If you thought slavery were as deleterious as I say, and had generational effects lasting to today even, would you agree that reparations could be justified? — ToothyMaw

No - a hundred years ago, maybe - and I am rather skeptical about people claiming victimhood in this case. It's not like the US hasn't ran countless programs trying to elevate people out of poverty. At some point people will have to take responsibility for their own lot in life. Tough shit.

If you want something to feel guilty about the US has no shortage of atrocities it has committed in the here and now, and has never so much as apologized for. The victims are often still alive, and usually not doing well. Vietnamese mothers are still giving birth to deformed babies as a result of Uncle Sam's Agent Orange treatment.

Nah. Better ignore all that tangible suffering and instead go on endlessly about something with no clear living perpetrators and victims, so that no shit ever gets done, and if shit ever were to get done it would be a perversion of justice anyway.

No - a hundred years ago, maybe - and I am rather skeptical about people claiming victimhood in this case. — Tzeentch

First off, clearly many of the descendants of slaves believe that they should be compensated, as the overwhelming majority of people of color believe the descendants of slaves should receive compensation.

Second, you aren't answering my question directly: I'm not asking if you think the effects of slavery last until today, I'm asking if you would agree that reparations could theoretically be justified, and you seem to imply that you think it could have been a hundred years ago.

If that is the case, I lay out the following argument:

(1) There is a relationship between the magnitude of the evil of an action and the magnitude of its bad effects such that more evil actions generally have worse, longer-lasting effects.

(2) I believe the magnitude of evil of slavery is such that it could have bad effects lasting until today.

(3) Thus, if you claim that the bad effects of slavery are no longer in play, and thus were not as severe as I claim, then we at least partially disagree on the magnitude of evil of slavery, or you object to (1).

If you do not object to (1), then you need to explicitly defend the position that slavery is less evil than I say it is, or else grant that reparations could be justified today much like your claim that they could be justified a hundred years ago. And I say slavery is one of the evilest things one can enact on a people.

If you want something to feel guilty about the US has no shortage of atrocities it has committed in the here and now, and has never so much as apologized for. The victims are often still alive, and usually not doing well. Vietnamese mothers are still giving birth to deformed babies as a result of Uncle Sam's Agent Orange treatment. — Tzeentch

Yes, that makes me feel guilty too. And I would be in favor of righting that particular wrong if it could be achieved.

Upon re-reading your comment I think you are saying directly that reparations could be justified a hundred years ago. My argument still stands, however.

If you want just a yes/no answer, then I'll say, "No"

People who were never slaveowners paying "reparations" to people who were never slaves all on the basis of skin color is one of the most silly and racist things I've ever heard argued by "serious" intellectuals. — Tzeentch

Silly it may be and racist it may be, but not for any reason you adduce. If you live in the US, you are presumably and in fact a direct beneficiary of slave labor. As similarly you are presumably and in fact a direct beneficiary of the US Highway system, even if you don't drive. Of freedom won by men who fought, even if you never wore a uniform. Or of a lot of things the creation of which you had nothing to do.

As noted above, I think reparations are an attempt by society to settle and close an account for the benefit of the payer. More substantive, and more realistic, practical, efficacious and sincere, would be long-term programs aimed at "making right and making whole" those victimized by almost 425-and-counting years of slavery, jim-crow laws, and discrimination. Long-term because if you want an unscarred generation, then most of those scarred shall have to die out, as those who discriminate will also have to die out.

And I agree, and I think we're correct. Now, what do you think is appropriate to do about it and about and for those victimized/marginalized?

I am rather skeptical about people claiming victimhood in this case. It's not like the US hasn't ran countless programs trying to elevate people out of poverty. At some point people will have to take responsibility for their own lot in life. Tough shit. — Tzeentch

I think this is a good example of one of the reasons paying reparations is a bad idea. There are enough people out there who feel as you do that it will damage relationships between black and white people more than it will help.

We both know a lump sum will solve absolutely nothing. (Nor did any of the better ideas that were thrown at these types of problems)

I don't live in the US, just to be clear.

In my opinion, thinking in terms of monolithic 'Black People' and 'White People' is inherently damaging, yes.

That's why I can never quite understand why American politics is so absolutely rife with it.*


*Until I put my cynical hat on and realize polarization is the goal.

Agreed and understood - that doesn't happen often! Might you say where you're from? Of course I will remember it and use it against you.

I live in the Netherlands. :up:

In my opinion, thinking in terms of monolithic 'Black People' and 'White People' is inherently damaging, yes. — Tzeentch

As I've said many times before, white people as a group don't like or trust black people as a group. Claiming the solution is to just treat people like people and behave as if we live in a colorblind society is, to put it as charitably as I can, naive to the point of delusion.

:up: :up: The only thing I can have against you is that Benkei - one of us - I think is one of you.

I said nothing about solutions, but such generalizations to me seem the product of dehumanization, and a part of the problem.

One might have to ask themselves from where this desire comes to view people, rather than as individuals, as inherently part of a non-existent abstraction onto which one has slapped all kinds of nasty labels. The answer is usually pathological in nature.

I said nothing about solutions, but such generalizations to me seem the product of dehumanization, and a part of the problem. — Tzeentch

If I were to say: white people ought not discriminate against black people as much, and ought to listen when black people claim they are experiencing discrimination, would that be dehumanizing? I mean, I'm not saying either group is less than human, am I? That seems to be the kind of position you think you are attacking, but your objections would fall flat short of someone saying something massively stupid.

What I'm saying is more along the lines of this: people living in the United States, who are almost certainly the beneficiaries of slave labor, ought to compensate the descendants of slaves, many of whom likely agree such an action would be just.

"The descendants of slaves" is a well-defined group, not some vague abstraction that subsumes people's individuality. The same goes for "people living in the United States". Neither group is:

a non-existent abstraction — Tzeentch

One might have to ask themselves from where this desire comes to view people, rather than as individuals, as inherently part of a non-existent abstraction onto which one has slapped all kinds of nasty labels. The answer is usually pathological in nature. — Tzeentch

Okay, nobody has unreasonably abstracted anybody in this thread as far as I know. So, you can drop that, please. Furthermore, the desire to throw these roadblocks up whenever a decent discussion could be had about resolving systemic issues facing minorities, or righting wrongs related to those issues, is actually indicative of a pathological inclination towards aggressively trying to 'keep the peace'.

If I were to say: white people ought not discriminate against black people as much, and ought to listen when black people claim they are experiencing discrimination, would that be dehumanizing? — ToothyMaw

Yes, and clearly so.

The practice of trying to simplify large demographics into monolithic groups with a fixed set of characteristics is inherently dehumanizing. and inherently racist. It's the definition of racism, in fact - it's just taking place under another guise.

Not to mention, it's beyond patronizing.

people living in the United States, who are almost certainly the beneficiaries of slave labor, — ToothyMaw

All people living in the US? Does that include people living in abject poverty? Quantify exactly what benefits you believe they received.

Okay, nobody has unreasonably abstracted anybody in this thread as far as I know. — ToothyMaw

Bullshit. T Clark is clearly insisting on the use of skin color as a means of dividing people into monolithic groups.

Furthermore, the desire to throw these roadblocks [...] — ToothyMaw

Roadblocks, my ass. You're apparently unable to see how problematic this baseline approach to the problem is.

If you had to choose to pay out reparations to one of these two groups, who would you prioritize, black men or white women?

has a point. We can never make up the horrors of the past or the benefits we recieve from it, even if they are unjust. And often reparations can be bungled to a point where the effected parties aren't even helped. (I'm not sure I know of when they were anything elsehurt, but I think un has a point in saying that reparations can be about nothing but white guilt)

The United States has paid reparations, so there is some history to consider. I'm not conversant enough in that history to say which is what; but I agree that we cannot really make up the tragedies of the past, and the only thing we can do is look at how things are now and attempt to make them better. So white people, alive today, could help black people, alive today, rather than pawning it off on some organizations or policy of good will when they have no idea what will come of such things.

What would that look like?

Well, a more honest conversation than "How much money ought the government pay to this group?" I think, though I don't know.

I said nothing about solutions, but such generalizations to me seem the product of dehumanization, and a part of the problem. — Tzeentch

The practice of trying to simplify large demographics into monolithic groups with a fixed set of characteristics is inherently dehumanizing. and inherently racist. It's the definition of racism, in fact - it's just taking place under another guise. — Tzeentch

Bullshit. T Clark is clearly insisting on the use of skin color as a means of dividing people into monolithic groups. — Tzeentch

Sometimes people say things like this so they won't have to take responsibility for social conditions in the society where they live.

Edited

Reparations are usually about either a fine/punishment, or an attempt to restore the victim to some status quo ante. — tim wood

I kind of agree with you here, both in the definition and that it will not be easy to implement.

The idea of fining or punishing those with some sort of responsibility in slavery seems remote, all are dead. To pass the bill to their families would be the next step then maybe, but they are now mostly far removed from the fortunes made in those days. It would be difficult to prove that their wealth is a direct result of slavery in most cases.
To try and pass the bill to anyone that had in some way been benefited by slavery would mean that even the decedents of the peasants that went to work in the cotton factories would have to pay.
To say that a whole country is responsible and that the governments should pay the bill means that the everyday person in the street would have his taxes used for something that he has no responsibility for.
A very difficult problem indeed.

To attempt to restore the victim to some status quo ante would in my opinion be even more complicated. Even if their ancestors were traced and the victims were offered the chance to live the life that they would have occupied in the present if slavery had not sidetracked them, most would be a lot worse off than they are now.

On a slightly different note, has anyone ever heard of cases of claims for reparations being made against the African slavers that did a lot of the capturing of the people then sold them to the white men, or the slavers that captured and used them even before the white man appeared?

Sometimes people say things like this so they won't have to take responsibility for social conditions in the society where they live. — T Clark

As I've made clear, I don't live in the US, so my taking of responsibility has nothing to do with it.

You're saying things that are overtly racist, and frankly some of it is just plain weird.

Who are these 'Black People' who apparently form a homogeneous group of needy victims looking to be saved and taken pity on, with skin color for some reason being the primary trait we define them by?


Maybe my small European brain can't fathom the profundity of combatting racism by making people's skin color and race their defining features.

That US identity politics is so rank we could smell it from across the pond. Thankfully though, people here saw through that shit.

Who are these 'Black People' who apparently form a homogeneous group of needy victims looking to be saved and taken pity on, with skin color for some reason being the primary trait we define them by? — Tzeentch

What are these "juicy apples", that so apparently form a homogenous group of sweet fruits looking to be peeled and eaten, with skin color for some reason being the primary trait we define them by?

Maybe my small European brain can't fathom the profundity of combatting racism by making people's skin color and race their defining features. — Tzeentch

I think we can talk about black people without saying that being black is the defining feature of being a black person. Same goes for white people.

If I were to say: white people ought not discriminate against black people as much, and ought to listen when black people claim they are experiencing discrimination, would that be dehumanizing?
— ToothyMaw

Yes, and clearly so.

The practice of trying to simplify large demographics into monolithic groups with a fixed set of characteristics is inherently dehumanizing. and inherently racist. It's the definition of racism, in fact - it's just taking place under another guise. — Tzeentch

Where did I attribute a fixed set of characteristics to anyone? White people discriminate against black people regularly, and this discrimination is particularly one-sided and pernicious. If I were to say that men ought not rape women, would you say that that is dehumanizing and sexist? I mean, sure, not every man is a rapist, but we know that if a woman is raped, it is almost certainly by a man, right?

Maybe my small European brain can't fathom the profundity of combatting racism by making people's skin color and race their defining features. — Tzeentch

Yes, I think that must be right; your small brain cannot fathom that to address racism is not racist. You are by no means alone.

What are these "juicy apples", that so apparently form a homogenous group of sweet fruits looking to be peeled and eaten, with skin color for some reason being the primary trait we define them by? — ToothyMaw

People aren't fruit. We don't treat fruit as individuals. We do with people. Kind of proving my point there, buddy.

I think we can talk about black people without saying that being black is the defining feature of being a black person. Same goes for white people. — ToothyMaw

Which begs the question why you can't stop talking about this feature that apparently doesn't define the groups, but which you chose to name the groups after anyway.

If I were to say that men ought not rape women, would you say that that is dehumanizing and sexist? — ToothyMaw

Mostly this is just a vacuous statement. But yes.

Really what you are implying is "Men are rapists" - strictly speaking true, because some men are indeed rapists.

However, it's your failure to delineate and the insiuation that connects all men to rape that is particularly pernicious.

This is exactly how the worst kinds of propaganda function, by the way.

Yes, I think that must be right; your small brain cannot fathom that to address racism is not racist. — unenlightened

People here are not addressing racism, but perpetuating it.

What are these "juicy apples", that so apparently form a homogenous group of sweet fruits looking to be peeled and eaten, with skin color for some reason being the primary trait we define them by?
— ToothyMaw

People aren't fruit. We don't treat fruit as individuals. We do with people. Kind of proving my point there, buddy. — Tzeentch

That you took what I wrote so literally is surprising. It was intended to show that I think your arguments are absurd, unserious boilerplate garbage and worthy of ridicule.

I think we can talk about black people without saying that being black is the defining feature of being a black person. Same goes for white people.
— ToothyMaw

Which begs the question why you can't stop talking about this feature that apparently doesn't define the groups, but which you chose to name the groups after anyway. — Tzeentch

The reality is that, historically, people have been subdivided into groups based on their race, and, because of all the insane shit that has happened, and the slightly less insane shit going on today, we are kind of forced to deal with these abstractions. Do you think I enjoy talking about people of color as a group? Because I don't; ideally there would be no reason to do that.

If I were to say that men ought not rape women, would you say that that is dehumanizing and sexist?
— ToothyMaw

Mostly this is just a vacuous statement. But yes.

Really what you are implying is "Men are rapists" - strictly speaking true, because some men are indeed rapists.

However, it's your failure to delineate and the insiuation that connects all men to rape that is particularly pernicious. — Tzeentch

I would argue that there are characteristics connected to masculinity, and thus men, as a group, that largely cause some of them to assault women. So, even if not all men are rapists, many men have the relevant attributes rapists have to at least some degree (and those attributes might even be good in limited amounts). I think this kind of analysis applies straightforwardly to white people discriminating against people of color: white people largely have a blind spot that allows for discrimination against people of color by virtue of viewing the issue the way you do: that we live in a fair society and if poor people of color cannot uplift themselves, it is due to their own choices and shortcomings. You don't have to be a raging racist to be complicit in this mechanism, and so I think it is mostly acceptable to talk about white people at large in negative ways.

I would argue that there are characteristics connected to masculinity, and thus men, as a group, that largely cause some of them to assault women. — ToothyMaw

So you're a sexist too.

Great.

I would argue that there are characteristics connected to masculinity, and thus men, as a group, that largely cause some of them to assault women.
— ToothyMaw

So you're a sexist too.

Great. — Tzeentch

Noting where I said that it is masculinity, and not something inherent to men: how am I a sexist for saying that?

You're repeating the exact same pattern with different words - connecting all men to rape, this time through masculinity.

You should respond substantively, instead of getting indignant. Or at least be substantive in your indignance.

You're repeating the exact same pattern with different words — Tzeentch

I'm not sure which pattern you are referring to, as I have indeed repeated myself a number of times in this thread.