The Chinese in the West would disagree.
So would the Mexicans, and their discrimination is ongoing and supported by the current US President.
So brave of you to speak for them! Of course, the Chinese Americans and Mexican Americans I’ve spoken to about this generally disagree. Perhaps your uncited anecdotes are different! However, this is irrelevant to the main point, since the whole idea of reparations could and should encompass all governmental and institutional policies that have harmed living Americans.
I’ll note again that “reparations”, as it’s generally discussed nowadays, is the TNC variety – as he puts it, “the full acceptance of our collective biography and its consequences” and “a national reckoning that would lead to spiritual renewal”. It would be much closer to a sort of “truth and reconciliations committee” than financial handouts based on race, I believe.
Sure and *my *black friends all think reparations are a pipe dream. So what?
The early Chinese immigrants were worked to death at low wages, the women were put in cages as sex slaves, and their neighborhoods were regularly burned to the ground by racist white men. But your few acquaintances aren’t concerned about that- and who cares?
Fair enuf. So, first we tax all Americans at 10 times their normal rate, and hand that over to the blacks. Then, we give the nation back to the Natives, and 290Million broke as fuck Americans become homeless and have to try to move to Europe- who wont take us.
Do you even realize what you’re proposing?
I’m certainly not proposing whatever it is that you’re discussing.
Okay, that is quoting him that the goal of reparations should be to put an end to discrimination, I’ll agree, but not “End discrimination by discriminating in favour of one group at the expense of all others on the basis of race”
No discrimination based on intrinsic factors like race or gender, sure. You can still discriminate against assholes. Other than that, I agree with your paraphrase here, but it is not “End discrimination by discriminating in favour of one group at the expense of all others on the basis of race”
Once again, this is not an example of someone saying “End discrimination by discriminating in favour of one group at the expense of all others on the basis of race”
Nor is this something that could possibly be described as saying “End discrimination by discriminating in favour of one group at the expense of all others on the basis of race”
Does that mean that you have had enough with trying to claim that anyone is saying “End discrimination by discriminating in favour of one group at the expense of all others on the basis of race”.
You have not quoted anyone who said, “End discrimination by discriminating in favour of one group at the expense of all others on the basis of race”.
If you are backing off your assertion that anyone said “End discrimination by discriminating in favour of one group at the expense of all others on the basis of race”, then fine. But as long as you stand by your claim that anyone said “End discrimination by discriminating in favour of one group at the expense of all others on the basis of race”, then it is on you to actually produce someone who has said this.
Either quote someone who has actually advocated for what you have claimed they advocated, or admit that no one has, and that “End discrimination by discriminating in favour of one group at the expense of all others on the basis of race”, is simply your imagination of what you think someone has advocated for.
In doing some troll purging, this thread got caught up in the action. I’ve restored it because it had good discussion.
[/moderating]
Wow, you really don’t like being shown to be wrong, do you?
I have no problem with it. The problem is is that you have not backed up your statement whatsoever. I thought that maybe I had missed a poster actually say what it was that you had claimed, and was perfectly willing to be shown a post that I had missed that backed what you said.
You posted some random quotes from some posters who happened to mention reparations, and somehow thought that that would support your argument, but when you actually look at what you quoted, it is obvious to see that you have completely failed to do so.
Now, I will grant that you have quoted people talking about reparations in such a way that, should you choose to be very “creative” in their interpretation, with the proper motivated reasoning, could be stretched to be something similar to what you have claimed, and if you want to say that you consider those quotes to be equivalent to “End discrimination by discriminating in favour of one group at the expense of all others on the basis of race”, then I will take you at your word that you have sincerely come to that extremely flawed conclusion, but I will still not agree with your conclusion, as it is demonstrably wrong, and will consider any other offerings you have to this discussion to be similarly flawed.
Nobody denies the US government has done incredibly destructive things. It still does them now. If someone wants to pass reparations for still living victims of mass incarceration for nonviolence, the wars in Yemen, Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, police brutality, ICE, etc. let’s do that. First let’s turn off the policies though.
Why are the people who are barely effected by the wrongs of past generations prioritized over real deal indisputable victims? This is bizarre to me.
Slavery was legal. We have a constitutional prohibition against ex poste facto laws. On what grounds would you sue?
How much do you pay someone for raping them, selling their children, beating them, lynching then, denying them basic human rights for centuries? What’s the price tag on that?
We have never paid reparations to heirs. The reparations to interned Japanese were not paid to their heirs. They had to be alive to collect.
People have sued (and collected) the banks for redlining- which is one reason why reparations are wrong. People have sued (and collected) for racial discrimination in the workplace, etc etc.
It’s pretty clearly not as bad as it once was.
Its arguably less race based and more socio-economic these days. What racist federal policy do we have today?
So what concrete harm are you advancing as the basis for reparations?
Feel free to read the thread, or any of the many other threads about reparations on which I’ve contributed, to find out. I’ve spoken about it in great detail.
Or read the essay by Ta-Nehisi Coates – I’ve generally been following his lead.
I did, and there is nothing that support your conclusions.
So, spell it out.
I mean if its redlining- many blacks sued and collected. So, should we give cash to the other blacks who either didnt sue or were not harmed? There was a legal remedy already.
You’ve generally been ignoring what I’ve been writing, and responding to unrelated arguments (sometimes called “straw-manning”), so I’m afraid I won’t take your word for it.
I’m unaware of any successful lawsuit against the US government for redlining. I’ve explained why I don’t think lawsuits are a likely solution, mainly since it puts the onus on the victims, rather than the responsible party (i.e. the US government). Especially when so many of the victims likely have very good reason to distrust the justice system.
Hispanics too. I’m never quite sure how they fit into the AA argument on a principled basis. The argument mostly seems to be that they’re not doing as well as others so it MUST be racism and therefore AA for them is justified.
They sued the *banks, *not the government. :rolleyes: