Prometheus 6

He's managed to shorten the stature of his soul.

OK, I have a question:

Why stop at reparations for black people? Why not repatriate europeans, africans and asians back to their respective continents and give america back to the native-americans?

I personally stop at reparations for Black people because I'm Black and that's all I want.

Your question is very Ari-esque, though. The real question is why pursue reparations for Black people, which I have answered in the posts this conversation is attached to.

My question to you is, given my position that reparations means taking action to address the harm purposely cause to Black Americans by the legal abrogation of their rights, what is your objection to it?

Actually DoF, I have a couple more questions for you.

Once you start addressing systemic abuse of certain populations, there is no logical reason to exclude any abused population.

Your question implies that you see a reason not to repatriate everyone and return the land to the Amerinds. Why would you not do so?

And is repatriating everyone but the Amerinds the only way to redress these wrongs? If not, why do you suggest it as an option? If not, what other options can you think of?

That is the level of conversation needed on the topic. We really don't need absurdities presented as the only alternative. I get enough of that from Bush & Co.

Well, hey, you posted a link to the article with the single comment "any questions?" and I obliged.

The point I wanted to make is that we have to draw the line somewhere, because the history of humanity is full of conflict, and every losing side can credibly claim harm. If we can go a century back in time, why not five centuries? or a thousand years?

(As an aside, It"s not clear from your reply if you find the repatriation idea absurd or valid.)

What do I think is wrong with the reparation idea?

First of all, to be equitable, a reparation should benefit those mistreated/harmed, and originate from those doing the mistreating/harming. As all former slaves are now dead, this raises the question who should receive reparations. Only those who can prove to be a descendant of a former slave? What if a white man has a black ancestor? Should he get his part of reparation money?

I assume that we are not going to bother tracing descendants of people who benifited from slavery, but just have the taxpayer provide the money.

But my most important objection is that reparations are not likely to aid inter-racial relations, but give poor whites yet another nudge in the white supremacy direction.

Your objections show that you have a kinda limited view on what reparations are and what they represent.

Check out the first Startin' Stuff Week post to see my basic position on what reparations should be based on. This post goes into the moral position of reparations for Black folks, particularly in the comments. Read them and see if the entire picture I'm painting makes sense.

But by piling up injustices like slavery/segregation/handmedownschoolbooks in one big packet, the answer to questions like who should benefit/ who should pay are only compounded.
Should the alaskan taxpayer have to pay for missouri segregation laws? And is a recent nigerian immigrant allowed to benefit?

You don't get it.

Forget reparations for slavery. I only mention it because reparations opponents do.

I'm not the one piling up injustices. They all happened at the same time.They were piled up by those who committed them. I'm just reporting the fact.

Fix the problem of injustice. Repair the damage done. What's wrong with those principles? How can you argue against them?

Agree to those principles, and the management details can be worked out.

You've still got money on the brain, but let's pretend that a cash payout is what I'm talking about. After all, I did say that I'll take a couple hundred grand if justice isn't forthcoming.

Yes, an Alaskan taxpayer should pay for segregation in Mississippi because the mainstream society as a whole received the economic and political benefits of disenfranchising Black folks. The wealth and social resources Black Americans were entitled to were distributed globally, so the recompense should be collected globally. And if a recent Nigerian immigrant is discriminated against because it can be determined he is a child of Africa he is entitled to justice as well.

Don't like it? Stop the injustice.

The difference between what you call "principles" and "management details" is, in fact, the difference between ethics and law.

Your idea that not only the perpetrator of an injustice but also others who benefited from it should shoulder the burden of repairs has no factual basis in law.

If I go to a shop to buy a product in good faith, I shouldn't have to worry about lawsuits because somewhere in the supply chain of the product someone is being mistreated, like not getting payed overtime. That is a matter between the mistreater and the mistreatee. This may not agree with your brand of ethics, but at least it prevents a breakdown of our economy.

By buying a pair of shoes, I should not become liable for all injustices in the world, just as someone living in the US is not automatically liable for all injustices against blacks.

And then there is the causal link question you seem to dodge with the recent Nigerian immigrant question. If somehow you get a reparation in the form of, say, mandatory affirmative action for blacks in college, would it not be an injustice for people who have been taxpayers all their life to have their kids refused entry because the places are reserved for the kids of a recent immigrant who happens to be black?

"The difference between what you call "principles" and "management details" is, in fact, the difference between ethics and law."

That, my friend, is exactly the case.

There are no ethics in law. I tell folks over and over and over, law and order have nothing to do with right and wrong.

You cannot use law as a guide. Ethics, or morality, or a combination thereof, must give direction to one's choices.

You are using possible legalistic problems to argue against my ethical point, which is why I feel more than justified in ignoring the arguments until the ethics of the situation are established.

Fix the problem of injustice. Repair the damage done. What's wrong with those principles? How can you argue against them?

I'm not posing legalistic problems solely to argue against you, you should have an answer to these questions if you want to make a cogent argument for reparations that can be supported by white liberals.

Your choice on what you call "implementation details" will decide if you can find a majority in favour or not.

If you want something other than an "acknowledgement", it will cost money. If it costs money, congress will have to agree.

Need I remind you that these people are in the law business, not the ethics business?

I recognize that. But I also recognize no legal argument will win if the ethical point is rejected.

Laws are always passed for extra-legal reasons. And no joke, I appreciate your making the legalistic arguments so that I can make this point.