Why stop at reparations for slavery? Maybe the USA should finance the reparations by suing the UK on behalf of Scots displaced to the USA by the highland clearances perpetrated by the Scottish elite tribal leaders; or the Irish displaced to the USA by vindictive and genocidal policies during the potato famine. Or Acadians displaced by the British empire to New Orleans for the crime of failing to swear a loyalty oath. Or the Pilgrims, for being run out of England by religious intolerance.
OTOH, how would reparations work? Would you have to line up with your 23-and-me analysis to see what percentage of yourself is entitled to slavery reparations? Should any entitlement be offset by subtracting the proportion of slave-owner DNA in your system? (Why should “but I didn’t choose that ancestor” be an excuse?) Should the system be paid for by those who cannot prove their ancestors emigrated to America after the Emancipation proclamation? Oh yes, and drag out the sliding scale for those with only partially newcomer DNA. Not to mention, do the escaped slaves in Halifax or the ones sent to Liberia get to share in this bounty too? Would recent immigrants from the Caribbean - also descendants of slaves - be entitled to reparations, but then the USA can go after their island governments -and the UK, France, Holland, and Brazil, etc.- for their share of reparations? Should black people above a certain income level be exempt, they will not receive a cheque?
Wait!, you say - this is not about slavery, this is about addressing the disparity existing in modern America. With that, you’d have my whole-hearted approval. But then, disparity knows no race. It’s about economics and opportunities. Make opportunities for poor people beef up school systems, increase scholarships, or better yet, abolish university tuition. Half of American blacks are middle class. Let’s try to increase that number, and while we are at it, increase opportunities for poor white folk and immigrants from all corners of the globe…
In other words, forget about reparations; instead, concentrate on social programs helping everyone get a hand up in the modern economy.
They drew maps intended to be discriminatory by singling out black neighborhoods (usually with red lines) as not being recommended for loan assistance.
If you don’t consider that discriminatory policy, then fine, but I do.
You know, HOLC made millions of loans itself before the residential security maps were drawn. These maps may have been draw for discriminatory purposes, but you haven’t shown that was the intent. HOLC loans at the time were made in high risk areas, were made to minorities, etc. This is a very tenuous connection to the fed government as far as culpability, and it’s not even clear if the connection is rock solid, that there is any action by the feds themselves that would obligate the taxpayer.
What is your evidence that the maps were intended to be discriminatory?
And further: “60 percent of HOLC loans made between 1935 and 1936 in Essex County, New Jersey (Newark), and 68 percent of loans in Shelby County, Tennessee (Memphis), were made to areas HOLC assigned third (“declining”) and fourth (“hazardous”) grades on its security maps. “HOLC did in fact issue mortgage assistance impartially,””
An agency whose role is to determine risk in lending, drawing maps of relative risk similar to how actuaries do, no I don’t consider that discriminatory on its face. You haven’t done anything to show discriminatory intent in the map drawing. Even if they drew a map that showed the race of every person that lived there, that’s still not discriminatory. The banks who denied loans, etc. those are the ones that engaged in discriminatory practices.
You’ve missed the mark on the “by whom” part.
There have been recent legal actions regarding redlining practices. HUD and DOJ have gone after banks and gotten settlements because those were the entities engaging in the practice.
And to clarify - the country was super racist during the time of HOLC. It would not surprise me one bit if it is determined that the maps were drawn to be even more super racist. Even still, the banks who denied loans are way more culpable than the map drawers.
Good idea, get all those slimy politicians who wrote the laws to pay, or their ancestors.
Why should the general public be taxed to pay for reparation, having owned exactly zero slaves and having caused exactly zero harm (unless you can prove otherwise?)
I’m fine with a parallel argument along this track. This doesn’t preclude anything TNC or I have advocated for. I believe the federal government also bears some culpability, and I believe this should be studied and addressed.
I would not mind further investigation into this as well. Past the lives of anyone living then it becomes a lot murkier because the direct culprits and victims are dead, which makes it all the worse because you can’t make reparations to them at all.
I just don’t think these suits or investigations should use the “R” word because it would arouse resentment from both ends, with some immediately thinking it would be a trillion dollar giveaway for no reason, and some saying “well, what about compensation for slavery?”
I don’t have an issue with this. Like I said, it’s rather like a class action suit, and if it can be demonstrated that the US Federal government was responsible or culpable then certainly that means we all collectively should pay for it. Like your Japanese civilians interred by the government during WWII example, or examples of folks harmed due to US government actions wrt chemical spills or other harmful actions. I say make a civil case and if it comes out that we are on the hook for paying then pay we shall.
This, to me, is very different than reparations from slavery, however, which I’m not seeing, as to me it’s rather arbitrary to put this all on the US and then to hold current US tax payers to blame and responsible. Jim Crow and other things that resulted from systemic discrimination, however, as you laid out…sure, that seems like it’s viable to me. FWIW.
That’s a political marketing question. I’m all for a progressive Frank Luntz coming forward and figuring out a better way to market these sorts of policies, with different words and phrases that resonate better.
See, that’s the part I’m not sure of. We have a pretty good idea of what harm was done, by whom, and to whom. Slavery, slave owners and traders, slaves, respectively. Nobody disputes this. The question always starts with, “Should descendants of slaves be paid reparations?” And the conversation always seems to go into whether or not the government (therefore, all tax payers) should pay reparations to the ancestors of slaves? To me, a large factor in the answer to that question is, “How much are we talking, here?”. But I haven’t even seen any figures. Are we talking just a symbolic amount? Are we talking millions per person? How much is reasonable? I don’t know at what amount to draw the line, but it’s certainly well below a million per person.
A major problem I have is that I can’t seem to imagine a number that could actually make up for the damage and wrongs wrought by slavery, yet still be a reasonable burden from current tax payers who had nothing to do with it. An amount too small would just be insulting. An amount too large would be unreasonable; not unreasonable for some people to receive, but surely unreasonable for me and fellow taxpayers to pay it.
Once we have this whole thing sorted out, we’ll probably have to look into paying Native Americans as well. This county has done a shit load of horrible things throughout its history. Mankind has done horrible things. I’m not sure we can actually afford to make things right with everyone simply by paying them off.
All the talk about Redlining in this thread: is that actually part of the national discussion on reparations, or is that just something you brought up here? Is anyone actually asking about reparations being paid for victims of racist business practices or Jim Crow laws? I’ve only ever heard reparations brought up as a payment for descendants of slaves because of slavery.
I haven’t seen or heard any of the recent reparations talk, however. I’m only just aware that it is being discussed again.
Also, one thing I missed that you mentioned that I sort of disagree with is “relatively recent government policies that harmed living Americans”. I don’t think this has to be about relatively recent or living Americans necessarily. I do think it has to do with direct US policy that specifically harmed people or groups. I think this is a tangible thing that people on both sides can understand…as opposed to efforts at reparations for slavery, which is too broad and nebulous IMHO, and will have zero chance of going through. It’s only going to put people’s backs up, as well as alienate groups that wouldn’t normally be alienated. I think it’s foolish for the Dems to be pushing this right now…or ever, really. But doing what you are suggesting? I can totally see that, and I think most people could as well, especially if you did it through the legal system we already have. No need for special Congressional committees to explore the question (which to me is weasel speak for ‘let’s do something we know won’t make any real difference, has no chance of getting through, but will appeal to our base’), and might actually accomplish something and provide some justice AND real compensation to those who were or even are directly affected. I recall an episode of Adam Ruin’s Everything that went into this, and I found it pretty compelling how a lot of Jim Crow era actions have directly affected the wealth of families for generations. THAT is something that we should and I think could address.