What if someone forced him into labor for life; benefited enormously from this labor; refused to give a single penny in recompense; not only did not provide him an education, but actively prevented him educating himself; and constantly tore his family apart by sending children and relatives to remote parts of the country.
Then, your great-grandfather was liberated, but received nothing and could not compete on an equal footing.
Your grandfather was excluded from general society and threatened with death if he had the temerity to exercise his civil rights. In effect, he paid as much in taxes as a socio-economically comparable white person, but did not receive the same quality of social services and was prevented from his constitutionally-afforded rights.
Your father was subjected to systemic racism by the educational system, police, judicial system, realtors, etc.
But don’t you whine because you’re equal to everybody else!
In short, your analogy is laughably absurd.
Sure, mine’s a limited analogy. The point is that the injury doesn’t stop when the crime stops.
Anyway, an honest assessment – there’s the rub, right? It’s my opinion that an honest assessment of the state of equality and racial justice in America leads to the conclusion that, if the government takes an immediate hands-off, colorblind approach, what we will see will be more of the same. It’s my opinion, to put a finer point on it, that the status quo is itself racist, and this is so because of the causal line we can draw from slavery -> Jim Crow -> white flight & sundown towns.
It’s my opinion that we’re not at a point where we can say, OK, time to let nature take over, because it’s my opinion that the damage we did to the natural order still persists. Of course, things change over time, and so you have rich black folk and dirt-poor urban whites, and all sorts of flavors in between, so it’s a class issue as much as anything by now.
As I alluded to earlier, this is in large part a conversation that people much brighter than me have already weighed in on. Parents Involved is a perfect example. The issue was whether public school districts could use race to determine which students would attend which schools – i.e. whether they were obligated to be colorblind, or not; is it time to “get over it,” or not?
Roberts wrote the opinion, saying among other things that:
So there’s that perspective – the problem back then was racial discrimination, and the solution is to completely stop using race as a factor in our decision-making. Bingo bango, end of discrimination, end of racism, end of problem, every man for himself. Justice Breyer’s perspective, though, was more like mine, more, I believe, realistic and nuanced, and more eloquently stated than I can manage (citations omitted by me, bolding mine, and snipped by me):
That’s, I think, the main point of contention as a starting point for a conversation about race. Does a black person in 2009 have the same opportunity as any other person? Does the legacy of slavery make it so some people now are behind the 8-ball as compared to others? I think the answer’s yes, it seems clear that many others do not agree. So what is an honest assessment of the impact of 200 years of slavery plus another 140 of varying degrees of segregation?
If the survivors of the Holocaust who owned those homes are still alive, they deserve recompense. If those families are dead, what purpose is served by taking money from someone who was not involved in the crimes and giving it to people who weren’t affected by them, other than to make people who weren’t involved at all feel better about themselves?
You know, I’m trying to figure the calculus you’re using, and it’s not entirely coherent.
It seems that you agree that generational transfer of wealth does not remove the guilt that ought to be associated with ill-gotten gains. But if the children of the maledoers retain responsibility and moral obligation for their wealth, why don’t the children of the victims retain a certain moral claim to justice and recompense?
Of course it is, you merely assert that it isn’t because you disagree with me.
We’re not talking about the children in this case. If there were children of the Holocaust victims, they would be the owners of the looted items. In this case, we’re talking about the Israeli government getting the money, are we not? The children are dead, you’re talking about giving the money to people who just happen to be of the same ethnic derivation as the victims. There is no moral claim there.
Just as in the case of reparations…these aren’t the children of slaves. These aren’t even the great-grandchildren of slaves. They’re the distant relatives of slaves. There is no moral claim to the money and there is no way to get that money from those who stole it from the sweat of slaves. You’re talking about seizing money not made by ill-gotten gains but made by honest labor, from people who have no relation to the crimes, to give to people who have no relation to the victims other than skin color.
No, we are not. I was actually referring to the hypothetical I posed in post #120 and that you responded to in post #123.
The hypotheticals are:
(1) Larry’s father benefited financially from the Holocaust by stealing goods from abandoned Jewish homes. He then sold these goods and made a fortune. After that, he had Larry.
Paul’s parents were one of the families that experienced materials losses to Larry’s father. Paul was born after WW2.
Does Larry owe Paul anything?
(2) Same situation as #1, but this time Paul’s family lost their possessions to someone, who may or may not have been Larry’s father. Does Larry owe Paul anything in this case?
Actually no, you didn’t mention “Paul” at all in your post. We were discussing payments made to the Israeli government in relation to the idea of reparations to modern black Americans for crimes comitted against their distant ancestors.
You’re trying to move the bar now because I think you sense the indefensibility of your previous argument.
Huh? I thought it was quite clear that we were discussing the hypothetical in post #120. Hyp #1 is the same situation as the one in post #120, only made more explicit through the inclusion of the “Paul” agent. I added Hyp #2 in order to better determine how you assess responsibility.
Nonsense. I am perfectly willing to discuss historical instances of reparations such as the collective payments made to Israel. However, I think the above hypotheticals are more useful, as they allow for the more specific fixation of your ideology.
I see your point, but I think you are operating under the assumption that people are taught to be racist, whereas I think it’s more or less the default position. Allow me to quote this Newsweek article:
We will always need groups that educate society about race and class differences, and call those out who have antiquated or destructive attitudes. Mostly because people have to be trained not to discriminate based on racial lines.
I think the in-group preferences we naturally have, tend to strengthen due (only in part) to societal baggage and our current environment. But, much of it seems natural. Even if we take the “fake to you make it” approach, ignoring race entirely, it’s hard to convince people to not to trust their instincts, reasoning, and/or assumptions they are hard-wired to make.
Just take a cursory look through this thread. Even this notion that stereotypical urban Black style choices neatly overlap with those who commit crimes and cheat people is likely wrong. I would put money on the fact the the average person is far more likely to be cheated and robbed by a person wearing a suit, associated with white collar professionals, than one dressed like a “thug”. I know far, far more people who have been screwed by their insurance companies, credit card companies, lawyers, doctors, etc. than those who have been similarly damaged by street “thugs”. The take away should probably be that people of all types will screw you if the circumstances are right, not that street thuggery is more troubling and insidious than corporate thuggery.
I think the mistaking impression people have is largely due to the fact that we normalize certain types of behaviors and crimes even though they are every bit as destructive and corrosive to society as the ones committed by people outside our group. We look down on the loan shark, but handsomely reward the credit card exec. We arrest street drug dealers and prostitutes, but generally tolerate pharmacists, bar tenders, and discrete high-end escorts. It’s the kind of rhetorical recasting that makes calls people like Steve Wynn and Donald Trump businessmen, rather than bookies. This is of sleight-of-hand rather than a meaningful distinction.
If we are going to combat modern racism I think the following things would be very helpful:
Decriminalize and regulate black markets that exist in urban areas. Our drug laws and other laws dealing with black market activities create more problems than they solve. Now we have a society where 1 in 100 adults (disproportionately minority) is somehow involved in criminal justice system. That’s a large number of people that are increasingly marginalized and stigmatized. And, you generally have a captive audience inside many of these decaying cities where this behavior, and the violent crime associated with it, is normalized. If you were to decriminalize most of these types of crimes, you will not only mitigate the amount of wasted human capital locked up in jail, but you will be able to better control the deleterious effects of that behavior. Things like usury can still be regarded as amoral; however, we are far better off as a society when those who engage in such practices are regulated pay-day lenders rather than unregulated loan sharks.
Teach kids logical reasoning and decision making skills in school. Part of what makes racism so problematic today is when people make troubling, rigid, and illogical assumptions based on what they experience, and subject to biases, rather than reality. Those classes would be followed by classes that give a comprehensive history of race in our country, sociology, psychology, and biology. Hopefully, this type of education can break us of are hard-wired bad habits. Maybe we would stop seeing arguments like, White asshole= asshole, Black asshole= Nigger, on this board if we taught such classes.
We need to try to break this sense of entitlement people have to things that are not theirs, correct the societal notion that you get what you deserve out of life, and the belief that we can accurately judge, evaluate, and rank people in various things with such specificity, and accuracy. I think these are related points that tend to justify out collective belief that the plight of others is not our concern, and that it is (to a large extent) justified. Both are seemingly logical points that we have collectively taken too far. Just because you have better scores or a better resume, doesn’t mean you are entitled to entry in a school, or a job. It also doesn’t mean you are a better, more capable, or more deserving person.
No. We had been discussing payments made to the Israeli government after the Holocaust and how those related to reparations to American blacks for slavery. No individual Jewish person who was a surviving member of a family victimized in the Holocaust was ever mentioned.
It’s pretty obvious you have a fixation with my ideology, but I don’t think I am going to play your game.
Prevent U.S Social Security Administration from gathering data on race. Give me my social security number without asking my mom to put down what race her pale skinned baby is.
Prevent the federal government from demanding Census takers put their ethnicity; or at the very least, provide an “other” or “prefer not to answer box” box to check.
Prevent States from inquiring about ethnicity. This ranges from voting applications all the way to admission into kindergarten at a public school.
Prevent doctors and nurses from delegating what race they think you are in your medical file. Same goes for police officers. If they want to know, they should have to ask me frankly and directly.
Prevent all private corporations from inquiring about race, at all. Don’t ask me about race on an application or when I’m taking a standardized exam.
Make it so that State can only provide information on race and crime IF the criminal openly identifies with that ethnicity. Wardens shouldn’t be taking a look at Joe Jackson and labeling him as black.
I agree with you. We should live in a color blind society which could be achieved in America if the State and Federal governments weren’t so goddamned intrusive. Take a look at this food stamp application, here. On page 1, the State of California states:
SAY WHAT? No other place in the application has that warning. Why can’t I, as a human being, say, “You know, I don’t want to give my ethnicity and no, you can’t put it down either.” Why should a government bureaucrat be legally able to eyeball my race and forcibly incorporate me into a sea of statistics to be published on the web? It’s nonconsentual, stupid, and it should be illegal.
Israel has received the most international aid in U.S history. Yes, the most in U.S history. Now, the United States didn’t participate in the Holocaust and, if memory serves correct, we actually freed the Jews. (Right?) Why should the U.S shell billions of dollars on museums in Tel Aviv? What is the impetus? This will not be a popular opinion but I feel if the U.S can send welfare payments to Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and the rest of these tin-pot countries, they sure enough reign in their international spending and cut me a check.
I don’t think that this is a good idea. Medicine is one area that we absolutely should look to race, and any other genetic factors that might help us understand diseases better and work toward cures. I don’t know what point you are making about police officers.
This is a touchy one. First, private corporations can ask for any information they want, you just don’t have to give it. Me? I don’t mind. But I can see how it might be relevant for a health insurance company to know one’s race to assess rates, and why that might have to be mandatory.
I don’t see why you’d bristle at this. You say you don’t want race to be eyeballed, but you don’t want to be asked either. I’m not sure what the reason is for the census to have that information, but I might agree with you if it is not be needed at all. As far as food stamps, if you want a handout you really can’t complain too much. No one is forcing you to apply for food stamps. If they have reasons why that info may be helpful, they should be able to ask for it. If not, then I agree with you. And, no, I do not see how that information would be helpful.
While I’m fine with most of your suggestions, I have to ask, why are you so intent on racial information being gathered?
While I’m with you and not seeing why we need to give much of the aid we do, but why do you think you should get a check?
Go back and review, if you like. Your inability to logically connect segments of conversations is behind your lack of comprehension.
Your disingenuous use of the word “fixation” aside, it’s pretty obvious why I’m trying to figure out what your ideology is. I find it so absurd that I think some miscommunication must have taken place, as no reasonable person could actually hold this set of beliefs. But it is quite reasonable to retreat when you realize your positions are untenable.
No, your inability to argue in a logical manner is behind your lack of civility and personal attack.
That’s obviously why you’ve retreated into the personal attack above…you have no argument. My ideology, if you wish to call it that, is logically sound and was well explained. You simply disagree and rather than explain in a civil way why you disagree, you’ve chosen the low road. Which is why I am through with any attempt at conversation with you. Good day.
Again, no one polled me on whether I supported foreign aid, so I think that neither Egypt nor Pakistan nor you should be receiving my tax dollars. The only tax dollars I wish to see going to Israel are maybe some secured loans to buy military hardware as a check on states like Iran.
Obviously it crossed yours, since I have a pretty good memory for names and the only time I’ve ever seen you post on these boards was to blithely assert that there were people all over calling Kanye West a nigger. I believe this is the third thread you’ve done it in.
Yes, it did cross my mind, and yes, I sometimes use the “N” word, but I don’t paint with a broad brush. Certain behavior just seems to bring it out. So, when you saw Kanye’s stunt, the “N” word did not cross your mind?
My point is to illustrate where the problem really exists within so-called “modern racism”.