In general I do disagree. Make each case on its own merit and don’t presuppose that reparations are the solution.
I will do that, and when I think it’s relevant, I may bring up other historical instances as well.
Further, I’m not even saying reparations definitely are the solution in this instance, only that they might be, and it’s reasonable to explore the possibility.
To be fair:
In which “historical atrocities” clearly reference events which happened long before anyone alive today was born.
Huh? Because I once talked about atrocities (unspecified as to when) means that the many times I talked about living people in this thread can be ignored without criticism?
A strawman is something you never talked about. Whether it’s what you mainly talked about is another issue.
His post implied I only talked about slavery or other dead-people issues – all, or virtually all (if you count mentioning “historical atrocities” as a proposal for reparations), of my proposals about reparations in this thread have been about living people issues.
I think it’s fair for me to criticize him for missing or ignoring the vast majority of my posts in this thread.
I just thought of it as a motte and bailey move from what most people say when they mean reparations–reparations for slavery.
Did you read my first post in this thread? Here it is in its entirety:
Let me know if you’d like to discuss with me the things I’ve actually said. If it’s just straw men for you, then count me out.
This exchange shows one of the many difficulties of discussing reparations. No matter what I say, many will just assume I’m talking about reparations for events and policies that ended long ago, even when I specifically, over and over again, talk about events and policies within living memory.
Opposing one’s own assumptions about opposing ideas is often much easier than trying to oppose the actual stuff people say.
“the most reasonable place to begin”…
Jesus.
It’s okay to admit that you didn’t read my posts. I make that mistake sometimes too. No big deal – maybe you’d actually be interested in discussing what I’ve proposed. I don’t think it’s totally nuts – I think it’s a reasonable discussion to have.
If you’d rather have some other discussion, I probably won’t be a part of it.
The problem with that is that the harm isn’t discreet - it’s nebulous what the generational and/or wealth creation harm occurred. There will be some that can be identified for sure, there will be many more that make sim ilar claims without being able to specifically identify themselves as suffering harm. How can the value of not getting a loan be quantified? This is far from the same thing as the Japanese internment. You seem to think it’s reasonable to go down this path of infinite depth and exploration whereas I think it would be foolish and unreasonable.
Direct and discreet harm can be addressed by the courts.
Harm inflicted by redlining is not at all analogous to harm inflicted by internment, concentration camps really. It definitely isn’t analogous to annexing Native American land and slaughtering them. I don’t think the historical examples you raise are even remotely similar, not even close. So far apart that it makes the argument weaker not stronger.
I haven’t proposed reparations for anything that didn’t directly harm living people. I think there are government policies from the 20th century that directly harmed living people, including redlining, segregation, and other policies (some of which harmed groups like Native Americans in addition to, or separately from, African Americans) with at least some level of “direct and discreet” harm that could reasonably be looked at by courts.
It doesn’t mean addressing every single wrong ever – but, IMO, it’s reasonable to consider that maybe we could look at addressing some of the wrongs from recent history.
You disagree. Do you hold that my position – that it’s reasonable to simply look at possibly compensating living Americans who were directly and discreetly harmed by government policy and practice – is entirely unreasonable? Or do you think it’s reasonable, but you think it would do more harm than good?
As I said, I have trouble understanding when you use the word reasonable in this context. It"s because you and I are worlds apart in what is reasonable.
If there were a person identified that was directly and discreetly harmed, then maybe. Let’s play this out to see. Suppose there was a person A that was denied a loan because they were in a redlined area in the late 60’s. They were 25 at the time and are now 75 years old. Use whatever assumptions are necessary - how is the harm to this person measured? Who should be responsible for it?
Same fact pattern, the person dies after measurement but before recompense, what should be done? Use whatever assumptions necessary to bring the issue for Person A to ultimate resolution so they are made whole.
I’ll add my response preemptively. Nothing should happen beyond any individual court action and even that would be an uphill battle.
I hold that the US Government is responsible, as it was for unjust internment. My case is moral, not strictly legal - I think that morality and fairness and justice demand at least a fair look at the possibility of compensation for various large scale policies that harmed very large numbers of people based on race.
The amount could be based on individual circumstances (property values, opportunity lost, unfair compensation for labor or property exchange calculated, and many other factors that could be looked at) or rougher estimates averaged out based on estimates of factors like these. I seriously doubt it would ever amount to more than a small fraction of the actual, real losses that these policies caused, but simply the fact that we as a people would be willing to seriously look at this and account for past injustices would be an enormous symbol, which I think is absolutely needed for a chance at equality in the medium term, that the nation finally recognizes how big a villain this country was in the lives of black people for most of our history. Even if we just looked at the policies that harmed living Americans.
I feel this way based on reading and talking to black people. The vast majority that I’ve spoken to or read from recognized very, very early in life that they really didn’t have the same chance at success as white people, and that their lives (and therefore their hopes) would necessarily be very different. That this country really isn’t here for them, that it used and plundered them for most of its history, and still hasn’t even fully acknowledged it, much less made good on these thefts.
And I don’t think this can change until the country really does, in a major way, fully acknowledge this, and at least not totally dismiss the possibility of trying to make up for some small but significant amount of the plunder stolen from the labor, property, and bodies of black people.
I’ve noted before that the two American groups at the bottom of most statistical outcomes (black people and Native Americans) are also, by far, the two groups treated the most abominably in our history. I don’t think this is at all coincidence, and for it to change, I think the country needs to fully acknowledge it.
You acknowledge that it would likely amount to a small fraction of the actual harm. Would an apology suffice then?
I think you gloss over the real world implications of what you are suggesting. How do you quantify what the harm was to a person denied a loan? Can you try? As I said, make any assumptions you need to.
Real losses for loan denial is nothing compared to the treatment the Native American people experienced. Their harm is so much greater, and I’d say easier to quantify - we would return the country to them. If you are against that, the same reasoning can be applied to what you are suggesting.
And loan denial is not in the same ballpark, not even in the same sport as Japanese internment. Those folks were discreetly identifiable, their property confiscated identifiable. That’s what I mean by direct and discreet. The same cannot be said for loan denials. We can’t know what harm was the result. We can’t know what the person would have done, better or worse. We can k ow who was dissuaded. We can’t know the befits accrued to those who received the loans, etc.
So I think that looking at people who were directly and discreetly harmed is reasonable. But your use of those words is not. Nor is your use of reasonable. I think on a go forward basis it would be better to substitute a synonym to illustrate the difference. Like, I’d say reparations are not consistent with the majority view, therefore unreasonable. Most people wouldn’t support them. Can you define how you are using the term, or use a synonym? Otherwise you can label anything reasonable and it’s meaningless.
No. Some amount of actual effort and sacrifice would be required, IMO.
Sure – compare wealth of those denied loans to those who gained loans, on average, over time. Just as a start – that number could be modified by property value records in the area or many other factors.
I’m open to exploring and discussing any proposal. I’m most interested in proposals for policies and practices that harmed living people, so if we were to start discussing reparations for Native Americans, I would be interested in looking at the policies in the 20th century (and more recently) that were discriminatory or otherwise harmful.
Reparations for internment were about internment, not about confiscated property (for the most part, anyway, according to everything I’ve read – those interned might have had to sell their property before being interned, or find alternate caretakers, but in few or no cases was real estate or bank accounts just taken without being returned, at least according to what I’m finding online). We can’t know how much money those Japanese Americans would have earned had they not been interred. We can’t know what businesses they would have started. We can’t know what they would have done with their property. Etc. And yet somehow we came up with an estimate.
I think we could explore numbers for redlining, or other discriminatory policies, as well. It wouldn’t be easy, but I think it would be possible, and is worth it.
I imagine we’re just going to have to disagree on this. I understand that most people oppose reparations, but most people opposed Civil Rights for black people for a long time, and that (being pro-CR) was always a reasonable point of view regardless of majority position. I’m using reasonable in the “based on good sense” definition. I don’t see how anything can objectively be determined to be reasonable (in this sense) – the word implies subjective judgment.
Again, all I’m suggesting is that the government seriously consider looking into this – John Conyers H.R. 40 bill doesn’t authorize or advocate money towards any payments at all… just a study. And I would start only with policies that affected living people. Why is a study looking into the ramifications and effects of these policies not reasonable to at least consider? Aside from older black people who lived through it, in my experience most Americans don’t even know what redlining is. Perhaps 30 years of consistent housing discrimination might have had an effect on quality of life and heritable wealth for a very large number of Americans.
This isn’t discreet - it’s generalized collective responsibility and collective harm. It combines a series of life choices and rests the impact of all of them on the outcome of a loan application. This isn’t making perfect the enemy of the good, it’s recognizing that this isn’t a good solution. This type of equality of outcome focus is terribly unworkable.
I think that the generational wealth that has not accrued to Native Americans has a strong link to their historical treatment. Why should their descendants not take part in righting past wrongs? Given the timing of when redlining occured, in a few decades there will no longer be anyone alive that suffered direct harm as a result. And this is why I think the idea of what is reasonable is not a good measure in this context. disbanding the Union and ceding it to the living Native Americans is absurd. Would you agree? If you do, based on what reasons?
Given that the Japanese impacted had to sell their worldly possessions, and that the buyers knew this, they hardly were fairly compensated. But that’s not the point really. The point is those people are identifiable. The population that was harmed by redlining is not. You say that it’s possible, and it would be worth it. I disagree. I think it would be never ending and cause strife in at least two ways. The first would be against those receiving recompense. The second would be along the lines of what was raised earlier in the thread - the moment that a single penny is distributed, it would be expected that all other racial injustice has been resolved as a result and all of the associated fallout from that.
You’re saying that some sort of sacrifice is required. That’s not merely consideration.
The term “redlining” may not be widely known, but discriminatory housing practices is well known, in my estimation. I think consideration has been done. But you want more than that - you want sacrifice, payment. I think that’s unreasonable for reasons already stated - once we go down the path of trying to right all past wrongs, it would never end so I do in fact think the better course of action is to do nothing (beyond honoring commitments made), and focus on improving future results.
Redlining (and housing discrimination) were about far more than just loan denials. It affected other aspects of housing (including rent applications) and assistance beyond loans and mortgages. Consideirng the “generalized” harm done to Japanese-American internees, I think this would not necessarily be “terribly unworkable”.
I agree that disbanding and ceding the US to anyone is silly, since it would greatly harm hundreds of millions with no apparent benefit to anyone. Similarly, I don’t think killing every single white person and moving their assets to people of color would be a just response – the harm would be massive, and any good would be unclear (or nonexistent).
I don’t believe this reasoning applies to studying the possibility of compensation for policies that harmed living people. For one thing, any compensation at all would necessarily be a choice. It would be voluntary (by government), and it would have to be voluntary. I’m not advocating for forceful reallocating of property, at least not any more than taxes and spending are.
So if you agreed with me that those harmed by redlining (and other discriminatory policies) could be identified, then you’d be in favor of reparations (or at least studying them)? If so, then we only disagree on whether those harmed are identifiable – I think they are (most of them, anyway), with time.
As for any strife it might cause – why didn’t reparations for Japanese-American internment cause strife? I think such worries about strife are significantly overblown, especially this early in the process. I’m trying to shift the “overton window” about reparations into the “Acceptable” category… if I (and other advocates) are successful in this, then a big portion of the country would be in favor of reparations, or at least considering them.
Thus I think it’s reasonable, at this point, to just talk about the moral and justice factors involved. I don’t think studies alone would have any chance of chance of causing the strife you’re worried about.
In my opinion, yes. But for this discussion, I’m just advocating for consideration and study. I’d be ecstatic if I could get people to agree that it’s reasonable to consider and maybe study the possibility of compensation for discriminatory policies of the past.
Why didn’t this happen when we instituted reparations for Japanese-American internment?
I’ll reiterate my question above – aside from worries about strife, if those harmed by redlining and housing discrimination were identified with solid evidence, would you support the possibility of studying possible compensation for them? If not, why not?