American Civil War, yet again

[Galactus]

The author's central thesis is that the problems facing the black community, prinicipally the lack of wealth creation and poor educational outcomes, are caused by white racism. He dismisses out of hand the idea that the lack of stable family structures might have anything to do with it and he does not mention the drug prohibition laws which has obviously contributed to lawlessness and is the principle reason so many young black mn are in prison. He's being deliberately disingenuous, contrary explanations are either dismissed out of hand or are ignored entirely.

And yes the author is absolutely calling for financial reparations from whites to blacks.

He actually provides information to back up his position: Namely, if drug prohibition was the issue, it would affect black and white people (or at least poor black and white people) equally: It does not. If family patterns was the issueone would expet the same to hold true for white families: It does not.

These other issues are strawmen: They may or may not be social problems on their own, but they do not explain the disparity in outcomes between white and black people: Institutionalized racism does. Practices of exploiation does. The practical exclusion of blacks from the principal methods of wealth transfer (home ownership) in the US does.

Black people were brought over to the US with essentially no wealth. (even less so than european migrants) throughout history they were systematically denied the tools to acquire such. Wealth (in the form of land, houses, etc.) is largely transferable: It can be borrowed against, used as collateral, etc. in order to improve th status of the family in queston. Black families largely has not had access to this kind of (even relatively modest) wealth. ANd even when they've had, they've not had equal access to the institutions that can transform that wealth into other forms of social capital.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

R'hllor,

Scot,

Did you read the text of the proposed resolution? Again, I'm not very well versed in law nor political nitty-gritty, but from what I understand, this isn't a "law" to be passed, forcing every citizen to study and reflect on the history of slavery and issue a personal apology with check attached. It's more of a procedural necessity, aimed to get government to officially acknowledge the great crimes, and the repercussions thereof, committed against African slaves and their descendants.

If a bill is passed by both houses of Congress and then signed by the President, or if the President's veto is overridden by two-thirds of both houses it becomes a law. That's the process. Now the law may have no criminal or civil penalties written into it for individuals but it is still a "law".

[Ormond]

Ormond,

The practical difference is that a law is, at least in my opinion, supposed to do something more than hypothetical. A law passed to fund a study to see if another law ought to be passed seem a tad like the snake eating its own tale.

Heck, can't a member of Congress direct the CBO to do a feasablity study without having to pass a law that the CBO do a feasablity study? I thought that's what the CBO did? Didn't it do that for the ACA when it was still a bill?

As I read the explanation on the CBO's own site, an average individual member of Congress can't get them to do such a feasibility study. It has to be an entire committee or the "leadership."

Here is what seems to me to be the relevant paragraph from their site:

In addition, CBO is required by law to produce a formal cost estimate for nearly every bill that is “reported” (approved) by a full committee of either House of Congress; the only exceptions are appropriation bills, which do not receive formal cost estimates. (CBO provides information on their budgetary impact to the appropriation committees.) CBO also produces formal cost estimates at other stages of the legislative process if requested to do so by a relevant committee or by the Congressional leadership. Moreover, the agency produces informal cost estimates for a much larger number of legislative proposals that Congressional committees consider in the process of developing legislation

http://www.cbo.gov/about/our-processes

[jarl the climber]

He actually provides information to back up his position: Namely, if drug prohibition was the issue, it would affect black and white people (or at least poor black and white people) equally: It does not. If family patterns was the issueone would expet the same to hold true for white families: It does not.

These other issues are strawmen: They may or may not be social problems on their own, but they do not explain the disparity in outcomes between white and black people: Institutionalized racism does. Practices of exploiation does. The practical exclusion of blacks from the principal methods of wealth transfer (home ownership) in the US does.

Black people were brought over to the US with essentially no wealth. (even less so than european migrants) throughout history they were systematically denied the tools to acquire such. Wealth (in the form of land, houses, etc.) is largely transferable: It can be borrowed against, used as collateral, etc. in order to improve th status of the family in queston. Black families largely has not had access to this kind of (even relatively modest) wealth. ANd even when they've had, they've not had equal access to the institutions that can transform that wealth into other forms of social capital.

Well I guess that makes sense if you live in Scandanavia its not what I really see on a day to day basis. I see plenty of blacks with good jobs who own their own homes, its not so much that they lack capital or the means to acquire it, they just have less they can do with it. The real barrier is in business ownership to an extent. In my own trade, tree care, most of the customer base is white, probably 70 or 80 percent, so all other things being equal, competence, proper insurance, experience and knowledge, these folks are usually more comfortable with the blond haired blue eyed guy than they would be with the black guy. Thats not to say there isn't a niche out there for the black fellow, its just not as big and its not quite as affluent. Its not that blacks can not get there hands on money, they just have less that they can do with it.

[MerenthaClone]

. I see plenty of blacks with good jobs who own their own homes

I think the most interesting stat I picked up from the article was that African-American families making 100k/year live in the same neighborhoods a white family making 30k/year does.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MC,

That is interesting and it gels with what I'm reading in Adrian Miller's book Soul Food. Part of the problem "Soul Food" has compaired to "Southern Food" (despite their similarities) is that "Soul Food" restaraunts tend to be in "worse" neighborhoods.

[all swedes are racist]

R'hllor,

If a bill is passed by both houses of Congress and then signed by the President, or if the President's veto is overridden by two-thirds of both houses it becomes a law. That's the process. Now the law may have no criminal or civil penalties written into it for individuals but it is still a "law".

Ok, cool, so it's a law, as you said with no criminal

or civil penalties for individuals, but as Ormond points out, yes, passing the resolution does seem to be a necessary first step towards some sort of action, even if that action is something as simple as researching the issue.

[The onion wight]

He actually provides information to back up his position: Namely, if drug prohibition was the issue, it would affect black and white people (or at least poor black and white people) equally: It does not. If family patterns was the issueone would expet the same to hold true for white families: It does not.

These other issues are strawmen: They may or may not be social problems on their own, but they do not explain the disparity in outcomes between white and black people: Institutionalized racism does. Practices of exploiation does. The practical exclusion of blacks from the principal methods of wealth transfer (home ownership) in the US does.

Black people were brought over to the US with essentially no wealth. (even less so than european migrants) throughout history they were systematically denied the tools to acquire such. Wealth (in the form of land, houses, etc.) is largely transferable: It can be borrowed against, used as collateral, etc. in order to improve th status of the family in queston. Black families largely has not had access to this kind of (even relatively modest) wealth. ANd even when they've had, they've not had equal access to the institutions that can transform that wealth into other forms of social capital.

You're not comparing like with like. The rate of two parent family formation within the black community is manifestly lower than any other ethnic group.

I'm not really sure what the argument is here? That black people have been imprinted with counter productive coping behaviors in response to historical racism?

Many minority groups who've come to America have gained wealth and social advancement because they value and promote education, family cohesion and entrepreneurship within their communities. This includes migrant communities from Africa and the West Indies. The author of the article does not argue that the lack of these cultural habits within much of the black community is as a result of racism, rather he dismisses them altogether and focuses exclusively on white racism.

[Summah]

There's some something missing here from some of the conversation about reparations. Coates is specifically asking for reparations for what came after slavery: Jim Crow, segregation, redlining etc. That's not to say that slavery is not an issue, it is and he addresses it, but inequality and systemic racism is ongoing and when you see things like peoples attempts to completely blame all the problems of the black community on single parents and drugs while dismissing racism it becomes clear how in denial people are, and part of the point of Coates article is not just financial reparations but also a coming to terms of the realities of this system for all Americans.

[The onion wight]

There's some something missing here from some of the conversation about reparations. Coates is specifically asking for reparations for what came after slavery: Jim Crow, segregation, redlining etc. That's not to say that slavery is not an issue, it is and he addresses it, but inequality and systemic racism is ongoing and when you see things like peoples attempts to completely blame all the problems of the black community on single parents and drugs while dismissing racism it becomes clear how in denial people are, and part of the point of Coates article is not just financial reparations but also a coming to terms of the realities of this system for all Americans.

I don't think anyone is attempting to blame all of the problems faced by the black community on single parents and drugs, but to ignore them completely? There seems to be an ongoing attempt to infantilize a whole group of people, to deny them the right to take ownership for their own actions. The author is outright saying that not only can all the causes of black America's troubles be laid at the feet of the whites but all the solutions are found in their wallets. Ultimately any solutions to black peoples problems will be found within their own communities.

[Wise Fool]

I don't think anyone is attempting to blame all of the problems faced by the black community on single parents and drugs, but to ignore them completely? There seems to be an ongoing attempt to infantilize a whole group of people, to deny them the right to take ownership for their own actions. The author is outright saying that not only can all the causes of black America's troubles be laid at the feet of the whites but all the solutions are found in their wallets. Ultimately any solutions to black peoples problems will be found within their own communities.

But by insisting that all black people's problems can only be solved from within, you're infantilizing white people by denying whites the right to take ownership for their own racism.

[The Fallen]

I don't think anyone is attempting to blame all of the problems faced by the black community on single parents and drugs, but to ignore them completely? There seems to be an ongoing attempt to infantilize a whole group of people, to deny them the right to take ownership for their own actions. The author is outright saying that not only can all the causes of black America's troubles be laid at the feet of the whites but all the solutions are found in their wallets. Ultimately any solutions to black peoples problems will be found within their own communities.

I think the author is focusing on the issue of reparations and how slavery and Jim Crow has affected the Black community. The article isn't about all the ills that affect said community. This is an effort on your part to sway the conversation into a new territory. The author could have easily delved into the psyche of the Black community and what effect 250 years of being told that you're less-than-human (and treated that way) has had on said community. But he's chosen to focus on specific issues. You have consistently tried to make the conversation about anything other than the issue discussed in the article. It's okay. Slavery and Jim Crow existed. It's okay to admit as much.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fallen,

How much is the author calling for in specific monetary terms? If it's in the article I apologize for not having read yet. It's a 63 page article and I'll tryto get to it sometime next week.

That said it's an important question. If too little, what's the point? If too much, will it not just breed resentment?

[Summah]

Ser Scot, he's not calling for a specific amount, the only thing he is specifically endorsing is HR40 Conyers bill to study the issue of reparations.

[The Fallen]

Fallen,

How much is the author calling for in specific monetary terms? If it's in the article I apologize for not having read yet. It's a 63 page article and I'll tryto get to it sometime next week.

That said it's an important question. If too little, what's the point? If too much, will it not just breed resentment?

Ser Scot, he's not calling for a specific amount, the only thing he is specifically endorsing is HR40 Conyers bill to study the issue of reparations.

As Girl of the Summer Islands stated, there isn't a figure that he's quoted. On the podcast that someone posted, the guest stated that depending on the calculations it could run into the low trillions. I imagine something like that would have to be paid over years.

[Galactus]

Well I guess that makes sense if you live in Scandanavia its not what I really see on a day to day basis. I see plenty of blacks with good jobs who own their own homes, its not so much that they lack capital or the means to acquire it, they just have less they can do with it. The real barrier is in business ownership to an extent. In my own trade, tree care, most of the customer base is white, probably 70 or 80 percent, so all other things being equal, competence, proper insurance, experience and knowledge, these folks are usually more comfortable with the blond haired blue eyed guy than they would be with the black guy. Thats not to say there isn't a niche out there for the black fellow, its just not as big and its not quite as affluent. Its not that blacks can not get there hands on money, they just have less that they can do with it.

You are quite literally not seeing the forest for the trees. Yes, the system is not watertight. (pretty much no system is) the *difference* is precisely what is in question: There are significant barriers to black accumulation of wealth, these barriers have been signfiicantly higher in the past. This ensures a wealth disparity, which includes all the things that follow, including worse social outcomes.

ou're not comparing like with like. The rate of two parent family formation within the black community is manifestly lower than any other ethnic group.

Entirely possible. The question is why? A basic one is simply: People form families when they can afford to. Either on their own (neolocal families) or by relying on their parents (matri- or patrilocal families)

This is a fairly well-known phenomenon. (it's why western families are so odd, and why the 60's was the high point for the institution of marriage)

I'm not really sure what the argument is here? That black people have been imprinted with counter productive coping behaviors in response to historical racism?

No, precisely the reverse: The idea of black pathology is not borne out by any data. Check out some of Coates' other stuff, he has links to studies.

Many minority groups who've come to America have gained wealth and social advancement because they value and promote education, family cohesion and entrepreneurship within their communities. This includes migrant communities from Africa and the West Indies. The author of the article does not argue that the lack of these cultural habits within much of the black community is as a result of racism, rather he dismisses them altogether and focuses exclusively on white racism.

Read the column. These arguments have all been exmained and found wanting: The cultural habits of immigrant groups do not adequately explain the differences in outcomes: US policy (both federal, state-level and on an informal social basis) does. (he actually pointed out that West Indian families, who do tend to have better social outcomes for a variety of reasons, tends to regress towards the mean of black america, as they to were subjected to the various racist policies)

Blacks arrived with absolutely no property whatsoever: Indeed they *were* property. They did not even have the property of their labour, the ownership of their bodies, to sell. After emanciption they were subject to terrorism: Lynchings, murder, beatings. The law protected them at best haphazardly, at worst it was actively hostile. They were excluded from major social programs either by statute or by omission, what wealth they could amass was stolen.

Note that the system was incredibly pervasive: An individual white person might very well not have anything against black people personally, but by federal guidelines black people living nearby would quite literally drop property values. Directly impacting the wealth of the people living there.

The black ghetto predates the War on Drugs: It was created by deliberate racist policy. Large sections of it still remains in place. Unless americans realize what they are doing and have been doing they cannot fix the issue. That is the thrust of the article.

• ,

[Istakhr]

I don't understand the relation between repatriations for slavery and the socioeconomic statues of black people today.

Wouldn't they deserve the exact same amount of money as repatriations for slavery whether they were the most successful group in the US or the least?

[Ramsay Gimp]

I don't understand the relation between repatriations for slavery and the socioeconomic statues of black people today.

Wouldn't they deserve the exact same amount of money as repatriations for slavery whether they were the most successful group in the US or the least?

If the slaves themselves were still living, yes. Otherwise, it seems to me that in order to justify reparations you have to show that their descendants are still experiencing adverse effects.

[all swedes are racist]

If the slaves themselves were still living, yes. Otherwise, it seems to me that in order to justify reparations you have to show that their descendants are still experiencing adverse effects.

Which, of course, they are. That is in fact the main crux of Coates' article.

[Summah]

And :bang: :bang: :bang: (because I've said this several times already) that the reparations are not just for slavery; the reparations are for the 150 years that came after slavery: segregation, Jim Crow, redlining etc etc. The article is much more about recent issues like redlining, of course slavery matters, thats the history that led us here.

Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

I think the subtitle to the article above makes it very clear that reparations are about far more than money which may not even be the most important part

What I’m talking about is more than recompense for past injustices—more than a handout, a payoff, hush money, or a reluctant bribe. What I’m talking about is a national reckoning that would lead to spiritual renewal. Reparations would mean the end of scarfing hot dogs on the Fourth of July while denying the facts of our heritage. Reparations would mean the end of yelling “patriotism” while waving a Confederate flag. Reparations would mean a revolution of the American consciousness, a reconciling of our self-image as the great democratizer with the facts of our history.

Reparations could not make up for the murder perpetrated by the Nazis. But they did launch Germany’s reckoning with itself, and perhaps provided a road map for how a great civilization might make itself worthy of the name.