‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
 
   
 

“Sins of the Father”

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22653
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
17 December 2019 10:12
 
Nhoj Morley - 17 December 2019 12:05 AM
Garret - 16 December 2019 06:40 PM

If you want to have your “bar conversation”, why don’t you start a different thread? Seems like the more “friendly” thing to do than coming into this thread and being pissed about being called out on not adhering to the threads goals.  If I made a shit thread, you guys can just let it die by not replying.

This all could have gone better. I’m not sure where.

Our regulars could have taken your request seriously but there was no obligation. Inspiring some level of camaraderie first might have helped. Folks don’t come here for more work. They want to be engaged but extra effort means extra courting. I rank our rancor higher than chat. I’ve checked recently.

You did mention ignoring posts that did not meet your requirements. That could have gone better, too.

I’d like to mention that he asked for citations.  He cited an article.  I responded and I cited an article.  Then I was castigated for my googling.  Moving targets are not fun and often dangerous in a bar.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
17 December 2019 10:35
 

A link is not a citation.  I’m sorry if you didn’t know that.

A citation is something you give to provide the source of where you got your information.  I’ll give an example:

Part of how academic works get done is by crediting the work of others.  This allows those reading your work to understand what kind of primary sources and secondary sources were used in formulating the argument.  This is important for both preventing acts of plagiarism, but also allows other people to backtrack your work so that they can verify, refute, or expand on your ideas.  The use of sources to create an argument allows arguments to be dissected, both for understanding and exposing weakness where it exists. MIT Library.  Now, I don’t care about formatting them, I think that would be needlessly pedantic in a thread like this.  Links are readily available due to the format of the discussion.  In my work though, if you’re curious, I most often use the Chicago-style format, though if I’m writing for a Poli-Sci group, I’ll switch to the APSA.  That’s a level of technicality that doesn’t affect us though.

You linked an article.  This is true.  But you didn’t do anything with it.  All you did was link it.  You didn’t make an argument and use it to support your argument.  If all you do is just link it, then I don’t know what you want me to glean from it.

In contrast, I linked the Coates article, and said why I felt it was useful, how it supported the discussion and what I felt the best aspect to gain from it.  I did acknowledge that it is lengthy, and would certainly be willing to narrow it down, but that requires us to have a conversation about the topic.

Also, having read the article you linked, it seems like that author didn’t actually read Coates article.  He relies a lot on strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks about Mr. Coates.  Mr. Williamson makes the mistakes of making a lot of assumptions, and then attacking those assumptions.  Except those assumptions are no where present in the Coates article.  Mr. Williamson is not actually addressing the concerns raised by Coates, but rather inventing an argument in order to defeat it.

If I said: EN believes in a God that resembles Dr. Manhattan… and then went on to argue how that was a false belief…
Would I be accurately representing your views?

Mr. Williamson makes many of the objections that have been repeated in this thread, by you, Burt, and Traces Elk.  The lot of you have decided what reparations are, and then proceeded to argue against your definition.  A definition which is not based on any claims made so far.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22653
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
17 December 2019 10:45
 

Just stating the name of the article and it’s author is not a citation, either.  Please refer to the Harvard Format Citation Guide and follow this from now on if you want to be served drinks here again.  I also require a bibliography at the end of each post.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
17 December 2019 10:47
 

Ah, so when I say I do not intend to be pedantic or formal, your rebuttal is to be pedantic and formal.

You complain about my behavior, and then your tactic is to mimic it, but in a way that is meant to be insulting.

[ Edited: 17 December 2019 10:51 by Garret]
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22653
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
17 December 2019 10:59
 

My position is that our nation is “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. “ Gettysburg Address, page 1,Abraham Lincoln, 1863, written on a sheet of paper.  This is enshrined in our Constitution.  14th Amendment, US Constitution.  This is what we should be striving for, not redressing the wrongs of the past.  Remove all barriers to equality and give people equal opportunity.  The article I linked takes equality as the primary focus of justice for past wrongs. The country does not exist to force people not responsible for a wrong to pay people who did not suffer the wrong.  That is not equality.  Our focus should be on ensuring that our foundational principle is fulfilled. 

Bibliography

Gettysburg Address, found in National Archives, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Constitution, found in National Archives, Washington D.C.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22653
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
17 December 2019 11:01
 
Garret - 17 December 2019 10:47 AM

Ah, so when I say I do not intend to be pedantic or formal, your rebuttal is to be pedantic and formal.

You complain about my behavior, and then your tactic is to mimic it, but in a way that is meant to be insulting.

I reject this post as it has no citations or bibliography.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16399
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
17 December 2019 11:05
 
Garret - 17 December 2019 10:08 AM
burt - 17 December 2019 09:10 AM

Garret, it seems to me that you are either naive about what is possible in a forum such as this, or are intentionally attempting to stir a pot based on an agenda. In particular, your approach here seems to be: Here is a topic (vaguely specified) and I provide references. You (mere students) can read these as well as supplying your own references and we can have a seminar discussion which I am willing to lead. You will be graded at the end of the term. Sorry, that doesn’t go over here. Better if you were to think of this as a discussion after hours in the bar at the faculty club where you are the only historian present amongst a mongrel mix of chemists, physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, linguists, and English professors. In that venue, you would not and could not expect people to cite multiple sources or be aware of historical details, but you could get a decent conversation going with a variety of worthwhile opinions expressed, and that would possibly lead to refinement of positions and some worthwhile ideas being generated. Unless, of course, you are trying to promote an agenda by simply putting out the idea of reparations under the impression that the first step in getting that sort of thing going is to promote discussions of it. If that’s the case, just say so.

Actually, my agenda was to put on display how readily people on these forums are willing to jump to conclusions without evidence.

Thanks for proving me wrong, I appreciate it.

If that was your intent they you really are being arrogant and assuming that you, a professional historian who knows better, need to school us illiterates. And it certainly wasn’t the announced intent, so rather dishonest as well. I’m sure that if you just came out and stated some of your positions and conclusions we could have a far more useful discussion.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
17 December 2019 11:26
 
burt - 17 December 2019 11:05 AM
Garret - 17 December 2019 10:08 AM
burt - 17 December 2019 09:10 AM

Garret, it seems to me that you are either naive about what is possible in a forum such as this, or are intentionally attempting to stir a pot based on an agenda. In particular, your approach here seems to be: Here is a topic (vaguely specified) and I provide references. You (mere students) can read these as well as supplying your own references and we can have a seminar discussion which I am willing to lead. You will be graded at the end of the term. Sorry, that doesn’t go over here. Better if you were to think of this as a discussion after hours in the bar at the faculty club where you are the only historian present amongst a mongrel mix of chemists, physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, linguists, and English professors. In that venue, you would not and could not expect people to cite multiple sources or be aware of historical details, but you could get a decent conversation going with a variety of worthwhile opinions expressed, and that would possibly lead to refinement of positions and some worthwhile ideas being generated. Unless, of course, you are trying to promote an agenda by simply putting out the idea of reparations under the impression that the first step in getting that sort of thing going is to promote discussions of it. If that’s the case, just say so.

Actually, my agenda was to put on display how readily people on these forums are willing to jump to conclusions without evidence.

Thanks for proving me wrong, I appreciate it.

If that was your intent they you really are being arrogant and assuming that you, a professional historian who knows better, need to school us illiterates. And it certainly wasn’t the announced intent, so rather dishonest as well. I’m sure that if you just came out and stated some of your positions and conclusions we could have a far more useful discussion.

Actually, it was my announced intent, I was just more diplomatic about it than I am right now.  Reread the first post.  Read the post where I linked to a comment by Icehorse.  Read any comment about race by GAD.

What I didn’t expect was you, EN, and Traces Elk to come in and follow in their footsteps by staking out your own claims without evidence.

[ Edited: 17 December 2019 12:00 by Garret]
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
17 December 2019 11:52
 
EN - 17 December 2019 10:59 AM

My position is that our nation is “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. “ Gettysburg Address, page 1,Abraham Lincoln, 1863, written on a sheet of paper.  This is enshrined in our Constitution.  14th Amendment, US Constitution.  This is what we should be striving for, not redressing the wrongs of the past.  Remove all barriers to equality and give people equal opportunity.  The article I linked takes equality as the primary focus of justice for past wrongs. The country does not exist to force people not responsible for a wrong to pay people who did not suffer the wrong.  That is not equality.  Our focus should be on ensuring that our foundational principle is fulfilled. 

Bibliography

Gettysburg Address, found in National Archives, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Constitution, found in National Archives, Washington D.C.

Black Americans still suffer from racist policies.  For example, The Trump administration recently cut food stamps, which will disproportionately affect black Americans.  One of the reasons that more black Americans are below the poverty line is that they have historically been denied means of accruing wealth.  When food stamp usage spiked in the 2000’s, during the housing crisis, it was not just black homeowners who were affected deeply (in some cities black homeowners represented 70% of those who were foreclosed on), but were also more commonly affected by secondary effects of the financial crisis of 2008.  For example, in Minneapolis, people who are black represent 18.6% of the population of the city, but black families with children in public schools represented 63% of all families in the city who had to leave their home due to the property experiencing foreclosure.

As we go further back in time, we can see a consistent pattern that since Lincoln uttered those words, this country has not lived up to that ideal.  Certainly progress has been made in certain areas, but there has been a pattern of not achieving those ideals as well.  There are already people paying for the wrongs of the past.  Black Americans are being forced to pay the price for slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, work place discrimination, predatory lending, and a host of paternalistic and failed government programs.  I appreciate the sentiment that no one should pay for the wrongs done by others.  I think it is a noble one.  If only noble sentiments could solve our problems.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22653
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
17 December 2019 12:03
 

If there are current racist policies, those should be changed. Equality before the law is the goal. Changing a current practice that prevents equal opportunity is not the same as reparations paying for past sins.  The best way to deal with current problems, whether rooted in the past or not, is to remove barriers to equality.  Reparations would, IMO, have the negative effect of making some people even more racist out of resentment.  It is also, in a sense, demeaning toward blacks.  Many immigrants come from oppressive environments today, and with simply the equal opportunity that exists in most cases, can rise to become very successful here.  To imply that blacks can’t do this is insulting. Just remove the barriers that now exist and let them demonstrate their capabilities, as many already have without reparations.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
17 December 2019 12:07
 

Let me rephrase.

Racist policies cause damage.  Here’s the New Deal era redlining map that was made by the federal government for Minneapolis, MN.  The neighborhoods in red, specifically D3 and D5 were the areas that in 2008, suffered the most foreclosures.  Neighborhoods in places where homeloans were denied 70 years ago are still feeling the effects of those racist policies now.

Tell me why they should bear the brunt of the cost of those racist policies.  The costs of those policies exist.  Why are school age children during the 2008 housing crisis the ones who should bear the burden of homelessness and housing insecurity that was caused by racist policies from the 1930’s?

Your argument does not cause the damages done to disappear.  The damage is here.  We can see it.  It exists.
Your argument is that you don’t think white people should pay the cost.  But that means that someone else must pay the cost, because the cost exists whether we like it or not.  The policies of the 1930’s are causing damage now.  Right now, who should pay for that damage?  Not in an “ideal world” or some fairy tale.  As a society, who should we choose to place this burden on?

[ Edited: 17 December 2019 12:18 by Garret]
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16399
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
17 December 2019 12:19
 
Garret - 17 December 2019 11:26 AM
burt - 17 December 2019 11:05 AM
Garret - 17 December 2019 10:08 AM
burt - 17 December 2019 09:10 AM

Garret, it seems to me that you are either naive about what is possible in a forum such as this, or are intentionally attempting to stir a pot based on an agenda. In particular, your approach here seems to be: Here is a topic (vaguely specified) and I provide references. You (mere students) can read these as well as supplying your own references and we can have a seminar discussion which I am willing to lead. You will be graded at the end of the term. Sorry, that doesn’t go over here. Better if you were to think of this as a discussion after hours in the bar at the faculty club where you are the only historian present amongst a mongrel mix of chemists, physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, linguists, and English professors. In that venue, you would not and could not expect people to cite multiple sources or be aware of historical details, but you could get a decent conversation going with a variety of worthwhile opinions expressed, and that would possibly lead to refinement of positions and some worthwhile ideas being generated. Unless, of course, you are trying to promote an agenda by simply putting out the idea of reparations under the impression that the first step in getting that sort of thing going is to promote discussions of it. If that’s the case, just say so.

Actually, my agenda was to put on display how readily people on these forums are willing to jump to conclusions without evidence.

Thanks for proving me wrong, I appreciate it.

If that was your intent they you really are being arrogant and assuming that you, a professional historian who knows better, need to school us illiterates. And it certainly wasn’t the announced intent, so rather dishonest as well. I’m sure that if you just came out and stated some of your positions and conclusions we could have a far more useful discussion.

Actually, it was my announced intent, I was just more diplomatic about it than I am right now.  Reread the first post.  Read the post where I linked to a comment by Icehorse.  Read any comment about race by GAD.

What I didn’t expect was you, EN, and Traces Elk to come in and follow in their footsteps by staking out your own claims without evidence.

No, you are now being disingenuous. Don’t expect any of us to spend hours researching things, this is not a class room or a seminar, it is a presumably amiable discussion which you seem to be trying to use to put others down. That is why you’ve gotten the responses that you have. Perhaps you need to continue the discussion with Able Dean.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22653
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
17 December 2019 12:33
 
Garret - 17 December 2019 12:07 PM

Let me rephrase.

Racist policies cause damage.  Here’s the New Deal era redlining map that was made by the federal government for Minneapolis, MN.  The neighborhoods in red, specifically D3 and D5 were the areas that in 2008, suffered the most foreclosures.  Neighborhoods in places where homeloans were denied 70 years ago are still feeling the effects of those racist policies now.

Tell me why they should bear the brunt of the cost of those racist policies.  The costs of those policies exist.  Why are school age children during the 2008 housing crisis the ones who should bear the burden of homelessness and housing insecurity that was caused by racist policies from the 1930’s?

Your argument does not cause the damages done to disappear.  The damage is here.  We can see it.  It exists.
Your argument is that you don’t think white people should pay the cost.  But that means that someone else must pay the cost, because the cost exists whether we like it or not.  The policies of the 1930’s are causing damage now.  Right now, who should pay for that damage?  Not in an “ideal world” or some fairy tale.  As a society, who should we choose to place this burden on?

Reparations would be paid, presumably, from tax dollars.  Blacks would be taxed to pay for blacks.  That’s not just white people.  If you just taxed white people, that would be discriminatory.  So let’s get the “white” argument off the table.  Paying damages is the function of a civil court, not society as a whole.  It may be that every damage to every individual is not immediately remedied.  But if we remove racist policies now, that moves society closer to the goal of an equal society.  For me, that is the most important goal.  Otherwise, we will be paying reparations to women and every other minority, many of whom, I am certain, have suffered wrongs in the past.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
17 December 2019 12:33
 
burt - 17 December 2019 12:19 PM
Garret - 17 December 2019 11:26 AM
burt - 17 December 2019 11:05 AM
Garret - 17 December 2019 10:08 AM
burt - 17 December 2019 09:10 AM

Garret, it seems to me that you are either naive about what is possible in a forum such as this, or are intentionally attempting to stir a pot based on an agenda. In particular, your approach here seems to be: Here is a topic (vaguely specified) and I provide references. You (mere students) can read these as well as supplying your own references and we can have a seminar discussion which I am willing to lead. You will be graded at the end of the term. Sorry, that doesn’t go over here. Better if you were to think of this as a discussion after hours in the bar at the faculty club where you are the only historian present amongst a mongrel mix of chemists, physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, linguists, and English professors. In that venue, you would not and could not expect people to cite multiple sources or be aware of historical details, but you could get a decent conversation going with a variety of worthwhile opinions expressed, and that would possibly lead to refinement of positions and some worthwhile ideas being generated. Unless, of course, you are trying to promote an agenda by simply putting out the idea of reparations under the impression that the first step in getting that sort of thing going is to promote discussions of it. If that’s the case, just say so.

Actually, my agenda was to put on display how readily people on these forums are willing to jump to conclusions without evidence.

Thanks for proving me wrong, I appreciate it.

If that was your intent they you really are being arrogant and assuming that you, a professional historian who knows better, need to school us illiterates. And it certainly wasn’t the announced intent, so rather dishonest as well. I’m sure that if you just came out and stated some of your positions and conclusions we could have a far more useful discussion.

Actually, it was my announced intent, I was just more diplomatic about it than I am right now.  Reread the first post.  Read the post where I linked to a comment by Icehorse.  Read any comment about race by GAD.

What I didn’t expect was you, EN, and Traces Elk to come in and follow in their footsteps by staking out your own claims without evidence.

No, you are now being disingenuous. Don’t expect any of us to spend hours researching things, this is not a class room or a seminar, it is a presumably amiable discussion which you seem to be trying to use to put others down. That is why you’ve gotten the responses that you have. Perhaps you need to continue the discussion with Able Dean.

If you make an argument that I have literally heard from uninformed teenagers, would you prefer that I coddle you and praise you for the amazing insights you’ve had… or should I tell you the truth?

If you want to make this an insult slinging contest, fuck it, I’m in.  It’s the majority of what happens on these forums anyways.

If you want me to do some research on reparations for you, I could probably find some very cool and interesting information for you.  The choice is yours, I can’t force you.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
17 December 2019 12:45
 
EN - 17 December 2019 12:33 PM

Reparations would be paid, presumably, from tax dollars.  Blacks would be taxed to pay for blacks.  That’s not just white people.  If you just taxed white people, that would be discriminatory.  So let’s get the “white” argument off the table.  Paying damages is the function of a civil court, not society as a whole.  It may be that every damage to every individual is not immediately remedied.  But if we remove racist policies now, that moves society closer to the goal of an equal society.  For me, that is the most important goal.  Otherwise, we will be paying reparations to women and every other minority, many of whom, I am certain, have suffered wrongs in the past.

1) I think the mechanics of how to pay for and to whom is irrelevant until we agree that it should happen.  If we combine those two arguments, a solution is harder to reach.  If we cannot agree on the goal, then we cannot agree on the means of achieving that goal.
2) Not all issues are up to courts to resolve.  We have other means available to us in our society.
3) If we don’t fix the damage caused by racist policies, then the damage will remain.  If you have a broken window in a house during winter, it doesn’t matter how much you turn up the heat, the room with the broken window is going to be cold.  The best way to solve and prevent racist policies is to address the damage done by past racist policies.
4) This gets to a lot of issues.  One, it is again a mechanics argument, and mechanics arguments are about how it is implemented, not if something is implemented.  Two, other groups may have claims for other issues.  Three, if we learn how to address properly one major segment of the population, that would give us tools and understanding
applicable to other problems as well.  If I learn how to install a window, I can fix more than one broken window.

 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›