What should be done with historically oppressed minority groups?

[orcenio]

Should they be banished or simply locked up?

Just kidding, but seriously the Jim crow/reparation thread got me a thinkin’

It seems to me that the African-Americas (I think I just made up this term) community got some pretty harsh breaks in the new world. Brought here as slaves, made to endure as an oppressed minority surrounded by an often hostile white majority, yada, yada. So, why shouldn’t the governmental entities that placed, and benefited from, them being in this state, now help them out of their current social and economic status. It doesn’t have to be from blank cheques, but from whatever action that works to enhance their general welfare. (Do you have some like this in the US for blacks?)

I think this is justice, but it seems that not everyone agrees.

Don’t we all currently benefit from the evils of the past? Doesn’t a historical community or group’s current social and economic status come from the general social and economic status of their forefathers? Where does my thinking break down?

***I’m singling out a wider African-American community for simplicity but I should talk about historically oppressed minority groups in general. So, here in the Americas, this would exclude African immigrants but include the Amerindian community. Maybe this will help people avoid the black/white (He said/She said) thinking that traps people into preconceived cemented opinions.

We can also talk about the “Untouchables” in India or whatever.

[ITR_champion]

Really, there’s two reasons why most people reject this approach.

1. The entities that did the oppressing in previous generations may still exist in name, but the people who are responsible are mostly dead, or at least retired. Hence, sending the U. S. government a bill for past sufferings does not meet common understandings of justice. Most people alive today would be understandably ticked off if their tax money was given away in reparation for things done fifty or a hundred years ago.

2. We have already seen the U. S. government making substantial effort to bring the poor people out of poverty, most notably through the welfare system. The consensus is that this didn’t work. Offering welfare simply created a “culture of dependency”. Those who received welfare began to view it as natural, and gave up any attempt to raise themselves out of poverty. The system began to perpetuate itself. A race-specific series of reparations would likely have the same effect.

The government has already done a substantial number of things to help out racial minorities, from affirmative action to programs that give government contracts to minority-owned businesses. I don’t have any problem with these things, but expanding them too far would be harmful.

[Ethilrist]

Would this include the various religious groups that immigrated here from England in order to escape religious oppression? If so, I’m all for it. And, you’d have a lot better luck getting reparations paid out if you can manage to get rich white people to get a payout, too.

Of course, the white people’d have to get their money from the English government, but I’m sure they’d listen to reason. I mean, our ancestors were oppressed, after all. They used to burn us at the stake, fer chrissake!

[orcenio]

@ITR_champion

Really, there’s two reasons why most people reject this approach.

1. The entities that did the oppressing in previous generations may still exist in name, but the people who are responsible are mostly dead, or at least retired. Hence, sending the U. S. government a bill for past sufferings does not meet common understandings of justice. Most people alive today would be understandably ticked off if their tax money was given away in reparation for things done fifty or a hundred years ago.

I suppose, but if you are aware that current society is shaped by the past, then you could conclude that while you did not initiate any unjust actions you are currently benefiting from them, while others are currently suffering from them. This might be enough to convince people that justice would be served by changing the current results of past injustice. For example, blank cheques and cash doesn’t seem to be the answer to raising the socioeconomic status of African-Americans but doesn’t everyone see the current ill effects of slavery/Jim Crow/disenfranchisement and wish to remedy them? Somehow? I have no ideas on what exact action should be taken, but can’t we all agree on the intent to do such things?

2. We have already seen the U. S. government making substantial effort to bring the poor people out of poverty, most notably through the welfare system. The consensus is that this didn’t work. Offering welfare simply created a “culture of dependency”. Those who received welfare began to view it as natural, and gave up any attempt to raise themselves out of poverty. The system began to perpetuate itself. A race-specific series of reparations would likely have the same effect.

I agree that if the government were to take any action it would have to be, at least, effective to the group.

The government has already done a substantial number of things to help out racial minorities, from affirmative action to programs that give government contracts to minority-owned businesses. I don’t have any problem with these things, but expanding them too far would be harmful.

I suppose there is no grand gesture that could be done, but small things like this help.

[orcenio]

@Ethilrist

Would this include the various religious groups that immigrated here from England in order to escape religious oppression? If so, I’m all for it. And, you’d have a lot better luck getting reparations paid out if you can manage to get rich white people to get a payout, too.

My focus is not really on money but on the current negative results from past injustices.

Of course, the white people’d have to get their money from the English government, but I’m sure they’d listen to reason. I mean, our ancestors were oppressed, after all. They used to burn us at the stake, fer chrissake!

But what are the current ill effects that need to be remedied?

[Ethilrist]

@orcenio

My focus is not really on money but on the current negative results from past injustices.

But what are the current ill effects that need to be remedied?

I believe that the need for emigration to avoid religious persecution has resulted in an entitlement on the part of old-school christians and a justification in their minds to likewise persecute others for their beliefs, regardless of laws stating otherwise. For example, seen any Jewish presidents lately? Nope. Athiests? Not like. Chuch of England? Never.

[LouisB]

Should we just give everyone who ever suffered any kind of discrimination a job? If so, what kind of job? How much would said jobs pay? How would the potential recipients of said jobs prove that they had indeed been individually discriminated against? It they couldn’t prove individual discrimination and were denied a job, would the denial itself constitute discrimination? How about we just pass some sort of rule that states what has been done cannot be undone, so just shut the hell up about it?

[orcenio]

@Ethilrist

I believe that the need for emigration to avoid religious persecution has resulted in an entitlement on the part of old-school christians and a justification in their minds to likewise persecute others for their beliefs, regardless of laws stating otherwise.

Well, I don’t quite understand a few things. Are you saying that those who originally emigrated to America, shaped the country into one that currently “persecutes others for their beliefs”.

Or are you saying that those in England who chased out the original settlers made some present-day mark on current society that provides people “justification in their minds to likewise persecute others for their beliefs”

Who are “old-school christians” ?

Who was being persecuted?

Who is it currently effecting?

I am having trouble quantifying the current parties, the previous parties, the line of causation. Please help me out.

For example, seen any Jewish presidents lately? Nope. Athiests? Not like. Chuch of England? Never.

I understand these parties but I fail to see the link between them and the right to ascend to the office of the president (hasn’t only 44 people done this in American history). I also fail to see how these parties have been wronged by past governmental actions. Although I do see a rise in current governmental discrimination for Athiests, but I don’t see anything really strong. Help me to connect these dots.

[orcenio]

@LouisB

Should we just give everyone who ever suffered any kind of discrimination a job? If so, what kind of job? How much would said jobs pay?

I think it would be more dynamic to aid them in finding a job of their own choice. This would cut out the factors requiring the second and third question.

How would the potential recipients of said jobs prove that they had indeed been individually discriminated against?

The idea is that we are aiding individuals who are members of a historically oppressed minority group. This is with the assumption that the government historically forced (and parasitically maintained) the group into a low socioeconomic status in society which has current implications and consequences.

The idea of the aid (not necessary money) would be to governmently deal with those current implications and consequences to the group through it’s individual members.

It they couldn’t prove individual discrimination and were denied a job, would the denial itself constitute discrimination?

While I do believe that individual discrimination happens a lot, to people from different walks of life, I believe you are framing a completely new debate.

How about we just pass some sort of rule that states what has been done cannot be undone, so just shut the hell up about it?

Ah, this is why I said this in the OP

I’m singling out a wider African-American community for simplicity but I should talk about historically oppressed minority groups in general.(snip) Maybe this will help people avoid the black/white (He said/She said) thinking that traps people into preconceived cemented opinions.

We can also talk about the “Untouchables” in India or whatever.

[pancakes3]

1 - we have affirmative action, which generally breaks down to be: if 2 people are equally qualified for a position, the one of oppressed/underrepresented ethnic origins gets the job - which for the majority means hispanics and blacks.

2 - slavery was an economic institution, not a governmental one. The US government itself never personally bought, shipped, or mandated the ownership of slavery through legislation, but i understand what you mean. Legislation was passed to specifically oppress african americans in society for around 175 years.

3 - if the question at hand isn’t reparations in monetary terms but rather to fix “ill effects that need to be remedied” then the solution becomes more muddled, which is difficult because reparations itself is already a muddled subject. It’s difficult to quantify the ill effects of slavery, or even Jim Crow laws in today’s world. For example, someone in the other thread brought up Prince Edward County shutting down the schools and therefor a portion of Blacks missed out on grades 4-8. The ill effects are that those people missed out on a good chunk of their education, and consequently got worse jobs than if they didn’t miss school. Thus, a million dollars in reparations is in order to repay the potentially lost wages. You’re proposing to fix the effects of these people not getting an education… which would be? Getting them better housing - which is essentially a monetary gift? Giving them a better job that they’re not qualified for? Training them for a better job, then giving them a better job?

What happens when you extrapolate this to slavery? Finally dole out the 40 acres and a mule to every african american household that can claim ancestry? Upgrade their housing? Train and give those people more jobs? Something else? Just SOMETHING?

What happens when you extrapolate this to Native Americans?

Monetary or not, the solutions will end up costing money. When you’re giving christmas presents out, there’s not real difference between cash and a gift. Reparations in general will be wildly expensive, and the amount give will be arbitrary. With the wildly expensive cost, taxes will have to be raised to repay others, which if you look at the net flow of money, is taking money out of the pockets of the unoppressed and putting into the oppressed but not necessarily taking money out of the oppressor and putting it into the oppressed. What i mean to say is that people who have had no hand in oppressing anybody is being forced to pay for the sins of others, which is ironically oppression in itself.

That would be the main argument against reparations on any level - the bill will have to be partially footed by those not responsible, which is decidedly unfair.

The only solution is to establish liberties and ensure that future oppression doesn’t happen anymore, which in 2 million years of human history we haven’t been able to achieve. Prop 8 passed in California, and though there are wild debates about marriage and the definition thereof, but empirically speaking there are a group of people out there who for no rational reason have full access to the rights of others.

[truthpizza]

If Johnny doesn’t have enough to eat or medical care or a decent education, what difference does it make if the ultimate reason is discrimination to ancestors or incompetent, sick or dead parents or whatever? His situation seems just as unjust no matter what the reason. I think aid to unfortunate people should be based on need, not on ethnicity. By the same token, a rich black kid doesn’t need help. If we just help the needy, a disproportionate share will go oppressed groups, which will help reduce the disparities between groups without the need to do reverse discrimination.

As others have pointed out, handouts of money are likely to be misused, so whenever possible aid should be in the form of free goods and services that people won’t use unless they need them - inexpensive but nourishing food, education, shelter, and medical care would be a good start. We need to have a decent safety net in place.

[orcenio]

@pancakes3

1 - we have affirmative action, which generally breaks down to be: if 2 people are equally qualified for a position, the one of oppressed/underrepresented ethnic origins gets the job - which for the majority means hispanics and blacks.

2 - slavery was an economic institution, not a governmental one. The US government itself never personally bought, shipped, or mandated the ownership of slavery through legislation, but i understand what you mean. Legislation was passed to specifically oppress african americans in society for around 175 years.

3 - if the question at hand isn’t reparations in monetary terms but rather to fix “ill effects that need to be remedied” then the solution becomes more muddled, which is difficult because reparations itself is already a muddled subject. It’s difficult to quantify the ill effects of slavery, or even Jim Crow laws in today’s world. For example, someone in the other thread brought up Prince Edward County shutting down the schools and therefor a portion of Blacks missed out on grades 4-8. The ill effects are that those people missed out on a good chunk of their education, and consequently got worse jobs than if they didn’t miss school. Thus, a million dollars in reparations is in order to repay the potentially lost wages. You’re proposing to fix the effects of these people not getting an education… which would be? Getting them better housing - which is essentially a monetary gift? Giving them a better job that they’re not qualified for? Training them for a better job, then giving them a better job?

What happens when you extrapolate this to slavery? Finally dole out the 40 acres and a mule to every african american household that can claim ancestry? Upgrade their housing? Train and give those people more jobs? Something else? Just SOMETHING?

What happens when you extrapolate this to Native Americans?

The quantification process is where I do agree with you. It is very difficult to outline everything exactly and how to remedy it. This is why I stayed general in stating the need to address the current low socioeconomic conditions that people from historically oppressed minority (HOM) groups are born into.

Monetary or not, the solutions will end up costing money. When you’re giving christmas presents out, there’s not real difference between cash and a gift. Reparations in general will be wildly expensive, and the amount give will be arbitrary. With the wildly expensive cost, taxes will have to be raised to repay others, which if you look at the net flow of money, is taking money out of the pockets of the unoppressed and putting into the oppressed but not necessarily taking money out of the oppressor and putting it into the oppressed. What i mean to say is that people who have had no hand in oppressing anybody is being forced to pay for the sins of others, which is ironically oppression in itself.

This is not a punishing action I don’t see how government aid to HOM groups is punishing the unoppressed majority. In fact I see the unoppressed majority living with a benefit, they have a higher socioeconomic standard due to the past oppression of the minority group. Now while, I don’t think they should be punished for this I believe that those who belong to a HOM should be helped due to the current result.

That would be the main argument against reparations on any level - the bill will have to be partially footed by those not responsible, which is decidedly unfair.

I disagree, this is not for punishment, and those who are footing are already benefiting.

The only solution is to establish liberties and ensure that future oppression doesn’t happen anymore, which in 2 million years of human history we haven’t been able to achieve. Prop 8 passed in California, and though there are wild debates about marriage and the definition thereof, but empirically speaking there are a group of people out there who for no rational reason have full access to the rights of others.

I whole heartily agree.

[orcenio]

@truthpizza

If Johnny doesn’t have enough to eat or medical care or a decent education, what difference does it make if the ultimate reason is discrimination to ancestors or incompetent, sick or dead parents or whatever? His situation seems just as unjust no matter what the reason. I think aid to unfortunate people should be based on need, not on ethnicity. By the same token, a rich black kid doesn’t need help. If we just help the needy, a disproportionate share will go oppressed groups, which will help reduce the disparities between groups without the need to do reverse discrimination.

As others have pointed out, handouts of money are likely to be misused, so whenever possible aid should be in the form of free goods and services that people won’t use unless they need them - inexpensive but nourishing food, education, shelter, and medical care would be a good start. We need to have a decent safety net in place.

This is a good point. I concede to this personal viewpoint.

[Cat_Fight]

@orcenio

T
This is not a punishing action I don’t see how government aid to HOM groups is punishing the unoppressed majority. In fact I see the unoppressed majority living with a benefit, they have a higher socioeconomic standard due to the past oppression of the minority group.

But how to define the unoppressed majority? Should African Americans who fought in WWII bear the brunt of Japanese internment camps? Should minority women get double whatever the men get? Where do people of mixed race fit in?

[ITR_champion]

@orcenio

I suppose, but if you are aware that current society is shaped by the past, then you could conclude that while you did not initiate any unjust actions you are currently benefiting from them, while others are currently suffering from them. This might be enough to convince people that justice would be served by changing the current results of past injustice. For example, blank cheques and cash doesn’t seem to be the answer to raising the socioeconomic status of African-Americans but doesn’t everyone see the current ill effects of slavery/Jim Crow/disenfranchisement and wish to remedy them? Somehow? I have no ideas on what exact action should be taken, but can’t we all agree on the intent to do such things?

I am not no sure about the whole premise here. Is the low socioeconomic status of blacks entirely due to the segregation that ended almost fifty years ago? The evidence suggests it is not. Black people remain the poorest racial group in all parts of the country. Look at Harlem, or Watts, or the South Side of Chicago. The pattern of black ghettos marked by poverty and high crime exists in every large American city, without exception. This would imply that the policies which existed in the South fifty years ago are not the major factor. Rather, the fault lies with federal government policies that were used nationwide. Most particularly, it was welfare policies that encouraged unemployment and out-of-wedlock births.

Maybe black people should get reparations for welfare.

[aruvqan]

@truthpizza

If Johnny doesn’t have enough to eat or medical care or a decent education, what difference does it make if the ultimate reason is discrimination to ancestors or incompetent, sick or dead parents or whatever? His situation seems just as unjust no matter what the reason. I think aid to unfortunate people should be based on need, not on ethnicity. By the same token, a rich black kid doesn’t need help. If we just help the needy, a disproportionate share will go oppressed groups, which will help reduce the disparities between groups without the need to do reverse discrimination.

As others have pointed out, handouts of money are likely to be misused, so whenever possible aid should be in the form of free goods and services that people won’t use unless they need them - inexpensive but nourishing food, education, shelter, and medical care would be a good start. We need to have a decent safety net in place.

Christ on a crutch, I was making minimum wage, which left me a whopping 425 $US after tax and other governmental deductions … and still didnt qualify for food stamps because I was not non-white. At that time I was nicked $300 a month for just living, between my rent, and electricity. To maintain a job, I needed transportation and a working telephone. I ate on $10 a month …

Why the fuck should skin color make any difference to eating something other than beans and rice. I saw people in the grocery using food stamps to buy steak that I couldnt afford, and I was working.

Put me down as fuck the past, you are here, deal with living NOW. Get your ass out and get an education, and a job. Dont whinge about how your ancestors didnt have a choice - there are an assload of poles, irish and other caucasion types that are here because the option was to die from either religious persecution, or being forced off the land so a few landowners could get rich, or the food crop died off and there was NO food for anybody without money. Go back to whatever tribal area you think you are from and see how you get treated there …

<and maybe thing on the interesting bit of info that the blacks were sold to the whites by other blacks … in general we didnt just land on some random bit of africa, and set out nets and march the catch onto boats … they tended to be bought at auction there …>

[LouisB]

I’m very confused; I keep trying to respond to your response to my post but the SDMB persists in putting something to do with Pancakes into the reply box. I’m sure it’s only my inferior understanding that prevents my seeing the undoubted brilliance behind quoting Pancakes when I ain’t Pancakes.Anyway, to deal with the job issue, this is a damn poor time in our country’s history to be talking about jobs for anyone, minority or otherwise. I’d like to have one myself, along with the jillions of others who are in the same boat. As to aiding members on an historically oppressed minority group, I didn’t oppress 'em and never have oppressed 'em; why should I be required to provide them (universal them, you understand, without any reference to ethnicity) with any assistance at all? As to my framing a new debate, debate the point, by all means. For the rest, you posted a lot of words without answering any questions.

[sailor]

@orcenio

… justice would be served by changing the current results of past injustice.

OK, get the ships ready and send all whites back to Europe, blacks to Africa and hand the keys to the kingdom to the Indians (by whatever PC name they go these days, I can’t keep up).

[Ensign_Edison]

@aruvqan

Christ on a crutch, I was making minimum wage, which left me a whopping 425 $US after tax and other governmental deductions … and still didnt qualify for food stamps because I was not non-white.

Cite?

[LouisB]

On reflection, I ain’t through yet. When I was in my early twenties, I wanted to be a machinist but I had no connections to that industry and was repeatedly refused jobs because I had no experience. By great good fortune, Texas Industries posted a half-page advertisement in the local newspaper, regarding the hiring and training of machinists; no experience necessary, paid training at full hourly wage and guarantied employment post training. The add came out in the Sunday paper; Monday morning, I was there applying for one of those jobs. I didn’t get it. Following Sunday, same add. Following Monday, same result. Five times I applied and five times I was denied the job. The fifth time I applied, I finally talked with an honest HR guy, possibly the only one I’ve ever met. I asked why they kept running the adds; he told me they were getting no response. I told him I was responding and had responded previously. He told me flat out that I would never get one of those jobs because they were reserved for people who were chronically unemployed or underemployed and I didn’t fall into either of those categories. Do I get reparations? I was discriminated against and there is no question about that.