White Privilege

[Biggles]

You've resigned to not adhering to a principle, and instead will indulge arbitrarily-established discrimination? I don't understand why your criteria for subjective discrimination should be considered more valid than someone else's (which in the case of the story, may, or may not exist anyway).

The only bigotry actually established so far here is yours.

You're right. I'm a bigoted speechist.

 

[Danoff]

Is it confirmation bias for Cukor to assume that every tailgater is a murderer or thief?

It would be if he concluded that they were all murderers of thieves every time he saw a story or heard an anecdote or had a personal experience where a tailgater was one. Otherwise it's just paranoia (or safety, depending on your perspective).

It's an emotional reaction based on his particular life experience. It's quite possible that Wesley also had particular experiences that made him react in that way.

You're trying to equate the two. It's not being a jerk to refuse to let someone tailgate in violation of building security policy. It is being a jerk to assume that the people around you are racist and try to humiliate them publicly.

 

[Danoff]

NPR tells us we failed to live up to the Civil War promise of 40 acres and mule for all former slaves. It's time to live up to that. Most of the Democrat candidates are for reparations, and so am I.

Slavery ended in 1865 (in the US). The oldest black person alive in the US can't be more than 114. That would put them at having been born in 1905, 40 years after the end of slavery. The only way to make reparations is to bring people back to life.

How is anyone presently thinking that reparations for slavery even can be made, let alone considering who would be forced to provide them? I don't understand how this is somehow becoming mainstream.

 

[Rallywagon]

Oh, I dont know Danoff, I think I could think of a few reasons it's becoming mainstream.

 

[Danoff]

The last of the indentured sharecroppers (and yes, I know not all sharecroppers were effectively slaves) will probably still be alive. We can't just look at the nominative end of Slavery and say everything was okay after that, surely?

Then reparations are not for slavery, they're for sharecropping. Right? If you'd said Jim Crow, I'd say the same thing - the reparation is for Jim Crow, not slavery.

 

[PeterJB]

The reparations argument seems to just be an excuse to give free money to all black Americans. It's allegedly "for slavery" and yet it has zero effect on the people were actually slaves. Their descendants (at least the ones living in the north) have had 154 years to climb the social and financial ladder, and even though blacks living in the south were treated almost as badly for a hundred years more the family unit was much stronger and his since crumbled, it really is clutching at straws to say that the reason you're stuck in the ghetto is because of what happened to your ancestors six generations prior...

Next comes, who pays it? It seems to just be "white people", despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of white Americans alive are either descended from people to emigrated to the US after slavery ended or their ancestors were settlers and either never owned slaves or only had one or two because they were so expensive. This of course completely overlooks the fact that like the slaves, the slave owners are long dead as well and can't be punished further. It gets even more complicated if you decide that the descendants of black slave owners owe money despite at face value being part on an oppressed class, or if the descendants of Irish slaves should receive it despite being the whitest of whites, or if you get mixed race people descended from both slaves and slave owners, what do they do? Give their own money to themselves?

I could be swayed for an argument for reparations for Jim Crow, as unlike slavery there are still people alive who experienced it, but the reparations argument doesn't much come from people in that age bracket, so if it happened most of the people who want it would not qualify cause they weren't even alive when it happened, their grandparents were.

Reparations for slavery is just away to scapegoat white Americans for the crimes of their ancestors while also absolving black Americans of taking any responsibility for fixing their own lives when they've been equal under the law for several decades now. A lump sum of cash won't fix anything if you don't know how to spend it.

 

[Dotini]

The reparations argument seems to just be an excuse to give free money to all black Americans.

No, not free money. It was 40 acres and a mule that were promised, not money. Free money won't do any good. They need hope and opportunity, not a handout. They need a purpose. They need a meaningful family life on a family farm. There are lots of those currently going out of business in white hands.

 

[ryzno]

Where do we begin figuring out who's owed reparations or 40 acres and a mule?
Where is the money/land going to come from? Taxes? Eminent Domain?

They'll end up taking more from their community than helping it...IMO

 

[TenEightyOne]

They'll end up taking more from their community than helping it...IMO

Their families are in the community because they were abducted and forced to be there, does that count for something?

 

[ryzno]

Their families are in the community because they were abducted and forced to be there, does that count for something?

But who's family? I have a friend who has zero family ties to slavery but believes he and his family deserve reparations. I'll admit he came up in rural GA in the 60-70s but does that qualify him for reparations? He thinks so.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But who's family? I have a friend who has zero family ties to slavery but believes he and his family deserve reparations. I'll admit he came up in rural GA in the 60-70s but does that qualify him for reparations? He thinks so.

What does he give as the basis for that belief?

 

[ryzno]

What does he give as the basis for that belief?

That his family suffered discrimination during the 50-60-70s.

 

[Northstar]

The problem with reparations this long after slavery has been abolished is that family lines have been crossed so many times that some people may be 70% descended from slaves while another may only be 10% (the same could be said for those descended from slave owners). There's also a pretty good chance that someone has DNA from both sides.

So how do you determine that? Why should someone with 1 slave relative receive the same reparation as someone with 6 (and again, the same should be asked for those descended from slave owners)?

 

[Danoff]

No, not free money. It was 40 acres and a mule that were promised, not money. Free money won't do any good. They need hope and opportunity, not a handout. They need a purpose. They need a meaningful family life on a family farm. There are lots of those currently going out of business in white hands.

So we're to dig them up and hand them a mule? Or are we making some sort of going out of business reparations here? How are we to give former slaves opportunity when they are dead?

Edit:

Are we to chop the mule up and the 40 acres and hand it in equal portion to all people descended from a particular slave because we assume that's what they would have wanted? Or do we read that slave's journals (presumably after they were freed and learned how to read and write or whatnot) to try to decide whether, for example, that particular slave was bigoted against homosexuals, and then deny any particular gay ancestor access to the "inheritance"?

There is so much wrong with assuming that anything transfers to anyone. Assuming that something would not have been squandered, or invested, or leveraged and grown. It is beyond absurd.

Their families are in the community because they were abducted and forced to be there, does that count for something?

No one alive today was a slave. No one alive today was abducted and forced to be here. "Their families", unless you're talking about dead ancestors, were not forced to be here. We cannot make reparations to the dead. I am not my parents, I am not their belongings, or their careers, or their property, or their privilege, or their burden. To the extent that I have experienced unusual privilege and burden, it is mine, my own experience.

If you want to make reparations to someone currently alive from someone currently alive, you need to argue that the currently alive person was wronged by the other person currently alive. If you want to make reparations for racism, you need to make racism reparations, not slavery. You need to find racists, and the people they were racist to.

But of course being racist isn't illegal.

Assuming that anything is inherited from one generation to the next is a bad assumption. But what's more, we do not hold children responsible for the misdeeds of their parents (or their great great grandparents).


Edit:

And what about free black people living in the north? I assume we're doing zero for their progeny?

Edit2:

Do I get to count my debt paid in full if one of my ancestors died in the civil war? Or if one of my ancestors had a child that died in the war?

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Actually most of the people that are supporters for "slavery" reparations claiming that the whites owe the slaves descendants for what their ancestors did are also DACA supporters and claim that these kids should not be punished or held responsible for what their parents did by bringing them to this country illegally.

So depends on which subject is on the agenda for these people today either people are responsible for the actions their entire race may have committed 3-4 generations (150+ years) ago. .................OR.......... they should NOT be responsible for what their blood relative parents did 5-20 YEARS AGO.

So if reparations are owed as they claim without a doubt we should be rounding up all of the DACA kids and deport immediately!
Cannot have it be both ways when you are arguing the same thing and arguing whether a current generation is responsible for their ancestors actions.

 

[Danoff]

What is super ironic about the reparations argument is that it commits the same blunder that the pro-lifers make when they argue that abortion is the murder of a child. The pro-lifers pretend that they can see the future, that the embryo will continue to develop, be healthy, not develop any fatal genetic disorders, there will be no accidents, the mother's life will not be jeopardized, the child will be born successfully, and healthy, and eventually become a 6 year old boy whose name is John who wants to be an astronaut and loves America.

You can't see the future. All you have is this moment right now, when it's a dividing clump of cells. That's what it is, it isn't the future, it's now.

Well, if you handed freed slaves 40 acres and a mule, that's what it would be, then... that slave, those reparations. You cannot map it into the future. You cannot know whether that person starts the most successful business in the country, becomes a billionaire, invests the money, ends up with the particular 40 acres that happens to be in the middle of an oil boom, or a ghost town, accumulates gambling debts, gets swindled, makes a bad risky investment, refuses to bequeath their assets, murders someone and rots in jail... anything... the sky is the limit for what could happen.

There is no way to map anything from then to now. If I had what my grandfather died with (plus interest) I would do extremely well. That's not the case. One of my ancestors (my mom) was cut out of a will for not being racist enough. Try mapping through that kind of nonsense.

 

[PocketZeven]

There is legitimacy for reperations in my opinion. The way some are claiming it is arguable though. Just remove race out of the discussion for an example. Lets say your great grandfather worked for 10 years unpaid and was owed backwages for years. While during this time, his employer made thousands that are worth millions these days. Do you think as a decendant, you and other decendants are owed that wage or should the descendants of that employer (that perhaps made even more money) just keep that money? There are arguments for and against ofcourse, but just stopping the discussion? It is a difficult question to answer, but in my opinion one should receive what one was owed and it is irrelevant if that person lives or not. Debts should always be payed.

Also one should consider that, because they didnt receive what was owed at the time, their descendants have struggled to come out of poverty.

 

[Dotini]

Debts should always be payed.

I am in general agreement with your basic idea, though you have made a weak case for Civil War reparations specifically.

But in general, yes, debts should always be repaid. And in general, by the operation of the law of karma, they are, even if over generations.

 

[PocketZeven]

I am in general agreement with your basic idea, though you have made a weak case for Civil War reparations specifically.

But in general, yes, debts should always be repaid. And in general, by the operation of the law of karma, they are, even if over generations.

I am just pointing out the idea is not as absurd as some are reacting to it. There are ways to come to a compromise that is fair.

 

[Dennisch]

So pretty much the whole of Europe should start asking Germany and warfriends for money for missed incomes during the war.

 

[BobK]

So pretty much the whole of Europe should start asking Germany and warfriends for money for missed incomes during the war.

Why stop with Germany? Why not go after France for its Napoleonic excesses, for example? One could go on and on with this. I mean, we have the whole Thirty Years War thing...

 

[Exorcet]

Lets say your great grandfather worked for 10 years unpaid and was owed backwages for years. While during this time, his employer made thousands that are worth millions these days. Do you think as a decendant, you and other decendants are owed that wage or should the descendants of that employer (that perhaps made even more money) just keep that money? There are arguments for and against ofcourse, but just stopping the discussion? It is a difficult question to answer, but in my opinion one should receive what one was owed and it is irrelevant if that person lives or not. Debts should always be payed.

The problem is that the debtor is dead. You'd have to take the money from people who haven't done any wrong against you (both because they're the wrong person to seek damages from and because you weren't the victim). It would be nice if the descendants choose to give money, but they don't have any obligation to.

Also if we're going the route that all debts must be payed, the focus shouldn't just be on slavery reparations or else it's just picking one arbitrary debt and ignoring everything else.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I would be happy if money for reparations went instead to freeing victims of slavery that's happening right now.

 

[Danoff]

To add to what @Exorcet already said:

There is legitimacy for reperations in my opinion. The way some are claiming it is arguable though. Just remove race out of the discussion for an example. Lets say your great grandfather worked for 10 years unpaid and was owed backwages for years. While during this time, his employer made thousands that are worth millions these days. Do you think as a decendant, you and other decendants are owed that wage or should the descendants of that employer (that perhaps made even more money) just keep that money? There are arguments for and against ofcourse, but just stopping the discussion? It is a difficult question to answer, but in my opinion one should receive what one was owed and it is irrelevant if that person lives or not. Debts should always be payed.

Also one should consider that, because they didnt receive what was owed at the time, their descendants have struggled to come out of poverty.

We don't know that anyone's descendants got that money. Just because a person is rich, doesn't mean their kids (if they have any) get their money. Lots of rich people cut their kids off, in plenty of cases if you're trying to trace a rich person's assets after they're dead, you're tracing it to charity (at least in the US).

If a person dies owing money, that money is still owed by that person's estate. If the money owed by the estate is more than the money held in the estate, the creditors have to get in line to see who gets paid first.

If a person dies having money owed to them, the money is still owed to their estate (in both of these cases documentation is needed). The estate can collect from the debtor.

There are all kinds of scenarios here. Let's say a rich person owes a poor person money and dies. The poor person dies without having collected as well. The estate of the rich person owes the estate of the poor person, but the poor person's estate owes other people money. So the rich person's estate pays the poor person's estate the owed back wages, and then that money gets shipped immediately to creditors. Not the beneficiaries of the estate.

In other words, if someone who was once a slave died without having received reparations in the form of property (which I think was all of them), then that person's estate would need to be given the reparations, and in many cases, those reparations would be then paid to outstanding debts on that person's estate. Not their descendants. As you can see, it is very possible that a white person's estate can lay claim to reparations paid to an ex-slave's estate.

Do you want to be paying reparations to a large corporation? Totally feasible.

Edit:

Here's the reparations your great great grandfather was owed.
Ultra-white banker with a monocle: Thanks, her great great grandfather owed me that.

 

[PocketZeven]

So pretty much the whole of Europe should start asking Germany and warfriends for money for missed incomes during the war.

Not comparable examples. Slavery vs war reparations are 2 different discussions. Germany did pay reparations by the way. Also for forced labour (sounds familiar).

That said, the slaves were actually granted reparations, but quickly reversed after Lincoln was killed. So in this context if you take my example, it is your great grandfather having worked 10 years without pay, then actually receiving it, but then suddenly reclaimed.

So in your example it would have been europeans actually receiving a part the Nazi wealth and then actually having it taken away again. And when asking for it back, people laugh and say it is absurd and impossible to carry out.

 

[Danoff]

That said, the slaves were actually granted reparations, but quickly reversed after Lincoln was killed. So in this context if you take my example, it is your great grandfather having worked 10 years without pay, then actually receiving it, but then suddenly reclaimed.

It literally can't be paid today. We'd just be asking people who aren't owed it to take the money so that others, who don't owe it, can cleanse some kind of misplaced guilt.

 

[PocketZeven]

It literally can't be paid today. We'd just be asking people who aren't owed it to take the money so that others, who don't owe it, can cleanse some kind of misplaced guilt.

There are many ways the value of the reclaimed reparations can be compensated. Adjust the value of the property reclaimed to inflation. And then have the money or property be put in a fund, that invests and is run by black communities. Simlar to how reparations of WW2 were handeled by Israel. I agree totally that reparations to individuals now is impossible, but that doesnt mean it shouldnt be granted at all.

Imagine the allies of WW2 and Germany reclaiming Israel and monetary reparations from the jewish people not long after being granted it? Would the jewish communities have the same influence and wealth they have now?

edit: added content

 

[Danoff]

Ok, here's another scenario where debt causes huge problems in peoples' impossible reparations mapping. I get that we want to pretend that the US is the debtor in this case, and has not died, that the US estate still exists and can pay the debts. But the moral argument being made here goes beyond that, it claims that US citizens (some of them in particular, descendants of slave owners perhaps) owe those reparations. If you don't think this, you can stop reading, because it only applies to those people.

I'm not required to take on my father's debt. When he dies, his debt gets paid out of his estate, and if there is nothing left, the debt doesn't get transferred to me. So that line of reasoning stops right there. You cannot burden your children with your debts - it's immoral, and it's not legal. But beyond that, the assumption that some of of my money comes from my father is wrong. My father will die with outstanding debts. He will leave a wake of unpaid creditors when he dies, as is the case for many. So if you're trying to chase wealth through history to descendants, you run into a brick wall at the end of many peoples' lives, who not only pass along nothing, but effectively stole from others (by leaving unpaid debts) when they died.

Edit: My father has not given me wealth, he has sucked it from those around him. How do I owe others for what I haven't gotten from him?

Edit2: If you're wondering why my mom isn't included in this, there is a good reason. So don't worry about that.

There are many ways the value of the reclaimed reparations can be compensated.

To whom?

Adjust the value of the property reclaimed to inflation. And then have the money or property be put in a fund, that invests and is run by black communities.

"Black communities"? What exactly is that? And why are those.. what people? institutions? non-profits? owed money?

I agree totally that reparations to individuals now is impossible, but that doesnt mean it shouldnt be paid at all.

Yes it does. Because you're literally advocating that people who don't owe the money should pay it to people who aren't owed it. That shouldn't happen at all.

 

[PocketZeven]

Ok, here's another scenario where debt causes huge problems in peoples' impossible reparations mapping. I get that we want to pretend that the US is the debtor in this case, and has not died, that the US estate still exists and can pay the debts. But the moral argument being made here goes beyond that, it claims that US citizens (some of them in particular, descendants of slave owners perhaps) owe those reparations. If you don't think this, you can stop reading, because it only applies to those people.

I'm not required to take on my father's debt. When he dies, his debt gets paid out of his estate, and if there is nothing left, the debt doesn't get transferred to me. So that line of reasoning stops right there. You cannot burden your children with your debts - it's immoral, and it's not legal. But beyond that, the assumption that some of of my money comes from my father is wrong. My father will die with outstanding debts. He will leave a wake of unpaid creditors when he dies, as is the case for many. So if you're trying to chase wealth through history to descendants, you run into a brick wall at the end of many peoples' lives, who not only pass along nothing, but effectively stole from others (by leaving unpaid debts) when they died.



To whom?



"Black communities"? What exactly is that? And why are those.. what people? institutions? non-profits? owed money?



Yes it does. Because you're literally advocating that people who don't owe the money should pay it to people who aren't owed it. That shouldn't happen at all.

See edits above.

An organisation perhaps appointed by the black caucus or house and senate? I have no idea, but I am certain one can find a democratic solution.

The north won the war and I dont know the details of the spoils or reparations that were granted to the union. But I am mostly referring to the orginal reparations that were granted and then reclaimed. Like in many wars reparations are agreed upon and then carried out. Like I mentioned above I am not speaking about reparations to individual slaves descendants or individual descendants of slaveowners.

 

[Danoff]

What's really bugging you is that there is an injustice here that is left uncompensated. And that's right, there is. Ex-slaves should have been paid reparations (presumably by the south). You know who else needs some reparations? Northern families who sacrificed their fathers and sons in the civil war. The south owes them too. Of course the south lost their entire country so I'm not sure what they should pay with. Guess who else is owed reparations, women - whose history of property rights (and custody of their children) is a poor one in the US.

Edit: Also gay people... let's keep this train rolling.

We can't fix the wrongs of the past. We shouldn't pretend that we can go back in history and fortune tell what would have happened to now in order to try to make this right. There were wrongs committed all over the place. If those wrongs aren't paid for at the time to the people they are owed to by the people that owe it, it is very hard (and at this point it is impossible) to try to rectify it after the fact.

An organisation perhaps appointed by the black caucus or house and senate? I have no idea, but I am certain one can find a democratic solution.

How does waiving your hands and saying "democracy" solve the problem of being unable to trace who is owed what by whom? It totally ignores everything I wrote above, leaving it unaddressed.

There is so much wrong here, and I think there is some racism to unpack here too. I don't inherit any guilt because of my skin color. Being white does not make me responsible for white ancestors any more than being black makes someone inferior or worthy of slavery. I am my own person, not my skin color. I enslaved no one. And people who have black skin today are not entitled just because some of them inherited the genes for their skin color from some people who were. See the person, not the skin.

The north won the war and I dont know the details of the spoils or reparations that were granted to the union. But I am mostly referring to the orginal reparations that were granted and then reclaimed. Like in many wars reparations are agreed upon and then carried out. Like I mentioned above I am not speaking about reparations to individual slaves descendants or individual descendants of slaveowners.

Yes, those reparations should have been paid. We can't pay them now. It's nonsensical from one end to the other.