I am wondering what the chances are that the study would come back with the conclusion that reparations are unnecessary, counter-productive, or that the amount would be too small to bother with.
Regards,
Shodan
A lot of opponents of reparations express their opposition by asking a lot of questions about it. Well, here you go: We’re trying to answer your questions. If you didn’t want answers, why did you ask in the first place?
Whenever someone brings up the sheer impossibility of reparations for slavery, the response I hear over and over is that reparations are not just for slavery but for more recent government ills such as redlining, etc. So does this mean that slavery is included in this discussion of reparations or not? I can’t seem to figure that out.
Why would I? That bill compensated the living victims of the concentration camps from 1942 to 1946. That’s exactly what reparations are for.
Then, it stops being reparations for slavery, and becomes reparations for violating their civil rights. Great. Who’s next? Mexican-Americans? Hawai’ians? Amerinds? Women? Gays?
Who are these people of whom you speak? Certainly, most of the ones in this thread express their opposition by making concrete statements about why they don’t support reparations, not by asking a lot of questions about them…
What happens when those who were impacted by racism die without compensation? What happens when this is compounded by generations of people who die without compensation? Okay, so they get bused to better white schools across town - at which point white families start fighting to keep them out and then, when losing in court, begin leaving and making them black schools again.
Why do you ask the question “Who’s next?” Oh I get it - you’re white and ‘woke’ and you realize you’ve fucked over a lot of people in the name of “freedom” and “free enterprise”
So, you’re okay with reparations for survivors of specific government actions carried out against minority groups? Cool. So, why, when TNC mentions that reparations to black people could start with living victims of segregation, redlining, and so forth, do we get this?
Why was internment worthy of reparations, but not segregation? If those other groups can identify specific government policies that targeted them, and for which their are still survivors, why should they not also get reparations?
No. It will lead to bad feelings from those who expect big checks and dont get them,
from those whose ancestors fought to free the slaves and will get taxed, and will lead to scams like has already happened, like “claim your 40 acres and a mule tax credit”.
Nothing good can come of this.
Oh come on. You have tried this false equivalency before. It wont fly. The Japanese American reparations were paid to those who were interned. Period.
Not those who happen to share the same skin color as those who were enslaved 150 years ago.
And again, since anyone can legally say “I self identify as black” we can all get those imaginary checks. “Pie in the Sky” *
“Work and pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.
-Joe Hill, The Preacher and the Slave”
Redlining was settled by many lawsuits where those who were victims collected settlements. And then it was made illegal.
Are we going to make those who collected give the money back? or do they get to collect twice?
Those who were victims of redlining could and many did sue, and collected.
Do those people have to give that money back?
or do we only pay to those who were victims who didnt bother to sue?
I think reparations are a bad idea because:
a) There are major practical problems in implementation including identifying the beneficiaries.
b)It would cost an enormous amount of money for which there are better uses
c)It would seriously split the Democratic coalition alienating not just working-class whites but also Hispanics and Asians.
The idea that HR 40 is just about “studying” the issue is disingenuous. There are some issues, say Iraq WMD intelligence, which can only be properly studied by the government. By contrast there is absolutely no reason why reparations can’t be studied and policies proposed by universities, foundations, think tanks etc.
I think reparations supporters understand at some level how politically toxic the issue is so they are generally reluctant to come out with a detailed policy. The fallacy is believing that hiding behind “just study and research” is going to eliminate the political risk. If Democrats are constantly arguing about reparations and there is increasing pressure on candidates to support it, they will pay a political cost probably a serious one.
Study and research are necessary on a practical level to have a proposal that’s not just a wild guess. But just as importantly, it will be necessary to have a plan based on a solid foundation of historical facts to even have a chance to motivating the political will necessary. If there’s a plan that, in detail, quantifies the harm done, with strong factual basis, advances a plan on how this harm could be rectified, and comes up with a way to pay for it that doesn’t harm the country economically, then I think it’s possible that support for the plan would be more likely.
So you’re in favor of reparations for segregation?
I have a hard time deciding whether I’m for or against reparations without knowing what “reparations” are. A lot of people seems to be assuming that it will be “using the government to take white people’s money and give it to black people in the form of large checks” but that’s not remotely a given. There are a wide range of possible options here, many of which we haven’t even thought about yet.
Gee, if only someone would conduct a study that would result in some potential reparations proposals…
As I said up-thread, we don’t have to call it reparations. I’d prefer set of policies that target historically disadvantaged people. In fact, in some ways we already have a form of reparations: it’s called affirmative action, which I support.
Native Americans got a really bad deal too. Some of the poorest areas now are their reservations. I would expect them to ask for money as well.
And yes not all of them have money from casinos.
The possibility of reparations for harm done to Native Americans absolutely should be extensively researched and considered.
Because, amazingly enough, there’s a substantial difference between institutionalized violations of civil rights and being forcibly removed from your property and incarcerated for years. Reparations aren’t something that exist to try and right all past wrongs; to do that would, frankly, be impossible (as asahi notes above, the civil rights of lots of groups have been violated in the 200+ years this country has existed). The only other group that has a claim anything similar to the claim of reparations for slavery and for forcible internment would be those Amerinds forced to relocate to remote reservations (Cherokee, some other western tribes, such as the Paiutes in Eastern California removed to Tejon Ranch, etc.). And in the case of the Amerinds, again, in almost all cases, reparations would be unwarranted because the people against whom the sin was committed are all long dead.
Vast family fortunes and real estate holdings were accumulated on the backs of slaves. Extant corporations profited from the foul institution. I’d like to see where the study leads. Let’s follow the money and bring everything out into the open.
I think most people would be opposed to doling out taxpayer money. That seems to lack fairness for many reasons. But there are more creative ways. For instance, I would be in favor of granting casino licenses solely to Indian tribes and the descendants of slaves.