In Defense of Intent

[OldGimletEye]

On 3/8/2021 at 3:24 PM, larrytheimp said:

Ok, if you want to be absolute and completely pedantic about the slavery statement, sure, she's wrong.  

I'm not arguing, and have not been arguing, that anything you said about the economics of slavery is incorrect.  I'm saying you're fighting a strawman.  DiAngelo isn't arguing about some Gordon Wood shit.  She's talking about white privilege and white fragility.  She's saying that slavery and it's after effects created an economy that has always favored white people.

I think we both realize, and any reasonable person reading it, that it's in the context of white privilege and that American wealth is a stand-in for "white wealth"- the whole point being white people are better of than black people economically because of slavery.  

Only a very narrow reading devoid of context would interpret that statement the way you have.  Why would she be talking about the size of the US economy and growth as a whole?

Does DiAngelo know that slavery was a net negative for the US economy?  Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't even matter, because it's not pertinent to the topic.  She's talking about white privilege, and why black people don't start out on equal footing with white people in America.  Do the the economics of slavery and Jim Crow have anything to do with that?  Of course they do!  But yes, literally, and beyond this topic, you're right.  

re:Smith

Yeah, the school did a very shitty job once the administration got involved.  They should have made it more clear that Blair did nothing wrong, and wasn't even involved.  

Again, though, it's not like Blair was ever accused of anything, or punished for anything.  An incident she was present in the building for was investigated.  The worst thing that happened to her was an accusation that turned out to not be true- and if you read the actual statements, the student (who was also an employee, btw) never accused Blair of calling the cops on her.  She posted her name and picture and said Blair probably knows what happened and who called.  That's sucks, but it's not Robin DiAngelo's fault.  The school completely fucked up.  

What's worse, calling the cops on a student / employee for eating their lunch and hanging out or being assumed by the public to have maybe done something racist?

I'm just not seeing the connection between your reading of DiAngelo and what happened at Smith.

1. I have little patience with people who peddle historical bullshit to suit an ideological agenda, whether they be rightist or leftist. Her statement, at best, is very misleading.
2. DiAngelo has a PHD. If she wanted to make the point that the legacy of slavery was particularly hard on the descendants of slaves she could have clearly so stated. If she wanted to make the point that legacy of slavery contributed to wealth inequality between whites and blacks she could have so stated.
3. The context was American wealth in general, so I don’t understand what “context” you are talking about.
4. While she doesn’t say this in her book, around 2015, DiAngelo said, “The question is not whether racism took place, but how did it manifest itself?” Under this standard, Blair and her fellow employees are guilty. No need, evidently, to examine the facts of the case. Also with continuing questions about the validity of IAT testing, DiAngelo has no real basis to make that statement, other than it being her own personal opinion.
5. Kanoute did in fact accuse Blair of being a racist person, going so far as to post her picture, email, and phone number. Thereafter, Blair was continually harassed and Smith College didn’t really come to her defense, even after an independent investigation cleared her of any wrongdoing. All Blair got was a private apology, while still being trashed publicly.
 

[DMC]

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

No not really. If you say , "American wealth was built on slave labor" and turns out that in reality, it was a drag on American wealth, well then that is not really an accurate statement.

Your Alice in Wonderland logic does not change what "accurate" actually means.  Just because scholars came along hundreds of years later and said American wealth could have been greater without slavery does not change the fact of what it is.  Any empiricist should not only understand this, but abide by it.

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

A more apt example would be if about 70% of Pepsi Co's sales were based on the Coca-Cola formula and 30% were based on the Pepsi formula and then some Pepsi Co. executive comes out says,"Our wealth was built on the Pepsi Formula". Well, I guess that's sort of true, but really the statement is misleading.

It's not misleading, it's just not comprehensive.  30% of the wealth was built on the Pepsi formula.  If DiAngelo said all American wealth was built on slavery that'd be one thing, but that's not what you quoted.  Your entire argument here is based on her not including two words - "in part" - in one sentence.

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

And it is not making a mountain out of a molehill because DiAngelo's views are right in line with many on left's views about the role of slavery in American economic development. Edward Baptiste tried to make the assertion work, and then proceeded to propose on of the dumbest theories to ever come out of academia.

So it's not making a mountain out of a molehill because of the views and assertions others have expressed?  Now you're not only abandoning empiricism but even pretending to present an objective critique.  You are applying your own interpretation and grievances of what the "left" believes - and worse not even conflating her own arguments with this larger boogeyman you're creating, but others'.

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

If Sen is suggesting that the end of slavery was bad economically for everyone

She's not.

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

If you’re suggesting that is what Sen’s paper means

I'm not.

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

These negative effects most likely will economically harm almost everyone (except the elites) in a region that practiced slavery.

Yes!  The bolded is entirely obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension of what I linked, quoted, and even bolded within the quotes:

Quote

the fall of slavery was a cataclysmic event that undermined Southern whites’ political and economic power. [...]

the emancipation of Southern slaves undermined whites’ economic power [...]

these political and economic changes gave Southern Black Belt elites an incentive to further promote existing anti-black sentiment

How anyone can read that graph and not get that she's referring to the elites - and subsequently the perpetuation of wealth inequality - is beyond me.

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Frankly Sen should have distinguished between the old planter elite and everyone else.

She did!  See above.

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think your trying to twist Sen's article to support DiAngelo's claim.

Sen is demonstrating that the economic inequality preserved in the south via slavery informs not only systemic/institutional racism still seen today but also the political attitudes that help perpetuate this iniquity.  DiAngelo's book is how white attitudes - in the form of fragility - reinforce a status quo perpetuating systemic and institutional racism.  The correlation seems rather apparent to me.

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

If DiAngelo's point was that slavery increased inequality between whites and blacks and harmed the descendants of the enslaved, she could have easily wrote that, and those observations wouldn't be controversial.

DiAngelo's argument is, explicitly, about how white fragility hamstrings us from confronting the perpetuation of racial inequality and injustice:

Quote

DiAngelo says she encounters a lot of “certitude from white people – they insist ‘Well, it’s not me’, or say ‘I’m doing my best, what do you want from me?’ ”. She defines this as white fragility – the inability of white people to tolerate racial stress. This, she says, leads to white people “weaponising [their] hurt feelings” and being indignant and defensive when confronted with racial inequality and injustice. This creates a climate where the suggestion or accusation of racism causes more outrage among white people than the racism itself. “And if nobody is racist,” she asks, “why is racism still America’s biggest problem? What are white people afraid they will lose by listening? What is so threatening about humility on this topic?”

Seems pretty appropriate to emphasize this is rooted in the legacy of slavery.

Overall, I don't know who you're arguing with that America's economic development would have been more better without slavery, but it's definitely not with me, nor Sen, nor DiAngelo.  Moreover, you are demonstrably arguing in bad faith.  Your objection here is plainly not legitimate criticism.

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I have little patience with people who peddle historical bullshit to suit an ideological agenda, whether they be rightist or leftist

I know, right?  It's tiring!  See above!

[OldGimletEye]

On 3/12/2021 at 4:39 PM, DMC said:

Your Alice in Wonderland logic does not change what "accurate" actually means.  Just because scholars came along hundreds of years later and said American wealth could have been greater without slavery does not change the fact of what it is.  Any empiricist should not only understand this, but abide by it.

It's not misleading, it's just not comprehensive.  30% of the wealth was built on the Pepsi formula.  If DiAngelo said all American wealth was built on slavery that'd be one thing, but that's not what you quoted.  Your entire argument here is based on her not including two words - "in part" - in one sentence.

So it's not making a mountain out of a molehill because of the views and assertions others have expressed?  Now you're not only abandoning empiricism but even pretending to present an objective critique.  You are applying your own interpretation and grievances of what the "left" believes - and worse not even conflating her own arguments with this larger boogeyman you're creating, but others'.

Imagine if some random conservative writer, when discussing the southern antebellum economy wrote the following:

"The southern antebellum economy depended on free labor."

Well certainly, there were free laborers in the southern antebellum economy. In fact most of the labor in the south before the Civil War was free, there being about 9 million total inhabitants of which about 4 million were enslaved. According to your logic there is nothing at all odd about the statement because well it’s true or at least sort of true isn’t?

But, most people would find that statement a rather odd way to describe the nature of pre-Civil War Southern economy, given the centrality of slavery to the pre-Civil War South’s economy.

And I imagine, that if complained about such a statement you wouldn’t be complaining at all about me making “mountain out of molehill” and would probably agree that such a statement had a dubious ideological motivation.

Now consider the statement:

"American wealth was built on slavery”.

Well, I guess you could say, that the statement is sort of true in the sense slavery was part of the production process in the American pre-civil war period. But the statement is highly misleading because it leaves out a number of issues. For one, there were about 31 million people in the US before the onset of the Civil War, approximately 27 million of which were not enslaved and involved in a number of industries. Cotton was only about 5% of the GDP, despite idiot leftist claims that it was around 50%. Furthermore, we have some evidence that coerced labor is likely to have negative effects on economic development and growth. And the evidence is just limited to the United States. There is to my knowledge at least one study examining Brazil and couple of others that examine the role of serfdom in Russia. Statements like “American wealth was built on slavery” are extremely misleading, and one can only think that a person would make such a statement because they had some ideological motivation to do so.

On 3/12/2021 at 4:39 PM, DMC said:

She's not.

I'm not.

Yes!  The bolded is entirely obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension of what I linked, quoted, and even bolded within the quotes:

How anyone can read that graph and not get that she's referring to the elites - and subsequently the perpetuation of wealth inequality - is beyond me.

She did!  See above.

Sen is demonstrating that the economic inequality preserved in the south via slavery informs not only systemic/institutional racism still seen today but also the political attitudes that help perpetuate this iniquity.  DiAngelo's book is how white attitudes - in the form of fragility - reinforce a status quo perpetuating systemic and institutional racism.  The correlation seems rather apparent to me.

DiAngelo's argument is, explicitly, about how white fragility hamstrings us from confronting the perpetuation of racial inequality and injustice:

Seems pretty appropriate to emphasize this is rooted in the legacy of slavery.

Overall, I don't know who you're arguing with that America's economic development would have been more better without slavery, but it's definitely not with me, nor Sen, nor DiAngelo.  Moreover, you are demonstrably arguing in bad faith.  Your objection here is plainly not legitimate criticism.

I know, right?  It's tiring!  See above!

This all a bunch of baloney, And I'm not sure what fucking point you were trying to make with Sen's article. The topic wasn't about whether slavery increased inequality or about the legacy of slavery with regard to racism (and to me, those observartions aren't controversial). The issue was about DiAngelo's statement regarding the role slavery in American wealth formation. For some reason, you decided that issue wasn't really about wealth formation, but instead was about the role of slavery in perpetrating inequality and racism, even though I had specifically disputed her claim that American wealth was built on slavery.  If DiAngelo had merely observed that slavery increased inequality and helped to maintain racism, I wouldn't have disputed that.

I think you're the one arguing in bad faith here.

And as a reminder, her claim about the role of slavery in American wealth, was just one example things I took issue with. It wasn't the only one. But, then another poster questioned my assertion that she was wrong about that (or her statement was misleading) and I had to defend it.

[Kalbear]

American wealth distribution is more unequal than many other nations.

This is because American wealth was built on slavery. 

This really isn't hard. It is very hard to assume good intent from you in this argument given the obvious simplicity of the counterarguments. 

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

American wealth distribution is more unequal than many other nations.

This is because American wealth was built on slavery. 

This really isn't hard. It is very hard to assume good intent from you in this argument given the obvious simplicity of the counterarguments. 

I think it would be more accurate to say, inequality was the result of slavery, rather than making a statement that suggest the only reason America became wealthy was because of slavery.

And you're good intent is rather hard to assume here.

[karaddin]

It's a lot easier to assume than yours. For a statistically significant quantity of wealthy and powerful white Americans, their families wealth and power was significantly advanced via slavery. They have leveraged that wealth as a foundation for further wealth accumulation and the methods used since the ending of slavery have still in many cases involved the exploitation of black Americans, many of whom are descendants of slavery.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

given the centrality of slavery to the pre-Civil War South’s economy.

This is analogous to saying, "the wealth of the American south was built on slavery."  So, really, you're only qualm with her is she didn't qualify that when she said "America's wealth was built on slavery" - in spite of the fact she was obviously referring to parts of America that, ya know, had slavery.  Seems a really pedantic and petty complaint to base questioning her credibility upon.

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Furthermore, we have some evidence that coerced labor is likely to have negative effects on economic development and growth. And the evidence is just limited to the United States. There is to my knowledge at least one study examining Brazil and couple of others that examine the role of serfdom in Russia. Statements like “American wealth was built on slavery” are extremely misleading, and one can only think that a person would make such a statement because they had some ideological motivation to do so.

Again, this is all just counterfactual/post-facto scholarship.  You are not arguing with DiAngelo's claim here.  How you can't see that is beyond me.  The only reasonable conclusion to derive, is that you have an ideological motivation in doing so.

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

This all a bunch of baloney, And I'm not sure what fucking point you were trying to make with Sen's article. The topic wasn't about whether slavery increased inequality or about the legacy of slavery with regard to racism (and to me, those observartions aren't controversial).

I already explained this, I'm done holding your hand through basic interpretation and why DiAngelo would emphasize the legacy of slavery - and its role in wealth formation - on what she's researching and discussing today, i.e. the importance of wealth and racial inequality's perpetuation.

[Kalbear]

8 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think it would be more accurate to say, inequality was the result of slavery, rather than making a statement that suggest the only reason America became wealthy was because of slavery.

And if they made that statement that might be a reasonable leg to stand on for you except inequality wasn't the result of slavery. Greater wealth inequality was. 

The statement again is that America's wealth was built on slavery. That does not say things like the only reason that America became wealthy was because of slavery, or that if they didn't have slavery they wouldn't be wealthy. It is a basic causal statement. The important point that you appear to not really grasp at all for entirely pedantic reasons is the factual statement that American wealth foundations were built on an industrial base of slave labor. This is like arguing that Dutch wealth was built on naval trade is incorrect. 

And every single state, both free and slave, benefitted from that slave labor. 

That's it! That's the whole thing! You've written like twenty nine treatise that only poor DMC read to completely justify you totally missing the mark because you put the wrong emphasis on a word in a sentence. 

8 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

And you're good intent is rather hard to assume here.

*your

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Karlbear said:

that only poor DMC read to completely justify you totally missing the mark

To be clear, while I am indeed poor, I can't blame that on OGE.  I can't even blame it on white slaveowners OR Robin DiAngelo.  Maybe, maybe, I can blame it on you Karl.  But only because you're so hot right now.

[Heartofice]

I dunno, if someone said to me 'America's wealth was built on slavery', my first thought would be that they mean that the wealth that America had.. was built on slavery. Call me crazy. Whatever the intent of those words, the impact is that I think that any wealth America has must be the direct result of slavery.

That phrase gets thrown around a lot on the internet and I'm almost certain it's intent when I've seen it, is to say that all of Americas current wealth would not exist were it not for slavery.

It seems there is a lot of mental gymnastics in this thread as to why that isn't what that statement means. 

[Week]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I dunno, if someone said to me 'America's wealth was built on slavery', my first thought would be that they mean that the wealth that America had.. was built on slavery. Call me crazy. Whatever the intent of those words, the impact is that I think that any wealth America has must be the direct result of slavery.

That phrase gets thrown around a lot on the internet and I'm almost certain it's intent when I've seen it, is to say that all of Americas current wealth would not exist were it not for slavery.

It seems there is a lot of mental gymnastics in this thread as to why that isn't what that statement means. 

Citation needed to support willfully missing the point.

"America's wealth was built on slavery."

"America's wealth is all due to slavery."

"America is a wealthy superpower all due to slavery."

The first is what is said and the last is what complainers allege is meant. Part of the point of the first, which is obscured in latter rewritings, is that current wealth disparities specifically are an ongoing result of slavery. 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I think that any wealth America has must be the direct result of slavery.

Except it's patently obvious that such a statement doesn't mean any American wealth is a direct result of slavery.  That's, of course, a really stupid interpretation just on its face.  But even if that somehow wasn't easily understood by a basic understanding of the context, simply reading through the thread should make the difference quite apparent. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

"Companies like Walmart have gotten rich by paying low wages" 

"Bullshit, if they'd paid their workers better they'd be even richer.  They've only hurt themselves"

 

[Alarich II]

16 hours ago, Karlbear said:

American wealth distribution is more unequal than many other nations.

This is because American wealth was built on slavery. 

I imagine, that this kind of comparative statement is really hard to prove or to disprove, because it will depend on the nations you are using for comparison. You'd probably have to narrow it down to "industrialized slavery" too and set some kind of timeframe, because the concept of slavery is by no means foreign to other nations. That would be an interesting research though. My (entirely unscientific) hypothesis would be that most nations that abolished slavery (or serfdom) pre industrialization (like France or most German states) have less income inequality than those who abolished it post industrialization (Russia being an example), which would kind of support the hypothesis that most of todays wealth is built on industrialization (innovation) and excluding a part of society from participating in that process from the beginning will not only create a lesser aggregate for all but will also lead to higher inequality within. 

I think it is quite obvious that some Americans did build their personal wealth on slavery which their families inherited and built upon. And this is probably true for many, if not most nations that had the concept of forced labour in some kind or another. If we speak of the "the wealth of America" though, my understanding is that we are speaking of the wealth of the nation as a whole, i.e. the aggregate of all members of this nation. And while the sum of 50+50 is the same as 99+1 it makes a huge difference in terms of wealth distribution. So I think, we are kind of moving the goalposts here if we shift from talking about the wealth of Americans instead of the wealth of America.

When we're talking about the wealth of the nation it is probably more accurate to say that racism and slavery affect the inequal distribution of wealth, whereas the genoice and land theft of the native people is what it was built on. 

[Ran]

This idea that income inequality today has to do with slavery is ahistorical. In the 70s, the U.S. had income inequality about on par with Sweden, that social democratic wonderland, the Netherlands, and Canada .... before taxes, anyways (this is an important point). In the 80s, the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% in Europe and the top 1% in the US was at about 10%... and now it's about 12% in Europe and 20% in the U.S.

General income inequality in the US is not due to the lasting mark of slavery. The issue is that where many countries in Europe and elsewhere moved in the 20th century towards social democracies with generous welfare states, where the transfers led to substantial post-tax equalization, whereas the U.S. has largely been pulled in a different direction. Just look at the OECD GINI coeffecient charts and you'll see what I mean -- the U.S. and France are about as "unequal" before taxes, but after taxes the U.S. coeffecient goes from .486 to .378 (a difference of .108), whereas France's goes from .483 to .293 (a difference of .190). 

To the degree that racism is a motive for the stinginess of the U.S. welfare state, resistance to large-scale wealth transfers in the form of high taxes on the few for the benefit of the many, and so on, that's worth discussing. Especially because Hispanic poverty rates are in many states fairly similar to black poverty rates, and we can't say that's because of slavery. 

But the idea that historic slavery  specifically is the over-riding explanation for income inequality in the U.S. today strikes me as confused and uncoupled from reality. It plays a part in black poverty, hence continuing arguments for reparations, but black poverty is only a small portion of overall poverty in the U.S. and so is not a particularly noteworthy contributor to income inequality.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

50 minutes ago, Ran said:

This idea that income inequality today has to do with slavery is ahistorical. In the 70s, the U.S. had income inequality about on par with Sweden, that social democratic wonderland, the Netherlands, and Canada .... before taxes, anyways (this is an important point). In the 80s, the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% in Europe and the top 1% in the US was at about 10%... and now it's about 12% in Europe and 20% in the U.S.

General income inequality in the US is not due to the lasting mark of slavery. The issue is that where many countries in Europe and elsewhere moved in the 20th century towards social democracies with generous welfare states, where the transfers led to substantial post-tax equalization, whereas the U.S. has largely been pulled in a different direction. Just look at the OECD GINI coeffecient charts and you'll see what I mean -- the U.S. and France are about as "unequal" before taxes, but after taxes the U.S. coeffecient goes from .486 to .378 (a difference of .108), whereas France's goes from .483 to .293 (a difference of .190). 

To the degree that racism is a motive for the stinginess of the U.S. welfare state, resistance to large-scale wealth transfers in the form of high taxes on the few for the benefit of the many, and so on, that's worth discussing. Especially because Hispanic poverty rates are in many states fairly similar to black poverty rates, and we can't say that's because of slavery. 

But the idea that historic slavery  specifically is the over-riding explanation for income inequality in the U.S. today strikes me as confused and uncoupled from reality. It plays a part in black poverty, hence continuing arguments for reparations, but black poverty is only a small portion of overall poverty in the U.S. and so is not a particularly noteworthy contributor to income inequality.

 

I wonder if in the context of this thread, when we talk about income inequality, we'd be talking about white vs people of color?

The US still has institutional racism.  In civil court, if you win a judgment that involves compensation for income that you would have earned if not for whatever happened to you or your family, it's adjusted for race.  Like, they will pay you less money if you're black, because it's argued that your lifetime earnings would be less due to lower wages and lower life expectancy.  

After slavery it was Jim Crow.  DiAngelo's entire point is that in the US, white people have had economic and social advantages that started because of slavery and have been perpetuated by white supremacy.  This isn't tough.  

I have absolutely no idea why everyone is jumping through hoops to extend these ideas beyond white privilege.  

Has DiAngelo, DMC, or Karl argued that general income inequality is caused by slavery?  I think the point was that the disparity in outcomes for whites and blacks is rooted in slavery.  

[Ran]

28 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I wonder if in the context of this thread, when we talk about income inequality, we'd be talking about white vs people of color?

There are people who genuinely believe income and wealth inequality in the US vs. other countries is due to slavery because of over-broad statements like the ones that keep getting batted around in this thread. People who intend specific statements should make specific statements.

Quote

 

After slavery it was Jim Crow.  DiAngelo's entire point is that in the US, white people have had economic and social advantages that started because of slavery and have been perpetuated by white supremacy.  This isn't tough.  

Hispanics are also at fairly similar disadvantage statistically-speaking, and it is not because of slavery. Multi-generational wealth is actually fairly rare, and looking outside of the 20th century for the root cause of the disparities becomes increasingly tenuous because one cannot assume a direct line between a former slave and their descendants today in terms of wealth increase.

A much likelier cause for the wealth gap has to do with things such as the exclusion of agricultural labor from Social Security in the early 20th century (disproportiontely leading to elderly African Americans and Hispanics using up their savings, and sometimes that of their descendants) and the practice of redlining in urban areas that sucked out generational wealth from African Americans, Hispanics, and others. Racism certainly plays a part in this. Not so much slavery.

Quote

 

Has DiAngelo, DMC, or Karl argued that general income inequality is caused by slavery? 

I don't know if you read what I quoted, because it's pretty clear that the degree of the wealth gap today is being attributed to slavery 156 years ago, whereas I've shown that the wealth gap today has much more to do with post-slavery, 20th century policy decisions that affect many more people than just descendants of slaves.

Quote

I think the point was that the disparity in outcomes for whites and blacks is rooted in slavery.  

Yet the disparity between whites and Hispanics has tracked a similar course to the disparity between whites and blacks, and that is not because of slavery. The impact of institutional racism in the United States affects more people than blacks, and because of this we should think outside the box of terms that make it only about whites vs. blacks. Slavery has nothing to do with why Hispanics or Native Americans have wealth or income gaps today (and precious little for why blacks have said gaps), after all, but racism certainly is a part of it.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Could racism, white supremacy, and slavery possibly be linked?  Just spitballing here but it sure seems like the white supremacy, that was inseparable from slavery in the US, would maybe just maybe have something to do with other forms of racism.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

. 

But the idea that historic slavery  specifically is the over-riding explanation for income inequality in the U.S. today strikes me as confused and uncoupled from reality. It plays a part in black poverty, hence continuing arguments for reparations, but black poverty is only a small portion of overall poverty in the U.S. and so is not a particularly noteworthy contributor to income inequality.

 

Yes probabaly not particularly noteworthy in a discussion about white fucking privilege.  

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

This idea that income inequality today has to do with slavery is ahistorical.

Wealth inequality is not the same as income inequality.  See here:

Quote

Efforts by Black Americans to build wealth can be traced back throughout American history. But these efforts have been impeded in a host of ways, beginning with 246 years of chattel slavery and followed by Congressional mismanagement of the Freedman’s Savings Bank (which left 61,144 depositors with losses of nearly $3 million in 1874), the violent massacre decimating Tulsa’s Greenwood District in 1921 (a population of 10,000 that thrived as the epicenter of African American business and culture, commonly referred to as “Black Wall Street”), and discriminatory policies throughout the 20th century including the Jim Crow Era’s “Black Codes” strictly limiting opportunity in many southern states, the GI bill, the New Deal’s Fair Labor Standards Act’s exemption of domestic agricultural and service occupations, and redlining. Wealth was taken from these communities before it had the opportunity to grow.

 

1 hour ago, Ran said:

General income inequality in the US is not due to the lasting mark of slavery. The issue is that where many countries in Europe and elsewhere moved in the 20th century towards social democracies with generous welfare states, where the transfers led to substantial post-tax equalization, whereas the U.S. has largely been pulled in a different direction. Just look at the OECD GINI coeffecient charts and you'll see what I mean -- the U.S. and France are about as "unequal" before taxes, but after taxes the U.S. coeffecient goes from .486 to .378 (a difference of .108), whereas France's goes from .483 to .293 (a difference of .190). 

You're referring to the disproportionate rise in income inequality since the 1970s.  Wealth inequality precedes this phenomenon - even in 1963 median family wealth was $140,633 for whites compared to $19,504 for nonwhites (in 2016 dollars).  Just because the situation has gotten worse due to the startling increase in income inequality over the past forty years - and similarly just because the situation was getting better from the New Deal until then - does not mean this disparity hasn't always existed.  And of course it's rooted in slavery.