Reparations

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
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.

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?

I meant nothing of the sort. I was aluding to the fact that racial discrimination is illegal yet this is hard to prove without resorting to statistics (i.e. quotas).

If an employer is purposefully hiring only one race you will have little to use to prove this except the statistical trend.

It was a mention of AA being used as a way to counter racial discrimination, not an accusation of AA being racist in nature.

Quote:

Is your coherence problem acting up again?

No, you've simply misunderstood a statement I made and in a way that renders it very different in meaning and based assumptions on it. <shrugs>

Quote:

Why then would there be a need to shift it away from it being "race-based" if it is not "racist" in your opinion?

Because I find socio-economic criteria more justified.

Quote:

I'm soooo surprised that you can only see so-called black ethnocentrism. (Of course, you know I'm really not!)

I see many kinds of enthnocentricism. You flatter yourself if you think youself unique in this regard.

0 Replies

Quote:

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

Honestly, what do you think would be inferred, what were you implying and/or what were you responding to when you said that?

Remember, that statement was made on the AA thread in response to JM who definitely painted the picture that AA is returning discrimination with discrimination in a two wrongs don't make a right fashion which only goes to try to equate discrimination now with what happened then before the adoption of AA. (I think my reference on Reverse Discrimination deals with that.)

In your opinion.... What would you call a government/public sponsored or sanctioned program that was "favorable" to one race?

0 Replies

I would call it a "government/public sponsored or sanctioned program that was "favorable" to one race". Or "Boaz".

You want me to call it racism for some reason. Frankly I don't know why.

I think AA has the idea right (you might note that I disagreed with James when he said AA was inherently wrong) but simply used the wrong criteria.

The idea is to help a social group who needs the stepping stone. The best criteria, IMO, to address the social need is the need itself.

If the criteria is race some will be given help when they do not need it and some who need it will be excluded.

0 Replies

Quote:

It was a mention of AA being used as a way to counter racial discrimination, not an accusation of AA being racist in nature.

You got me confused. I didn't make the argument that it was "racist" in nature, inherent or whatever. If you say something is "supposed" to be... then you are saying that it isn't.

And, if you were talking about "AA being used as a way to counter racial discrimination" my point still stands. What were you saying about that type of AA? Were you saying that it has no current manifestation since it is "suppose" to be illegal?

I think not.

By the way you characterize it such AA is racist. I could give a damn about your semantics of whether you want to call it racist in nature or not. Obviously, you see a problem with it being "race-based". Apparently, you think (very ahistorically as I have laid out citing LBJ & MLK) that "AA being used as a way to counter racial discrimination" either conceptually - i.e. it's initial impetus - or some form of practice were discrimination is demonstrated promotes "racial discrimination".

I wish for once you would quit quibbling over your exact words being used. You and I know that making AA to be "racist" is exactly what you words meant. Why else would it need to be non race-based then?

0 Replies

Quote:

You want me to call it racism for some reason. Frankly I don't know why.

You said racial discrimination (another word for "racism") was supposed to be illegal. The obvious inference is there is some element or aspect of racism or racial discrimination that is occurring.

Quote:

I think AA has the idea right (you might note that I disagreed with James when he said AA was inherently wrong) but simply used the wrong criteria.

And, exactly what makes it "wrong"?

Quote:

The idea is to help a social group who needs the stepping stone. The best criteria, IMO, to address the social need is the need itself.

While I don't have an argument against helping those in need this is beside the point or actually goes right to the point where you, whether you say it explicitly or not, as well as others specifically see AA as "racist" or practicing "racial discrimination" (as they say "same difference"). Again, you would have to provide some proof that the genus and impetus for AA wasn't born out of a non race focused concept since you alluded to what AA was initially intended for.

I guess the [black] Civil Rights Movement wasn't fought to end what were specifically sanctioned measures against blacks. Yes, of course, the adoption of Civil Rights legislation and AA secured rights for all... but honesty tells us that it was born out of the black struggle which of course had some allies of all races but they knew and you know what the "fight" was for and against.

Again, provide your proof for what was the initially intended scope or reasoning for AA.

Quote:

If the criteria is race some will be given help when they do not need it and some who need it will be excluded.

I won't even ask you to prove this beyond hypotheticals and just say that while you're talking about people being excluded then you need to honestly address the fact that:
[1] People are excluded period. Otherwise, your point about the U.S. being able to afford education for all those that want it has no basis.
[2] Even with AA and the thought that it is the cause for people - whites or otherwise - being excluded you have to answer for what accounts for the silence in high profile cases like the U of M one where no one says anything about the complaints being excluded by their fellow white students who gain admission while possessing lesser scores and test grades.

That means that whites are excluding whites and given the frequency it is by no means a stretch that it occurs along the lines of someone more "needy" being excluded by someone less "needy".

Our president is a case study in all this. Not only did he benefit (college wise) by his families wealth but he undoubtedly can be said to be one who caused a more "needy" student (financially) - and no doubt a more scholastically intelligent one - to be excluded do to the legacy points that aided in his admission. By all things I have seen, legacies are admitted at a markedly higher rates than so-called AA ever has. Legacies are de facto white privilege - a means where, intended or not, non-whites are excluded at high rates. The name itself along with the history of this country bears that out.

Craven, your words mean something. You might not like what they say given your semantics syndrome but that doesn't address what they do say.

I did not say you thought AA was "inherently" racist. I was not saying you were making the argument JM was making. I said if there is something wrong with the race-based nature of AA now then there was something wrong with it at it's inception. So, if anything, by what I'm saying taking you argument in account, I am the one saying AA must be have racist from the get-go or "inherently" so if you like.

My thing is, I can't figure out when, where and what all-of-a-sudden made it exclusionary when apparently it wasn't (by your argument/inference) at it's inception. If race-based AA excludes those who are as needy or more needy now then unless you have some serious stats to the contrary, AA had to exclude "needy" individuals from day one as well.

For some reason you think your rationale and use or non-use of certain words make you position different from what it is. You are, in fact, making the same argument or rather using the same basis for your argument as those who oppose AA who would for the most part (with JM being an exception) agree with that AA should be based on need. Unlike you, those people have no penchant for mixing words and emphatically call AA "racist".... So, if you base your argument on the same exclusionary premise they do and come to the same conclusion they do in terms of what AA "should be" - need based - then you are saying exactly what they are.

Something that's RACIST and something that evidence of RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?
Illustrate the difference... Thank you!

0 Replies

Quote:

I would call it a "government/public sponsored or sanctioned program that was "favorable" to one race".

Well, I've offered enough info. to say that there is plenty of prggram or instances were whites are favored especially when people like to intimate that blacks (or others) are because of AA.

So what we have here is either a complete misunderstanding of what's going on or a complete ambivalence to others besides "blacks" who are "favored" if not both.

Again, in the U of M case, if the argument was (and I believe it was) blacks were unfairly "favored" then something must account for the estimated 1,243 to 1,300 whites who were "favored" over the girl bringing the suit.

I might share perhaps you idea that all this is a mess because of "race" but you can refer to my earlier post as to who and what, IMO, bears the blame for that. I might even share the idea of socio-economic "AA"... but what is missing or rather what I have not seen from you is how to address the systematic and on-going discrimination in education that excludes so many blacks and has done so over so many generations both compounding and making a cumulative detrimental effect, IMO.

What do you do in a real sense about the "savage inequitities" that are primarily race-based and are a product of de facto race-based policies?

I think someone else said as it is (and as I stated earlier) that people are excluded all the time, stating how more or less spaces or resources are scarce and exclusion (of some, needy or not) is the predictable by-product of it. I continue to tell the truth and say there already exist socio-economic considerations in college admissions. So, I fail to see your point. In fact, it is moot (as it is explicitly stated).

You could say there should be more of those in clear [greater] "need" included. But that's a different argument from saying AA is by proxy excluding those that are in [greater] "need" as if to say those in "need" are left out because of it. That just is not so. Again, socio-economics are a factor already in college admissions.

0 Replies

To clearly make my earlier point about the initial conception of AA via LBJ... :
As public policy, affirmative action can be dated to President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s June 4, 1965 address to the graduating class of Howard University. LBJ intended this speech as his own Civil Rights Proclamation. He chose his words carefully, with an eye towards posterity:[list] "You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair…. This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity - not just legal equity but human ability - not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."[/list]Johnson’s meaning was unmistakable. The power of the government of the United States would be harnessed to redress the historical grievances of, and harms done to, a specific people: African Americans. Public policy would affirmatively address the legacy (“chains”) of slavery, by instituting programs designed to achieve equality for Black people “as a result.”

0 Replies

Noah,

If you willfully apply my words to the conjured meanings of your creation that is your prerogative but I'll not entertain your erroneous assumptions for long.

My comment was that AA was meant in part to address racial discrimination, which is illegal.

If you continue to try to argue that what I meant by this was that AA itself is racist feel free to argue against your straw man by yourself.

I did not say AA was racial discrimination. I said it was meant, in part, to combat racial discrimination.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Noah,

If you willfully apply my words to the conjured meanings of your creation that is your prerogative but I'll not entertain your erroneous assumptions for long.

My comment was that AA was meant in part to address racial discrimination, which is illegal.

If you continue to try to argue that what I meant by this was that AA itself is racist feel free to argue against your straw man by yourself.

I did not say AA was racial discrimination. I said it was meant, in part, to combat racial discrimination.

Okay.... I see that.... *BUT*

Quote:

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.

What is AA not "meant" to do?

Note after that you said racial discrimination is "suppose" to be illegal. And you have yet to state what makes AA wrong then or now being "race-based" and what you think of that and how it being "exclusionary" by "favoring" one race is not the same as being discriminatory to or for one race, since you feel AA being "race-based" is problematic.

I think you need a dictionary.

IN PART.... care to substantiate....

0 Replies

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
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.

What is AA not "meant" to do?

Noah, it's right there. AA is not supposed to promote meritocracy.

In theory any charitable act and any aid is a challenge to meritocracy. In theory any inequality of opportunity that is not based on merit is a challenge to meritocracy.

AA was meant to address racial discrimination. Not to fit into anyone's ideal of a meritocracy.

Quote:

Note after that you said racial discrimination is "suppose" to be illegal.

Yes, racial discrimination is supposed to be illegal. Heck it is on paper but in effect it can be hard to prove without looking at statistics.

Even if AA did not exist the same "quotas" would exist. There would be lawsuits based on clear statistical examples of discrimination and employers and the liek would have to make sure their stats don't point to a discriminatory hiring policy.

I see AA as the teeth to what was supposed to be the law. Sure, racial discriminantion was illegal before that. But without pointing at stats (e.g. "none of the 100,500 employees here are from this race") it's hard to prove.

Quote:

And you have yet to state what makes AA wrong then or now being "race-based" and what you think of that

I've already stated my reasoning. The policy should reflect a need. The best criteria in my opinion is said need.

Quote:

I think you need a dictionary.

I've written 3 myself and collaborated on one foreign one. I have plenty of dictionaries.

Personally I do not think my ownership of dictionaries will help ease any of our lapses in communication.

0 Replies

You've written 3 dictionaries? I find that exceptionally fascinating. I mean it.

0 Replies

Actually that should just tell you that anyone can do it. ;-)

You just need to love words and have time on your hands. At the time my job was teaching English and I only worked 3 hours a day.

One time on another site (Abuzz) a member looked up a word I'd used online and was shocked to find it in my dictionary (it was just a basic one that I'd titled "Craven de Kere's English Etymology Lexicon"). 'Twas very funny.

0 Replies

I couldn'y possibly fathom having so much extra time that I would want to write a dictionary...

Not even Castaway time I don't think. I am impressed now.

0 Replies

Ah, but it wasn't a full disctionary. One was an idiom and phrasal verb dictionary, another was a false cognate dictionary and then the biggest one was rare words and roots.

I wasn't interested in doing a regular one, all the ones I did were specialized ones.

The only full dictionary was the foreign one I helped with and that one had hundreds of authors.

But seriously, dictionaries are poorly understood. Lots of "normal" people help make them. The most respected dictionary of all languages (OED) had a lot of help from a madman in an insane assylum.

The OED is by far the greatest lexicon ever made, and it was made by thousands of people, regular folk who liked to read, sending in words and examples.

0 Replies

Quote:

AA was meant to address racial discrimination.

Saying that, how do you reconcile so-called "need" based AA?
How do you reconcile it replacing so-called "race-based" AA?

That is, how can AA effectively address racial discrimination which by definition is race-specific - aka "race-based" - with non "race-based" measures?

Also, I'm confused by your statements. At one time you say AA was meant, in part, to combat racial discrimination then now plainly that it was meant to address racial discrimination. No biggie... Just why the different statement neither of which is substantiated....

Quote:

Because I find socio-economic criteria more justified.

More justified based on what? Certainly not the part that's "meant to address racial discrimination"? How is that justified?

Quote:

I think AA has the idea right (you might note that I disagreed with James when he said AA was inherently wrong) but simply used the wrong criteria.

Again, what is the substantiated facts about AA, what it was "meant" to address, etc.?

If it being race-based is "wrong" or as you say based on the "wrong criteria" then how are you not saying that it is not "racist" or engaging in "racial discrimination". That's how you've characterized reparations when you said:

Quote:

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.

Funny how the criteria didn't matter on that issue. Nevertheless, we see here how you assign specific to a "racially defined group" equates to racism in your book. So, I'm still trying to see how you think that your line of reasoning there isn't part of the same rationale that informs you views on AA.

You are too simplistic. According to you anything that deals with race (one race) is "racist". See you waste no time saying that when it comes to reparations but you like to mince words when talking about AA. Again, I have made my case for how the two are basically one in the same - i.e. born of the same idea to address [historical] racial discrimination and the opportunities loss because of it. I wonder what explains your silence on that. Where is your argument making the case that they are not?

My Exhibit A is what I cited from MLK...

Also, you still have not and cannot substantiate your idea that reparations is about vengence. That is your take. And we can see you can't even get your own takes straight about what you believe let alone what somebody else does.

And our problems communicating have a lot to do with your Intellectual Dishonesty. Certainly we have both misunderstood what the intended meanings a particular statement we've made actually meant. Part of that is what communication is for, IMO. However, it seems to me that you want to pretend you are being coherent when you are not and more than anything you want to pretend that your words don't have the logical conclusions that they do.

Again, (rephrasing) if AA is wrong as a race-based policy - invoking your exclusionary clause - then it was also wrong when it was conceived because undoubtedly someone non-black (or whatever) was in just as much if not "more" need then as well as now.

So, if you will, could you spell out what it is that changed over time that made so-called race-based AA out live its usefulness or become the "wrong criteria" when apparently it was at least in part proper/necessary when it started?

0 Replies

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

Quote:
AA was meant to address racial discrimination.

Saying that, how do you reconcile so-called "need" based AA?
How do you reconcile it replacing so-called "race-based" AA?

Because I think that addressing the needs, regardless of race, is a way that will ultimately also address many of the racialy defined issues issues (such as inordinate black poverty).

Quote:

That is, how can AA effectively address racial discrimination which by definition is race-specific - aka "race-based" - with non "race-based" measures?

Because the greatest manifestation of the discimination is that the discriminated against are inordinately represented among the needy.

Quote:

Quote:
Because I find socio-economic criteria more justified.

More justified based on what? Certainly not the part that's "meant to address racial discrimination"? How is that justified?

Well, like I said, even without a program people can use statistics to argue that discrimination is occuring.

So the "quotas" won't really go away. They just won't be a policy. They can still be used to argue that discriminatory practices are being used.

I simply prefer that the criteria for social programs is based on need.

Quote:

If it being race-based is "wrong" or as you say based on the "wrong criteria" then how are you not saying that it is not "racist" or engaging in "racial discrimination".

Because I do not think the intent was racist. For this reason I do not think it racist. Nooah, I've entertained your attempts to convince me that I think AA is racist for long enough. We'll have to simply agree to disagree about what you claim I think on this.

Quote:

That's how you've characterized reparations when you said:

Quote:
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.

And I stand by it. "Regardless of complicity" is the operative part. Reparations would be punitive to people who have committed no action that justifies punishment or payment.

This is not the case with AA. With AA one can argue that those not meeting the statistical levels may well be engaged in discriminatory and racist practices.

Quote:

Funny how the criteria didn't matter on that issue.

Criteria matters a lot. In that case the criteria is complicity.

Quote:

Nevertheless, we see here how you assign specific to a "racially defined group" equates to racism in your book.

You left out the all important "regardless of complicity". :wink:

Reparations are not contingient on any wrong doing of the individuals who will pay, in theory AA is.

Quote:

You are too simplistic. According to you anything that deals with race (one race) is "racist".

I have never said this. You continue to erect your straw men.

Quote:

Again, I have made my case for how the two are basically one in the same - i.e. born of the same idea to address [historical] racial discrimination and the opportunities loss because of it. I wonder what explains your silence on that. Where is your argument making the case that they are not?

You've offered no evidence to support this claim. Furthermore you do not illustrate how AA is randomly punitive.

Quote:

My Exhibit A is what I cited from MLK...

And like I said, I don't consider MLK an authority on anything except what MLK thinks.

Quote:

Also, you still have not and cannot substantiate your idea that reparations is about vengence. That is your take.

I agree wholeheartedly, it is my personal opinion on something that can't be proved one way or the other.

Quote:

And we can see you can't even get your own takes straight about what you believe let alone what somebody else does.

Your inability to read and comprehend the written word has nothing to do with my ability to get it straight.

You willfully use meanings that I have not meant, you willfully accuse me of making statments that I have not made.

Frankly I wish you'd get what I say straight before claiming that I need to do so.

Quote:

So, if you will, could you spell out what it is that changed over time that made so-called race-based AA out live its usefulness or become the "wrong criteria" when apparently it was at least in part proper/necessary when it started?

I never claimed it was "proper" or "neccessary" when it started. Please address your reading incomprehension.

I did claim that I do not think it's origins to be racist and do not think its inherent ideals to be wrong.

This does not mean I think its initial implementation was not flawed.

Reading comprehension Noah. If you are to discuss something with me in a written medium you'd do well to undertake to understand the written word.

0 Replies

Quote:

Reparations are not contingient on any wrong doing of the individuals who will pay, in theory AA is.

Why do you keep returning to this theme?

I asked you a long time ago and you said "It's not about the money!"
Obviously it is. As far as certain things upon which one is not "responsible for" as in "not accountable for" in terms of complicity.... there are plenty of things in society.... as a nation.... as tax payers that we all are deemed responsible to pay for regardless of the benefits we directly derive from them as individuals, our personal complicity with whatever it is that "we have to pay for", etc.

So that argument is not one that has any teeth besides very subjective thoughts of what is "punitive".

I definitely am not complicit with the War in Iraq but as a tax payer I'm paying for it. I can say I'm being "punished" for something I had no hand in, disapproved of, etc., etc.

This idea of reparations being punitive is nothing but subjective.
On hardly no other issue besides this one - which happens to have a lot to do with race (or rather Black people) - do people begin to fashion these types of arguments which don't ordinarily apply with such vigor to hardly anything else.

Quote:

I alleged that arguing for reparations to be paid by a racially definded group regardless of complicity is racism.

What one "racially defined group" will pay for reparations all on their own?

You need to at least read up on some of the arguments and comments made by opponents of reparations. Black people pay taxes too... which some opponents (perhaps just on-line chatters... but most of them couldn't come up with an original idea to save their lives, IMO) seem to think is a joke or something saying that Blacks will be paying as well thinking that the sole motivation is to make only White people pay...

So much for a decidely vengeful, spiteful, "I'm trying punish Whitey" mentality you like to promote as the motivation for reparations. "I'll take a little tax paying punishment myself just so I can get to Whitey!"... is that what you're saying is going on with this "complicity" thingy?

And speaking about "punitive" tax paying...
I think I mentioned the most punitive tax paying ever to exist in this country... Blacks under segregation who paid taxes are perhaps the only people who have the right to even begin to speak on such a topic as "punitive" tax paying. It goes without saying that they were not "complicit" with Jim Crow but they damn sure got plenty of real life, "I can feel that sh@t!" punishment for something via their taxes they were paying for.

Like I expressed to Fisherman earlier, Blacks were paying for their own exclusive oppression. Reparations in no way will oppress White people -- your so-called racially defined group -- exclusively.

Whites pay taxes and so does every other ethnic group. So I fail to see your point. Where is there evidence of the type of "racism" you apparently were trying to convey with that piece of written word [I quoted]?

I guess you would have us (me) believe that only White people pay taxes and nothing should ever be done unless White people are overwhelming are in favor of it. I have a very subjective term for that... Be that as it may, your idea of what is "punitive" is well... puny!

I submit (as in presenting measurable not allege) that Black people (and others) - those who favor reparations and/or will tell the objective truth about this country and it's "race" problem - are eminently more qualified than Whites (and their rainbow defenders) to speak about "punitive" tax paying - as in paying for stuff that will disaffect them let alone what they don't want to contribute to because they don't feel responsible for it. Continued racism in every strata of society are grounds for Blacks not to pay taxes for the very racism imposed on them that they (we) pay for (see the criminal justice system, enviromental racism, etc.)...

So don't talk to me about the "punitive" nature of reparations. It pales in comparison to the "punitive" tax paying (Black people were subjected to and still are, IMO...) of which plenty of living White people are, in fact, complicit with - i.e. Jim Crow segregation. That alone is grounds for reparations and that's the LIVING history of this country which again has living people who are complicit with it.

Sooooooooooo......... Get your calculator out!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just like the Japanese who were interned, let's see a little reparations paid for targeted oppression. Let's see... There's some Lynchings that need paying for and those Dogs & Firehoses during the CRM are things to start with... Shocked

Oh and by the way... the reparations/restitution Japanese Americans received were paid by whom?? Strictly the people "complicit" with some WWII Era policies??? I think not!

And you know that is and was not the case with that and most other policies let alone ones redressing "old" issues. Let's see.... I'm sure I was paying taxes when "they" got their reparations and I know my parents were. None of us were "complicit" with it but somehow... someway it damn sure came out our taxes.

...........................
NEXT ARGUMENT!
...........................
____________________________________

So, Craven... I have just illustrated to you how there is no "racially defined group" that is targeted to pay reparations exclusively on their own. And I have demonstrated how you use of the term "punitive" [tax paying] should never come up in a conversation about Black people... considering the LIVING history...

Perhaps you want to tell me what you really meant by that statement now.... huh?

0 Replies

Noah's Hard Left Hook! wrote:

I asked you a long time ago and you said "It's not about the money!"
Obviously it is.

You are welcome to your opinion. <shrugs>

Quote:

As far as certain things upon which one is not "responsible for" as in "not accountable for" in terms of complicity.... there are plenty of things in society.... as a nation.... as tax payers that we all are deemed responsible to pay for regardless of the benefits we directly derive from them as individuals, our personal complicity with whatever it is that "we have to pay for", etc.

So that argument is not one that has any teeth besides very subjective thoughts of what is "punitive".

Noah, here's a basic lesson in logic.

The existence of other comparable examples does not render any of the logic toothless any more so than the existence and even prevalence of stupidity rednders it a good thing.

If you want to detooth an argument you'll have to do better than that.

Quote:

I definitely am not complicit with the War in Iraq but as a tax payer I'm paying for it. I can say I'm being "punished" for something I had no hand in, disapproved of, etc., etc.

Then feel free not to support the war. Very Happy

Quote:

This idea of reparations being punitive is nothing but subjective.

So? Much of this is subjective.

Quote:

On hardly no other issue besides this one - which happens to have a lot to do with race (or rather Black people) - do people begin to fashion these types of arguments which don't ordinarily apply with such vigor to hardly anything else.

Sounds kinda subjective to me Noah. Frankly given your bias I take this evaluation with a grain of salt.

Quote:

Quote:
I alleged that arguing for reparations to be paid by a racially definded group regardless of complicity is racism.

What one "racially defined group" will pay for reparations all on their own?

This is silly. But at least it will be fun to watch you defend.

Think about it for a few seconds and get back to me if you still don't get it.

Quote:

You need to at least read up on some of the arguments and comments made by opponents of reparations. Black people pay taxes too... which some opponents (perhaps just on-line chatters... but most of them couldn't come up with an original idea to save their lives, IMO) seem to think is a joke or something saying that Blacks will be paying as well thinking that the sole motivation is to make only White people pay...

So what if black people pay taxes? They would be within the racially defined group that would benefit from reparations.

Those excluded from said racially defined groups are the ones who will really pay. Paying but being reimbursed is not the same as paying and not being reimbursed Noah.

Quote:

So much for a decidely vengeful, spiteful, "I'm trying punish Whitey" mentality you like to promote as the motivation for reparations. "I'll take a little tax paying punishment myself just so I can get to Whitey!"... is that what you're saying is going on with this "complicity" thingy?

You're getting hysterical again. I'll wait for you to calm down.

Quote:

Like I expressed to Fisherman earlier, Blacks were paying for their own exclusive oppression. Reparations in no way will oppress White people -- your so-called racially defined group -- exclusively.

I never defined the group as white people. You're making assumptions again.

Quote:

Whites pay taxes and so does every other ethnic group. So I fail to see your point.

This does not surprise me Noah. If it's all the same then reparations wouldn't be needed.

Your point that blacks pay taxes is really silly. I will have a lot of fun with this one.

See, it does not matter if they pay taxes, that has nothing to do with whether they will get reparations while others won't.

Those excluded will ultimately pay for the reparations, the black who pay taxes but then recieve reparations would not be paying for it at all.

It's a really simple concept Noah.

Watch:

Person A contributes 10 to taxes
Person B contributes 10 to taxes

20 is what is needed to cover costs.

Now we institute reparations.

Person A recieves 5 in reparations. The tax fund is now 5 short.

If person B has to make up the extra 5 then person B has, in effect, payed person A's reparations.

If Person A and person B share the cost, then ultimately person B will pay half of the reparations while person A would pay half but receive a whole.

Any way you cut it, there will be a group that pays and a group that benefits.

If that group is racially defined you have your answer.

I don't think you'll get it right away but I'll walk you through it a few times later on.

Quote:

I guess you would have us (me) believe that only White people pay taxes and nothing should ever be done unless White people are overwhelming are in favor of it.

I've never said this, you continue to erect straw men. <shrugs>

I could care less who supports it. My arguments do not employ the appeals to popularity that yours do.

Quote:

I submit ... that Black people (and others) - those who favor reparations and/or will tell the objective truth about this country and it's "race" problem - are eminently more qualified than Whites (and their rainbow defenders) to speak about "punitive" tax paying

I see why you'd like to think so, I submit that it's idiotic.

Quote:

So don't talk to me about the "punitive" nature of reparations.

I'll decide what I'll talk about. You can decide what you feel like reading.

Quote:

It pales in comparison to the "punitive" tax paying (Black people were subjected to and still are, IMO...) of which plenty of living White people are, in fact, complicit with - i.e. Jim Crow segregation. That alone is grounds for reparations and that's the LIVING history of this country which again has living people who are complicit with it.

You are welcome to your opinion. <shrugs>

Quote:

Sooooooooooo......... Get your calculator out!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just like the Japanese who were interned, let's see a little reparations paid for targeted oppression. Let's see... There's some Lynchings that need paying for and those Dogs & Firehoses during the CRM are things to start with...

Noah, you can't get paid for other people's sufferings. Laughing

If you were ever lynched you can litigate and you have a good shot at winning. Trying to don all the suffering of people who just happen to share your race and trying to calculate a portion of your benefit is laughable.

If you feel injusticed you should file a lawsuit. If you are trying to piggy back on what happened to others I'll have to continue to consider it laughable.

If you have suffered anything that merits reparations you can walk into a court and make your case any time. <shrugs>

Quote:

So, Craven... I have just illustrated to you how there is no "racially defined group" that is targeted to pay reparations exclusively on their own.

You've done nothing of the sort. Laughing

As long as the recipients of the reparations are racially defined the other group will be a racially defined group who will foot the bill.

Quote:

And I have demonstrated how you use of the term "punitive" [tax paying] should never come up in a conversation about Black people... considering the LIVING history...

You've expressed your opinion, which is your prerogative. <shrugs>

0 Replies

mark

0 Replies

Quote:

Noah, you can't get paid for other people's sufferings.

If you were ever lynched you can litigate and you have a good shot at winning. Trying to don all the suffering of people who just happen to share your race and trying to calculate a portion of your benefit is laughable.

If you feel injusticed you should file a lawsuit. If you are trying to piggy back on what happened to others I'll have to continue to consider it laughable.

If you have suffered anything that merits reparations you can walk into a court and make your case any time.

This is where the idiotic stupidity of your opinion, which is your perogative, Very Happy

gets really silly.

Trying to ascribe a personal motivation insinuating "I" want to be paid reparations personally when I have never said anything of the such shows you ridiculous assumptions. I suppose you support AA (in whatever form you advocate) because you can derive some personal benefit from it?

That's exactly what makes the underlying assumptions of opponents of reparations like you so misguided and disingenious.

When and where have I ever said I wanted to be paid anything?
I do believe, again, my personal position (that I think you asked for) explicitly stated that I would not require, desire or seek especially White people's taxes - and actually those who were not in favor of it - for reparations. (See my earlier post/exchange with Farmerman... and the Whole question you can't escape that it actually is all about the money!)

So effectively, I guess I understand... You have no other ammunition but some lame assertion that my position is about personal gain.

Since that BS about "punitive" tax paying or the supposed unfair tax burden that Whites primarily feel they would be subject to... a recurring argument of yours... has been obliterated you have to resort to some silly BS.

Quote:

Paying but being reimbursed is not the same as paying and not being reimbursed Noah.

I never defined the group as white people. You're making assumptions again.

Craven, you don't have to. If Blacks by your own logic are the "racially defined group" to receive the benefits from reparations via "reimbursement" as you put it what "racially defined group" - which you and I know to be one group, otherwise how else can it be "racially defined" - are, in your mind, the ones to bear the "burden" of it?
_________________________

Quit playing games...

You know your position is shot so now you resort, "Well I never did say which one..." as if it gives you some defense or cover and actually means I guessed wrong. And, like the child you are you insist on a position of "I'm not telling".... So if I was to keep guessing you could still say, "I never did say which one..." STUPID!

Quote:

As long as the recipients of the reparations are racially defined the other group will be a racially defined group who will foot the bill.

Okay name those "racially defined groups" in two races! Razz

______________________________________
You are weak!

Like I said don't talk to me about punitive tax paying. As far as being "reimbursed" then you actually forward my argument that Blacks currently are "punitively" taxed. And none of your stupid statements can dismiss the violently punitive tax paying Blacks have been submitted to within the LIVING history of this country. Notice, I said my parent (and I meant to say my grandparents as well) LIVED through a brutally punitive tax paying period. Were they not only paid taxes for essentially services they did not get from the gov't but basically helped financed their own oppression.

Now, no amount of logic and common sense on your part would you trying promote some puny "punitive" idea you are talking about up against that LIVING history and dismiss it as if it is of no consequence unless you have a defined and pronounced bias of your own to where you can't/won't recognize the very principle you've advanced. Again, on the basis of "punitive" tax paying within the LIVING history of this country REPARATIONS is justified... and since I have to say it... for those who were subjected to that.

Find the statement where I said I won't to be paid.... You can't! So perhaps you are projecting/protecting your own self-interest here (you admitted this is subjective at least on your part) and presuming my motivations are like yours - all about self.
___________________________________

But oh where... oh where is your outrage at the "punitive" tax paying that had to occur in order to grant Japanese Americans reparations?

Again, I'm sure I was paying taxes then. I damn sure know my parents were... And I know neither of us had anything to do with Japanese internment, let alone being alive at the time. And, of course, from you... I get THE SILENCE OF A HYPROCRITE!

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know