Reparations

Hmm - well - since Craven never answered my question about whether it would be untoward to discuss the questions he is asking in relation to Australia and Aboriginal Australians, I will dare to take the bit, and do so!

If this is seen as off topic, I apologise, but I do not believe I can speak to this topic, really, as regards African Americans, both through lack of knowledge and through not being someone who would be paying. I also think the question is excruciatingly relevant in my country.

I hope that in attempting to answer some of these questions - albeit in a different country and different situation, discussion may detour back towards the original topic. (I just helped in deviating it, for which I apologise.)

Craven's original questions were (with a background assumption that, if you are discussing the mechanics of payment, you are pro!)

."What I am initially interested in hearing is the practical implementation of reparations as the supporters idealize it.

In other words, if you support reparations for slavery what is your ideal way of implementing this plan.

1..Is it a governmental reparation? Or are institutions and individuals who had a hand in it to be pursued individually?

2.. What type of amounts are we talking about? Punitive awardings as well?

3.Do people who have never had a hand in slavery pay?

4. Do people who don;t have any ancestors who were slaves get paid?"



1. I would see reparations (other than land rights, for which there is an existing, if flawed, process) as occurring through the taxation system - ie using tax money. While there was, I understand, little slavery as such, the entire country was taken from Aboriginal Australians, they were moved, largely, to missions and alienated from their land and culture. Many worked for pittances - similarly to Native Americans, many children were removed, their ties to family severed, and "educated" - large for ill-paid domestic servitude. Many worked for graziers at a fraction of white wages. Their freedom of movement was restricted until the second half of last century, and their recognition as full citizens at about the same time.

While descendants of people who profited from ill-paid labour might still be on the land, there are no clear hugely rich individuals or corporations with special ties to abuse of Aboriginal people - everything that Australians of any ancestry (except Aboriginal) have is predicated upon the land having been taken - therefore I see it as reasonable and fair to be the whole nation which pays - the tax system already protects the poor.

2. What type of amounts? Yikes! Some reasonable proportion of national wealth, I suppose. Paid in such a way as not to bankrupt the nation - ie over some decades.

What is reasonable? That could never be agreed. I wonder if a special commission might be set up to hear submissions from Aboriginal people, economists, sociologists, members of the community etc, from which recommendations arose, to be settled by parliament?????? Hard to know!!!!! I know that this is a crucial thing - but it would seem to me to be a decision that would be reached through a lengthy process.

Punitive damages? Hmmmm - I note the CURE site posted by Noah speaks of reconciliation - it would seem to me that a community makes decisions on such things based on justice, but also reason and an understanding that we sort of have to start moving on from the past together at some point. I would say again that reparations would have to be set at some point between the enormity of the actual damage, and the ability of the community to pay. Bankrupting a country helps nobody....

3. I think I answered that in 1.

4. Here, the corollary would be who is Aboriginal? There has been a huge amount of inter-marrying - and far less savoury forms of mixing races, ie rape and such. There are already arguments about who ought and ought not to benefit from existing affirmative action programs - a simple answer might be to include in reparations those who, before the process of determining them began, self-identified as Aboriginal and were accepted as such within their communities, and for pre-existing benefits - with an appeal system set up for those who felt they had been unfairly treated.

Now, that statement is a fallaciously as sweeping as mine.
Would we talk about the American Revolution - as a successful act - and, hence, an America, if it was not finalized (in our favor)?

Farmerman, I told you I stand corrected. I accept your definition as the proper one. So if you like you can talk about all that was involved in the South's Secession all at once. That would be fine with me. (It would also save a number of posts...)

And thanks for the date. I'll note it. (What else?)

Noah, its a gift. history , like "terminal species" is a temporary condition. if you think the American Revolution was finalized, then you missed the Civil War and Brown V Board of Ed. or womens suffrage.

Deb-a thoughtful analysis , and one that touches a subject that, though separate from the US's history and definition of slavery , post 1808, it always 'wondered me" whether Oz had come to grips with the apparent rent in its own society.

While my view is quite clear that reparations is not even an acceptable term , it always comes down to "give money or in kind , all we are arguing is the amount"

"it always 'wondered me" whether Oz had come to grips with the apparent rent in its own society."

No, we haven't.

Tragically, under the previous government, the edges of the cloth were being gathered together, and discussion was ensuing of the repair process.

The current one, for reasons, I think, of garnering the reactionary vote, and for reasons, also, of genuine conviction/failure of mind and heart, has quite deliberately moved to set the clock back.

Interestingly, my analysis has been (and, I discover, that of some Aboriginal leaders and other activists) that this paradoxically has done a great deal to advance the cause or reconciliation in the long term - ie, previously the government was running ahead of the masses, and this inevitably led to reaction (and the expression of appalling pre-existing racism etc). With the government saying and doing some of the things it did, many people who were undecided, or just sitting back, or even part of reaction, have become far more supportive. Some of the hugest mass demonstrations - by people who had never been to such a thing in their life - and other reconciliation activities - have occurred in reaction to the government's reactionaryism.

Let us hope we can begin to move forward again.

The rhetoric of the present government has toned way down, too. They were not all that honestly racist in their talk, by the way - just using code phrases like "The Aboriginal "industry" and "a black-arm-band view of history", turning back legislation - things still simmer - and Oz is involved in a series of "history wars" - but, in general, I think they are less strident and negative....

ya know, Ive rarely heard the word reconciliation used in the US.

With that type of liberal interpretation, then Reparations, IMO, is an extension of the American Revolution.... whether you like the term or not.... whether it matches an archiac definition or not.

You know, that's a funny thing I guess I have noticed as well.
Can't say that Reconciliation has been the term I wondered about though...

It's RACE RELATIONS that seems to be lacking eventhough it is used.... or should I say misused or rather nobody talks about the RELATIONSHIP and seriously about how we relate and should relate beyond the superficial.

I guess I shouldn't expect too much in a country that obviously have a problem with RELATIONSHIPS.... (you know high divorce rate, etc.) I could say more but that would start a whole 'nother rant sort of the topic.

Noah-I agree with your last post from beginning to end.. The seeds of the present conflicts were sown in the furrows of the last war.-

As much as I've argued for reparations, I am not for it. But not because I'm against the concept but because we can have a similar plan that does not depend on race and so is more paletable for white America.

Just use our tax dollars to lift up the poor. More cheap or free education, childcare, drug rehab, easier access to home and small business loans, and more concentration on rehabilitation in our penal system. Poor whites would benefit too but a larger portion of the black population would benefit compared to whites.

All this talk of breaking down barriers is useless unless blacks have an economically prosperous future to look forward to. So we CANNOT acheive true equality without some sort of reparation. The biggest disadvantage to being black in America is not the discrimination anymore but the financial disadvantage that resulted from centuries of discrimination.

All of the above applies to Native Americans as well. With Asians and even Native Americans the biggest problem is not financial but public perception. Asian is not mainstream. We're "exotic." To level the playing field for Asian Americans, we need better media representation (and no I don't mean as kung fu masters or exotic sex toys). Except for Margaret Cho's short lived sitcom, Asians have never had high visibility TV roles. Even Kung Fu stared a white guy!

What aspects of the "relationship" would you change or see as most problematic?

The first part is exactly what I see as wrong with "race relations". From a black perspective, that relationship is just an extension of the slave-master relationship. As it was during slavery and Jim Crow, so too today white America still seeks to control and dictate the "relationship". The power dynamics have no change that significantly. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about placating white America.

Which brings me to this observation...
Why is it that it seems (and I mean seems... I could be wrong...it just seems that way to me...) why is it that it seems as if white America only becomes passionately concerned about poor people in general and/or the white poor/disadvantage in particular when it comes to issue being raised by blacks or whoever - issues like AA and reparations?

It's the same curious thing that came up when the Civil Rights Act was passed. Reportedly, women were added to the bill to "kill" it. Though the bill passed anyway, given that white women have benefited the most from AA, then in effect the intended impact was "killed" or deadened at least some. So, when I hear people speaking about socio-economic AA in opposition to AA, that's what I think of - another way to short-change or divert the effect of something supposedly earmarked to blacks.

Note: There was no "appreciable resentment" (to use an MLK term) towards the 1,243 white students who had lower test scores and grades than the Gratz girl who filed the AA suit at U of M. It was only the black (and minority) ones who 'earned' the stigma of "undeserving".

So, until proven otherwise, I will regard such measures - socio-economic AA - as countermeasures as a new form of "kill bill", promoting white interest at the expense of blacks.

It's all the results of the plan hatched a long time ago that someone alluded to when speaking about the wealthy ruling elite. Poor whites status was raised in effect by having blacks placed under them even though many of them didn't have a pot to piss in... Prior to that, [poor] whites and blacks lived side-by-side and even rebelled together against the elites. I guess we know why something had to be done about that...

It's actually pithy and profound. It ain't over yet...

Noah,

I went back and read the definitions of racism you'd posted earlier.

I also re-read your exchanges with Mr. Stillwater.

I was unable to reconcile the two, you clearly implied that he is racist but I was unable to source your stated criteria in any of his posts.

Can you please clarify?

Again, context evades you and I guess Farmerman too, though I could see his point. But I guess if that's the attitude you take then again (and I forget who I responded to like this before) then I feel all the more embolden with a reparations stance. You've just made the case for the on-going legacy of slavery and racism. Thank you!

However, I do believe we were talking about recognized/recognizable events in history. So if you think the American Revolution (as the event in US history...) or the Civil War are on-going events that "aren't over" then fine but it is exactly this kind of innane reasoning, the doctrine of making a wholly unrelated point just because you can make it in order to distract from the discussion with irrelevancies or rather with info. that nullifies discussion (because it would mean someone else has found legitimate error in your reasoning), rendering the discussion pointless and fruitless to begin with.

But I guess you can relate. You would rather there be no point than have your feable points exposed for their weakness - i.e. saving face.

What definition of racism?

Why don't you quote what you are talking about?
The only thing I said to him was that by citing the Secession Constitution/document of the Confederate states and implying it had some sunset relevance to this discussion of reparations he was showing his Southern "roots" - i.e. his admiration for or elevation of it.

Where did I accuse [that's funny] him of racism? Quote the statement or quit whining!

Noah, I haven't done that at all. What the devil are you on about now?



Again, Noah, what the devil are you talking about? What would I be "saving face" from?

The ones you posted on the first thread you participated in on this site.



Because I am trusting your memory and your ability to remember things you posted not a week ago. Let me know if such meager confidence in you is misplaced.




False, you suggested his roots were Southern in origin and then through the use of contrast said that the north was a place where you also found racism.

The use of a contrast was such that clear implication was made to the effect that he is racist.



Where did I say you "accused" him of racism?

I did say that you "implied" it. And you know damn well that you did. Do you really enjoy a logomachy so much Noah? Is it a "face-saving" tactic?

Is this what you are talking about?
If so then you and he will just have to live with it.

It just so happens that this is not the first time I've seen someone say almost exactly that. Now if you agree with him and feel that blacks/Africans who were enslaved in this country "owe" someone for some aspect of slavery then don't be afraid to be recognized as someone promoting a strikingly "Southern" perspective on this. Now, if you equate the South with racism or my reference to the deep... deep South then that would seem to be your problem.

Reading comprehension will tell you that my overall point was to say that there was racism throughout the U.S., hence me citing the racism MLK faced in the North and his view of it.

Go play games with someone else!

Apparently you have me confused with some other Noah!
My first post was on the AA thread in response to an article and perspective about MLK or his "content of character" being at odds with AA.

I think you are aware from there on about what I said because my exchanges were with you. But you can go on to think that I am Noah The African and make weak "contrasting" associations with my words.

If I wanted to call Stillwater a racist, I would. I said he had Southern "roots" because he promoted a Southern perspective, not unlike a number of professed [Southern] Constitutionalist I have encountered on-line before. Ones that have posted/promoted a renewed Secession idea replete with a map showing the states that would break off from the "Union" If that makes him racist then sobeit. He should know what his views reflect or "IMPLY" then.

Let me repeat that... IF THAT MAKES HIM RACIST THEN SOBEIT!
If he or you are upset about it! Be upset!
Now, WHAT???

For those who are interested, another reparations case was thrown out of court today. The judge pointed out that the plaintiffs were not those who suffered the alleged wrongs, and that the defendants were not those who allegedly perpetrated said wrongs.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, getting reparations is going to be damned difficult.

"'Yes, Mr Malcolm X your ancestors were freed, but they still owe the US a manumission fee which we are willing to waive if you just f@ck off'). Stillwater"

Noah - are you familiar with the concept of irony?

THAT is the tone Mr Stillwater was using - ie his meaning was the direct opposite of his words - a communication tone often used to show contempt for a position in a dramatic way that makes it laughable.

To most of us it was obvious that his opinion of the quoted statement is that it is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting.

Was it actually unclear to you? If so, I trust that your misperception of Mr Stillwater's words is cleared up.