I’m somewhat indisposed and only have mobile access so I’m a bit limited.
I think you and I do in fact have different ideas of what is reasonable so much that in this context the word isn’t useful. Using it equivocates too much and allows a coloring or arguments to act as a shield.
My point with bring up the treatment of Native Americans is that the US essentially stole the country from them. There is no realistic way to make up for that. But 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 comittments made), and focus on improving future results.
I did just recently listen to a Planet Money podcast about a group of slaves sold by Georgetown University and what debt is owed to their descendents. It was very interesting and is one of the better discussions about the implications of reparations I’ve heard.
I agree that there’s no realistic way to make up for these sorts of historical atrocities in whole. But I don’t see how this means we can’t or shouldn’t try to do so in part.
Was it wrong, in your opinion, for the German government to pay reparations to survivors of the Holocaust, despite the fact that Germany could never realistically entirely make up for the horrors of the Holocaust? Was it wrong for the US to pay reparations to Japanese-Americans interned? If not, then why would it be wrong for the US to pay reparations for, say, redlining? Or discriminatory policies and practices against living Native Americans?
I think on balance taking the actions you propose would be a net negative.
Reparations to those limited sets of folks who we’re directly and discreetly harmed can be workable. Beyond that I’d say no. Your examples are of that kind, and you are trying to analogize to those who received indirect harm, and apply it to gigantic portions of the population. They don’t strike me as comparable.
I don’t think I am – I’m suggesting targeted reparations to those individual living Americans who were “directly and discretely harmed” by policies like redlining. I don’t propose that this would be a trivial or easy process, but I hold that it’s achievable. Redlining really did harm living people, and I think it’s possible that we could find many of these folks who are still alive, and very roughly estimate how much financial damage this policy did to them personally, with time and effort and good research.
Because redlining wasnt a general policy of the Federal Government. It needs to be done on a case by case basis, each claimant showing he was harmed and the damages. I.e. they can sue.
Redlining was, in fact, a policy of the federal government – specifically the Federal Housing Administration and Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which (from the 30s to the 60s) required housing maps to be divided into various zones for qualification for loans and assistance, and inevitably placed black neighborhoods in those zones which did not qualify for federal backing of housing loans.
So with this fact in mind, that redlining was a policy of the federal government, does your opinion change on whether reparations might be appropriate for policies like redlining?
So then the fact that it was federal policy is irrelevant? Then why did you say “Because redlining wasnt a general policy of the Federal Government”? Are you just Gish Galloping, already certain with a conclusion, but leaping for any justification once the previously offered one is factually refuted?
Yes, Redlining was a Federal Policy. But as set up by the Feds it wasnt racist. It was then used by some banks in a racist manner.
Here’s the definition of a redlined neighborhood: *"“Red areas represent those neighborhoods in which the things that are now taking place in the Yellow neighborhoods, have already happened. They are characterized by detrimental influences in a pronounced degree, undesirable population or infiltration of it. Low percentage of home ownership, very poor maintenance and often vandalism prevail. Unstable incomes of the people and difficult collections are usually prevalent. The areas are broader than the so-called slum districts. Some mortgage lenders may refuse to make loans in these neighborhoods and other will lend only on a conservative basis.”
where do you see the color of people skins mentioned?
Yes, Redlining was used by some banks for racist policies, but the Federal Govt fought such aberrations:wiki * "The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced a $200 million settlement with Associated Bank over redlining in Chicago and Milwaukee in May 2015. The three year HUD observation led to the complaint that the bank purposefully rejected mortgage applications from black and Latino applicants.*
Are you serious? So because Jim Crow policies like poll taxes didn’t specifically mention “color of people skins”, they weren’t racist?
What do you think “detrimental influences” or “infiltration” of “undesirable population” meant when these policies were instituted? Do you think it’s just coincidence that these government maps just so happened to line up the “red” areas with black neighborhoods?
Really funny thing to say coming from the guy Godwining this thread–(“don’t think we should pay reparations to Blacks and Native Americans? Well, I guess you don’t think Holocaust Survivors deserved anything either, do you?”) Some of your arguments have been really slimy.
DrDeth, if there were a federal government policy that had been instituted that you agreed directly harmed some still living black Americans, in the same way that internment of Japanese Americans directly harmed still living Japanese Americans, would you still oppose reparations for that specific policy?
That’s a paraphrase (and you know it.) Now you will try to say that isn’t the substance of what you mean when you say "Was it wrong, in your opinion, for the German government to pay reparations to survivors of the Holocaust, despite the fact that Germany could never realistically entirely make up for the horrors of the Holocaust?" (And that is a direct quote.)
Are you kidding? This is a thread about reparations. And you’re saying it’s wrong of me to ask about someone’s support for other historical instances of reparations? How are those other historical instances not relevant to the topic of reparations?
When one side of the argument is the intentional genocide of groups of people and the other is the declining of a loan…no, the two things are not relevant.
If someone was financially compensated for the “hate crime” murder of their spouse I would not use that as a precedent to say I should be compensated for being refused a mortgage on the basis of where I live.
As has been pointed out to you, that is living, actual victims being paid, not the several-generations removed descendants of them. You think it is the same. I (and some other posters on the thread) think it is comparing apples and suspension bridges.
It sucks that hundreds of years ago Native Americans had their land stolen. It sucks that hundreds of years ago blacks were slaves. No argument there. But it ain’t my fault, and you ain’t putting your hand in my pocket over it.
I mention reparations for the Holocaust, and for Japanese-American internment, to gauge whether someone is opposed to the idea of reparations as a concept. If one accepts that reparations can sometimes be reasonable, as I believe they were in these two instances, then we can move on to discussing under what specific circumstances they might be reasonable.
If they’re opposed to reparations as a concept in any scenario, then there’s no point in discussing under what circumstances they might be reasonable.
Is this not a reasonable approach to this discussion, in your opinion?
Ahh, I get it – you’re just a straw-man slayer. Let me know when you actually read my posts, in which I propose exploring the possibility of reparations specifically for living Americans who have been directly harmed by certain discriminatory government policies and practices.
I think you’ve already had your answer on this. Pretty sure no-one is averse to compensation for direct harm to the people that suffered it. Being wrongly imprisoned and murdered seems clear.
Being wrongly refused a loan is not. There is a metaphorical ocean between the two with the latter applying either so broadly as to be meaningless or so specific as to sow discontent in those who don’t qualify.
You are drawing a direct between the two situations here that I don’t think are warranted.
No one has received reparations for being murdered, very obviously. But I think you’re underestimating the significance of decades of housing discrimination, which I think can be life-changing and terribly harmful. I don’t know if it’s directly comparable, in terms of harm, to the internment of Japanese Americans (such comparisons are very difficult), but other types of discrimination and oppression of still-living Americans might have been (unjust arrests and assaults, perhaps).
But I bring up other instances of reparations to demonstrate that reparations are well within the realm of possibility, at least for certain circumstances, and therefore I believe it’s reasonable to discuss and explore the possibility of reparations for various forms of discrimination and oppression of black Americans. I frequently bring up redlining because it was the focus of Ta-Nehisi Coates article on reparations, but there are many other forms that this discrimination and oppression took.
I hold that it’s reasonable to discuss other historical instances of reparations when considering the potential for reparations to black Americans for various forms of discrimination and oppression. Do you disagree with this sentence?