White Privilege

[PocketZeven]

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.



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.



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

I am not going into whataboutism to try and keep it on the topic. Those are irrelevant. What is relevant is how immigrants came to the USA with some kind of possession and the americans slaves did not. Slaves didnt have property, were granted property and then reclaimed, and were then actively disciminated to own property and did not even have the same rights untill this century. If you take out the fact of them being black, imagine if it were the jewish, Italian or irish community? Do not try to interpet my words of me not trying to endorse "slaveowners descendants should pay money to slave decendants". That is not what I am saying at all.

Perhaps have a read through this opinion post I found interesting:
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/06/27/the-case-for-reparations-julie-wittes-schlack

edit:
Again imagine if there were no reparations paid to the Jewish vistims after WW2?

 

[Danoff]

I am not going into whataboutism to try and keep it on the topic.

It's not whataboutism to point out to you all the ways that your approach comes up short. You need to deal with the logical consequences of what you propose.

What is relevant is how immigrants came to the USA with some kind of possession and the americans slaves did not.

Also women. That's not whataboutism, that's a logical consequence you're avoiding. For example, I assume you think women should not owe reparations.

Slaves didnt have property, were granted property and then reclaimed, and were then actively disciminated to own property and did not even have the same rights untill this century. If you take out the fact of them being black, imagine if it were the jewish, Italian or irish community? Do not try to interpet my words of me not trying to endorse "slaveowners descendants should pay money to slave decendants". That is not what I am saying at all.

That's what reparations are. Honestly, if we could dig up those ex-slaves and force the US government at the time of the end of the civil war to compensate them, I'd be all for it. I'd love to have a time machine and rectify historical wrongs. We don't have a time machine.

Perhaps have a read through this post I found interesting:
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/06/27/the-case-for-reparations-julie-wittes-schlack

I've addressed all of that. Including Jim Crowe, and lingering policies that affect people alive today. All of it. Don't link me to arguments I've already dealt with, it's a waste of time. if you think there's something in there that I haven't addressed, quote it so that I can deal with either your misunderstanding, my lack of clarity, or whatever I've left unaddressed.

 

[Dennisch]

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.

I want the Germans to pay me because my great grandfather and his brothers were taken to work camps for forced labour (sounds familiar) , one of them died there and the others never received anything. That is why I grew up in poverty, and had a really hard time getting anywhere in life.

As @BobK says, why stop there? Pretty sure I can blame the Spaniards, or hell, even the Romans owe me reparations.

 

[Danoff]

As @BobK says, why stop there? Pretty sure I can blame the Spaniards, or hell, even the Romans owe me reparations.

I'm pretty sure you (as is the case with US slavery) would end up owing yourself reparations.

 

[Dennisch]

I'm pretty sure you (as is the case with US slavery) would end up owing yourself reparations.

Of course.

But I also had an great uncle on my dad's side who fled to Germany when the war was over. Because of him I have to pay myself too.

 

[Danoff]

Again imagine if there were no reparations paid to the Jewish vistims after WW2?

Then there would be peace in the middle east?

Those reparations were made at the time to people who were actual victims from the resources of the entity responsible. What you just said to me was equivalent to "imagine if the US had paid those reparations when the civil war ended". Great! I have no problem with that.

 

[Rallywagon]

Aye Pocket, what about the Irish community? Should perhaps the Middle East, Norway, or Great Britain be paying reparations to their families? They were taken by Vikings and sold to the middle east as slaves. Hell, Dublin was founded by the Vikings, not Irish. Then Came Cromwell and "indentured servitude" which was slavery in all but name, except for a very small few. They were working the sugar fields in the Caribbean long before Africans were brought over, and had just as rough a time throughout the 17 and 1800s. "Indentured servants" were also promised land and money after serving for x amount of years, which was rarely paid. Surely that means white people of irish decent are owed something as well.

 

[Dennisch]

The Irish are white.

Current logic says: **** 'em.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's not whataboutism to point out to you all the ways that your approach comes up short. You need to deal with the logical consequences of what you propose.



Also women. That's not whataboutism, that's a logical consequence you're avoiding. For example, I assume you think women should not owe reparations.



That's what reparations are. Honestly, if we could dig up those ex-slaves and force the US government at the time of the end of the civil war to compensate them, I'd be all for it. I'd love to have a time machine and rectify historical wrongs. We don't have a time machine.



I've addressed all of that. Including Jim Crowe, and lingering policies that affect people alive today. All of it. Don't link me to arguments I've already dealt with, it's a waste of time. if you think there's something in there that I haven't addressed, quote it so that I can deal with either your misunderstanding, my lack of clarity, or whatever I've left unaddressed.

What are you thinking I am proposing. I believe there is a misunderstanding here.

How is that a logical consequense? Please explain more indepth.

Again, I am not referring to a one time payment between descendants at all. Why do you keep referring back to it?

You are reacting to my posts as if I am advocating for the decendants to repay eachother with a onetime payment?!? I am not. I am merely pointing out the legitimacy of the discussion. I dislike the whole notion it shouldnt be discussed at all, because it doesnt have any legitimacy in modern times. Yet there is clear data that poverty among black communities is a direct result of the slaves and its descendants having been exploited, discriminated up untill the last jim crowe laws were abolished.

The money owed could be translated to tax cuts to the less wealthy black communities or other means to reduce income inequality. I did propose a fund or organisation that researches which community have been impacted most by the history of slavery and

I want the Germans to pay me because my great grandfather and his brothers were taken to work camps for forced labour (sounds familiar) , one of them died there and the others never received anything. That is why I grew up in poverty, and had a really hard time getting anywhere in life.

As @BobK says, why stop there? Pretty sure I can blame the Spaniards, or hell, even the Romans owe me reparations.

The germans did pay reparations. Why your great grandfather or his community didnt benefit from these reparations is something you yourself should advocate for.

The slaveowners and the USA didnt eventually didnt receive any at all.

Also I never advocated for direct payment to or from decendants. Where did you get that idea from?

 

[Danoff]

How is that a logical consequense? Please explain more indepth.

I'm not sure how to explain more thoroughly. Can you be more specific?

Again, I am not referring to a one time payment between descendants at all. Why do you keep referring back to it?

How is this: "The money owed could be translated to tax cuts to the less wealthy black communities or other means to reduce income inequality. I did propose a fund or organisation that researches which community have been impacted most by the history of slavery and discriminatory laws" in any way substantively different? It changes nothing about what I've written. It addresses nothing.

I am merely pointing out the legitimacy of the discussion. I dislike the whole notion it shouldnt be discussed at all, because it doesnt have any legitimacy in modern times.

We're discussing it. I'm explaining (during this discussion) why it's a terrible idea that solves no problems and is immoral (and possibly rooted in racism).

Yet there is clear data that poverty among black communities is a direct result of the slaves and its descendants having been exploited, discriminated up untill the last jim crowe laws were abolished.

If you want to shift the discussion onto a wrong which was done to a person living today by the US government, you need to shift the discussion to that. You're no longer talking about slavery. You're talking about reparations for racism.

All communities within the US were hindered by slavery. All of them were harmed. The civil war destroyed property, wealth, and lives across the board from one end of the nation to the other. Slavery before it destroyed property and wealth as well. There is not a person in the US (and honestly I could trace this outside of the US too) that is not in same way affected by the existence of slavery in the US and the civil war. In fact, there is not a person in the world who is not in some way affected by the existence of world history.

But we are our own people.


Edit:

Let me put it yet another way. If a black person is owed inherited wealth from their ancestors, then I am owed it from mine. Where are my "your father was a debtor" reparations? This is yet another logical consequence.

 

[yas]

Hm, then the Soviet Union or whatever is its successor owns half of Europe reparations - free labor was a thing, the paid labor was on the minimum, you were not allowed to leave and couldn't make a joke about the master without serious consequences. Jokes aside once you go that road - there has always been someone that has been a victim along the history. You can't go back far enough to calculate all the reparations.

Anyway I guess the reparations are a thing and everybody that has been a good kid has been getting his share from Santa every Christmas.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not sure how to explain more thoroughly. Can you be more specific?



How is this: "The money owed could be translated to tax cuts to the less wealthy black communities or other means to reduce income inequality. I did propose a fund or organisation that researches which community have been impacted most by the history of slavery and discriminatory laws" in any way substantively different? It changes nothing about what I've written. It addresses nothing.



We're discussing it. I'm explaining (during this discussion) why it's a terrible idea that solves no problems and is immoral (and possibly rooted in racism).



If you want to shift the discussion onto a wrong which was done to a person living today by the US government, you need to shift the discussion to that. You're no longer talking about slavery. You're talking about reparations for racism.

All communities within the US were hindered by slavery. All of them were harmed. The civil war destroyed property, wealth, and lives across the board from one end of the nation to the other. Slavery before it destroyed property and wealth as well. There is not a person in the US (and honestly I could trace this outside of the US too) that is not in same way affected by the existence of slavery in the US and the civil war. In fact, there is not a person in the world who is not in some way affected by the existence of world history.

But we are our own people.


Edit:

Let me put it yet another way. If a black person is owed inherited wealth from their ancestors, then I am owed it from mine. Where are my "your father was a debtor" reparations? This is yet another logical consequence.

What do women have to do with reparations for slavery?

You keep reacting as if I am proposing to look up all descendants and then pay them or let them pay. Why are you reacting as if that is what I am still proposing? There is a big difference, because I would like to see the poverty among black communities that are in related to slavery be reduced. Not by payment neccesarily, but opportunity.

Jim crowe laws were all in reaction to and a result of slavery. Both would not have been there without the other.

The argument that all communities (apart from the slaves) were harmed by slavery is like claiming all europeans suffered from the holocaust. Perhaps "all" communities were harmed, but arent you forgetting the community that were harmed most (by a mile) ?

reaction to edit: I already adressed that it isnt about individual compensations. Inherited wealth is not only translated into monatary inheritance, but also in community, the place you live in and the prosperity of your surroundings etc. Being born in a place of prosperity or a place of poverty without any money to your name (in both situations), will make a difference for your future.

edit: Have you ever seen the movie freakonomics?

 

[Danoff]

What do women have to do with reparations for slavery?

They have similar claims.

Actually you know what, this is a good point, because I am descended from women. So I'm owed reparations for having descended from someone who was denied property rights.

You keep reacting as if I am proposing to look up all descendants and then pay them or let them pay.

If that's not what you're doing, why do you focus on a genetic trait that might have been passed down, like skin color. What other possible reason do you have for focusing on skin color?

Why are you reacting as if that is what I am still proposing? There is a big difference, because I would like to see the poverty among black communities that are in related to slavery be reduced. Not by payment neccesarily, but opportunity.

Why only black communities? Why not all poverty? And what do black communities (like that's actually a thing) have to do specifically with slavery? Nobody alive today was a slave.

Jim Crowe laws were all in reaction to and a result of slavery. Both would not have been there without the other.

But you might find some people alive that were actually harmed by Jim Crow.

The argument that all communities (apart from the slaves) were harmed by slavery is like claiming all europeans suffered from the holocaust. Perhaps "all" communities were harmed, but arent you forgetting the community that were harmed most?

Sorry, I thought we were trying to rectify past wrongs. I didn't realize we were ignoring some arbitrarily.

reaction to edit: I already adressed that it isnt about individual compensations. Inherited wealth is not only translated into monatary inheritance, but also in community, the place you live in and the prosperity of your surroundings etc.

That's not a thing. I've personally lived in 4 states. Which of them is my "community"? Or do you think I have a community because I share a skin color with others? I hope not, because that's very racist.

Edit:

Also, I've already explained (what seems like a hundred times) why inheritance is a horrible argument. Inheritance is in absolutely no way guaranteed or to be assumed. It is at the discretion and whim of the person who owns the property.

Being born in a place of prosperity or a place of poverty without any money to your name, will make a difference for your future.

You're not entitled to be born in a place of prosperity. You're entitled to a fundamental level of care, and that's it. It's starting to sound like you're just advocating for (racist) wealth redistribution based on inequality.

 

[PocketZeven]

They have similar claims.

Actually you know what, this is a good point, because I am descended from women. So I'm owed reparations for having descended from someone who was denied property rights.



If that's not what you're doing, why do you focus on a genetic trait that might have been passed down, like skin color. What other possible reason do you have for focusing on skin color?



Why only black communities? Why not all poverty? And what do black communities (like that's actually a thing) have to do specifically with slavery? Nobody alive today was a slave.



But you might find some people alive that were actually harmed by Jim Crow.



Sorry, I thought we were trying to rectify past wrongs. I didn't realize we were ignoring some arbitrarily.



That's not a thing. I've personally lived in 4 states. Which of them is my "community"? Or do you think I have a community because I share a skin color with others? I hope not, because that's very racist.

Edit:

Also, I've already explained (what seems like a hundred times) why inheritance is a horrible argument. Inheritance is in absolutely no way guaranteed or to be assumed. It is at the discretion and whim of the person who owns the property.



You're not entitled to be born in a place of prosperity. You're entitled to a fundamental level of care, and that's it. It's starting to sound like you're just advocating for (racist) wealth redistribution based on inequality.

Edit: You do understand the big difference in nuance between actual slavery and mysoginism.

Because black communities were directly affected by slavery. But I could agree it should focus on the legacy of Slavery and help all races that were affected that live in these communities.

Why focus on a genetic trait? Because the slaves happened to be black. If they where chinese I would be talking about chinese. If they were irish, I would have been talking about reparation to the Irish. Racism of black people in the USA has been a direct result of Slavery. The USA is quite unique when compared to other western civilizations. The nearest comparable wealthy western countries with the same history of slavery of african immigrants are the Netherlands and belgium.

The Idea is that the descendants of the slaves have felt the consequences of slavery for generations upon generation, unlike other communities that were "harmed", because of slavery. Black people were actively prevented to accumilate wealth, property etc.

"community" I mean the socio-economic evironment where one is born. A better example is being born in Ehtiopia or in Switzerland will make a big difference in onse future.

I guess we differ fundamentally in this case. I think the main point is that I believe socioeconomic background is immensely important to ones development, prosperity and eventual wealth, but you believe that people isnt a thing.

 

[Danoff]

Because black communities were directly affected by slavery.

Slaves (and ex-slaves) were directly affected by slavery. At best, you're trying to argue that other people were indirectly affected by slavery.

But I could agree it should focus on the legacy of Slavery and help all races that were affected that live in these communities.

I honestly do not know what you're talking about. Are we talking about a towns? physical locations? friends? shared genetic traits? similar levels of wealth? political associations? religious associations?

The main "community" affected by slavery was the community of the United States. Too big for you? It was "The South".

You're appealing to this abstract notion of "community" because you're looking for something the existed then and continues to exist now. But you're not going to find a town that you can pay reparations to.

Why focus on a genetic trait? Because the slaves happened to be black.

They're all dead. All of them. Why are you focused on a genetic trait of currently living people? Because not all black people in the US today can be traced back to slavery. You're making some kind of weird "they share a skin color so they're part of the same community" argument, which is racist.

The Idea is that the descendants of the slaves have felt the consequences of slavery for generations upon generation

Not slavery. You're arguing that the consequences of racism or other kinds of discrimination has been felt.

unlike other communities that were "harmed", because of slavery. Black people were actively prevented to accumilate wealth, property etc.

Zero black people alive today in the US have been slaves in the US. No black person in the US today has been prevented from accumulating wealth or property on the basis of slavery.

"community" I mean the socio-economic evironment where one is born.

Say what now? Does your "community" change if your socio-economic environment changes? Why did you pick this metric for determining what "community" is?

I guess we differ fundamentally in this case. I think the main point is that I believe socioeconomic background is immensely important to ones development, prosperity and eventual wealth, but you believe that people isnt a thing.

*sigh*

Your argument is that slavery harmed people, and those people created children, and the children would have been better off if their parents had not been harmed. That's absolutely flawed reasoning on an individual level. At a group level, your argument is more understandable, but first you'd need to define the group (which is harder than you're pretending here). And then you'd have to make some kind argument that children are entitled to the property of their parents, which is not true, and pretend that you know what would have happened to the property of their parents, which is impossible.

 

[zzz_pt]

The main "community" affected by slavery was the community of the United States.

Not to mention the communities of West Africa, who arguably will never recover from the loss of population, death and misery brought up by the slave trade.

The while topic is so sticky. And it gets stickier the further apart we get from the events.

 

[PocketZeven]

Slaves (and ex-slaves) were directly affected by slavery. At best, you're trying to argue that other people were indirectly affected by slavery.



I honestly do not know what you're talking about. Are we talking about a towns? physical locations? friends? shared genetic traits? similar levels of wealth? political associations? religious associations?

The main "community" affected by slavery was the community of the United States. Too big for you? It was "The South".

You're appealing to this abstract notion of "community" because you're looking for something the existed then and continues to exist now. But you're not going to find a town that you can pay reparations to.




They're all dead. All of them. Why are you focused on a genetic trait of currently living people? Because not all black people in the US today can be traced back to slavery. You're making some kind of weird "they share a skin color so they're part of the same community" argument, which is racist.



Not slavery. You're arguing that the consequences of racism or other kinds of discrimination has been felt.



Zero black people alive today in the US have been slaves in the US. No black person in the US today has been prevented from accumulating wealth or property on the basis of slavery.



Say what now? Does your "community" change if your socio-economic environment changes? Why did you pick this metric for determining what "community" is?



*sigh*

Your argument is that slavery harmed people, and those people created children, and the children would have been better off if their parents had not been harmed. That's absolutely flawed reasoning on an individual level. At a group level, your argument is more understandable, but first you'd need to define the group (which is harder than you're pretending here). And then you'd have to make some kind argument that children are entitled to the property of their parents, which is not true, and pretend that you know what would have happened to the property of their parents, which is impossible.

The premise is that a lot of wealth has been accumilated generationally. Of which you are an exception. If we cant agree on that, then I guess you wont understand the point I am trying to make. Most wealth is in property and assets, that are passed down generation to generation. Of which there are ofcourse many exceptions.

I hope you understand how the descendants of slaves still feel the consequenses to this day. Seeing that at the time of abolishment of slavery they started with absolutely zero even though they did contribute to the US economy significantly.

I understand your argument that you are not reponsible for you great grandfathers debt or inheritance. However since this isnt about individuals, but a significant part of the american population, I do think there is merit.

edit: I have not referred to reparations to all US black people, but the people who are related or affected by the people who were in slavery. Like I said before if they were Irish slaves, I would be referring to the Irish descendants and communities that were affected by slavery. I would not say all Irish american.

 

[BobK]

I didn't do it. Why should I pay for it?

 

[PocketZeven]

I didn't do it. Why should I pay for it?

No one is saying you should.

 

[Danoff]

The premise is that a lot of wealth has been accumilated generationally.

"Accumulated" is not the same thing as what some of your charts are showing though. Which is the percentage of wealth that is inherited. In otherwords, this percentage is passed on, and this percentage is not passed on through inheritance. Saying something like 60% of wealth is passed on to... presumably someone... and 40% is not (presumably donated or paid in tax or whatnot) is not the same thing as saying that wealth accumulates generationally.

90% of rich families lose their wealth by the third generation

So, you're old and you have $2M. What do you do with it? Donate some, pass the rest on to your kids right (60% inherited wealth for example)? And your kids squander it, and by the 3rd generation it is virtually nonexistent. You're arguing that if the ex-slave generation had been paid reparations, that something would have been left to inherit, which is not a good assumption. And it's even worse when you start compounding generations.

That's for rich people. The numbers look even bleaker for poor people (and ex-slaves were some of the poorest).

But as you might expect, a mere 17 percent of low-income households report any inheritance at all.

Generational wealth accumulation is not real, it goes the other way, inherited wealth is squandered generationally. And furthermore, poor people are the least likely to bequeath wealth to the next generation. Your premise is absolutely broken.

 

[PocketZeven]

"Accumulated" is not the same thing as what some of your charts are showing though. Which is the percentage of wealth that is inherited. In otherwords, this percentage is passed on, and this percentage is not passed on through inheritance. Saying something like 60% of wealth is passed on to... presumably someone... and 40% is not (presumably donated or paid in tax or whatnot) is not the same thing as saying that wealth accumulates generationally.

90% of rich families lose their wealth by the third generation

So, you're old and you have $2M. What do you do with it? Donate some, pass the rest on to your kids right (60% inherited wealth for example)? And your kids squander it, and by the 3rd generation it is virtually nonexistent. You're arguing that if the ex-slave generation had been paid reparations, that something would have been left to inherit, which is not a good assumption. And it's even worse when you start compounding generations.

That's for rich people. The numbers look even bleaker for poor people (and ex-slaves were some of the poorest).



Generational wealth accumulation is not real, it goes the other way, inherited wealth is squandered generationally. And furthermore, poor people are the least likely to bequeath wealth to the next generation. Your premise is absolutely broken.

I am not referring to the rich, but primarily the middle class. Inheritance is a part of the equation.

In essence yes, if that ex-slave had his property, He could have started earning money of his land (farmer, ranching, shopowner, hotel, restaurant etc.) and perhaps the lands value would rise. His children would start to work and learn a profession from his parents or get the opportunity to go to higher education. Then the next generation would get the same/or better opportunities then his parents etc. I am not even considerring the inheritance yet.

But if that ex-slave starts with nothing, works his as off to just make ends meet and not able to afford any property and less opportunities for the generations afterwards.

 

[Danoff]

I am not referring to the rich, but primarily the middle class. Inheritance is a part of the equation.

In essence yes, if that ex-slave had his property, He could have started earning money of his land (farmer, ranching, shopowner, hotel, restaurant etc.) and perhaps the lands value would rise. His children would start to work and learn a profession from his parents or get the opportunity to go to higher education. Then the next generation would get the same/or better opportunities then his parents etc. I am not even considerring the inheritance yet.

But if that ex-slave starts with nothing, works his as off to just make ends meet and not able to afford any property and less opportunities for the generations afterwards.

Most people, especially poor people, leave nothing. When they do leave something, it's an insignificant amount. Each generation predominately provides for themselves.

How many times do you have to roll snake eyes to actually inherit something from the late 1800s? We're talking about 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? It's not high.

 

[PocketZeven]

Most people, especially poor people, leave nothing. When they do leave something, it's an insignificant amount. Each generation predominately provides for themselves.

How many times do you have to roll snake eyes to actually inherit something from the late 1800s? We're talking about 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? It's not high.

You forget that inheritance is not only money or assets, but also the opportunities they receive, because of their socioeconomic standing. A middle income family might not leave a lot to be inherited, but their children benefited of a stable household, education etc. A poor family has even less to be inherited, but also less opportunity.

To be clear there are more then enough exceptions, but overall poor stay poor and not entirely because of their own fault.

 

[Danoff]

You forget that inheritance is not only money or assets, but also the opportunities they receive, because of their socioeconomic standing. A middle income family might not leave a lot to be inherited, but their children benefited of a stable household, education etc. A poor family has even less to be inherited, but also less opportunity.

To be clear there are more then enough exceptions, but overall poor stay poor and not entirely because of their own fault.

Let me know when we start talking about providing reparations by going back in time and providing family counseling and requiring parents to provide the education that their children are entitled to.

 

[PocketZeven]

Let me know when we start talking about providing reparations by going back in time and providing family counseling and requiring parents to provide the education that their children are entitled to.

Your confusing entitlement with reparations. A lot of the black community are poor because of their ancesors being slaves. There are many studies that conclude this. However if and how they should recive reparations is not my decision, I was only pointing out the merit of discussion. I believe there is a middleground. But dismissing the whole discussion, just because it happened hundreds of years ago and they are all dead anyways is something I do not agree with.

I really would like to see evidence that the current descendants of the slaves are poor, because of their own incompetence or perhaps that the current wealthy and middleclass are wealthy or middleclass on their own merit.

 

[Danoff]

A lot of the black community are poor because of their ancesors being slaves.

"Community", you mean people. You do not inherit debt in the US. You cannot be poor because your parents were poor (at least in the US). You can be abused because of your parents, uneducated, unfed, unloved, etc. but you cannot be poor because they were. You can be rich because they were.

You can be poor because of prevailing laws that discriminate against you, but the laws that affected people alive today were not slavery.

There are many studies that conclude this.

Citations. Keep in mind, it needs to conclude that people are poor because their ancestors were slaves, not because of subsequent racism.

I really would like to see evidence that the current descendants of the slaves are poor, because of their own incompetence

"The current descendants of slaves" are not poor. Some of them are. Just like some people who are not descendants of slaves. And competence has nothing to do with it. You can be extremely competent and still be poor. I never said otherwise.

or perhaps that the current wealthy and middleclass are wealthy or middleclass on their own merit.

All of them? Surely not. But I can tell you they're largely not middle class or wealthy because of inheritance. First of all the average age of inheritance in the US is 61, and almost 80% of people in the US don't inherit anything.

I don't know whether you consider having been provided an education as a child is considered your "own merit".

 

[BobK]

No one is saying you should.

Well then, just who is going to pay? For example you're talking tax cuts, who do you think makes up the shortfall?

 

[PocketZeven]

Well then, just who is going to pay? For example you're talking tax cuts, who do you think makes up the shortfall?

Well that is the right question. But i do Not know the answer. As i said before there should be a solution that would not cost the average taxpayer too much. There are enough ways to balance a budget to any situation.

"Community", you mean people. You do not inherit debt in the US. You cannot be poor because your parents were poor (at least in the US). You can be abused because of your parents, uneducated, unfed, unloved, etc. but you cannot be poor because they were. You can be rich because they were.

You can be poor because of prevailing laws that discriminate against you, but the laws that affected people alive today were not slavery.



Citations. Keep in mind, it needs to conclude that people are poor because their ancestors were slaves, not because of subsequent racism.



"The current descendants of slaves" are not poor. Some of them are. Just like some people who are not descendants of slaves. And competence has nothing to do with it. You can be extremely competent and still be poor. I never said otherwise.



All of them? Surely not. But I can tell you they're largely not middle class or wealthy because of inheritance. First of all the average age of inheritance in the US is 61, and almost 80% of people in the US don't inherit anything.

I don't know whether you consider having been provided an education as a child is considered your "own merit".

You are confusing monetary inheritance with what I described above. Let me rephrase, the likeliness of being poor greatly enhances when your parents are poor. Just like the chances of you being well off when your parents are well off. There are always exceptions, but are not the rule of thumb.

I already stated that what you described as racism has its origin in slavery. Hence slavery and racism against black people in the us are always connected.

I did not claim it is all of monetary inheritance it is all down to socioeconomic inheritance. To be born in an environment with more opportunities. If you refuse to delve deeper in the origins of the wealth gap between African Americans and white Americans that descend from the civil war you will always disagree with the mere notion of reparations. But it seems you agree that racism is the main reason for the wealth gap, however what is the origin for this racism in your perception?

"It is estimated that the United States alone benefited from a total of 222,505,049 hours of forced labor between 1619 and the abolition of slavery in 1865. Valued at the US minimum wage, with a modest rate of interest, that is worth $97 trillion today."

An excellent article that goes more in-depth:
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/04/14/politics/slavery-reparations-explainer-trnd/index.html?r=https://www.google.nl/

Edit added comment

edit 2: corrected sentence that "suggested" whataboutism

 

[Danoff]

You are confusing monetary inheritance with what I described above.

You're not seeing the connection between them.

Let me rephrase, the likeliness of being poor greatly enhances when your parents are poor. Just like the chances of you being well off when your parents are well off. There are always exceptions, but are not the rule of thumb.

Children are not entitled to the property of their parents or someone else's parents. They're entitled to a minimum level of care. What you're arguing here is just inequality. Forget slavery, forget race, you're just on the inequality soap box.

I already stated that what you described as racism has its origin in slavery. Hence slavery and racism against black people in the us are always connected.

They are. Racism caused slavery in the US.

I did not claim it is all of monetary inheritance it is all down to socioeconomic inheritance. To be born in an environment with more opportunities. If you refuse to delve deeper in the origins of the wealth gap between African Americans and white Americans that descend from the civil war you will always disagree with the mere notion of reparations.

I'm not refusing it, I'm saying you're missing a connection. Your parents cannot make you poor. They cannot. They can make you rich, but they cannot make you poor. The reason is because they are unable to transfer their debt to you (and they often would, just observe the national debt if you need proof). They're required to give you a minimum start in life - beyond that your life is yours. You cannot inherit poverty. What you can inherit is genetics, genetics which others may use to discriminate against you during your life and cause you to be poor. But that is not inherited poverty, that is inherited characteristics which others use during your life as a reason to harm you unjustly.

But it seems you agree that racism is the main reason for the wealth gap, however what is the origin for this racism in your perception?

I think victimhood has a lot to do with what one makes of their life. Telling someone they can amorphously blame their outcome on institutions from over a century ago, and that they are powerless to overcome a system which is stacked against them is a good way to get someone to stop trying.

The origin of racism is the human mind and its survival instinct for tribalism.

"It is estimated that the United States alone benefited from a total of 222,505,049 hours of forced labor between 1619 and the abolition of slavery in 1865. Valued at the US minimum wage, with a modest rate of interest, that is worth $97 trillion today."

An excellent article that goes more in-depth:
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/04/14/politics/slavery-reparations-explainer-trnd/index.html?r=https://www.google.nl/

Edit added comment

For the last time, the US did not benefit from slavery. Slavery cost the US. It cost the country dearly. The figure you quoted is economic nonsense. If you have a southern plantation owner who owns a slave that he profits from, and he spends those profits by not having to work (not producing) and consuming his finest pork (additional consumption), how is that somehow money that the US was "saved" and should be given "interest" over centuries. If he spends it building a lavish house which gets destroyed in a war because of slavery, how is that money that the US was "saved" and should be paid "interest"?

That value was not saved for the country, it was profit to plantation owners and it was consumed (in part). Meanwhile what the US was denied was the real productivity of a huge portion of its population. Workers did not achieve their full potential, did not pay their taxes, did not invent, did not lead. The US would be ahead of where it is today, far ahead, if we had not had slaves.

Please also keep in mind that the US government and people paid paid for slavery in part in great blood.

Now, even if you assume that we (the US government in this case) owe 40 acres and a mule or $97Trillion Bazillion dollars to ex-slaves, how do we give it to them? We cannot.

 

[PocketZeven]

You're not seeing the connection between them.



Children are not entitled to the property of their parents or someone else's parents. They're entitled to a minimum level of care. What you're arguing here is just inequality. Forget slavery, forget race, you're just on the inequality soap box.



They are. Racism caused slavery in the US.



I'm not refusing it, I'm saying you're missing a connection. Your parents cannot make you poor. They cannot. They can make you rich, but they cannot make you poor. The reason is because they are unable to transfer their debt to you (and they often would, just observe the national debt if you need proof). They're required to give you a minimum start in life - beyond that your life is yours. You cannot inherit poverty. What you can inherit is genetics, genetics which others may use to discriminate against you during your life and cause you to be poor. But that is not inherited poverty, that is inherited characteristics which others use during your life as a reason to harm you unjustly.



I think victimhood has a lot to do with what one makes of their life. Telling someone they can amorphously blame their outcome on institutions from over a century ago, and that they are powerless to overcome a system which is stacked against them is a good way to get someone to stop trying.

The origin of racism is the human mind and its survival instinct for tribalism.



For the last time, the US did not benefit from slavery. Slavery cost the US. It cost the country dearly. The figure you quoted is economic nonsense. If you have a southern plantation owner who owns a slave that he profits from, and he spends those profits by not having to work (not producing) and consuming his finest pork (additional consumption), how is that somehow money that the US was "saved" and should be given "interest" over centuries. If he spends it building a lavish house which gets destroyed in a war because of slavery, how is that money that the US was "saved" and should be paid "interest"?

That value was not saved for the country, it was profit to plantation owners and it was consumed (in part). Meanwhile what the US was denied was the real productivity of a huge portion of its population. Workers did not achieve their full potential, did not pay their taxes, did not invent, did not lead. The US would be ahead of where it is today, far ahead, if we had not had slaves.

Please also keep in mind that the US government and people paid paid for slavery in part in great blood.

Now, even if you assume that we (the US government in this case) owe 40 acres and a mule or $97Trillion Bazillion dollars to ex-slaves, how do we give it to them? We cannot.

Again I am not advocating monetary reparation. I am only saying the dicussion should not be swept away, because it happened a few hundred years ago. Why do you keep assuming I am advocating a monetary payment? The article highlighted alternative ways for reparations proposed by the democrats. If you keep saying that being poor is not generational, but a product of just "victimhood" in combination with racism, then why should there be any reparations henseforth at all?