5 ms·

The idea of giving all the descendants of someone that lived hundreds of years ago some form of compensation because 1/32nd (or much lower) of their ancestors w

The idea of giving all the descendants of someone that lived hundreds of years ago some form of compensation because 1/32nd (or much lower) of their ancestors was harmed in some way, is completely bonkers for me. Virtue signaling at it’s best. Harvard tried to do it (to virtue signal, I mean) and eventually found out that the maths for their little publicity stunt would get them bankrupt. They then proceeded to try and stop the all thing. That’s the story here.

eviks 1y ago
How would it bankrupt them when they're the ones setting the compensation???
- Yizahi 1y ago
  They would probably need to pay a little more than 5$ Comcast/Hewlett-Packard style, and if there were even 10 slaves back then, today it would be 30000 descendants. If there were 1000 slaves back then, it would be 3 million people today. Paying each even a measly thousand would require 3 billion dollars just for compensations, without any other investments or programs.
  - eviks 1y ago
    They wouldn't even have to pay out to individuals, instead they could pay to "communities"! Again, they're the ones setting up the structure of the compensation
drdaeman 1y ago
How is it completely bonkers? I think the idea is that those people were put at inherent disadvantage due to unfair treatment of their long gone predecessors. Or at least that’s my understanding of it. The validity of this claim, type and amount of corrective action (and from some viewpoints - its very appropriateness or necessity), as well as the relative importance of the subject - those can all be a matter of debate, but are any of those so obvious they render the whole idea crazy?
- vintermann 1y ago
  I found out my son is a descendant of slaves. I am not, but his mother is from a family with a few upper class connections, and in one of them there was a Danish slave ship captain, who married a "free woman of color" on St. Croix and moved to Norway. "The Creole Woman" was a family legend told to me by his great-grandmother, but I checked, and it was completely true. Apparently it's really common in Denmark to be a descendant of slaves in a similar way. I think it's obviously ludicrous that my son should be entitled to corrective action for this. Yes, his ancestor was subjected to an injustice, but it completely drowns in the sea of other injustices or unfair advantages his ancestors have had. If you want to sum up the historical injustice and unearned privilege someone's ancestors had, it's much better to look at their bank account than their pedigree. DoS-restitution suggests that but for transatlantic slavery, the present distribution of resources would have been just. The further back you are willing to go in asserting the right to restitution, the more forcefully you are asserting it. As a practical matter, you have to have some level of material comfort and/or solid family relationships to be able to document your ancestry. That already biases it away from those who would need it most.
  - drdaeman 1y ago
    First of all, to avoid misunderstanding, let me explicitly say that I agree with a lot of things in your comment. But my question was not about whenever far descendants of slaves need (or need not) to be compensated somehow. It was about the "completely bonkers" bit. Possibly, it was a mistake to reiterate the idea to ensure it is consistently understood - the third paragraph (specifically, the emphasized part) of my comment was the point, not the second one. We have an insanely complex system composed of multiple societies that may or may not exhibit some behaviors because of some antecedent events. Yet, GP didn't say e.g. "but it completely drowns" (essentially, claiming statistical insignificance) or that their understanding of possible corrective action has questionable effects (like @modo_mario's neighbor comment about universities), but rather that the whole thing has no rational basis to it ("bonkers") whatsoever ("completely"). This is something that I don't think I understand and that concerns me. Not whenever someone needs a preferential treatment for some injustices of the past (not that the latter doesn't concern me, but way less significantly).
Defletter 1y ago
I agree, the fact that the UK government was still paying off slave-owner debt in 2015 (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/repayment-of-26-billion-historical-debt-to-be-completed-by-government https://www.gov.uk/government/news/repayment-of-26-billion-h...) instead of freeing itself from that debt because the idea of giving the descendants of slave owners who were "harmed" in the loss of their "property", is completely bonkers.
- KoolKat23 1y ago
  That's more to do with the method in which it was resolved, it was ended in place of government debt. They can't simply renege on government debts purely due to its origin. It's like saying they should in part renege on some current 2008 financial crisis debts.
  - Defletter 1y ago
    I mean, they can renege, Parliamentary Sovereignty and all that jazz. The choice not to renege is indeed a choice.
    - KoolKat23 1y ago
      Of course it is. Tell me who wants to buy a governments bonds when they renege on their obligations. I haven't looked into it, but there is also a good chance the bonds have changed hands since.
      - Defletter 1y ago
        Not saying it's a good idea but the choice will always be there, and the decision not to do it is nonetheless still a choice. And so coming full-circle back to reparations, why don't we want societies to correct past wrongs? Why is honouring two-century old debt so world-shatteringly important, but fixing two-century old injustice (and its ongoing legacies) scoffed at?
        1y ago
Simulacra 1y ago
Yet, it drives people to the polls. Year after year, empty money promises - no matter how asinine - drive voters.

eviks 1y ago

How would it bankrupt them when they're the ones setting the compensation???

Yizahi 1y ago
They would probably need to pay a little more than 5$ Comcast/Hewlett-Packard style, and if there were even 10 slaves back then, today it would be 30000 descendants. If there were 1000 slaves back then, it would be 3 million people today. Paying each even a measly thousand would require 3 billion dollars just for compensations, without any other investments or programs.
- eviks 1y ago
  They wouldn't even have to pay out to individuals, instead they could pay to "communities"! Again, they're the ones setting up the structure of the compensation

drdaeman 1y ago

How is it completely bonkers? I think the idea is that those people were put at inherent disadvantage due to unfair treatment of their long gone predecessors. Or at least that’s my understanding of it. The validity of this claim, type and amount of corrective action (and from some viewpoints - its very appropriateness or necessity), as well as the relative importance of the subject - those can all be a matter of debate, but are any of those so obvious they render the whole idea crazy?

vintermann 1y ago
I found out my son is a descendant of slaves. I am not, but his mother is from a family with a few upper class connections, and in one of them there was a Danish slave ship captain, who married a "free woman of color" on St. Croix and moved to Norway. "The Creole Woman" was a family legend told to me by his great-grandmother, but I checked, and it was completely true. Apparently it's really common in Denmark to be a descendant of slaves in a similar way. I think it's obviously ludicrous that my son should be entitled to corrective action for this. Yes, his ancestor was subjected to an injustice, but it completely drowns in the sea of other injustices or unfair advantages his ancestors have had. If you want to sum up the historical injustice and unearned privilege someone's ancestors had, it's much better to look at their bank account than their pedigree. DoS-restitution suggests that but for transatlantic slavery, the present distribution of resources would have been just. The further back you are willing to go in asserting the right to restitution, the more forcefully you are asserting it. As a practical matter, you have to have some level of material comfort and/or solid family relationships to be able to document your ancestry. That already biases it away from those who would need it most.
- drdaeman 1y ago
  First of all, to avoid misunderstanding, let me explicitly say that I agree with a lot of things in your comment. But my question was not about whenever far descendants of slaves need (or need not) to be compensated somehow. It was about the "completely bonkers" bit. Possibly, it was a mistake to reiterate the idea to ensure it is consistently understood - the third paragraph (specifically, the emphasized part) of my comment was the point, not the second one. We have an insanely complex system composed of multiple societies that may or may not exhibit some behaviors because of some antecedent events. Yet, GP didn't say e.g. "but it completely drowns" (essentially, claiming statistical insignificance) or that their understanding of possible corrective action has questionable effects (like @modo_mario's neighbor comment about universities), but rather that the whole thing has no rational basis to it ("bonkers") whatsoever ("completely"). This is something that I don't think I understand and that concerns me. Not whenever someone needs a preferential treatment for some injustices of the past (not that the latter doesn't concern me, but way less significantly).

Defletter 1y ago

I agree, the fact that the UK government was still paying off slave-owner debt in 2015 (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/repayment-of-26-billion-historical-debt-to-be-completed-by-government https://www.gov.uk/government/news/repayment-of-26-billion-h...) instead of freeing itself from that debt because the idea of giving the descendants of slave owners who were "harmed" in the loss of their "property", is completely bonkers.

KoolKat23 1y ago
That's more to do with the method in which it was resolved, it was ended in place of government debt. They can't simply renege on government debts purely due to its origin. It's like saying they should in part renege on some current 2008 financial crisis debts.
- Defletter 1y ago
  I mean, they can renege, Parliamentary Sovereignty and all that jazz. The choice not to renege is indeed a choice.
  - KoolKat23 1y ago
    Of course it is. Tell me who wants to buy a governments bonds when they renege on their obligations. I haven't looked into it, but there is also a good chance the bonds have changed hands since.
    - Defletter 1y ago
      Not saying it's a good idea but the choice will always be there, and the decision not to do it is nonetheless still a choice. And so coming full-circle back to reparations, why don't we want societies to correct past wrongs? Why is honouring two-century old debt so world-shatteringly important, but fixing two-century old injustice (and its ongoing legacies) scoffed at?
      - 1y ago

Simulacra 1y ago

Yet, it drives people to the polls. Year after year, empty money promises - no matter how asinine - drive voters.