But this isn’t what I’ve advocated for, even hypothetically. If research found that the government deprived person X (or many such persons) of wealth Y, then the legislature could easily (procedurally speaking) pass a bill providing redress for that harm to those people.
In that case you had better drop off the African American component of the bill, and just say the U.S. government will pay reparations for anybody who claims to have been disadvantaged by private institutions due to color-coding on HOLC maps.
Then the federal government could send funds to all current and former residents of neighborhoods that received “hazardous” designations. You would need to scale reimbursement according to the private discrimination that actually occurred in each neighborhood and possibly each house in that neighborhood, during the time the claimant was residing there.
Anything less, I’m afraid, risks running afoul of the constitution.
~Max
I’m unconvinced, but open to any strategy to learn the details of history and achieve justice.
There is a saying, “for a big leak, fix the leak, then bail the water”. The injustice isn’t that the federal government drew racism onto their maps (if they did that). The injustice isn’t even that people in those neighborhoods were denied loans. The injustice is that lenders and builders and service providers unfairly discriminated against those neighborhoods. That problem has been fixed de jure, but by now the whole boat has sunk. And you want to start to bail out water from the bottom of the sea floor!
Now that the leak is fixed (or at least manageable), the people of this country can bail their own boats, if only they weren’t completely submerged. Have you considered lifting those neighborhoods up by subsidizing social services, hospitals, federal loans, and retail operations in low-end neighborhoods?
~Max
All of that is reasonable to consider, and I think reparations (or equivalent) are as well.
I love how Max keeps providing you with reasonned and cited examples of why reparations would be legally difficult and tou think, “I am unconvinced because I thinkbit is moral and therefore supercedes, and can done be without consideration of, the established precedents and procedures of the legal and legislative processes.”
In what world does that constitute a defensible opinion let alone a set in stone stance?
Take a hint from the near universal dissent your thinking has engendered and consider if it is everyone else that hasn’t thought enough about this or you.
You start with an assumption that you hold to be inviolable and refuse to acknowledge that the assumption itself is flawed.
What assumption? That this stuff should be studied? No one has presented a good argument that this stuff MUST NOT be studied.
No, but they have presented a great many arguments why the issue itself is the problem no matter how much you study it.
The assumption you insist we all act upon is that reparations are morally just and required. The only person who agrees with those assertions is you.
You don’t give a damn about the realities - both moral and legal - you scream, “reparations must be made!” and when people raise rational and legitimate arguements against your dictum you duck behind, “I’m just saying study it.”
No you’re fucking not mate and we all know it - you most of all.
I’m not insisting we act upon that assumption. I’m hopeful that a solid program of research and study might persuade the skeptical, but I’m not assuming that. In all likelihood, none of this will happen, even the study and research. Hopefully I’m wrong about a permanent aggrieved black underclass.
You’re not wrong about it. You’re wrong about the cause and the solution. You are also confusing righteous upset with articulable, defensible, fact based conclusion.
Maybe you’re right, but I’m not convinced by these brief assertions.
Nor are you convinced by lengthy erudite ones.
Why should I be? It’s all supposition. It’s based on differing assumptions. We’ve drilled down to where the differences are, for the most part, in this long thread – some folks don’t think the government is responsible; some folks think the government is responsible but there’s no way to pay; some think there’s a way to pay but it would do no good; etc.
Wouldn’t the logical 1st step be to decide whether they should be paid in the 1st place? Why study something that shouldn’t be done?
The fact is that Martin Luther King could materialize in frontvof you and say, “Reparations are a bad, unworkable plan.” And your response would be,
“Gee MLK, I’m not convinced and I just wanna stuuuuuudy it. Can’t we please just study how they must be done and the implementation will be easy because moral and words. Just study it.”
You will not be convinced, dissuaded or even budged minutely. You don’t want to debate you want to proslytize.
That’s part of the goal of the study – is this possible? Could it do some good? What would it look like?
Actually, I’d oppose a reparations plan, if it was put forward now with no comprehensive advanced study and research. So I think your attempt to read my mind is failing you. I’m convinced we should study and research. I lean towards reparations as being necessary, but I’m far from convinced or certain – and I wouldn’t be until such study and research was complete. It might well even change my mind against reparations.
I oppose wasting money on a study about a flawed concept. Other Africsn Americans have become successful. It is possible with the right attitude and mind set.
He remains unconvinced. Perhaps a study on the desirability and probable outcome of the study on reparations is in order.
Are any details forthcoming as to what (how, etc.) is specifically studied in this reparations study?
I am not convinced that can be done without first conducting research into the degree of specificity the study will encompass.
Have we determined where the funding for these studies will come from??