I think this is addressing “present and future problems” – specifically the problem of a possibly permanent aggrieved black underclass. I think that’s important enough that it should be a high priority going forward.
Racists and the ignorant already use this kind of nonsense as justification to be racist or ignorant. Nothing but their own choices can make someone change the way they feel.
I’m less than convinced by a number you came up with in 5 minutes. Research and study is all I’m advocating for at this time. I have no idea why this is so frightening to so many people.
DrDeth said:
You replied:
Going after the innocent and the “guilty” (in quotes because the very notion that people around today are guilty of what those five or more generations ago did is preposterous) equally is the exact opposite of justice, and it’s so plain to see I don’t know how to make it more clear without the use of crayons.
What you are advocating here is fundamentally unjust, race based policy, much as you’d like to believe otherwise; one that would have the exact opposite effect of what you think it will have.
But do tell, who will pay for the reparations? Kind of silly to make the people that would receive the money to give it in the first place, no?
So can you bring yourself to spell out what would be the obvious mechanics of the exercise?
I have no interest in going after the innocent in any way at all, any more than giving reparations to the Japanese-American internees was “going after the innocent”.
Serious question - will you please define “black”?
In addition to blackness, what other factors will need to be proven to qualify? For example, I assume a dark-skinned relatively recent immigrant from the Caribbean who never experienced redlining will not be eligible? How many ancestors must have experienced what inequities?
Do you believe discerning such differences as a basis for handing out money will be workable?
I am always dubious of proposals for official designations that ANY group - women, Jews, veterans, blacks, native Americans, etc. - be identified as owed unspecific debt due to past/present inequities. Instead, my preference is to do the best possible to "level the playing field NOW, and improve opportunities to those less advantaged - WHATEVER the reason they ae disadvantaged.
Does “going after the innocent” include “making the innocent pay”? Because you have already said that blacks, recent immigrants, and other taxpayers, should pay for the reparations.
Regards,
Shodan
If y’all really want all of these questions answered, why do you oppose a study that could actually answer them?
Are you afraid of the answers?
There is no hard and fast and consistent definition of “black”, and yet somehow this country managed to successfully discriminate against and oppress black people (the people generally who society called “black”) for centuries. If you’re worried about a possibility that some non-black people could benefit from reparations, then okay. That’s possible. I don’t think that concern is reason enough to abandon even the possibility of studying it.
These are all reasonable questions, which is why I (and TNC) advocate rigorous historical research and study prior to any actual reparations program being instituted. That’s what’s being proposed right now in Congress and by the most prominent advocates of reparations – a large-scale rigorous research project to determine the harm done to Americans, including living Americans, by discriminatory and oppressive policies and practices caused and allowed by the US government.
It depends on the definition and usage of these words. I believe the US government pay, just as it paid reparations for Japanese-American internment. Do you believe that program was “making the innocent pay”? I don’t, but YMMV.
What I find fascinating is that racists never have trouble identifying a targeted minority and don’t spend much time concerning themselves about the margins. Yet, seemingly woke people, suddenly develop chronic color blindness but are consumed with fairness at the margins.
The second sentence should say “I believe the US government would be the appropriate party to pay any reparations program, just as it paid…”.
I’d like to point out that reparations to Japanese-American internees also went to the heirs of deceased internees – so it didn’t just go to the living victims; it also went to their survivors (for those who had died):
Can anyone identify any negative or harmful consequences to the country, in any way at all, from these reparations? If not, then it seems clear to me that reparations can indeed be executed in a way that does not harm the country, at least in some circumstances. And the positive value was enormous – the country demonstrated, materially, that it acknowledged the moral crime done to Japanese Americans and made a real, significant, and good-faith effort to address that moral crime. Further, these reparations did not come from a lawsuit, but rather lobbying by Japanese Americans that motivated a government commission which undertook historical research and ended up making this recommendation, ultimately passed in a bill by Congress.
Just want to point out that my job for the past 30 years has been related to paying cash and other government benefits to folk who meet certain qualifications. Suffice it to say I am EXTREMELY dubious of the ability to set up a system that pursues clear meaningful goals, while effectively distinguishing from the deserving from the un-. And it is not at all uncommon for folk to try to benefit from programs that were clearly not intended to benefit them. Significant administrative costs result from weeding out (and erroneously paying) the undeserving.
But sure, with reparations it would be different.
Who says it wouldn’t be extremely difficult? This would be a very challenging project, and I believe it’s still worth it to, at the very least, do some extensive research and study.
Cool - we disagree.
This sounds suspiciously similar to arguments made against welfare programs.
As an aside, my job may be quite similar to yours. I’m on the IT side. I develop and support solutions for these kinds of programs at a large fed agency. There is waste. There are also lots of controls to mitigate waste. It’s imperfect, for sure.
After 30 years, would you say it’s largely to the good, or should be done away with?
Sure then, consider the source of someone who indeed spent some research on it. $14 trillion, over three times the entire federal budget.
So… what’s your point? One guy says “it should be X” and therefore we shouldn’t do any extensive or rigorous research on the harm caused by discriminatory policies?
You are calling for investigations, and yet you already believe the US government is culpable. OK - could you please present the evidence and reasoning that caused you to reach that conclusion? Specifically.
Because you haven’t done that, and neither has Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Could you explain how the US government is culpable, because the Senate Majority leader was alive at the time?
Regards,
Shodan
This seems like a contradiction with what you’ve already said. You’ve tried to justify reparations with the argument that they’re only addressing past wrongs like redlining and segregation. But now you’re arguing reparations address present and future wrongs.
I’ve been offering arguments against reparations and explaining why I think they’re a bad idea at this time. But you seem to feel that the only reasons somebody would oppose reparations are racism and ignorance.
So let me ask the obvious question; do you feel I am racist and ignorant? Do you feel my arguments against reparations are just a smoke screen? Or do you accept that somebody can oppose reparations for reasons other than racism and ignorance?