When you use this type of passive language, it reinforces my belief stated earlier. The possibility of studying possible compensation - okay, done. But that’s not enough, as you say, you’re advocating for consideration and study while simultaneously saying that sacrifice would be required in your view. It’s this clear trajectory that starts with possibility, then consideration, then study, then payment. The path is obvious and the strategy of limiting it to “possibility” and “consideration” is not convincing because it would not stop there.
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.
But I think you’re clearly wrong about it never ending, since we did so for Japanese American internment with no strife and no ‘never ending’. Why was that different?
I believe reparations are just, but I’m not advocating for them. In fact, if a politician were to put forward a “REPARATIONS NOW!” bill, I’d strongly oppose it. I’m only advocating study and consideration, since I think that is absolutely necessary for reparations to be instituted properly.
I won’t hide my personal views, which are that reparations for discriminatory policies against living people are just, and I’m at least willing to consider reparations for policies from long ago that still have echoes and ramifications today, but I’m only actually advocating the idea of seriously studying and considering the possibility of compensation for discriminatory policies that harmed living people.
Ok, let us take Redlining. Altho redlining was a US government idea, it was not racist. It simply pointed out areas where loans were most risky. However, it began to be used in a racist manner. The Government then stepped in, fined the most egregious of the banks, then changed the law so it couldnt happen again, That was in 1964- 1975
So, how is the US Govnt responsible? Yes, Redlining turned out to be a mistake, but was corrected. The guilty banks were fined and indeed, *victims sued and got damages.
*
I don’t find it credible that the language used in the policy wasn’t meant to discriminate, any more than language used in Jim Crow laws (which didn’t specify race or skin color) were not meant to discriminate.
A motte and bailey argument doesn’t have to mean moving goalposts in a single discussion, it is having one, lesser position in “unfriendly” waters and a more expansive one in more agreeable ones. For instance, there are times I’ve seen a female public figure saying that they are not a feminist and having floods of people coming out to say that “feminism” is only asking for equal rights. But when you go to friendly waters (such as themarysue.com) you’ll see the same people clarifying that feminism is really third-wave intersectionalist gender feminism, and anyone that disagrees with that is Doing It Wrong.
I don’t know how you, personally, argue in more “specialized” areas, it may not apply to you, but I find it entirely believable that someone who is saying that reparations are just for living people who have concrete, provable financial losses should get reparations while elsewhere saying that it is something owed to all blacks because of slavery. It in no way reflects on what I have or have not read in this particular thread.
"To celebrate freedom and democracy while forgetting America’s origins in a slavery economy is patriotism à la carte…Perhaps after a serious discussion and debate—the kind that HR 40 proposes—we may find that the country can never fully repay African Americans. But we stand to discover much about ourselves in such a discussion—and that is perhaps what scares us. The idea of reparations is frightening not simply because we might lack the ability to pay. The idea of reparations threatens something much deeper—America’s heritage, history, and standing in the world.
The early american economy was built on slave labor. The Capitol and the White House were built by slaves. President James K. Polk traded slaves from the Oval Office. The laments about “black pathology,” the criticism of black family structures by pundits and intellectuals, ring hollow in a country whose existence was predicated on the torture of black fathers, on the rape of black mothers, on the sale of black children. An honest assessment of America’s relationship to the black family reveals the country to be not its nurturer but its destroyer."
there’s much much more. The author (the “They” was referring to the Atlantic) discusses reparations and the various reasons for them. The author went on to discuss slavery, Jim Crow, redlining and others.
You need to stop accusing people of not having read things, when you clearly dont bother yourself.
You said “they suggested reparations for slavery”. That is false. He suggested the same thing I am suggesting (not surprisingly, since my idea came from that article when I read it for the first of many times a few years ago), that America should seriously consider studying the effects of centuries of plunder on African Americans, including the possibility of some degree of compensation.
Those are different things. Nuance is a real thing that exists.
Slavery was one of the things he suggested has ramifications today. He did not specifically suggest reparations for slavery (he didn’t suggest anything but studying and exploring ideas); he suggested studying the effects of centuries of plunder on modern day African Americans, including looking at the possibility of reparations.
Do you oppose studying the effects of this plunder? Do you oppose reparations for anything, including for the internment of Japanese Americans, or do you think reparations are appropriate in some circumstances?