I fail to see how this makes them “radical” Marxists, since this is exactly what Marx said needed to be done. A Marxist who didn’t advocate seizing the means of production would be quite radical indeed.
Exactly. The bulk of this happened in the fifties and sixties. A (white) friend of mine was a child back then an recalls how one day all of coloured friends disappeared. They and their families had been forcibly relocated overnight to the other side of the mountain. He is in his mid sixties now, this happened in living memory.
The colonial era stuff is not the issue at the moment, its the land in the cities.
Also this is not a new thing. The constitution already allows for land redistribution, the proposed change would remove the requirement for compensation and the use of the willing seller model. So don’t expect any sudden movement on this issue since a constitutional amendment is required.
Minor correction: the constitution doesn’t require the willing-seller model. That has been a policy choice of the government. The constitution already allows expropriation with “just and equitable” compensation (which is not the same as market value compensation).
You have to twist morality into a pretzel to think holding on to stolen prize land while the ones who had their land stolen are either starving or homeless counts as no longer “committing harm”.
There’s a clear moral obligation to return stolen property to the ones stolen from. Failing that, to the heirs of same. Failing that, to the State itself.
That’s because the actual cases being discussed are that simple.
Yes, there’s a word for people who organize their entire lives around their possession of knowingly stolen goods - it’s “criminal”.
Like fuck, it would. Let me put this bluntly - even if the holders of stolen land were being whipped and beaten on the streets - which they’re not - it in no way even approaches the 50 fucking years worth of damages done to the people the land was taken from. Having to give up your stolen property in no way counts as “harm” to anyone with a funtional moral compass.
Yes, I think you’ll find on reading the whole thread that I already anticipated the absurd “But I polished it!” argument. It doesn’t work with a stolen watch, why should it work with stolen land?
We call “Receiving of stolen property” a crime, and call the people who do it “fences” whether they buy from their relatives or the man on the street.
You’re the one still holding on to the stolen property.
Morally, of course, your brothers should pay, too.
If my dad didn’t specify a will, I get his stuff. That’s how inheritance works. “Everybody knows” or not.
Are they all going to be equally infinitely pathetic arguments?
There’s nothing “random” about knowingly possessing stolen property.
It’s not about “compensation”, though. It’s about giving back what was stolen.
Here’s the thing - you seem to believe the current possessor of a stolen thing has some rights to that thing. That’s just so mind-bogglingly wrong, it’s just not even amusing. Thieves don’t have rights to stolen things. Do you apply this same logic to stolen cars? Money? Nazi gold?
The Mona Lisa - if my dad stole it, but I’ve kind of gotten used to having it hanging in my hall, and it would be a bit of bother for me to find a new painting to hang in that spot, and after all, I put this nice new frame on it. I should totally get to keep it, by your lights. Do you realise how absurd that argument would be?
You seem to be under the misapprehension that there’s a “both sides” to be fair to, here. There isn’t - there are thieves, and there are victims. Fuck being fair to thieves.
Why should South Africans give a shit about what the statute of limitations is for theft in France?
And my understanding is that the statute of limitations applies to whether the thief is to be prosecuted. I’m not talking about charging the current holders as thieves, or even as fences. Just taking their ill-gotten gains.
This is only a “problem” if said person was unaware of the entirety of the history of the country he was buying property in. It’s no problem to me that some negative effect would happen to an apartheid profiteer.
Not that ignorance is a recourse in this sort of thing, anyway.
No, most of them (the urban ones, that is) happened recently - as in, 50 years ago. You might consider that “generations ago”. My parents and older siblings, who were forcibly moved, do not.
I’m indeed proposing that (assuming that “historical” means “not recent”). And as weird as it might seem, the main reason is what I already stated : nobody currently alive would have been born if history had been different.
There are many other arguments against such reparations : impossibility to determine exactly the consequences they have now, impossibility to figure out who should benefit from them and who should pay for them (does the descendant of 19th century white abolitionists owes something to the son of a white American mother and a
Black Kenyan father and why?), impossibility to consistently tell apart injustices that deserve compensation and injustices that don’t, impossibility to find a sensible reason why small scale injustices shoudln’t be repaired when grand scale injustices should, impossibility to determine how far back we’re supposed to go in any objective way, impossibility to apply a consistent principle that wouldn’t result in some situations at least in absurd proposals (like all Americans not of Amerindian descent pack up and leave), … In fact there are generally not even general principles given that would allow to determine what should be repaired and how, presumably mostly because any general principle would, if followed, result in reparations being demanded for causes the person doesn’t approve of and/or in reparations being denied for causes he approves of.
But ultimately the main problem is that the very concept of reparations rests on the idea of making wronged people whole, as if the injustice hadn’t taken place. And people who have actually been wronged are long dead. And people currently living, if the injustice hadn’t taken place wouldn’t be better off, they just wouldn’t exist in the first place. They aren’t incurring any loss as a result of these injustices, they’re their products, like the rest of us. In an alternative, better world, without triangular trade, the only Black people in the USA are recent free immigrants, for instance. None of the currently living American Blacks is in a better situation, they have never been born. As offensive as some will find it, they owe their existence to an ancestor being enslaved in Africa, another being raped by a plantation owner, and so on.
You can argue that past injustices have consequences on people currently living (for instance, the past existence of slavery has negative cultural and social consequences now), but this is a matter of adressing current problems not of repairing past wrongs which is impossible. On the other hand, there are people who legitimately could ask for reparations because they have been themselves wronged. For instance all American Blacks who lived through the segregation era. It’s impossible to determine who exactly was wronged and how much individually, but there’s no doubt that those people could claim reparations. In fact, I’m very surprised that people insist so much on impossible reparations for slavery but aren’t demanding them for people who have been personnally victimized and are still around.
If you weren’t aware that advocates of investigating reparations were interested in reparations for practices like segregation, Jim Crow, redlining, and much more, that harmed living Americans, then you don’t really know anything about reparations. Reparations are for historical injustices that have harmed, and continue to harm, living Americans, in addition to those that harmed dead Americans but with continuing ramifications.
Note that the UN says there is no statute of limitations for crimes against humanity. And Apartheid is officially recognized as a such a crime by Article 7 of the Rome Statute and the ICSPCA
This isn’t offensive, it’s irrelevant. Black Americans as a group have suffered incredibly due to the ramifications of these past injustices (as well as those individuals who have suffered incredibly due to the injustices they personally experienced). Reparations aren’t just for black people, they’re for America. America has never atoned for the vast material harm it did to millions – vast harm that continues in some form, and even those practices that have ceased have ramifications that continue to do harm. Most Native Americans who live on reservations have very, very little prospect or opportunity for success – that might be able to be corrected with public policy. Why shouldn’t we at least consider the possibility of correcting this, and investigate similar circumstances that harm people today as the result of past injustice? It’s easy for comfortable people to reject this. It’s a lot harder, IMO, to consider the plight of those with very little opportunity due to injustices done to their ancestors, and not even consider trying to fix these circumstances.
Which definition of reparations are you basing this idiosyncratic interpretation on, especially the highlighted part?
Except they’re not…
You’re right, I, for one, find this an immensely offensive statement.
And irrelevant, we have the world we have, this isn’t Star Trek and “what ifs” are meaningless.
One of those “current problems” is “people are homeless and destitute while living right next to the land and resources that were taken from them by force”
No-one’s said anything about repairing. Redressing, on the other hand, is completely possible.
What the ever-living fuck does American reparations have to do with South Africa?
Thanks for the correction. I usually make a point of looking these things up first but the company internet filter decided I don’t need to know the constitution :D.
::Hangs head in eternal shame::
That should be unconstitutional. Take it up with the HRC!
I don’t claim to have an extensive knowledge of the debates about reparations. What I know about it comes from what I read/watch on the American internet. But I don’t need to know everything about the current state of the debate in the USA to form an opinion about reparations in general.
That said, even though reparations for those most recent wrongs might be discussed, those discussion are dwarfed (to say the least) by debates about reparations for slavery, which is nonsentical given all the very valid objections against reparations for “historical injustice”, when it’s pretty difficult to dispute the claim of someone who has been personally wronged.
Besides, I’m not even thinking so much about debates and discussions. Rather, given how heated the racial debate is in the USA, why isn’t there more activism about this issue? How comes there isn’t some millions of septuagenarians taking up the streets and suing every single state and city, plus the federal government, about demonstrably true and even officially aknowledged wrongs they have been personally victim of (and it doesn’t matter if the current legal precedents would allow for a redress, which I don’t know, because when the critical mass reach some point, you can’t just put your fingers in your ears and sing “lalala” anymore). That this didn’t happen yet, and isn’t happening now, is utterly puzzling. My best guess, based on other precedents, is that they’ll begin to seriously agitate for it when almost everybody involved will be long dead, at which point the last five supercentenarians who went to a segregated primary school will be finally granted reparations.
There’s tons of activism on this issue (of racist policies like redlining which harmed living Americans), including proposals by members of Congress (but always ignored by the Republican majority, of course) to investigate.
Your response is, unfortunately, a common one on this issue, and IMO it’s a combination of ignorance of the actual facts (like real world reparations discussions, and real world activism) and a desire to make excuses and/or dismiss any possibility of a difficult conversation that might help others, but not one’s self.
I don’t know that, but it’s irrelevant. Crimes against humanity are an issue for criminal law, while reparations would be a civil matter or legislative fiat. It would be relevant only if you wanted to punish people who stole the land, not give reparations, and even then, I doubt that the specific action of stealing land would be considered a crime against humanity even if apartheid in general is.
Besides, you (generic you) have decided to deal with what would have been the criminal part with your reconciliation commission, which doesn’t strike me as terribly satisfying, but I guess was unavoidable.
The first line of your link pretty much fits : “reparation is replenishment of a previously inflicted loss by the criminal to the victim”. Usually, the goal of reparation is defined as making the victim “whole” again, which means in the same situation (or if it’s not possible, a situation deemed equivalent) she would have been if the crime (or the fault) hadn’t taken place.
Not time to answer more at the moment.
You’re the one who keeps bringing up statutes of limitations in the first place. Why bring up this “irrelevant” thing if it doesn’t apply?
I thought you viewed the mere act of reparations as a punishment on the payers.
Doubt all you want. Article II, paragraph d of the ICSPCA states the crime of apartheid shall include:
Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups,** the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;**
I see nothing there about “as if the loss had never taken place”
So cite a definition that includes that concept. When you do, make sure your’e not confused between “restitution”, which *does *often feature “making whole again” in its definition, and “reparations”, which doesn’t seem to. Restitution can be a form or part of reparations, but not a necessary and sufficient part.
Are all the actual cases that current reparations proposals apply to that simple, or are those just the more egregious cases, and the proposals would apply to a much broader category of cases?
[Personally, I don’t see why you would need reparations laws to deal with cases where people stole land from other people. I would think ordinary laws would deal with that. Unless the land seizures were legal under then-current SA law, which would indeed require special laws to undo.]
HArd to say what the future might hold.
They were. Theymade laws just to make it so (that’s just one of many).
MrDibble, since you’re here: Here in Canada, when discussing Indigenous people’s problems, there’s a factoid that gets tossed around. Example:
It’s always light on details. I’ve always been a little dubious. Is this a thing known to South Africans?