Community Messageboard: I agree that reparations would be extremely difficult if not impossible to implement fairly. by Legolas

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

I agree that reparations would be extremely difficult if not impossible to implement fairly. Legolas Send a noteboard - 29/05/2014 06:52:47 PM

View original postBecause that's the inevitable reality of government involvement in the market. Absent government interference, there would not have been an artificial suburban housing boom to be steered. But any sort of program to disburse reparations would just create similar opportunities for injustice. And forty years down the road, an almost identical article is written complaining about how the invisible secret racism ruined the reparations project and resulted in iniquities and other crap, that we need a NEW reparations project to fix.

You can argue that any government involvement in the market creates distortions of some kind, yes, but this one is an entirely different category of distortion.

But on the reparations, yeah, hard to see how it even could be implemented in a fair and sensible way, nevermind actually doing it.

View original postAn open and honest look at history involves including private comments as well as public quotations about such people as Lyndon Johnson. The author was absolutely in love with the white poverty/Negro poverty comment, but doesn't seem much interested in Johnson's gutting of the enforcement provisions of the 1957 Civil Rights Act or the political calculation in his switch to signing the 1964 Act, while chortling to his cronies "I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years."

I don't think there are many people out there who see LBJ as a knight in shining armor - if he had been, not likely he'd have been able to pass those laws, and things might have taken longer still. Your quote doesn't really surprise or shock me, except that I wouldn't have expected him to use the N-word even in private conversation.

View original postAn open and honest look at history might wonder at the insistence on collective punishment for the crimes of a limited number of dedicated individualists, who are characterized as much by their vision of separation from the whole, as their racism. States Rights and Slavery were the two issues of the South, and yet, they would punish people throughout the country for the sins of those who wished to be no part of that country, and did all they could to effect the separation.

Does the "collective punishment" refer to those reparations? I don't support those, but I do agree with the author that it's too easy to reject all responsibility by shoving it all off on "a limited number of dedicated individualists" in the South. And also that it's not very consistent to claim credit for the good things done by earlier generations of Americans, while washing your hands of the bad.

View original postAn open and honest look at history might undermine the claims of the author and his ilk about the country being built on slavery, when the slave, and later Jim Crow, states were the poorest and most backward in the country. One can assert that those poverty-stricken states were deprived their share of New Deal money out of racism towards their large black (non-voting) populations, but the more probable explanation is that the purpose of the New Deal was much more inclined toward the re-election of its perpetrators, than alleviating any other problems, and thus the money was concentrating in the swing states. The South at the time was in no danger of voting Republican, as that was the party still popular with blacks, for both opposing slavery, and more recently, having anti-lynching planks in their national platform. Because of this one-sided political situation, the Democratic administration counted the South as well in its camp, and was more concerned with dispensing largess where it would help more in 1936 & 1940.

What you say about the New Deal makes sense, but as for the first part, I have my doubts. Firstly of course because slavery was much more widely spread in the beginning than just the states that still had it in 1860 (Wikipedia informs me that, ironically, for a while in the 1740s the only colony where slavery was illegal was Georgia - they legalized it in 1750). Secondly, the Southern states were poor and backward after the Civil War, yes - what with having lost so much of its infrastructure and having suffered such immense casualties. Before, not so much - sure, the industry was mostly in the North, but the cotton took up a huge share of American exports, and the free people in the South were prosperous enough. And thirdly, part of that Northern industry and wealth was based on slave-harvested cotton, or benefited from slavery in some other way (though as the article points out, the same can be said about the cotton-processing industries abroad that imported American cotton).

So okay, "built on" can never be defined objectively, but certainly slavery played a large role in building up the American economy, as well as a lesser but still significant role in the European economy through all the European traders who built their fortunes in the slave trade, or in industries that relied on cheap raw goods harvested/mined/... by slaves.

Reply to message

/History: The Case for Reparations Legolas - 27/05/2014 07:08:52 PM 1089 Views

Only reparations for..... Anonymous2000 - 27/05/2014 07:34:29 PM 470 Views

you should try actually reading the article first moondog - 27/05/2014 08:33:53 PM 566 Views

my only problem is his conclusion is weak compared with the rest of the article moondog - 27/05/2014 08:31:54 PM 496 Views

Maybe because there is a lack of connection between the history involved and present day problems. Cannoli - 29/05/2014 01:35:04 AM 444 Views

sure, and i have a bridge for sale..... moondog - 30/05/2014 12:39:03 AM 432 Views

Re: sure, and i have a bridge for sale..... Cannoli - 30/05/2014 05:06:11 PM 467 Views

faulty assumptions of your heritage aside, the point still stands. moondog - 02/06/2014 08:54:02 PM 413 Views

Faulty assumptions is the entirety of your argument. Cannoli - 11/06/2014 07:27:29 AM 462 Views

Re: /History: The Case for Reparations Cannoli - 29/05/2014 01:54:48 AM 557 Views

Do you have a source where source where LBJ actually said that? *NM* random thoughts - 29/05/2014 01:17:44 PM 307 Views

IIRC, Robert Kessle "Inside the White House" or something like that. Cannoli - 30/05/2014 05:09:07 PM 480 Views

So some guy says some guys heard him say it? That isn't much. random thoughts - 30/05/2014 05:27:13 PM 415 Views

And LBJ or his estate would have allowed such a comment to get out? Cannoli - 30/05/2014 06:24:55 PM 461 Views

I agree that reparations would be extremely difficult if not impossible to implement fairly. Legolas - 29/05/2014 06:52:47 PM 499 Views

Re: I agree that reparations would be extremely difficult if not impossible to implement fairly. Cannoli - 30/05/2014 06:19:33 PM 597 Views

Re: I agree that reparations would be extremely difficult if not impossible to implement fairly. Legolas - 01/06/2014 05:36:20 PM 483 Views

Re: I agree that reparations would be extremely difficult if not impossible to implement fairly. Cannoli - 04/06/2014 02:49:13 AM 475 Views

Even without David Chappelle's compelling arguments against, I think it's a crazy idea. Tom - 29/05/2014 07:42:38 PM 532 Views

I was frowning at that part of the article, as well. Legolas - 29/05/2014 09:42:53 PM 500 Views

Not that I disagree with a single point you made, but wasn't the 40 acres & a mule thing a myth Cannoli - 01/06/2014 03:48:16 PM 497 Views

According to wikipedia, it was more than a myth, though not much more Tom - 02/06/2014 04:24:32 AM 641 Views

except the article is strictly NOT talking about cutting checks to black people moondog - 02/06/2014 08:59:47 PM 449 Views

sorry but I see no evidence he wants to have an open an honest discussion random thoughts - 02/06/2014 02:03:29 PM 466 Views

so it's only open and honest discussion if he shares your white world view? moondog - 02/06/2014 09:07:26 PM 493 Views

no it is only an honest open discussion if he recognizes that there are valid alterantive views random thoughts - 03/06/2014 05:17:18 AM 456 Views

here is where you lose credibility moondog - 03/06/2014 08:59:30 PM 647 Views

How does the inability to shop at Neiman Marcus hold you back economically? Cannoli - 11/06/2014 07:40:46 AM 481 Views

Should Europe pay restitutions for the damage they did to Africa? random thoughts - 03/06/2014 01:13:54 PM 453 Views

Sure. Legolas - 03/06/2014 06:10:49 PM 426 Views

Absolutely, but only the handful of countries that actually have a colonial past *NM* kHz1000 - 03/06/2014 09:28:58 PM 246 Views

that's not the way it works random thoughts - 04/06/2014 01:04:46 PM 412 Views

EU expanded to its current borders mostly in 2004. Also we aren't states, so leave EU out of this *NM* kHz1000 - 04/06/2014 09:58:30 PM 268 Views

You don't know what a "state" is, do you? Cannoli - 11/06/2014 03:18:45 AM 445 Views

Again, there is an assumption of profit that is not necessarily true Cannoli - 11/06/2014 02:47:53 AM 575 Views

nope the EU needs to step up the line and starting paying random thoughts - 11/06/2014 06:05:25 PM 512 Views

One could argue we already do. Stephen - 04/06/2014 10:55:44 PM 403 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="284291">
<quote id="284283">Because that's the inevitable reality of government involvement in the market. Absent government interference, there would not have been an artificial suburban housing boom to be steered.  But any sort of program to disburse reparations would just create similar opportunities for injustice.  And forty years down the road, an almost identical article is written complaining about how the invisible secret racism ruined the reparations project and resulted in iniquities and other crap, that we need a NEW reparations project to fix. </quote>
You can argue that any government involvement in the market creates distortions of some kind, yes, but this one is an entirely different category of distortion.

But on the reparations, yeah, hard to see how it even <i>could</i> be implemented in a fair and sensible way, nevermind actually doing it.

<quote id="284283">An open and honest look at history involves including private comments as well as public quotations about such people as Lyndon Johnson.  The author was absolutely in love with the white poverty/Negro poverty comment, but doesn't seem much interested in Johnson's gutting of the enforcement provisions of the 1957 Civil Rights Act or the political calculation in his switch to signing the 1964 Act, while chortling to his cronies "I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years."</quote>
I don't think there are many people out there who see LBJ as a knight in shining armor - if he had been, not likely he'd have been able to pass those laws, and things might have taken longer still. Your quote doesn't really surprise or shock me, except that I wouldn't have expected him to use the N-word even in private conversation. 
<quote id="284283">An open and honest look at history might wonder at the insistence on collective punishment for the crimes of a limited number of dedicated individualists, who are characterized as much by their vision of separation from the whole, as their racism.  States Rights and Slavery were the two issues of the South, and yet, they would punish people throughout the country for the sins of those who wished to be no part of that country, and did all they could to effect the separation.  </quote>
Does the "collective punishment" refer to those reparations? I don't support those, but I do agree with the author that it's too easy to reject all responsibility by shoving it all off on "a limited number of dedicated individualists" in the South. And also that it's not very consistent to claim credit for the good things done by earlier generations of Americans, while washing your hands of the bad.  
<quote id="284283">An open and honest look at history might undermine the claims of the author and his ilk about the country being built on slavery, when the slave, and later Jim Crow, states were the poorest and most backward in the country.  One can assert that those poverty-stricken states were deprived their share of New Deal money out of racism towards their large black (non-voting) populations, but the more probable explanation is that the purpose of the New Deal was much more inclined toward the re-election of its perpetrators, than alleviating any other problems, and thus the money was concentrating in the swing states.  The South at the time was in no danger of voting Republican, as that was the party still popular with blacks, for both opposing slavery, and more recently, having anti-lynching planks in their national platform.  Because of this one-sided political situation, the Democratic administration counted the South as well in its camp, and was more concerned with dispensing largess where it would help more in 1936 & 1940. </quote>
What you say about the New Deal makes sense, but as for the first part, I have my doubts. Firstly of course because slavery was much more widely spread in the beginning than just the states that still had it in 1860 (Wikipedia informs me that, ironically, for a while in the 1740s the only colony where slavery was illegal was Georgia - they legalized it in 1750). Secondly, the Southern states were poor and backward after the Civil War, yes - what with having lost so much of its infrastructure and having suffered such immense casualties. Before, not so much - sure, the industry was mostly in the North, but the cotton took up a huge share of American exports, and the free people in the South were prosperous enough. And thirdly, part of that Northern industry and wealth was based on slave-harvested cotton, or benefited from slavery in some other way (though as the article points out, the same can be said about the cotton-processing industries abroad that imported American cotton).

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password