Reparations

Quote:

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.

Considering the confusion... my response to this earlier was also made in the wrong vain. Matter of fact, only the deep, deep, deep South remark had anything to do with characterizing.... The reference to the North and racism MLK found there (as you would see if you re-read again) was attach to the argument about the UNION and how North & South couldn't be separated, IMO. They both profitted...

0 Replies

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

Moving on...

Thank you.

0 Replies

If one pays close attention to Craven's original quest for practical implementation measures this exercise would logically seem to cut off any such request for reparations at the knees, if not call for even higher levels of amputation. For if one legitimately seeks such remittance how is it to be done? Further battering of this deceased equine corpse does nothing to deny the futility of trying to recover so much water over the dam.

Secondly, what tax payer (Voter) would be willing to check that specific box on his annual IRS 1040 form or vote back into office those legislators responsible for passing such measures?

The validity fails mainly on this: How are we to accurately, and therefore fairly, calculate such payments to which people for imaginary services never rendered?

JM

0 Replies

JamesMorrison wrote:

If one pays close attention to Craven's original quest for practical implementation measures this exercise would logically seem to cut off any such request for reparations at the knees, if not call for even higher levels of amputation. For if one legitimately seeks such remittance how is it to be done? Further battering of this deceased equine corpse does nothing to deny the futility of trying to recover so much water over the dam.

Secondly, what tax payer (Voter) would be willing to check that specific box on his annual IRS 1040 form or vote back into office those legislators responsible for passing such measures?

The validity fails mainly on this: How are we to accurately, and therefore fairly, calculate such payments to which people for imaginary services never rendered?

JM

And the crimes... the crimes against humanity (that were "rendered") were so imaginary I presume.

(It's amzing the crap people will say to support their pre-held positions.)

I don't recall there being a "request" for full disclosure of the actual "implementation" plan to go to war with Iraq. Certainly a case was made, but I do remember some after-the-fact quarrels over an exit plan which arguably considering... should have been divulged with the "entry" plan.

I don't recall there being thorough "implementation" plans for the Mars intitiative or No Child Left Behind or.... well... quite frankly most policies. Seems to their acceptance hinge on basic fundamental ideas about the goals of said programs, their 'worthwhile' aims, the benefits of them, etc.

The irony is, during this election year, is that a candidate will be selected who will propose a number of policies in much this less than revealing way all the while gaining nomination for stating as less as possible about the substance of his/her views....

I do always recall hearing, "Well, how does he/she think he's going to pay for that?", etc. Questions that go right to the heart of implementation ideas but yet I don't see the whole political process standing on it's head waiting for such a request to be answered before a policy is adopted.

So, IMO, people must answer why is the idea of reparations so different than how other policies are treated....

0 Replies

Noah,

My last post was an attempt to refocus upon Craven's original question of reparations implementation. The more I thought about it the less "practical" it seemed. The fact of injustices done does not necessarily speak to their alleviations in the real world. I think it wise at this point to reject those that would seek monetary gain for perceived past injustices supposedly done and to move on. Your offered deflections from the answer to the original query do little to shed light upon possible resolutions. The fact that no one, so far, has satisfactorily answered the question at hand points to it being moot.

The rightful place for this issue, despite a society that feels money is a remedy for all evil, is on the historical and, in this case, hysterical, trash heap of past worldly injustices.

Respectfully,

JM

0 Replies

James,

You might note that there have been no attempts to illustrate the practicality. This seems to validate what you suspect.

One of the arguments for reparations that I commonly see that attempts to address the question of why persons who had nothing to do with slavery should pay is that supposedly all whites have benefited from slavery in the form of our modern society being built on it and such.

Thing is, while that is true it is also true of all races who live in said society. The attempt to use this argument to justify the call for whites to pay blacks is nothing but racism.

The whites that had nothing to do with slavery do not have a moral imperative to pay black who had nothing to do with slavery.

All races benefit from the economic and society that the slaves did, indeed, help create.

But to decide that one race needs to pay another when they have not done them any wrong is just vingatorial racism.

Noah,

Please explain what a "pre-held position" is and whether you are the owner of one.

0 Replies

Frankly, it is simply not true that American prosperity is based upon the former existance of an institution of slavery. The fledgling United States based its prosperity upon two aspects of our political economy which had nothing to do with slavery--the maritime industry and the growth of population. The carrying trade, which had first made the Dutch rich, and then the English--the "Yankee" traders relied first and foremost upon the carrying trade to make their voyages pay. After the adoption of the constitution, with the prohibition on the import of slaves after 1800, the carrying trade became even more crucial to the New England merchants. The wars of the French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic era made the carrying trade more lucrative. The other major maritime industry was whaling. In the latter part of the 18th century, the main whaling industry was located in the southeast Pacific. New England whalers competed strongly with the English as their crews were recruited without the atmosphere of competition with naval press gangs which plagued the English for generations. During the War of 1812, Essex, one of the new American "super" frigates made a cruise in the region, and virtually destroyed the English whaling fleet. They never recovered, and the New Englanders within a generation came to dominate the whale oil industry, which was in terms of value per tonnage the most profitable in the world.

The other aspect was the constant growth of the population of the United States. In a time when a consumer economy was undreamt of, and no economic theory of "consumerism" existed, industry in the United States nonetheless had a constantly growing market, the rate of the growth of which assured profitability even in the face of stiff competition with European manufacturers. The principle reason that New Englanders wanted a high tarriff, while Southerners opposed it was that the less expensive manufactured goods of Europe appealed to the Southerner, for whom slave driven operations were growing more and more expensive, while New Englanders wished to protect their very lucrative market. The three fifths compromise of the constitution gave Southerners a political power out of all proportion to their actual numbers, allowing a relative handful of voters in congressional districts with large slave populations to pack their states' delegations (which also worked to the detriment of those districts in which the slave population was negligible, as their representative population spread its vote over a wider political spectrum). Southerners did not just want to expand the territory of slavery because of some evil conspiracy, they needed to do so, as the prohibition on the slave trade meant that only the offspring of existing slaves could legally be sold, and that income was crucial to operations which increasingly were unable to compete on the world market against the production of other nations. Cotton and tobacco were being produced in Africa and Asia, and Southerners were rapidly losing their dominance of those markets. But if they could continue to expand slavery into new states, they could balance their decreasing profit margins by selling slaves.

CdK's remark is not the first time that i've seen people in these threads repeat the red herring that modern capitalist success in the United States results (even if only in part) from slavery. Someone else made a similar comment in the other thread. What the Noahs are peddling is simply false. Slavery has never been successful in history in the long run. The latifundia of the Roman empire in the west eventually lead (through the normal action of competition) to very large slave-driven operations, in the production of textiles, of pottery, in farming, in salt production (very lucrative trade in the ancient world), and in many other areas. But the large slave driven operations squeeze out the small holder trying to make a profit from farming, and the small craftsman. Small operations cannot compete on volume, so they must use innovation and customer service to compete successfully. Under normal circumstances, this works. But the slave-driven operations reduce costs to such an extent, that even those traditional means cannot compete. The small farmer and craftsman in the empire in the west were increasingly bankrupted, and thrown onto the rolls of those receiving their "bread and circuses" from the state. In the empire in the east, where slavery existed largely as an adjunct to citizens coming from the west, and was not a significant aspect of the local economies, the circulation of specie and the value added equations worked to the benefit of a far larger proportion of the population--hence their local economies could continue to produce the revenues needed by the state without a crushing burden for the small holder and small craftsmen. In the west, even before Constatine divided the empire, the currency was so constantly debased that run-away inflation became a fixture of the economy in an era when no one understood the concept. The empire reached it's greatest territorial extend under Septimius Severus, who constantly debased the currency in order to pay a grossly expanded military. So much so, in fact, that core studies of the ice in Antarctica show measurable amounts of lead in the atmosphere during those years.

The Laconians were a political culture completely based upon the slavery of the Helots. With the final victory of Sparta in the last Peloponnesian War (due more to Athens' reach having exceeded its grasp than the mythic superiority of the Spartan military), the only way for the Laconian state to continue to be economically viable was to increasingly squeeze revenue from the city states which they had forced into vassalage. Their leadership was so much concerned with maintaining the status quo ante and keeping a lid on the huge slave culture, that they were become inflexible in policy, lacked innovation in matters of diplomacy and military doctrine and deployment, leaving them totally unprepared to deal with the Macedonian invasion of Phillip II. Their economy only functioned as long as they bled their client states profusely, and they had no residue of good will from the other cities when it came time to fight the invader, and no margin of safety in their treasury to finance the operations, and no productive population on the land to produce the wherewithal of the army's logistics. Free men are willing to fight to protect what they have, and more, they are productive in their craft or on the land, because they work for their own benefit. On the other hand, no slave master would ever arm his slaves, even to defend against the invader, and the slave has little reason to make any extra effort, or even an ordinary effort, to produce what the slave master needs to finance his military.

So, in these discussions, it would help if everyone would recognize that it is simply not true that slavery has contributed to anyone's prosperity, now or in the past, except for a handful of slave owners. Recognize as well, that the institution of slavery condemns the small famer and the small craftsman to perpetual poverty in an artificially maintained economy which will always increasingly fight to stave off an inevitable collapse. Slavery has never been an economically viable system.

0 Replies

Interesting. I've long maintained that immigration has had far more to do with American economic success.

I'd never been able to find the alleged societal benefit of slavery in America.

But even if it were true, it would also be true that today's generation benefitsfrom it regardless of race. And that saying that yesterday's slavery benefits today's whites is inordinately ethnocentric and is fallacious.

It can be said that "white privilidge" does, but that has nothing to do with slavery except in the loosest connections. And "white privilidge" is the same kind of ethnocentricism as that seeking "privilidge" for any racially defined group.

0 Replies

I would never dispute the pernicious effects of racism, nor deny its persistece. It is ludicrous, however, to contend that American prosperity derives, even marginally, from slavery.

0 Replies

Also ludicrous in my mind is to say that slavery and racism are equal.

Racism exists today. And when one is discriminated against based on race they often have the option to litigate and receive reparations.

The logic that says that people should benefit (or pay) based on past sins only because they happen to share the same race as some of said sinners is bankrupt ethnocentricism to me.

0 Replies

couldn't agree more, Boss . . .

0 Replies

Setanta: Thanks for the mini-dissertation--very informative. I always find more solace in documented truths then conjured theories devoid of facts.

CDK : Please, help me out! I've been through two on-line and two hard backed dictionaries to find the meaning of vingatorial, I couldn't find a root word to help me out.

Setanta's conclusion that slavery is an economic no go, in the long term, makes sense. In the long run slaves must be treated as children. Despite the desirability of children for other reasons, in purely accounting terms they are a liability and not an asset. The only point where some type of return might be harvested from our children is when they go out on their own and become totally self supporting (at this point many parents rightly consider this more than enough of a return). But slaves are never self supporting and, even if considered abused, are economically high maintenance. Like newly bought machines the loans used to purchase them must be paid whether they generate income or no. Sooner or later repairs and replacement loom and the fact they reproduce in kind merely refers back to the child analogy.

Also, as Setanta has mentioned, in times of political instability or national crisis slaves have little incentive to risk life and limb to maintain the status quo. ..nothing to gain and absolutely everything to lose.

JM

0 Replies

Quote:

The attempt to use this argument to justify the call for whites to pay blacks is nothing but racism.

I guess your invitation for my participation was completely rhetorical. Rhetorical in the sense that nothing I say would even factor.

That said, you will see that I have not fostered an argument "to justify the call for whites to pay blacks". Matter of fact, I have said the opposite. But, I do recall you said the is wasn't "about the money" or at least not for the most part. I wonder how you reconcile the above statement with that idea you mentioned earlier.

As it is, "whites" are promoting their self-interest as it relates to this issue at the same time castigating blacks for doing the same. When we review the fact that on no other issue does this becomes such an issue, then yes, there is some racism involved in this. Racism of the intergenerational kind.

When the ancestors of African-Americans were "freed"... reparations were prevented by whites. When segregation to it's grip, reparations were prevented by whites. When segregation ended (though arguably America is still "segregated"...) reparations were prevented by whites. Today, after all those generations of "reparations" denied, "whites" today stand as their ancestors - social, figurative or actual - and will do whatever's in their power to prevent reparations.

Again, Craven, AA and reparations are cut from the same cloth. That is as initially conceptualized via LBJ & MLK. Both understood the problems of the poor - white and black. But they both understood how blacks were systematically made so. And, no, you can't even begin to say with a straight honest face that any other group, save the Indigenious/Native Americans, have been treated in a way comparable to black people. There are no comparisons in the Scale & Scope, Duration & Depth.

I'm talking about generation-after-generation of a specific status designated to African-Americans. So mentioning a group that was treated bad for perhaps a generation or two doesn't begin to approach what African-Americans have dealt with as a GROUP.

So, you can exaggerate and dismiss the obvious all you want but you know that AA and reparations are born of the same [initial] purpose. To argue now, all-of-a-sudden, for socio-economic AA which seems to only be brought in opposition to AA that whites pretend grants blacks too much when in reality whites, women in particular, benefit more is what I call the real racism. The type of racism that tells a bold-faced lie and acts as if it's the truth and for what reason???

I'll let you tell me...

It seems to me that white people need to figure out what they're doing. It's funny to me how whites act like black people are responsible for AA as it is. If you don't like it, regardless as to whether blacks are involved in it, your fight and argument is with the whites that see merit in it. Those may be whites from a generation ago or whatever. But it definitely isn't blacks who ultimately decide the fate of the idea.

So, since it seems to me that when it comes to AA, that whites seem to seek out or point out black advocates as the source of what they very subjectively label as "racism" - what they see AA is - then nothing but racism as I see it can make them focus almost solely on blacks...

Simple question:
Who made AA the law? Blacks or whites?

I remember a title to a commentary on AA that read:
The Lunatics Are Running The Asylum

That's my opinion of whites and their "color-BLIND" brethen of all hues. None of them, IMO, begin to grasp America her enduring race problem. I place the blame squarely on whites. No time to wiggle or whine now!

On this very issue of reparations many whites feel that their majority population will effectively stifle attempts for blacks to obtain such. Hmmm.... Well, that same status is what could have long since effectively dealt with or began a serious approach to solving the race problem. But, political expediancy and the lukewarm interest of whites, not to mention vehement opposition to it, have "effectively" prevented that.

(Also, it's really funny to me how whites who ostensibly didn't have a clue about what 'racism' was just yesterday are the one's who, if you ask them, have the firmest grip on what it is and is not. As much as they decry others labeling something as racist or evidence of racism, they most certainly don't deny themselves the license to apply it as liberally as they like.)

So tell me who really is about racism or fostering it and moving on with [it]... however changed... yet still ever-present and guiding the 'move'.

One more time for the road:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and REPARATIONS are of the same genus.
To claim to be in favor of one and against the other is to engage in the very American art/version of double-speak, deception and delusion. It's no wonder why one of the resounding sayings of Indigenious (Indian) was:
The white man speaks with forked-tongue.

I will also say that in terms of AA, "the white man" is an 'Indian Giver'.
That's what socio-economic AA is or rather is the result/signal of - Indian Giving - beyond being disingenuous.

Of course, points like whites with lower grades and test scores getting into colleges instead of the high profile complaints seem to be a non-issue on an issue, AA, that is all about that if you believe what whites and their defenders say. Again, it's the blacks (other minorities) that get the bad rap while the lesser performing whites somehow still have merit and aren't part of the problem, not to mention legacies and not to mention the element of socio-economic "AA" already employed in college admissions.

It must be nice to obscure issues and still project that one is standing on sound principles.

Such is my rant....

White people need to straigten their act out, if you ask me. Somebody needs to go ahead and win what is essentially white-on-white in-fighting on race. Yes, whatever problem that exist as far as policies are concerned, IMO, are white created. Problems with white conception... unintended, perhaps, consequences born of those white conceptions... as well as (what is prominent here) the constant fight over whose vision on race will win out.

To be sure, there are clear ideological descendants from whites who favored AA yesteryear and those who did not. No amount of colorblindness will let me think that a majority of whites were whole-heartedly in favor of AA that they now seem to object to. There are definitely those who never did and I'm not talking about those that "hated" blacks. There undoubtedly some that were either undecided or perhaps went along with reservations yet nonetheless were not ardent supporters.

So, use all the cloaking devices and pretenses you want... I know for a fact that as many as profess to be against "racism" today... yesterday they were not so clearly and loudly in support of it. Likewise, I know MLK wasn't so warmly received and for clear reasons. For sure, its clear that that reasoning is still alive in the hearts and minds of many and just as there was Jim Crow proproganda to promote false ideas in order to promote an agenda, there is proproganda to promote ideas to forward, in effect, the same agenda.

0 Replies

Quote:

Also ludicrous in my mind is to say that slavery and racism are equal.

As I see it, it's only the opponents of reparations that seem to make that argument. I.E. all groups have been treated "bad" and discriminated against.

But I do appreciate you revealing your position.
I'm sure there were whites who immediately felt AA was "reverse racism"... while ignoring the reality and making innane arguments like you have that all groups have benefited from slavery (equally).

Oh! You left out the equal didn't you. Oh well...

I won't bother with details... you certainly are not.
And, IMO, you have squarely set yourself as a descendant of one of those who were at best lukewarm about racial equality during the Civil Rights Era. Things you may profess aside, the way you characterize AA and reparations (again, both being of the same genus) indicates a motivation other than being anti-racist about your views.

But go ahead and stick with simplistic and disingenuous assertions about race, AA, etc.

I am convinced more and more that most people including yourself have no idea what racism is and will promote their own trumped up version in the same way people who would ideologically opposed to MLK if he was alive (or they were alive and active in his time) try to act like they are the guardians of his "Dream" and have a lock on what he meant. PROPROGANDA! Those people like you hope to profit from moral authority of MLK and in this case the authority the label of "racism" has in defining what is wrong when it comes to race in America.

Well.... I'm soooooo moved by your version of Reverse Discrimination I don't know what to say. I can see how what you say amounts to "racism".... Rolling Eyes

(see my post above.... another will be forthcoming...)

0 Replies

JamesMorrison wrote:

CDK : Please, help me out! I've been through two on-line and two hard backed dictionaries to find the meaning of vingatorial, I couldn't find a root word to help me out.

James,

This is a word I made up a long time ago and I know it's wrong but I always use it. The root would be vengance and the correct word would be vengeful.

Embarrassed

0 Replies

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

Quote:
The attempt to use this argument to justify the call for whites to pay blacks is nothing but racism.

I guess your invitation for my participation was completely rhetorical. Rhetorical in the sense that nothing I say would even factor.

I'm not sure where you get all of that. I certainly never said it.

I invited you to lay out, in detail, the practical implementation of reparations.

You declined and such is life.

I never said that what you say would not factor into my opinion and as I have in the past I extend the invitation to you to have your say if you change your mind.

Quote:

That said, you will see that I have not fostered an argument "to justify the call for whites to pay blacks".

What's more important is that I do not see myself ever claiming that you have. <shrugs>

Heck my last post doesn't address you at all.

Quote:

Again, Craven, AA and reparations are cut from the same cloth.

I disagree.

Quote:

And, no, you can't even begin to say with a straight honest face that any other group, save the Indigenious/Native Americans, have been treated in a way comparable to black people. There are no comparisons in the Scale & Scope, Duration & Depth.

With few exceptions (Jews, Gypsies, Arabs in Palestine) I agree. In America the Native Americans are the only ones who had it worse. Chris Rock said it best.

Quote:

I'm talking about generation-after-generation of a specific status designated to African-Americans. So mentioning a group that was treated bad for perhaps a generation or two doesn't begin to approach what African-Americans have dealt with as a GROUP.

For this reason I think reparations for longstanding societal discriminations that occured within the lifetimes of people who are alive make more sense to me.

Frankly I wish sengregationalist idiots of Strom Thurmond ilk were tasked with such payments.

Quote:

So, you can exaggerate and dismiss the obvious all you want but you know that AA and reparations are born of the same [initial] purpose.

I am not sure where you assrt my hyperbole or my dismissal. <shrugs>

Quote:

To argue now, all-of-a-sudden, for socio-economic AA which seems to only be brought in opposition to AA that whites pretend grants blacks too much when in reality whites, women in particular, benefit more is what I call the real racism. The type of racism that tells a bold-faced lie and acts as if it's the truth and for what reason???

How is socio-economic relief racist? It does not address race at all and is color-blind. I await your explanation.

I suspect you will assert that it's blind to the very colours it shouldn't be blind to but that's not racism. Perhaps just inadequacy.

Quote:

It seems to me that white people need to figure out what they're doing. It's funny to me how whites act like black people are responsible for AA as it is.

It seems to me that everyone should be less ethnocentric and less prone to sweeping racial generalizations.

Quote:

So, since it seems to me that when it comes to AA, that whites seem to seek out or point out black advocates as the source of what they very subjectively label as "racism" - what they see AA is - then nothing but racism as I see it can make them focus almost solely on blacks...

Simple question:
Who made AA the law? Blacks or whites?

I don't allege that anything is racism based upon who said it. I alleged that arguing for reparations to be paid by a racially definded group regardless of complicity is racism.

I allege that having this paid to a racially defined group regardless of need or injury is racism.

Quote:

That's my opinion of whites and their "color-BLIND" brethen of all hues. None of them, IMO, begin to grasp America her enduring race problem. I place the blame squarely on whites. No time to wiggle or whine now!

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Quote:

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and REPARATIONS are of the same genus.

You've said this a few times. I've disagreed with it just as frequently. <shrugs>

Quote:

To claim to be in favor of one and against the other is to engage in the very American art/version of double-speak, deception and delusion. It's no wonder why one of the resounding sayings of Indigenious (Indian) was:
The white man speaks with forked-tongue.

This is a very revealing comment. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Quote:

I will also say that in terms of AA, "the white man" is an 'Indian Giver'.
That's what socio-economic AA is or rather is the result/signal of - Indian Giving - beyond being disingenuous.

Quote:

Such is my rant....

Indeed.

Quote:

White people need to straigten their act out, if you ask me.

Any other races that need straightening out in case you are asked?

Quote:

Somebody needs to go ahead and win what is essentially white-on-white in-fighting on race. Yes, whatever problem that exist as far as policies are concerned, IMO, are white created.

Just like hurricanes and bad breath.

0 Replies

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

Quote:
Also ludicrous in my mind is to say that slavery and racism are equal.

As I see it, it's only the opponents of reparations that seem to make that argument. I.E. all groups have been treated "bad" and discriminated against.

Interesting. I see your point. Slavery is a delienating factor that is clearly far worse than quotidian discrimination.

With that I agree.

Quote:

But I do appreciate you revealing your position.

What is it that you think I have revealed Noah?

Quote:

I'm sure there were whites who immediately felt AA was "reverse racism"... while ignoring the reality and making innane arguments like you have that all groups have benefited from slavery (equally).

Oh! You left out the equal didn't you. Oh well...

Noah, I left out "equally" on purpose. Social benefits are certainly not derived equally across the racial lines.

I'd appreciate if you did not attempt to speak for me and if I ever do this to you please call me on it.

Quote:

And, IMO, you have squarely set yourself as a descendant of one of those who were at best lukewarm about racial equality during the Civil Rights Era.

Noah, you know little about me and suffice it to say that my upbringing was sufficiently atypical to preclude such pyscho-analysis.

Quote:

Things you may profess aside, the way you characterize AA and reparations (again, both being of the same genus) indicates a motivation other than being anti-racist about your views.

Feel free to elucidate. But like I said, be warned that you will most likely be wrong about every single asumption you make about my life. It has been ver atypical.

Quote:

I am convinced more and more that most people including yourself have no idea what racism is and will promote their own trumped up version in the same way people who would ideologically opposed to MLK if he was alive (or they were alive and active in his time) try to act like they are the guardians of his "Dream" and have a lock on what he meant. PROPROGANDA!

Upon what do you base this conviction Noah?

Quote:

Those people like you hope to profit from moral authority of MLK and in this case the authority the label of "racism" has in defining what is wrong when it comes to race in America.

Let me make patently clear that I do not see MLK as any moral authority whatsoever. I am not in the habit of subscribing to moral "authorities".

0 Replies

Quote:

Upon what do you base this conviction Noah?

Upon everything you have said. Earlier I alluded to what AA was and how it was initially conceptualized - having race at the center of its focus - and how that is at odds with the socio-economic so-called AA that you are in favor of.

My contention is this:
If AA is "racist" now then it must have always been "racist".

You haven't quite said that but if anything with quotas being illegal and the many appeals that have stripped away at AA as it is, it would have to be even less "racist" than it ever had been and not more so as it would seem to be if you judge by people's (people like you) reaction to it.

Though I don't recall you ever saying this either... people will say that "AA" [I highlight it because the term takes on different meanings or is seen in different ways in terms of its function] when it was first conceived was "necessary" or I presume okay... Then there comes some arbitrary cut-off period where it all-of-a-sudden becomes a racist program.

Again, If AA is "racist" now then it must have always been "racist". ... And, again, I place the blame squarely on whites, yet not for sure blame sake but for not advancing the national discussion on this in a constructive way.

Citing LBJ and MLK both of whom understood the problems of the poor (in general) yet also understood or at least saw a need to address the predicament of blacks as a separate phenomenon, I offer what I feel is the original idea and impetus of AA and I feel like there is hardly anyone else who can speak to what the concept of AA was suppose to be about better than they could.

MLK's views, IMO, demonstrate how AA and reparations are born of the same idea.
In his book Why We Can't Wait, MLK, lays out exactly how, IMO, these concepts were meant to accomplish the same thing while at the same time not ignoring the white poor in what he called his Bill Of Rights For The Disadvantage: [list]"During World War II, our fighting men were deprived of certain advantages and opportunities. To make up for this, they were given a package of veterans rights, significantly called a "Bill of Rights". The major features to this GI Bill of Rights included subsidies for trade school or college education, with living expenses provided during the period of study. Veterans were given special concessions enabling them to buy homes without cash, with lower interest rates and easier repayment terms. They could negotiate loans from banks to launch businesses, using the governement as an endorser of any losses. They received special points to place them ahead in competition for civil-service jobs. They were provided with medical care and long-term financial grants if their physicalcondition had been impaired by their military service. In addition to these legally granted rights, a storng social climate for many years favored the preferential employment of veterans in all walks of life.

In this way, the nation was compensating the veteran for his time lost, in school or in his career or in his business. Such compensatory treatment was approved by the majority of Americans. Certainly the Negro has been deprived. Few people consider the fact that, in addition to being enslaved for two centures, the Negro was, during all those years, robbed of the wages of his toil. No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent society could meet the bill. Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the apppropriation of the labor of one human being by another. This law should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law. Such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest.

I am proposing, therefore, that, just as we granted a GI Bill of Rights to war veterans, America launch a broad based and gigantic Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged, our veterans of the long siege of denial.
[/list] Page 5 and 6 of this commentary highlights much of the same but makes the point all the more clear.

It seems clear to me that MLK saw the GI Bill as a model for AA and the historical disadvantages that blacks suffered - aka the fundamental basis for REPARATIONS (notice the reference to slave labor and "placing a price" on those wages) - was the compelling reason for specific or shall I say as he did, special, [compensatory] treatment for blacks. Matter of fact, we can extrapolate that AA was the easy way out instead of taking a strict reparations stance of assessing the damages/losses and having restitution rendered based off the actual estimates of those damages/losses.

Given the fact that this book was written/published in 1964 and LBJ's speeched linked above given in 1965, one can't help but to think that their ideas were, in fact, the driving force behind the idea of AA. I mention them both because I feel they are indispensible to any honest discussion on this issue. Actually, the MLK excerpt, IMO, makes a case for Reparations and AA of both persuasions - government sanction measures specific aimed at lifting blacks as well as addressing the condition of the white poor (or the poor in general) - aka socioeconomic "AA".
(BTW, this idea of King's has also been dubbed the Negro Bill Of Rights.... I wonder why?)

What's ironic is that after all this hype about how "racist" AA is black unemployment is still twice as high as white unemployment. White men still have a firm almost exclusive lock on upper management positions... Again, high profile cases attacking AA as being "racist" have shown that at least by the measure of those whites bringing the suits that other whites must be benefiting or rather are benefiting from this "racism" as well as blacks. So, I really find it hard to see what the "racism" claims are based on. Nevermind that the meager benefits of this "racist" idea of AA have benefited white women more than blacks. Yep! It's racist alright! I just haven't figured out how some would figure it's racist against whites when so much evidence suggest that whites benefit from it (more) in whatever way blacks are perceived to benefit from it.

That's some kind of discrimination! (against whites)! (hmmm....)

From the commentary (written by Michael Eric Dyson):

Quote:

King ingeniously anticipated objections to programs of racial compensation on the grounds they discriminated against poor whites who were equally disadvantaged. He knew that conservatives would manipulate racial solidarity through an insincere display of new-found concern for poor whites that pitted their interests against those of blacks. King claimed that "millions of [the] white poor" would benefit from the bill. Although he believed that the "moral justification for special measures for Negroes is rooted in the robberies inherent in the institution of slavery," many poor whites, he argued, were "the derivative victims" of slavery. He conceded that poor whites are "chained by the weight of discrimination" even if its "badge of degradation does not mark them." King understood how many poor whites failed to understand the class dimensions of their exploitation by elite whites who appealed to vicious identity politics to obscure their actions. King held that discrimination was in ways "more evil for [poor whites], because it has confused so many by prejudice that they have supported their own oppressors." Hence, it was only just that a Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged, intent on "raising the Negro from backwardness," would also rescue "a large stratum of the forgotten white poor." For King, compensatory measures that were truly just — that is, took race into account while also considering class — had the best chance of bringing healing to our nation's minorities and to the white poor. It was never one or the other; both were a moral priority for King.

0 Replies

Noah,

I never said AA was racist. Where do you get this stuff?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Noah,

I never said AA was racist. Where do you get this stuff?

Give me a break! From the AA thread:

Quote:

...I favor equality in education opportunity. I do not at all think it should be race-based, what I do think is that a child who has the misfortune to be born to parents who do not or cannot secure the child's education is a handicap that does not help meritocracy at all. It simply perpetuates the barriers to upward moblity.

I don't think any race should be treated favorably at all.

But I do think that anyone who wants an education should be able to get one.

America can afford to provide free higher education to those who need it. I think that would be a fine way to equalize things and promote real meritocracy.

But on the subject of AA it's really not meant to do this. Racial discrimination is supposed to be illegal. The problem is that there's almost no way to prove that someone's hiring criterias are racially discriminatory.

...Ultimately policies that aim to equalize opportunity can't be called inherently against the ideal of meritocracy. Implementations can be flawed and AA has certainly grown beyond the initially intended scope.

What did you meant by "Racial discrimination is supposed to be illegal" if it was not to imply that AA or at least some aspect of it is, in fact, "racist" - i.e. racially discriminating? Why then would there be a need to shift it away from it being "race-based" if it is not "racist" in your opinion?

Again, I submit that colleges already take socio-economics into account across the board... While I can appreciate your idea of equality of educational opportunity (and whole-heartedly agree, BTW), however, something has to account for what must be the difference in what we must see as the "initially intended scope".... I've offered what informs my idea (via LBJ & MLK)... I haven't seen yours.

BTW, I think most all the opinions here reflect an ethnocentric viewpoint. Just because certain people don't use certain terms doesn't mean that they maintain a position that is outside of what they see as in their "ethnic" interest. I'm soooo surprised that you can only see so-called black ethnocentrism. (Of course, you know I'm really not!)

In closing, I'd just like to juxtapose part of the quote above with something you said on this thread earlier:

The problem is that there's almost no way to prove that someone's hiring criterias are racially discriminatory.
Racism exists today. And when one is discriminated against based on race they often have the option to litigate and receive reparations.

Is your coherence problem acting up again?

Well, thanks for the advise anyway. Luckily I was 'listening' in when you were 'talking' to someone else and now know that you tried to pawn of a bag-o-beans type advise off on me. You thought you had a sucka, Craven! You tried to make me buy into something you yourself has made out to be 'hard to prove'.

Why am I not surprised? I am disappointed though.... (at how you incoherence keeps popping up!) Embarrassed

Then, you had something about my Forked-Tongue, double-speak comment. Craven! Say it ain't so! Say it ain't so! Laughing

You really need to deal with your issues with semantics - i.e. your aversion to certain words and, more specifically, your problem with the actual meaning of your words when they result in the proper association or assignment to certain terms you perhaps don't like to use or refuse to admit to since someone (me) didn't quote your exact words.

Racial discrimination and "racist"?
What's the difference? Craven?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know