American Civil War, yet again

[The Fallen]

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.

That's not what the article is about. But why would it matter if they were still experiencing adverse effects? A debt is a debt, regardless of whether the person owed the debt needs it or not.

[Summah]

People please read Ta-Nahesi Coates' article before commenting on it, it's not as clear cut as some of you seem to think which might be why the 8000 posts I've written telling all y'all that reparations are not just about slavery but also the 150 years afterwards and are not just financial have been almost completely ignored by the people who obviously haven't read the article (and yes it's obvious, so don't bother lying).

[Ramsay Gimp]

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

No I get that. I was responding to Istakhr's question

That's not what the article is about. But why would it matter if they were still experiencing adverse effects? A debt is a debt, regardless of whether the person owed the debt needs it or not.

Because a person isn't owed a debt just because their grandparents suffered injustice. But if they still experience lingering adverse effects of that original injustice, as well as new lesser injustices, then that is a different matter. I believe that is Coates' position as well

[jarl the climber]

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.

You seem to have missed my point, which is that race relations in the US are not based on logic and rational thinking. If it was the current situation would be much different. There is an underlying irrationality to this issue that I don't think you understand and that it probably won't be overcome by a reasoned arguement as regards any sort of political process.

On a practical level, the US is not South Africa, politically blacks do not have the political muscle to force a conversation about this on their own steam. Stuff like this gets mentioned now and then, every couple of years and its never gone anywhere, not really. I doubt that Conyers resolution will get passed. Personally I have mixed feelings about the wisdom of the whole idea, it would be good if some things could be discussed in a reasonable manner, but if it turns into an Us vs. Them sort of thing and it could easily become something like this, it could be a bit of a disaster, and maybe its better to leave this whole thing alone, if its just going to make tension worse and bring some of this irrationality to the surface.

[The Fallen]

Because a person isn't owed a debt just because their grandparents suffered injustice. But if they still experience lingering adverse effects of that original injustice, as well as new lesser injustices, then that is a different matter. I believe that is Coates' position as well

Just an injustice?!

The discussion of reparations asserts that a debt of some kind is owed, regardless of what form the debt ends up being. I don't see why the current financial condition of the debtee should matter. Coates' article focuses somewhat on housing practices, but I don't think he's stating that that is the scope of the problem. That's just one branch, if you will, of the Injustice Tree. A tree whose roots go as deep as the enslavement of the ancestors of African-Americans. You can look at education, the legal system, labor, etc ... and find the same kind of injustices. Coates has simply focused on one aspect of that long and continuous enemy of African-Americans; institutionalized racism.

You seem to have missed my point, which is that race relations in the US are not based on logic and rational thinking. If it was the current situation would be much different. There is an underlying irrationality to this issue that I don't think you understand and that it probably won't be overcome by a reasoned arguement as regards any sort of political process.

On a practical level, the US is not South Africa, politically blacks do not have the political muscle to force a conversation about this on their own steam. Stuff like this gets mentioned now and then, every couple of years and its never gone anywhere, not really. I doubt that Conyers resolution will get passed. Personally I have mixed feelings about the wisdom of the whole idea, it would be good if some things could be discussed in a reasonable manner, but if it turns into an Us vs. Them sort of thing and it could easily become something like this, it could be a bit of a disaster, and maybe its better to leave this whole thing alone, if its just going to make tension worse and bring some of this irrationality to the surface.

Part of the article touches on just that. The fact that the conversation of race and slavery and Jim Crow should be had and dealt with once and for all, instead of just continuing to sweep it under the rug because feelings may be hurt. You can't "move on" if you don't face the matter.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fallen,

I certainly understand the author's desire to throw the skunk on the table and have an honest conversation about the US's dark racist past. However, what if such a move doesn't free us from that past? What if the move only breeds further resentment because it is coupled with financial reparations for only some members of society? How would it then be good public policy.

As people like to remind us not everyone is perfectly rational about these sorts of subjects.

[The onion wight]

Just an injustice?!

The discussion of reparations asserts that a debt of some kind is owed, regardless of what form the debt ends up being. I don't see why the current financial condition of the debtee should matter. Coates' article focuses somewhat on housing practices, but I don't think he's stating that that is the scope of the problem. That's just one branch, if you will, of the Injustice Tree. A tree whose roots go as deep as the enslavement of the ancestors of African-Americans. You can look at education, the legal system, labor, etc ... and find the same kind of injustices. Coates has simply focused on one aspect of that long and continuous enemy of African-Americans; institutionalized racism.

Part of the article touches on just that. The fact that the conversation of race and slavery and Jim Crow should be had and dealt with once and for all, instead of just continuing to sweep it under the rug because feelings may be hurt. You can't "move on" if you don't face the matter.

He's very focused on financial reparations. He devotes an entire chapter to Germany's post war reparations to Israel. And he specifically dismisses the particular idea that the absence of fathers in the majority of black families makes any contribution to poor outcomes. Everything is due to racism.

[Galactus]

He's very focused on financial reparations. He devotes an entire chapter to Germany's post war reparations to Israel. And he specifically dismisses the particular idea that the absence of fathers in the majority of black families makes any contribution to poor outcomes. Everything is due to racism.

No, he's arguing that the absence of fathers in black families is largely due to racism.

[The onion wight]

No, he's arguing that the absence of fathers in black families is largely due to racism.

"From the White House on down, the myth holds that fatherhood is the great antidote to all that ails black people. But Billy Brooks Jr. had a father. Trayvon Martin had a father. Jordan Davis had a father. Adhering to middle-class norms has never shielded black people from plunder. "

Perhaps I'm mistaken but it reads to me like he's dismissing the entire notion that forming dual parent households promotes social advancement, calling it a myth no less. In fact he argues it simply makes these families a bigger target for racists.

[The Fallen]

Fallen,

I certainly understand the author's desire to throw the skunk on the table and have an honest conversation about the US's dark racist past. However, what if such a move doesn't free us from that past? What if the move only breeds further resentment because it is coupled with financial reparations for only some members of society? How would it then be good public policy.

As people like to remind us not everyone is perfectly rational about these sorts of subjects.

I agree that it can cause resentment. And I think that's due to to ignorance, both in general and about the issue of reparations. And it's also caused by the deliberate muddying by certain segments of the population. That's why the Conyers bill calls for the study of slavery and it's effects first. The public should be educated on how the African-American community was affected by slavery, Jim Crow, and institutionalized racism. And why reparations are the correct action and how it's necessary for our country to finally move on with regards to race. Denial won't help anyone.

I don't know how you feel personally, and you don't have to share it here, but I think, or at least hope, that the generations who are farther removed from Jim Crow and segregation don't feel as sensitive about the issue. And that seems to be what's going on. I'm Puerto Rican and I work with white guys in their late 30s-early 40s and those guys know and admit that there is such a thing as white privilege. And they're strongly against racism and prejudice. And because of that we can have conversations, and joke, about stereotypes and other sensitive topics. These are not conversations that older generations could have. I also have to state that I've always lived in cities in the northeast, so I can't say how people in the south or rural areas anywhere feel about this topic. I'm guessing that it would take more education in those areas. But ultimately, reparations should happen and people will have to address those feelings.

[The Marquis de Leech]

There's something hilarious about a thread that is closing in on the 400 post maximum, when the OP has yet to post a second time.

[The Fallen]

He's very focused on financial reparations. He devotes an entire chapter to Germany's post war reparations to Israel. And he specifically dismisses the particular idea that the absence of fathers in the majority of black families makes any contribution to poor outcomes. Everything is due to racism.

Okay, Onion. Did you miss the part about how Germany admitting their guilt helped both Germans and the rest of the world to move on. Also, the reparations Germany paid weren't to individuals. It went to the state of Israel. And it helped Israel build infrastructure. Sounds like maybe he's arguing for a similar agreement where the money doesn't go to individuals but to funds that can be used for specific purposes, whether it be education or housing or what-have-you.

You can continue to bring up other issues affecting the Black community and I'll continue to remind you that those issues have nothing to do with reparations.

But since you're so concerned about the absence of black fathers then read this article (or better yet the book)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/kathryn-edin-poverty-research-fatherhood

and educate yourself on the issue.

[The Fallen]

"From the White House on down, the myth holds that fatherhood is the great antidote to all that ails black people. But Billy Brooks Jr. had a father. Trayvon Martin had a father. Jordan Davis had a father. Adhering to middle-class norms has never shielded black people from plunder. "

Perhaps I'm mistaken but it reads to me like he's dismissing the entire notion that forming dual parent households promotes social advancement, calling it a myth no less. In fact he argues it simply makes these families a bigger target for racists.

No. What he's saying is that racists use absentee fathers to distort and change the conversation, kind of how you've been doing in this thread.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fallen,

An open honest discussion of racism would be highly valuable. However, reparations are much more thorny. If African-Americans deserve reparations do the decendents of Chinese immigrants, the decendants ofJapanese internees, Native-americans?

RBPL,

Best troll ever?

[The Fallen]

Fallen,

An open honest discussion of racism would be highly valuable. However, reparations are much more thorny. If African-Americans deserve reparations do the decendents of Chinese immigrants, the decendants ofJapanese internees, Native-americans?

RBPL,

Best troll ever?

The Japanese-Americans have received reparations. And I think there should definitely be a conversation about what has been done to Native-Americans, because, clearly autonomy and land hasn't been enough. They've been short-changed.

I would love to continue the conversation, but I have to run shortly. I'll respond to anything later on today.

[Ormond]

There's something hilarious about a thread that is closing in on the 400 post maximum, when the OP has yet to post a second time.

Well, remember that he actually did NOT start a separate thread but actually made his original post in the form US Politics thread. Then some moderator started this new thread when I and others complained about US Politics being derailed.

[TheKitttenGuard]

SerScot,

Japanese interness were given repariations.

Chinese immigrants are an interesting discussion

At least in theory Native American are self-governing and have rights of nations. Though it should be discussed.

The history and status of Black Americans is so intertwinned in how the nation was formed and governed is historically unique.

I am unsure on straight financial compensation but the issue does not go away just because we do not look at things. That just leads to post that the Onionwight have been given.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TKG,

Take a look at the American Indian Movement and the treatment of Leonard Peltier to see just how dependent Native-American "nations" are. Their cultures have been systematically destroyed over the last four centuries and those that have made efforts to preserve their cultures have been hearded and staked into smaller and smaller plots of land over that time period.

Please explain how that isn't racist and why those actions don't make the people who are left worthy of reparations if others are as well?

[TheKitttenGuard]

TKG,

Take a look at the American Indian Movement and the treatment of Leonard Peltier to see just how dependent Native-American "nations" are. Their cultures have been systematically destroyed over the last four centuries and those that have made efforts to preserve their cultures have been hearded and staked into smaller and smaller plots of land over that time period.

Please explain how that isn't racist and why those actions don't make the people who are left worthy of reparations if others are as well?

My first words were in theory.

I am fine if we are to study repariation for Native people. I just think the history of Black Americans are more unique to America that went beyond enslavement.

Foreigners wiping out indigenous people is not incredible unique in Human history sadly.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TKG,

Are you really going sown that path? Because it seems, at least to me, to imply that it is better to be wiped out or forced into cultural genocide than to be enslaved and later emancipated.