meanwhile financials are private and it's not like every millionaire is driving a fancy car with a suit and tie.
- lolinder 3y ago