Reparations discussion

[Reddy Rederson]

Yes. 40-50 years ago. Was poorly implemented. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/reparations-slavery.amp.html

There are two discussions going on here, one is reparations generally, coming from the government. My position is that it’s a complicated issue. The other is trying to trace wealth and take from individuals and families descendant from slave owners. I’m vehemently against that. If my position on the latter makes me a “monster” then so be it - that’s where the reference to socialism came in. If my position that government reparations is complicated makes me a “monster” then I don’t know what to tell you.

So you dont think that raping, torturing and murdering generations of people would rise to the level of monster? Remember, I said "acting" like a monster. Ie historically. See, I can get on board with the fact that things were different, slaves were a thing. I get that. What I dont get, is the raping, the torturing or the murdering. What I dont get is the continued presence of thinking black arent human. What I dont get is the continued hatred towards people whose only real crime is that they survived a generational mass murder at the hands of people who were monstrous. If the word monster offends you, Im sorry. Perhaps youd like to pick one that more fitting to describe slave owners in america?

You dont want to pay their families for the hundreds of years of harm because "socialism"? Because it will be hard? Because it will be unfair to those that have profited from such horrific treatment of others? America as a whole has profited from slavery. Thats just a fact. Now you cant say that those families that suffered through that arent due reparations because the claim wasnt done in a timely manner. That would be just another benefit of slavery. Slaves didnt have anyone to fight for them in the courts, they had no access to the same things slave owners did. All america did was say "fine, youre free. Whatever." then proceed to make them 2nd class. I wonder, if they were white, would this continue to an issue?

For whatever its worth, I believe its the governments responsibility. They made it so these things were allowed to happen. That being said, if individuals were forced to make those reparations, I wouldnt shed a single tear. If I was sitting on an inherited fortune that benefited from what my cnut ancestors had done, I wouldnt need a court to order me to make reparations. Id just do it while drinking the tallest possible glass of shut the feck up. Maybe its just me, but the idea that I could benefit in anyway from the horrors of what went on back then, that still echo today, makes me ill. Im shocked it doesnt make more people ill.

 

[MTF]

The idea people are being 'punished' in any way is so over the top and ridiculous - having to pay or contribute small sums to people who were systematically abused and mistreated in a way which allowed for your higher social status now is fair, it isn't some awful punishment.

None of the amounts suggested are small.

 

[ATXRedDevil]

So you dont think that raping, torturing and murdering generations of people would rise to the level of monster? Remember, I said "acting" like a monster. Ie historically. See, I can get on board with the fact that things were different, slaves were a thing. I get that. What I dont get, is the raping, the torturing or the murdering. What I dont get is the continued presence of thinking black arent human. What I dont get is the continued hatred towards people whose only real crime is that they survived a generational mass murder at the hands of people who were monstrous. If the word monster offends you, Im sorry. Perhaps youd like to pick one that more fitting to describe slave owners in america?

You dont want to pay their families for the hundreds of years of harm because "socialism"? Because it will be hard? Because it will be unfair to those that have profited from such horrific treatment of others? America as a whole has profited from slavery. Thats just a fact. Now you cant say that those families that suffered through that arent due reparations because the claim wasnt done in a timely manner. That would be just another benefit of slavery. Slaves didnt have anyone to fight for them in the courts, they had no access to the same things slave owners did. All america did was say "fine, youre free. Whatever." then proceed to make them 2nd class. I wonder, if they were white, would this continue to an issue?

For whatever its worth, I believe its the governments responsibility. They made it so these things were allowed to happen. That being said, if individuals were forced to make those reparations, I wouldnt shed a single tear. If I was sitting on an inherited fortune that benefited from what my cnut ancestors had done, I wouldnt need a court to order me to make reparations. Id just do it while drinking the tallest possible glass of shut the feck up. Maybe its just me, but the idea that I could benefit in anyway from the horrors of what went on back then, that still echo today, makes me ill. Im shocked it doesnt make more people ill.

Apologies if I misread your “monster” quote.

I’ve never endorsed the awful things that happened during slavery in this thread. To suggest otherwise is trying to build a straw man.

It’s really not as simple as there are thousands of rich families out there still rich because of owning slaves. We’re talking multiple generations of marriage and mixing family wealth (or no wealth - lot of assumptions in this thread). If someone’s great great grandparents were a couple, one with a $1000 inheritance from slave owners and one with a $100000 inheritance from an industrial magnate in the north, and no subsequent generations owned slaves but we’re very successful in various industries, how do you handle assessing what’s “right” to take from their great great grandchildren? Anyway, it’s a moot point because the reparations would come from the government, it’s just a practically impossible exercise to do for the vast majority of modern day descendants of slave owners.

The entire world benefited from slavery. That’s a fact. Three continents participated in the trade. That’s a fact. Are you advocating that all the actors involved contributed or just America because that’s where they ended up and overlooking who enslaved them and who bought and sold them?

This all goes back to my original point that it’s a complicated issue, despite (mostly) well intentioned people wanting to characterize it as simple.

 

[Steerpike]

Do you think these posts are painting you in a good light? If anything its leading me to think you might be a bit of a cnut....

What makes you believe I care a jot about what you think?

I'm sorry if thoughtful argument isn't really your cup of tea.

 

[Reddy Rederson]

Apologies if I misread your “monster” quote.

I’ve never endorsed the awful things that happened during slavery in this thread. To suggest otherwise is trying to build a straw man.

It’s really not as simple as there are thousands of rich families out there still rich because of owning slaves. We’re talking multiple generations of marriage and mixing family wealth (or no wealth - lot of assumptions in this thread). If someone’s great great grandparents were a couple, one with a $1000 inheritance from slave owners and one with a $100000 inheritance from an industrial magnate in the north, and no subsequent generations owned slaves but we’re very successful in various industries, how do you handle assessing what’s “right” to take from their great great grandchildren? Anyway, it’s a moot point because the reparations would come from the government, it’s just a practically impossible exercise to do for the vast majority of modern day descendants of slave owners.

The entire world benefited from slavery. That’s a fact. Three continents participated in the trade. That’s a fact. Are you advocating that all the actors involved contributed or just America because that’s where they ended up and overlooking who enslaved them and who bought and sold them?

This all goes back to my original point that it’s a complicated issue, despite (mostly) well intentioned people wanting to characterize it as simple.

Well, first. Its good that it should only be coming from the government. The made it possible for this to happen. As to other parties, I dont really see why they shouldnt be held to account.

As for detailing who owned what slaves, its not as hard to do as you might think. We have census data from those years, that included slaves as property. It doesnt account for people who rented slaves(slave masters) but we can absolutely draw a line between today and yesterday using census data. Joseph T. Glatthaar calculated that 24ish% percent of housholds owned slaves in 1860 just using census data. The population was 31 and half million, almost 4 million of which were salves. So 24ish percent of 27 and a half million is 6 and half million? Something like that. So thats 6.5 million people that owned slaves. And we know their names and adresses and family trees. I dont think it would be that hard at all. As for the money, thats what accountants are for.

Just to be clear, Im not calling you anything. Merely observing historical america.

 

[afrocentricity]

What makes you believe I care a jot about what you think?

I'm sorry if thoughtful argument isn't really your cup of tea.

Point of my post was to question how much thought you put into your posts (and more specifically how you thought they were being interpreted) to discern whether or not you were a bit of a cnut.... Thanks for the answer.

 

[Steerpike]

It is not arrogant to say that the view held today (slavery = bad and illegal) is better than the view held at the time (slavery = legal and black people = inferior). The view held when slavery was legal was a repugnant one and it's weird to even question that or suggest that moral comparisons between the two is arrogant.

Families of slave owners continue to benefit across generations through inheritance and the societal advantage that comes as part of being an entitled upper class. The impact and repurcussions of slavery didn't end just when slavery was abolished. Generations of people entered the world from behind the start line in marginalized and empoverished communities trying to build up capital, trust, and clout in a racist system stacked against them.

I agree that, from the comfort of today, condemning slavery is obvious. My point is that we should not be making moral judgements on the people of yesteryear based on the knowledge and attitudes of today: we have to try to put ourselves in their shoes before making judgements. That's why I don't use terms like "better", because that implies a moral judgement that I'm not at all qualified to make (I don't believe anyone is).

I can't be at all certain that my attitude towards slavery if I'd lived in, say, 1650 would have been any different to the one that prevailed at that time. I'd like to think it would, but that may just be vanity on my part: the reality is that it's more likely my attitude would have reflected the times.

If I can't be confident that I would have behaved or thought differently in the same circumstances, then I can't reasonably condemn the actions of those who lived at the time. All I can say is thank goodness that particular episode in human history is consigned to the past (I'm not saying that slavery doesn't still exist, but at least it isn't a legal practice now and is on a much smaller scale).

Regarding inter-generational wealth and inherited privilege, well that's another debate altogether.

 

[adexkola]

Apologies if I misread your “monster” quote.

I’ve never endorsed the awful things that happened during slavery in this thread. To suggest otherwise is trying to build a straw man.

It’s really not as simple as there are thousands of rich families out there still rich because of owning slaves. We’re talking multiple generations of marriage and mixing family wealth (or no wealth - lot of assumptions in this thread). If someone’s great great grandparents were a couple, one with a $1000 inheritance from slave owners and one with a $100000 inheritance from an industrial magnate in the north, and no subsequent generations owned slaves but we’re very successful in various industries, how do you handle assessing what’s “right” to take from their great great grandchildren? Anyway, it’s a moot point because the reparations would come from the government, it’s just a practically impossible exercise to do for the vast majority of modern day descendants of slave owners.

The entire world benefited from slavery. That’s a fact. Three continents participated in the trade. That’s a fact. Are you advocating that all the actors involved contributed or just America because that’s where they ended up and overlooking who enslaved them and who bought and sold them?

This all goes back to my original point that it’s a complicated issue, despite (mostly) well intentioned people wanting to characterize it as simple.

This is a complicated issue in your head, honestly. Stolen wealth doesn't only apply to slavery. But let's focus on that for a moment:

The Atlantic slave trade was killed by the British in 1809. The United States banned the importation of slaves from 1809 onwards. However the wealth generation caused by the domestic slave trade remained unabated, and actually expanded as Alabama and Mississippi and Texas and other new territories were stolen from the Native Americans and moved into by slave owners. So you asking for proponents of reparations to also reach out to Europe and Africa is dishonest; the vast accumulation of wealth from slavery occurred after 1809, and did not involve the importation of external slaves. From 1809 to 1865, the period when the U.S. became an economic power in it's own right, slavery was a domestic issue, and a huge generator of wealth for both southern and northern states. So if there's a place to start, it's with the United States, not with Europe, or with Africa (seriously, how much value do you think Africans received for slaves, compared to the U.S.?). Once the U.S owns up, maybe we can start to pursue the wealth generated by the slave trade in Europe, and divvy it up between the U.S., the Caribbean, Brazil and Africa. Baby steps first, eh?

Second, this issue is not just about slavery. Value was stolen from African Americans after emancipation. Well into the 20th century. Up until 50 years ago.

Finally, no one is trying to target families of individual slaveowners initially. This is about holding an entire country responsible for sanctioning the theft, exploitation and plunder of an entire race of people. Both before and after slavery. It happened with the blessing and sanction of the U.S. government. Therefore the goal is holding them liable for the value that was taken. How they choose to return the money is up to them. If it's through a tax, so be it. Americans are used to that anyways, where do you think the settlements paid out to the families of victims of police brutality come from?

 

[ATXRedDevil]

Well, first. Its good that it should only be coming from the government. The made it possible for this to happen. As to other parties, I dont really see why they shouldnt be held to account.

As for detailing who owned what slaves, its not as hard to do as you might think. We have census data from those years, that included slaves as property. It doesnt account for people who rented slaves(slave masters) but we can absolutely draw a line between today and yesterday using census data. Joseph T. Glatthaar calculated that 24ish% percent of housholds owned slaves in 1860 just using census data. The population was 31 and half million, almost 4 million of which were salves. So 24ish percent of 27 and a half million is 6 and half million? Something like that. So thats 6.5 million people that owned slaves. And we know their names and adresses and family trees. I dont think it would be that hard at all. As for the money, thats what accountants are for.

Just to be clear, Im not calling you anything. Merely observing historical america.

Understood.

I agree that tracing the people wouldn't be quite so hard. I think you're underestimating the monumental challenge that accounting exercise would be. As in, far and away the most difficult accounting exercise in the history of man. You'd be tracing the wealth of descendants of 6 million people, many of whom didn't really have much "wealth" (not all slave owners were wealthy plantation owners with dozens of slaves). From there you'd have to attribute wealth directly related to slave ownership down multiple generations (because it would be even more unfair to indiscriminately take the same wealth from someone who's generational wealth is 99% attributed to say, the steel industry, and 1% to slave ownership/plantations as you would from someone who's generational wealth is 99% derived from slave ownership/plantations (also, certainly very few even close to that percentage this far removed)). Additionally, it's not like there was an IRS with tax records dating back to 1800s and records of basis in various assets. I mean, it would take the Big 5 accounting firms years of combined work and due to lack of tax and asset records and historical inaccuracies it would be fraught with errors. It's just not a practicable exercise in my opinion.

After all that, you'd end up with (using your numbers) descendants of 6.5 million people, many of whom weren't even "wealthy," at least not in any way that would result in a meaningful amount of wealth passed down generations, effectively paying the descendants of 4 million people. There wouldn't be a meaningful amount to go around in my opinion.

 

[adexkola]

We put men on the fecking moon, we can do some complex accounting. It's just addition and time value calculations for fecks sake

We have flying planes that don't have pilots in them. We have planes! We can't do record assessments?

 

[adexkola]

I agree that, from the comfort of today, condemning slavery is obvious. My point is that we should not be making moral judgements on the people of yesteryear based on the knowledge and attitudes of today: we have to try to put ourselves in their shoes before making judgements. That's why I don't use terms like "better", because that implies a moral judgement that I'm not at all qualified to make (I don't believe anyone is).

I can't be at all certain that my attitude towards slavery if I'd lived in, say, 1650 would have been any different to the one that prevailed at that time. I'd like to think it would, but that may just be vanity on my part: the reality is that it's more likely my attitude would have reflected the times.

If I can't be confident that I would have behaved or thought differently in the same circumstances, then I can't reasonably condemn the actions of those who lived at the time. All I can say is thank goodness that particular episode in human history is consigned to the past (I'm not saying that slavery doesn't still exist, but at least it isn't a legal practice now and is on a much smaller scale).

Regarding inter-generational wealth and inherited privilege, well that's another debate altogether.

There were a lot of people in the 1800s that believed slavery was wrong. Enough that a bloody civil war was fought over it, the deadliest war in the history of the United States. Plus, the slaves (who's opinion you seem to be discounting here) knew it was wrong. Stop using this moral relativism as an excuse to sweep inter-generational theft and plunder under the rug

 

[ATXRedDevil]

This is a complicated issue in your head, honestly. Stolen wealth doesn't only apply to slavery. But let's focus on that for a moment:

The slave trade was killed by the British in 1809. The United States banned the importation of slaves from 1809. However the wealth generation caused by the domestic slave trade remained unabated, and actually expanded as Alabama and Mississippi and Texas and other new territories were stolen from the Native Americans and moved into by slave owners. So you asking for proponents of reparations to also reach out to Europe and Africa is dishonest; the vast accumulation of wealth from slavery occurred after 1809, and did not involve the importation of external slaves. From 1809 to 1865, the period when the U.S. became an economic power in it's own right, slavery was a domestic issue, and a huge generator of wealth for both southern and northern states. So if there's a place to start, it's with the United States, not with Europe, or with Africa (seriously, how much value do you think Africans received for slaves, compared to the U.S.?). Once the U.S owns up, maybe we can start to pursue the wealth generated by the slave trade in Europe, and divvy it up between the U.S., the Caribbean, Brazil and Africa. Baby steps first, eh?

Second, this issue is not just about slavery. Value was stolen from African Americans after emancipation. Well into the 20th century. Up until 50 years ago.

Finally, no one is trying to target families of individual slaveowners, as how do you even do that? This is about holding an entire country responsible for sanctioning the theft, exploitation and plunder of an entire race of people. Both before and after slavery. It happened with the blessing and sanction of the U.S. government. Therefore the goal is holding them liable for the value that was taken. How they choose to return the money is up to them. If it's through a tax, so be it. Americans are used to that anyways, where do you think the settlements paid out to the families of victims of police brutality come from?

Multiple people in this thread have suggested such an approach. My retort has been the same as yours - that it's a practically impossible exercise.

I don't think extending reparations to Europe or Africa is dishonest at all. You don't think those European nations benefited from triangular trade? They went through all that effort for something that had a marginal impact? The wealth generated in the US after 1809 wouldn't have been generated if not for the enslavement and sale of those people by those actors, right? We can quibble over comparative responsibility (already said this in this thread) but the only thing dishonest is to completely absolve those people of responsibility because their culpable actions were a few decades removed from when what they did had the greatest economic effect in the US.

Also, nice dig at the US at the end... Very relevant.

 

[ATXRedDevil]

We put men on the fecking moon, we can do some complex accounting. It's just addition and time value calculations for fecks sake

We have flying planes that don't have pilots in them. We have planes! We can't do record assessments?

It's really, really not. Not unless you just want to take from people in any way descendant from slave owners without attributing the wealth directly derived from that. I'm sorry, but if you think taking from someone worth $10 million today with wealth generated from generations of banking for instance is acceptable because their great great grandfather owned a few slaves and was upper middle class, I don't think that's right.

Also, please enlighten me on where all these perfectly kept records of 200+ years of assets and taxes are.

 

[MTF]

We put men on the fecking moon, we can do some complex accounting. It's just addition and time value calculations for fecks sake

We have flying planes that don't have pilots in them. We have planes! We can't do record assessments?

You overestimate record keeping and preservation from 200 years ago.

 

[adexkola]

Multiple people in this thread have suggested such an approach. My retort has been the same as yours - that it's a practically impossible exercise.

I don't think extending reparations to Europe or Africa is dishonest at all. You don't think those European nations benefited from triangular trade? They went through all that effort for something that had a marginal impact? The wealth generated in the US after 1809 wouldn't have been generated if not for the enslavement and sale of those people by those actors, right? We can quibble over comparative responsibility (already said this in this thread) but the only thing dishonest is to completely absolve those people of responsibility because their culpable actions were a few decades removed from when what they did had the greatest economic effect in the US.

Also, nice dig at the US at the end... Very relevant.

I change my mind on that, it's possible. But I'm less interested in targeting individual slaveowner families and more interested in holding the country to account.

Europe benefited from triangular trade. Why would citizens of the United States start their demands for reparation in Buckingham Palace instead of Washington D.C.?

Africa did NOT benefit from triangular trade. The disorder of ancient kingdoms, the inter-fighting among tribes, the outflow of humans caused by the slave trade contributed to the easy partition of Africa by Europe in the 1890s, and the effect of that is still being felt today.

Very relevant indeed. I'm American, so it was kind of a self-dig if you will. Point is, we're getting used to collective responsibility for the policies of a nation and state. Now to stretch that to reparations.

 

[bpet15]

This thread is all over the place and is turning into a train wreck.

First, if a program of reparations is ever instituted, it has to be specific. What exactly is it that will be redistributed. If reparations are a direct atonement for past sins and not a hidden agenda as part of a larger redistribution of wealth, then someone put together a plan and lets debate. So far, no one has come close to putting any detail behind the program.

The resources it would take to determine a fair and equitable program would be astronomical and honestly would be better served if just used in communities that need financial support.

Some of the things that would need to be taken into consideration would be:
1. Who is/isn't a direct descendant of slaves? How do we track? DNA, family tree?
2. Who is/isn't a direct descendant of slave owners? DNA, family tree?
3. Is there a threshold of who should/shouldn't receive reparations?

I guess I would have the following questions before I could be for or against any program of reparations.
1. If a neurosurgeon is a direct descendant of slaves and on $750k/year - is he/she entitled to reparations? It would be difficult to argue that this person is not equally entitled as compared to a direct descendant of slaves that is currently on welfare. Is there a cutoff of current/previous wage earning that disqualifies someone from receiving reparations? If so, what is that number - a sales guy making $150k, a nurse making $75k, etc.
2. Are we making all white people chip in to the kitty? General consensus is that ~32% of people owned slaves - if I am the 3rd cousin twice removed from a slave owner, am I entitled to pay a fair share? What about those that have no slave ownership in the family lineage?
3. How do we handle those white people who may have be descendants of slave owners that are currently poor or on government assistance? Are they forced to pay into the program?

This can't be a program where all white people must pay back all black people. Does the US have the right to go after financial assistance from the Dutch or English who played a major role in bringing the slave trade to America?

This is much too broad of a subject to debate without specifics.

 

[ATXRedDevil]

I change my mind on that, it's possible. But I'm less interested in targeting individual slaveowner families and more interested in holding the country to account.

Europe benefited from triangular trade. Why would citizens of the United States start their demands for reparation in Buckingham Palace instead of Washington D.C.?

Africa did NOT benefit from triangular trade. The disorder of ancient kingdoms, the inter-fighting among tribes, the outflow of humans caused by the slave trade contributed to the easy partition of Africa by Europe in the 1890s, and the effect of that is still being felt today.

Very relevant indeed. I'm American, so it was kind of a self-dig if you will. Point is, we're getting used to collective responsibility for the policies of a nation and state. Now to stretch that to reparations.

I wasn't suggesting US citizens start with asking Europeans. The only time I've brought it up in this thread is to suggest that shouldn't the other responsible actors also bear some of the responsibility.

Africa as a continent was certainly hurt overall.

 

[adexkola]

It's really, really not. Not unless you just want to take from people in any way descendant from slave owners without attributing the wealth directly derived from that. I'm sorry, but if you think taking from someone worth $10 million today with wealth generated from generations of banking for instance is acceptable because their great great grandfather owned a few slaves and was upper middle class, I don't think that's right.

Also, please enlighten me on where all these perfectly kept records of 200+ years of assets and taxes are.

We have census records going back to the formation of the country, by county and shit.

You overestimate record keeping and preservation from 200 years ago.

Records don't need to be perfect to come up with good estimates of wealth extraction from African Americans. You're an economist right? Is economic research limited to the 20th century, or where records are perfect?

And for both of you, you really think the main obstacle in determining the amount of reparations is the quality of records kept?

 

[ATXRedDevil]

This thread is all over the place and is turning into a train wreck.

First, if a program of reparations is ever instituted, it has to be specific. What exactly is it that will be redistributed. If reparations are a direct atonement for past sins and not a hidden agenda as part of a larger redistribution of wealth, then someone put together a plan and lets debate. So far, no one has come close to putting any detail behind the program.

The resources it would take to determine a fair and equitable program would be astronomical and honestly would be better served if just used in communities that need financial support.

Some of the things that would need to be taken into consideration would be:
1. Who is/isn't a direct descendant of slaves? How do we track? DNA, family tree?
2. Who is/isn't a direct descendant of slave owners? DNA, family tree?
3. Is there a threshold of who should/shouldn't receive reparations?

I guess I would have the following questions before I could be for or against any program of reparations.
1. If a neurosurgeon is a direct descendant of slaves and on $750k/year - is he/she entitled to reparations? It would be difficult to argue that this person is not equally entitled as compared to a direct descendant of slaves that is currently on welfare. Is there a cutoff of current/previous wage earning that disqualifies someone from receiving reparations? If so, what is that number - a sales guy making $150k, a nurse making $75k, etc.
2. Are we making all white people chip in to the kitty? General consensus is that ~32% of people owned slaves - if I am the 3rd cousin twice removed from a slave owner, am I entitled to pay a fair share? What about those that have no slave ownership in the family lineage?
3. How do we handle those white people who may have be descendants of slave owners that are currently poor or on government assistance? Are they forced to pay into the program?

This can't be a program where all white people must pay back all black people. Does the US have the right to go after financial assistance from the Dutch or English who played a major role in bringing the slave trade to America?

This is much too broad of a subject to debate without specifics.

Right, it's extremely complicated. I don't think tracing ownership or wealth is practical (or fair to current citizens). Plenty of other questions - what about people who immigrated in the 1900s? What about citizens of states that didn't legalize slavery? Citizens of states that didn't even exist at the time? It goes on and on. The only practical way to do it would be to come from the government which is essentially all the citizens paying indirectly, including those are actually descendants of slaves, recent immigrants and all sorts of people who have no traceable ties to it.

 

[ATXRedDevil]

We have census records going back to the formation of the country, by county and shit.



Records don't need to be perfect to come up with good estimates of wealth extraction from African Americans. You're an economist right? Is economic research limited to the 20th century, or where records are perfect?

And for both of you, you really think the main obstacle in determining the amount of reparations is the quality of records kept?

My retort was regarding determining how much you take from individual descendants of slave owners, not quantifying what descendants of slaves may be owed. The latter is a much easier (but not easy) exercise because it doesn't require individual evaluations of wealth and assets of 6 million plus people and tracing them down generations. If you've moved off discussing the idea that individuals descendant from slave owners pay and are just talking about assessing what's owed adn that you would propose the government pay, I apologize - the two have been discussed interchangeably at times, and agree that is not such a difficult calculation (though setting the parameters would be controversial). It's easier to trace wealth lost on a macro level than wealth passed down generations on an individual level for millions of people.

 

[adexkola]

I wasn't suggesting US citizens start with asking Europeans. The only time I've brought it up in this thread is to suggest that shouldn't the other responsible actors also bear some of the responsibility.

Africa as a continent was certainly hurt overall.

Yeah sure. Let's start with the United States. Once that gets underway part of the effort can shift to determining what went into London and Brussels and Paris and so on

This thread is all over the place and is turning into a train wreck.

First, if a program of reparations is ever instituted, it has to be specific. What exactly is it that will be redistributed. If reparations are a direct atonement for past sins and not a hidden agenda as part of a larger redistribution of wealth, then someone put together a plan and lets debate. So far, no one has come close to putting any detail behind the program.

The resources it would take to determine a fair and equitable program would be astronomical and honestly would be better served if just used in communities that need financial support.

Some of the things that would need to be taken into consideration would be:
1. Who is/isn't a direct descendant of slaves? How do we track? DNA, family tree?
2. Who is/isn't a direct descendant of slave owners? DNA, family tree?
3. Is there a threshold of who should/shouldn't receive reparations?

I guess I would have the following questions before I could be for or against any program of reparations.
1. If a neurosurgeon is a direct descendant of slaves and on $750k/year - is he/she entitled to reparations? It would be difficult to argue that this person is not equally entitled as compared to a direct descendant of slaves that is currently on welfare. Is there a cutoff of current/previous wage earning that disqualifies someone from receiving reparations? If so, what is that number - a sales guy making $150k, a nurse making $75k, etc.
2. Are we making all white people chip in to the kitty? General consensus is that ~32% of people owned slaves - if I am the 3rd cousin twice removed from a slave owner, am I entitled to pay a fair share? What about those that have no slave ownership in the family lineage?
3. How do we handle those white people who may have be descendants of slave owners that are currently poor or on government assistance? Are they forced to pay into the program?

This can't be a program where all white people must pay back all black people. Does the US have the right to go after financial assistance from the Dutch or English who played a major role in bringing the slave trade to America?

This is much too broad of a subject to debate without specifics.

First of all, no it's not that broad of a subject to debate without specifics. If you feel it is, you don't have to wade in

Reparations are a direct atonement for past sins, yes. Redistribution of wealth should occur in a healthy society naturally, to the point where income inequality is mild at best. But that's a separate issue from returning stolen value.

If someone robbed me, it wouldn't matter whether I was a neurosurgeon or a barber. So yes, a millionaire or billionaire that is the direct descendant of slaves is entitled to the return of stolen property

It's not about white people paying money to black people (it just works out that way because white people did enslave black people, and profited from it). This is holding the United States culpable for allowing black people to be exploited for over 400 years. The same way that I, not a police officer, have to endure a tax hike because my town paid the grieving mother of a black teen killed by police $10M, is the same way that citizens will have to bear the pain of their country returning what is due to those who were stolen from, under the blessing of the United States, made up of enfranchised White men and women who fought to keep slavery going, who fought for Jim Crow, who turned the other way during defacto segregation, and so on.

 

[afrocentricity]

Will the proponents of the "it's too difficult" arguement recommend alternatives? or just leave it at "it's too difficult"?

 

[adexkola]

My retort was regarding determining how much you take from individual descendants of slave owners, not quantifying what descendants of slaves may be owed. The latter is a much easier (but not easy) exercise because it doesn't require individual evaluations of wealth and assets of 6 million plus people and tracing them down generations. If you've moved off discussing the idea that individuals descendant from slave owners pay and are just talking about assessing what's owed adn that you would propose the government pay, I apologize - the two have been discussed interchangeably at times, and agree that is not such a difficult calculation (though setting the parameters would be controversial). It's easier to trace wealth lost on a macro level than wealth passed down generations on an individual level for millions of people.

I don't care about who pays. The United States should pay up. How they find the money to pay is up to them. I'm not as focused on descendants of slave owners as you are because I'm not under the impression it was all well and dandy after slavery ended. Almost 5000 extrajudicial lynchings of black people occurred from 1882-1968, and it is traceable by county. Have those municipalities that condoned lynchings been held accountable? Has the United States military been held accountable for turning their backs while black men who fought in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam did not receive full benefits owed to them under the GI Bill? And so on. I don't care about slaveowner families because that's only a piece of the puzzle, and focusing on that makes it easy for y'all to say, "oh that's too hard, why bother?". It's not too hard that a dedicated task force of accountants can't figure something out, but that misses the point.

Focus on what the United States is liable for, and it all becomes so simpler.

 

[ATXRedDevil]

Yeah sure. Let's start with the United States. Once that gets underway part of the effort can shift to determining what went into London and Brussels and Paris and so on



First of all, no it's not that broad of a subject to debate without specifics. If you feel it is, you don't have to wade in

Reparations are a direct atonement for past sins, yes. Redistribution of wealth should occur in a healthy society naturally, to the point where income inequality is mild at best. But that's a separate issue from returning stolen value.

If someone robbed me, it wouldn't matter whether I was a neurosurgeon or a barber. So yes, a millionaire or billionaire that is the direct descendant of slaves is entitled to the return of stolen property

It's not about white people paying money to black people (it just works out that way because white people did enslave black people, and profited from it). This is holding the United States culpable for allowing black people to be exploited for over 400 years. The same way that I, not a police officer, have to endure a tax hike because my town paid the grieving mother of a black teen killed by police $10M, is the same way that citizens will have to bear the pain of their country returning what is due to those who were stolen from, under the blessing of the United States, made up of enfranchised White men and women who fought to keep slavery going, who fought for Jim Crow, who turned the other way during defacto segregation, and so on.

One of the many problems is you're trying to hold a government responsible for actions of administrations long past which ultimately hurts current citizens who have no culpability for what happened. Many of whom are descended from people that didn't live in the US when all this happened. Or states that weren't even part of the United States now being held responsible. Contrast that to your tax hike for the settlement - that just happened. Everyone suffering from that tax hike plays a role is selecting their government officials and can take part in civic process and communal oversight of the institution that was sued. They're completely different propositions.

He's right, it's not that simple.

 

[adexkola]

Will the proponents of the "it's too difficult" arguement recommend alternatives? or just leave it at "it's too difficult"?

2 options probably:

A. "It's too difficult, let's not do it (but focus on other difficult shit that jives with their morals)

B. "Just pour money in the ghettos (missing the damn point)

 

[MTF]

We have census records going back to the formation of the country, by county and shit.

Records don't need to be perfect to come up with good estimates of wealth extraction from African Americans. You're an economist right? Is economic research limited to the 20th century, or where records are perfect?

And for both of you, you really think the main obstacle in determining the amount of reparations is the quality of records kept?

It would be a lot more tenable for me (not that my opinion actually counts, not a citizen) if there were an accurate assessment of the income & wealth generated by slavery, and its flow. Because otherwise the option to basically burden everyone with the cost is correcting one injustice while generating another.

And yes, historians dig into public records dating back even longer than 500 years to write histories that include aspects of income and wealth (tracing businesses, property, etc). But often those are looking at the largest enterprises of the time (most relevant to an overall history) and that therefore generated the most records.

 

[adexkola]

One of the many problems is you're trying to hold a government responsible for actions of administrations long past which ultimately hurts current citizens who have no culpability for what happened. Many of whom are descended from people that didn't live in the US when all this happened. Or states that weren't even part of the United States now being held responsible. Contrast that to your tax hike for the settlement - that just happened. Everyone suffering from that tax hike plays a role is selecting their government officials and can take part in civic process and communal oversight of the institution that was sued. They're completely different propositions.

He's right, it's not that simple.

Yes. That's how society works currently. I am "hurt" paying for shit I had nothing to do with. That's government, social contract, taxation, the whole nine. If a government elected by citizens votes to pay out, how would that be more unfair than me paying for wars I don't want?

No. Settlement was paid out 20 something years after the incident happened. You're saying there's some sort of period after which all claims are voided, because otherwise is unfair. Yet with you, leaving the current descendants of these tragedies to deal with the after effects is fair.

 

[SteveJ]

The majority of us stand by and get 'hurt' by the countless millions spent on nuclear & conventional weapons (money which would surely be better spent elsewhere), yet now we're supposed to cry outrage about entirely justified reparations?

 

[MTF]

One of the many problems is you're trying to hold a government responsible for actions of administrations long past which ultimately hurts current citizens who have no culpability for what happened. Many of whom are descended from people that didn't live in the US when all this happened. Or states that weren't even part of the United States now being held responsible. Contrast that to your tax hike for the settlement - that just happened. Everyone suffering from that tax hike plays a role is selecting their government officials and can take part in civic process and communal oversight of the institution that was sued. They're completely different propositions.

He's right, it's not that simple.

Well, except for non-citizen taxpayers (not actually a substantive argument)

 

[adexkola]

It would be a lot more tenable for me (not that my opinion actually counts, not a citizen) if there were an accurate assessment of the income & wealth generated by slavery, and its flow. Because otherwise the option to basically burden everyone with the cost is correcting one injustice while generating another.

And yes, historians dig into public records dating back even longer than 500 years to write histories that include aspects of income and wealth (tracing businesses, property, etc). But often those are looking at the largest enterprises of the time (most relevant to an overall history) and that therefore generated the most records.

It'll be as accurate as it needs to be, based on historical precedent and common practice. Federal agencies come up with estimates of GDP growth over 30 years based on a tax reduction. I'm not under the impression that it'll be difficult to come up with an estimate of value extracted, that can't be vetted properly by a bunch of economists, mathematicians and accountants.

There will be gaps, but not gaps where nothing can be done. They'll be gaps where sensible estimates based on other data (interpolation, vetted economic models, etc) can be used and everyone can move on, instead of giving up because it's impossible to know how much value was stolen in Muscogee County in April of 1853

If tax isn't an injustice, then a tax for reparations is not an injustice.

 

[ATXRedDevil]

Yes. That's how society works currently. I am "hurt" paying for shit I had nothing to do with. That's government, social contract, taxation, the whole nine. If a government elected by citizens votes to pay out, how would that be more unfair than me paying for wars I don't want?

No. Settlement was paid out 20 something years after the incident happened. You're saying there's some sort of period after which all claims are voided, because otherwise is unfair. Yet with you, leaving the current descendants of these tragedies to deal with the after effects is fair.

You're right. I eagerly await Italy's reparations to Britain for enslaving Brits in the Roman ages.

There has to be some sort of line drawn.

 

[afrocentricity]

2 options probably:

A. "It's too difficult, let's not do it (but focus on other difficult shit that jives with their morals)

B. "Just pour money in the ghettos (missing the damn point)

I'm hoping they have a C, but you're probably right.

 

[bpet15]

If someone robbed me, it wouldn't matter whether I was a neurosurgeon or a barber. So yes, a millionaire or billionaire that is the direct descendant of slaves is entitled to the return of stolen property

Here's the thing, no one robbed you. Did you mean to say if someone robbed my great, great, great, great Grandfather of something, then you are entitled to the return of his property?

You are right, no one has to jump into a debate. But my God, not even the elected officials have come up with any sort of detail around how this would work. I don't think there is anything wrong with me wanting something more than "slavery was bad, they need to atone for it." We already know that. You have a great forum, lay your plan out instead of speaking in generalities that everyone already agrees with.

If I had one, I would communicate it. Issue for me is, I can't begin to put together a plan until I understand what the consensus of "fair, right and decent" is. Until that is done, it is simply conjecture as to supporting or not supporting reparations.

That said, if someone brought up a plan that required a $1,000 payment to every slave descendant in the USA, I wouldn't support that because it probably isn't enough. If someone brought up a plan that required a $2,000,000 payment to every slave descendant in the USA, I wouldn't support that either because it couldn't be paid without directly taking from citizens that had nothing to do with slavery. However, the conjecture comes in because as we sit right now, no one has a clue as to how many direct descendants of slaves are currently residing in the US. The plan would be vastly different if there are 30M people entitled to reparations versus 2M people.

 

[adexkola]

You're right. I eagerly await Italy's reparations to Britain for enslaving Brits in the Roman ages.

There has to be some sort of line drawn.

The line has been drawn. Artifacts from the 3rd century AD are being returned to their countries of origin. Nazi plunder is being returned, and if, some cavern is discovered 200 years from now filled with Nazi plunder no one will be suggesting some made up statute of limitations on the return of that wealth.

If you have a case for reparations, I'll support it. Run people their shit. Why is that so hard to support?

 

[ATXRedDevil]

I'm hoping they have a C, but you're probably right.

Just like "pour[ing] money into the ghettos" won't solve things, I don't think throwing money at descendants solves anything either. It may, however, be a meaningful, well received gesture to many recipients which also can't be discounted. I think in actuality whatever amount would hypothetically be paid would probably be deemed by a lot (maybe most) recipients as not enough and anger people for thinking a nominal sum makes a difference and the people not receiving it would be angry that it was too much, especially those with no ties at all to US slavery in their past. Anything under $10k would be meaningless and insulting and anything over that will surely piss off a ton of people (which you'll probably say doesn't matter, but if it further divides the country and creates more of an us vs them dynamic, it won't help in the long run). Call me a cynic, that's just kind of how I imagine it shaking out.

Looked at one opinion piece that presented this: "Setting the size of the reparations fund can begin with a calculation of today’s value of those long-ago promised 40 acres. The most conservative estimate of the total amount of land that should have been allocated to the 4 million freedmen is 40 million acres. The present value of an overall land grant of that size is approximately $1.5 to $2 trillion. If there are about 35 million black Americans who would be eligible for reparations, this minimum (or baseline) estimate would amount to $40,000 to $60,000 per person." Right or wrong, reparations totaling $1.5-2 trillion would create massive resentment and I think it is counterproductive to the ultimate goal of a world without prejudice and divide.

I think the best thing we can do is continue working to level the playing field for opportunities so that their descendants get the fair an equal treatment their ancestors deserved. I don't think reparations helps accomplish that. I really don't have the answers.

 

[ATXRedDevil]

The line has been drawn. Artifacts from the 3rd century AD are being returned to their countries of origin. Nazi plunder is being returned, and if, some cavern is discovered 200 years from now filled with Nazi plunder no one will be suggesting some made up statute of limitations on the return of that wealth.

If you have a case for reparations, I'll support it. Run people their shit. Why is that so hard to support?

You can't keep comparing return of individual items to reparations. It's an entirely different proposition, both practically speaking and in terms of legal framework.

 

[barros]

Yes!!!! Damn Italians and Muslins I mean Romans and Moors, the Portuguese, Spanish and French want reparations as well.

 

[adexkola]

Here's the thing, no one robbed you. Did you mean to say if someone robbed my great, great, great, great Grandfather of something, then you are entitled to the return of his property?

You are right, no one has to jump into a debate. But my God, not even the elected officials have come up with any sort of detail around how this would work. I don't think there is anything wrong with me wanting something more than "slavery was bad, they need to atone for it." We already know that. You have a great forum, lay your plan out instead of speaking in generalities that everyone already agrees with.

If I had one, I would communicate it. Issue for me is, I can't begin to put together a plan until I understand what the consensus of "fair, right and decent" is. Until that is done, it is simply conjecture as to supporting or not supporting reparations.

That said, if someone brought up a plan that required a $1,000 payment to every slave descendant in the USA, I wouldn't support that because it probably isn't enough. If someone brought up a plan that required a $2,000,000 payment to every slave descendant in the USA, I wouldn't support that either because it couldn't be paid without directly taking from citizens that had nothing to do with slavery. However, the conjecture comes in because as we sit right now, no one has a clue as to how many direct descendants of slaves are currently residing in the US. The plan would be vastly different if there are 30M people entitled to reparations versus 2M people.

In this context, no one robbed me (as in the actual poster replying to you). For a descendant of African slaves, they have been robbed. The current socio-economical status of blacks in America are the direct effect of slavery and Jim Crow. No they haven't been jacked directly. That would have been a better fate. To deny otherwise is simply being ignorant of the facts. And there are people still alive who experienced Jim Crow. Let's not let them die before paying reparations, otherwise we'll have people saying, "they're all dead, why bother"

The point of this thread is formed about the fact that the House of Representatives had a session to discuss creating an official committee to debate the question and details. There is a lot to be discussed regarding how exactly it will be implemented.

We do not need to wait for them to come out with an official plan before we debate the merits of compensating for past wrongs. Trying to argue otherwise is just bollocks. Reparations is moral and just and due. The exact form is subject to debate. I don't know how that will shape out yet. We will see.

And finally, the right amount payable to the descendants of slaves is what was stolen from them. If it was $10 or $1M per person my answer would be the same: run them their money. Any insinuation of an amount being "too much" can feck off, how dare the US put a cap on 400 years of exploitation?

 

[adexkola]

You can't keep comparing return of individual items to reparations. It's an entirely different proposition, both practically speaking and in terms of legal framework.

Yes I can.

It's a bigger proposition, and it's one of greater societal benefit than moving the Elgin Marbles back to Greece. It provides long overdue substantial economic equity to a segment of society that has been anchored down due to a lack of said equity (a direct consequence of slavery and apartheid).

Did the Allies fret because there was no existing framework to deal with the crimes of the Nazis? No. They created new ones. Same here. Don't worry that this hasn't been done before on this scale. It needs to be. That's good enough of a reason.

 

[adexkola]

Yes!!!! Damn Italians and Muslins I mean Romans and Moors, the Portuguese, Spanish and French want reparations as well.

Make a thread for them then, since you're so concerned about the Mike's.