Who should pay Reparations to African Americans?

iiandyiiii, first, I truly admire your passion and tenacity on this issue.

But at the risk of being repetitive, you are advocating for likely the largest social program in US history, second only to social security. I’d say this will be the largest wealth transfer in US history. My back of the envelope calculation lists your program targeting about 57 million people. (I include native Americans because there is no way they’ll be excluded.)

If this it truly your plan, you’re going to have to understand what success is going to look like. I don’t expect you to know, today, on this chat site. But tossing out fifty cent words and social platitudes such as “fair chance at success” and “opportunity to achieve” isn’t enough to spend trillions and trillions on top of the trillions and trillions that have already been spent to apparently insufficient effect.

If you’re looking to tax me hundreds of thousands of dollars over my lifetime and you want me to sign up for it, I’m going to need to know what specifically you’re trying to do, what success will look like, and why this will work when 50 years of the Great Society didn’t.

Perhaps this just isn’t mature enough yet. But that is going to have to come if you’re going to want this to get any traction beyond the far left.

I certainly agree that my efforts are not nearly enough. I have no illusion that my words could possibly be close to enough to convince someone on this issue. At the very least, I hope someone might consider reading more (especially TNC!) about the history and possibilities of this and related issues. Even if all I’ve done is moved anyone to think for a minute more on reparations than they otherwise would have, I think I’ve added some value. Even if all you’re willing to support at this point would be some research on past harm by discriminatory policies on living Americans, I’d feel we were on the same side to some extent.

Ok take this step. There will be many many millions of dollars spent by Democrats on the next election. Why not send some of that money towards paying for this study? Are people arguing against someone doing a study?

Sounds good to me. I’ll mention it at my next strategy meeting with the DNC.

And on your part, you might want to be able to rely on more than one source. As brilliant and perceptive as you may consider TNC to be, any position that relies overly on a single spokesman causes my antennae to rise.

As I said, I initially found TNC charismatic and his views had some appear. But for me, the initial appeal waned with increased familiarity.

OK,

I have not read everything TNC has written, but I have read various articles to which you and others have linked. WADR, TNC doesn’t do anything to address the questions raised here and in other threads, any more than you have. He simply asserts and repeats.

In other words, it will never end. We’ve already spent $22T, and that’s not enough to eradicate racism and slavery and their alleged lingering effects.

Please describe how you are going to count the cost of the harm done, how you will determine who suffered the harm and to what extent, and how you will determine who inflicted the harm.

Regards,
Shodan

It’s a fine, noble, totally non-divisive idea that all average Americans will be sure to rally around unquestioningly, and any minor backlash against it surely won’t propel political moderates (“Joe 6 pack”) who don’t have a burning sense of “White Guilt” to hand Pres. Donald J Trump a landslide victory in 2020.
Smartest!!!

Hippest!!!

There are a lot of other sources (Yglesias, Chris Hayes, Michael Eric Dyson, and more), but TNC does it best, IMO.

Which of his arguments did you find lacking? We could just start with his testimony from yesterday, since his 2014 argument is quite long. Yesterday’s testimony was only a few paragraphs – which of his assertions and arguments from his testimony do you disagree with?

I disagree. If you have an issue with something TNC has said, I’ll invite you to quote it and expand on why you disagree with it.

This is not an accurate representation of what I said.

The same way we determine anything regarding historical events that extend into living memory: Rigorous research, including detailed looks at official and private records, interviews, and anything more that might be relevant. Lots and lots of hard work.

My guess is, if Trump hasn’t said and done enough to permanently turn off “average American, politically moderate Joe 6-packs”, they were never “politically moderate”, nor did they ever suffer from “White Guilt”.

This raises an interesting issue. Has anyone done a study to determine what are the lingering effects of slavery versus what are the effects of racism?

It could be done. We’d need to divide black Americans into two groups; those who had an ancestor who was enslaved and those who did not. By comparing the social and economic statistics of these two groups, we could form some conclusions about what the effects of slavery are compared to the effects of racism.

The issue isn’t with what he says, as with what he doesn’t say. Namely, that he doesn’t seem to want to address many of the questions raised in this thread. That’s what I would like to see, and in a little more detail than “it will take hard work”.

For instance, you linked above to someone who says the difference between median black and median white household wealth is $33K, therefore we should pay reparations of $33K apiece. I assume this is supposed to be due to racism and the lingering effects of slavery, otherwise reparations wouldn’t make sense. Households made up of a single parent, usually a mother, and her children, have lower household wealth than average, black or white. Black households are disproportionately likely to be made up of single mothers. So that accounts for at least some of the difference.

But white, single-mother households also suffer from lower household wealth. Presumably that difference isn’t due to slavery or racism. So, you need to compare apples to apples - the difference that can be due to slavery or racism must be that represented by the difference between black and white households with the same demographics. So, assuming white single mother households have a wealth disparity of X and black single mother households have a disparity of Y, then the amount possibly due to racism is X - Y. But you are not done yet.

Assume X - Y = Z. You then need to demonstrate that Z is caused by racism and the lingering effects of slavery, and who, specifically, discriminated, and how the discrimination caused Z.

You can’t just say “it must be”. You have to show it.

That’s what I would like to see, from someone.

Regards,
Shodan

By my reading, he’s very much in favor of the kind of research and study that could find answers to these kinds of questions.

Fine and reasonable questions, and hopefully you’ll join me in pushing for programs like HR 40 or other research initiatives that might be able to find answers to these questions. Alternately, you can advocate doing nothing, but if you’re actually interested in finding the answers to difficult questions like this, then we’d probably need to expend some resources in digging to get them.

In other words, we can’t trust those egg-headed scientists and data analysts to know how to do their jobs and control/account for the variances; Morons the lot. Why even give them the chance to do the study?

Here’s an illustration of what I see as the problem with reparations at this time.

Let’s take a real world example of the consequences of racism; the highly disproportionate rate of black people being killed by the police.

The reparations route would be to offer a sizable cash settlement to the families of the dead men. Let’s say a million dollars is given to each family.

And, to ensure that future victims get the same justice, we’ll put a hundred million dollars aside into a special dedicated fund. That way, the next hundred times a black person is killed by the police, we’ll be sure that their families will receive their money for it.

I hope you can see how this program is misdirected. What we need to do is put resources into stopping the police from killing black people not into setting up a program for paying off the victims.

I agree – a program specifically targeting police killings would need to make sure there are no more disparate unjust killings any more.

But for something like segregation, or Redlining, those are already over – we could certainly study the effects those had on living Americans, and consider the possible ways we might address any lingering harm.

This thread keeps referring back to Japanese-Americans interred during WWII and Native Americans as analogous to the situation facing African-Americans today.

In the case of Japanese-American internment as compared to slavery, reparations and apologies were made to the exact people who were interred. There were no intervening generations of people on both sides to untangle to find the proper people to make reparations to or the proper people responsible for the injustices. This is not an analogous situation in regards to slavery, as the immediate victims of slavery have long since died and cannot be compensated in any way.

In the case of Native Americans, which might more closely parallel the systemic racial injustices of the past faced by African Americans, there have been attempts to apologize and try to make some restitution to recent past and current generations by way of government programs and entitlements. People who can prove their Native American heritage are entitled to some government benefits and perks, though probably not as many or as comprehensive as many might believe, and I dare say few would call themselves better off because of them. This is more closely aligned to the discussion of reparations for centuries of discrimination faced by some African Americans, but definitely not a program to aspire to, at any rate.

The analogy that I’d like to put forth is the comparative situation of women in America. In my lifetime women have been denied rights simply because they were female.

-Until 1839 women were unable to own property in their own names. In 1839 it became legal in one state (MS). It wasn’t until 1900 that it was legal in every state. Of course, if that woman married, then everything became her husband’s property as head and master of the family, until 1974.

-Until 1890 women were unable to vote. Wyoming allowed women to vote in 1890. It wasn’t until 1920 that every state allowed women to vote.

-Until 1963 women were systematically paid less than men. In 1963 a law was passed to guarantee equal pay for equal work. I submit that in many cases women are still paid less than their male counterparts. It isn’t legal, and a lawsuit can be brought if it can be proven, but it is extremely hard to prove that any pay discrepancy is based on gender rather that another reason.

-Until 1972 it was legal to discriminate at colleges and universities based on gender.

-Until 1973 it was legal to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy. In 2019 several states passed laws to effectively regain ownership of women’s reproductive rights irrespective of her wishes or her doctor’s advice.

-Until 1978 a woman could be legally fired from her job if she was pregnant.

-Until 1993 there was no legal definition of marital rape in the US, and no recourse for women who experienced it.

As a woman who was raised by a single mother (who gave birth to me at 16 because abortion was illegal, as was birth control for unmarried women), and who lived in “the bad part of town” because mom was unable to establish credit in her own name to get a mortgage to buy a house, which she couldn’t afford anyway because she was paid way less than her male coworkers at the meatpacking plant, I feel I can speak with at least a little knowledge of living in tough circumstances due to systematic legal discrimination. I didn’t go to a good school. Good schools were in the rich neighborhoods, though I did graduate 3rd in my class from the school I attended. I didn’t go to college (I couldn’t afford it at the time), but both of my children did. I worked unskilled to semi-skilled jobs most of my life, working my way up to what I’d call middle management. Laws have changed, though, and I’ll fight for my rights if and when they are threatened.

The world has changed, albeit no one can say it is a perfect utopia of unity, and I truly believe deep in my heart that everyone, EVERYONE, living today has a chance at a good future. Perhaps not an equal chance. There’s always someone better off than you, with better connections than you, with a more privileged past than you. There will always be someone who doesn’t like you for who you are, whether you’re Hispanic, or gay, or elderly, or in any way “not them”. That’s life. And there are laws against it. Use them.

Wallowing in victimhood, bemoaning the injustices of the past, does way more harm than good. It only gives you a scapegoat to point to when life isn’t what you’d like it to be instead of an incentive to be better. There are way more productive uses of time.

The past doesn’t owe me, or you, anything. Even if it did, the past cannot pay. The past is over. Yes, my present would be different if my past was different. Yes, my present could be better if subtle discrimination didn’t exist. As a country, a society, a people, all we can do is fight for the future. We can’t change the past. We shouldn’t forget it, but we also shouldn’t allow ourselves to be defined by it.

For about the 20th time, the most prominent advocates for studying reparations today believe that it’s vital to look at the harm done by US policies, like Redlining and segregation, which harmed living Americans, when considering reparations. It’s not just slavery, and it’s not just about dead people.

Exactly. I said it WASN’T a good analogy.

Huh? Reparations for Japanese American internees were given to those Japanese Americans who were interned. TNC and I are advocating studying the possibility of giving reparations for Redlining and segregation to those Americans who were harmed by Redlining and segregation. Why is that a bad analogy? Both efforts are targeted directly towards living people who were harmed by discriminatory government policy.