We’ll just have to agree to disagree re whether it’s appropriate for a class of people who can demonstrate socioeconomic damage stemming from previous governmental misconduct to seek redress.
I have a business mentor that taught me a great deal. He has a phrase when you get screwed on a deal or when life deals you a bad hand: “Don’t get bitter, get better.”
2 Likes
I am a big fan of history, particularly American History, however I have never heard of any peoples ever being compensated for any kind of grieved status, ever. Not sure how you would put a dollar amount on that.
Heck, my own family never received compensation for lands taken by the Communists in Czechoslovakia, nor did they get the lands back. They are just glad it’s over and they are free.
I think it’s important to remember history and to learn its lessons. I think it’s folly to expend effort on compensation for things that didn’t even happen to you. It’s not ‘forget and move on’, but definitely ‘move on’.
Japanese internment survivors:
American Indians:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/26/politics/american-indian-settlment/
Other American Indian reparations:
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~kmporter/historyreparations.htm
I suggest you take it up with the parties involved.
It’s not folly if you’re currently suffering demonstrably from the repercussions of what happened.
Well then! I stand corrected…
“demonstrably” being the key word. And now that I think about it, former slaves were given their 40 acres and a mule. Do we exclude them, since they technically were compensated? So yeah, I was wrong about the compensation thing.
But the further away in history we become, the less pragmatic it is.
The payments were made to the ones who suffered the harm of internment, the survivors.
These were not reparations - this was settlement of a class-action lawsuit for mismanagement of tribal lands.
You can’t prove causation.
1 Like
Jim Crow was after 40 acres and a mule.
So long as demonstrable effects remain, I would say the further away (in history) we get, the more urgent it becomes, as the greater a stain upon our moral fabric it (ie, the lack of some form of recompense, which is not to say direct reparations necessarily) it represents.
Coming from you–the commenter who chided me endlessly over not accepting the ‘obvious’ causal implications of that Figure–this is ironic to the nth degree.
How much do you give somebody for forcing them to drink from a different water fountain, not allowing one into a restaurant, etc. I acknowledge the original sin of racism in the U.S. I acknowledge the evil of it all. I don’t know how you quantify that into a dollar amount. And once that is paid out? Then what. Racism is gone? Resentment is gone? We can dispose then of identity politics? ~ Now that I would pay for. Would that recompense lift people out of poverty, even the score, make everything alright?
I think we talk and listen. I think we treat each other a little better. That helps people. Once you write someone a check, you can write them off. I don’t think writing a check will fix or help anybody. It may pay a bill, though.
You’re confused (again) - the author put together a cause and effect flow chart that results in a negative feedback loop, and my problem with the author was that he, too, claimed causation when he failed to adequately back it up.
And to sum up: the author didn’t demonstrate causation, and you can’t demonstrate causation in order to justify reparations, and the reason for both is the same: causation, as suggested, is too attenuated in light of all the other variables that influence the outcome.
Ironic? Nope. Inconsistent? Nope. True? Yep.
This seems relevant to the discussion:
IMO, nothing.
The goal (IMO) is not to try and compensate anyone for psychological pain and suffering. Rather, it is to make up for the socioeconomic lag that resulted from slavery/Jim Crow.
As for how to quantify this, it’s relatively easy: Compare the socioeconomic status of black folk to that of white folk. The difference is the damages wrought by slavery/Jim Crow.
That is obviously oversimplified, but the basic idea is there.
Unfortunately, human nature doesn’t work that way.
No doubt, those are good and needed things.
If you have bills to pay, that’s a not unimportant thing.
No, it is not I who is confused. I was referring to the fact that you wanted me to draw a causal conclusion regarding the implications of the Figure vis a vis the intentions of the author; when I demurred, you expressed disbelief. Now here you are, claiming no causal link can be established between slavery/Jim Crow and the current socioeconomic plight of AAs. My, how your standards of evidence have changed.
If you want to claim that a causal link cannot be drawn between slavery/Jim Crow and the current socioeconomic plight of AAs, all I can do is shrug, shake my head and walk away.
Except the Dutch never would have transported thousands of Africans to America if it wasn’t for slavery. So does the reparations equation become (where SOL = standard of living):
(SOL US whites - SOL of AA’s)-(SOL AA’s - SOL Africans) = Reparations
That would control for the benefits of being born black in the USA vs being born black in Africa.
As I said above:
Yes, because it was disbelievable.
No standards have changed, I said:
- The author has claimed causation here
- But there’s no support for causation for a bunch of reasons
You said:
- The author hasn’t claimed causation at all
That I was baffled by your refusal to see that the author was claiming causation (white people refusing to pay for education causes the plight of SGIs) has zero to do with standards for proof of causation. My standards are the same in both places - causation has to be proven through data and logic. And I have no interest in revisiting it.
I’d recommend that walk take you into a public library and check out a book on causation. Influence is not causation. Causation, conceptually, is a strong claim, the “but for” test: but for Event A, Event B would not have happened. You can’t credibly satisfy the “but for” test on reparations. One of the biggest hurdles? Explaining why the state of the black middle class has gotten worse while at the same time views on racism have gotten better.
There are simply too many other variables that would impact the end result you attribute all or mostly the vestiges of slavery.
No one, me included, wants us to re-litigate the Figure discussion. So if you have anything else to say about it, feel free, but do not expect a response from me.
As for your contention that a causal link cannot be drawn between slavery/Jim Crow and the current socioeconomic plight of AAs: This is me shrugging, shaking my head, and walking away.
Perhaps so, but even if you could convince enough people that causation exists enough to pass a law creating reparations, I can’t envision such a law surviving a challenge to its constitutionality - namely, that it is a bill of attainder (which it is).
How then was legislation successfully passed (and not struck down by the SCOTUS) to pay reparations to Japanese-Americans interned during WWII?
I don’t believe anyone challenged it in court - that would have to happen before SCOTUS opined on it.
I am dubious that no one would have challenged it, if it were challengeable on the grounds you state.