‹ First  < 5 6 7
 
   
 

“Sins of the Father”

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
18 December 2019 20:45
 
burt - 18 December 2019 07:51 PM

Expanding on this, a national debate would certainly be worthwhile and, hopefully would result in positive actions. The issues that seem to me to be almost impossible to deal with (or coming to the point of “cutting checks”) are first establishing the details of harm across multiple generations, who has been harmed, to who degree, and in what ways (the fact of harm is obvious, but lots has happened between the end of slavery and the present day, some alleviating harm, much simply perpetuating it). The other issue, assuming that degrees and sorts of harm can be quantified, is who is to be compensated and in what ways. Both of these issues seem sufficiently complex to me that while it would be worthwhile debating them, agreement on conclusions and actions would be difficult. To me, this means that the issue needs to be addressed in a more nuanced and careful way through education, social legislation, and social assistance that aims at not only dealing with poverty and excluding from political expression and power. In addition, a general attitude change is required. A recognition of equality at a personal psychological level. All of this strikes me as involving a massive effort at both national, state, and local levels combining both government and private enterprise (e.g., government incentives for private manufacturing to locate in impoverished areas, training programs for workers to develop salable skills, mortgage assistance, etc.x1000). By focusing one line of efforts on poverty in general (with other lines focused on combating racism and changing public attitudes) this could fall back on a war on poverty approach that spreads benefits beyond reparations recipients (I’m thinking of an affirmative action program that was set up for poor students regardless of race). I don’t think that just cutting a check would solve anything and would likely make it worse. But all of this sort of idealization would also likely fall behind extensive national debate.

I did not once suggest cutting people checks.  The fact that you are stuck on that idea when I just gave a really long post explaining that that is NOT what I am suggesting (or anyone else) tells me that this conversation has reached the the final point that it can possibly reach at this time.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
18 December 2019 20:46
 

You guys win.  I’m out.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22653
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
18 December 2019 20:46
 
Garret - 18 December 2019 08:40 PM
EN - 18 December 2019 07:51 PM

Equality is everyone having the same opportunity.  We’ve had a black president, black billionaires, black senators/congressmen/justices/judges, etc.  Remove all obstacles and the cream rises to the top. Your position is racist because you don’t really believe blacks have the same potential to overcome as the Vietnamese.  Go to Alief, Texas and see how they have done.

Oh, the “i’m rubber and you’re glue” defense.

We’ve reached an amicable end. We disagree.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16399
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
18 December 2019 22:26
 
Garret - 18 December 2019 08:45 PM
burt - 18 December 2019 07:51 PM

Expanding on this, a national debate would certainly be worthwhile and, hopefully would result in positive actions. The issues that seem to me to be almost impossible to deal with (or coming to the point of “cutting checks”) are first establishing the details of harm across multiple generations, who has been harmed, to who degree, and in what ways (the fact of harm is obvious, but lots has happened between the end of slavery and the present day, some alleviating harm, much simply perpetuating it). The other issue, assuming that degrees and sorts of harm can be quantified, is who is to be compensated and in what ways. Both of these issues seem sufficiently complex to me that while it would be worthwhile debating them, agreement on conclusions and actions would be difficult. To me, this means that the issue needs to be addressed in a more nuanced and careful way through education, social legislation, and social assistance that aims at not only dealing with poverty and excluding from political expression and power. In addition, a general attitude change is required. A recognition of equality at a personal psychological level. All of this strikes me as involving a massive effort at both national, state, and local levels combining both government and private enterprise (e.g., government incentives for private manufacturing to locate in impoverished areas, training programs for workers to develop salable skills, mortgage assistance, etc.x1000). By focusing one line of efforts on poverty in general (with other lines focused on combating racism and changing public attitudes) this could fall back on a war on poverty approach that spreads benefits beyond reparations recipients (I’m thinking of an affirmative action program that was set up for poor students regardless of race). I don’t think that just cutting a check would solve anything and would likely make it worse. But all of this sort of idealization would also likely fall behind extensive national debate.

I did not once suggest cutting people checks.  The fact that you are stuck on that idea when I just gave a really long post explaining that that is NOT what I am suggesting (or anyone else) tells me that this conversation has reached the the final point that it can possibly reach at this time.

The quotes you give from the Coates article use the phrase “cutting checks” twice. It’s not an idea I’m stuck on, just think that it won’t work at all and would make things worse in some ways. I did explain why I think a national debate would be a great idea, and gave some initial thoughts on actions that could be taken, admitting that they are idealistic, but at least they are something I could would argue for in debate. Realistic actions (I don’t know if I’d even use the term reparation; on the one hand it gets peoples attention, on the other evoking the sort of resistance that’s shown up here) I think would be focused on development of social and educational programs together with various economic programs.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  4120
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
19 December 2019 15:27
 

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa sounded so appealing we adopted it here in Canada and used it as a template.  We have a long way to go but acknowledging the reality allows us to keep thinking about it like a work in progress.  Which is what it is.

Without facing the truth there’s no way of even considering how to reconcile it.  And for anyone who recoils at the thought, refuses to discuss it, becomes defensive or angry or argumentative, that’s fine.  You don’t have to.  But that is the point of this thread.  Not Physics or Math or Texas.  History.  There’s no reason to stand in the way and spoil it for the rest of us.

The bar metaphor can be pictured as that of a pub from the old British Public House.  Which was, traditionally, more than just a place to whet yer whistle but a community centre and gathering place in which to exchange ideas.  Issues of the day.  An informal local parliament type of idea.  Where there are no velvet ropes and everyone is welcome.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22653
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
20 December 2019 19:11
 

I’m not coming off well in these threads.  Maybe I should take a break.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18127
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
20 December 2019 19:59
 
EN - 20 December 2019 07:11 PM

I’m not coming off well in these threads.  Maybe I should take a break.

You are coming off fine, what you aren’t doing is following LJ identify politics agenda as presented here by her boy toy acolyte.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1262
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
21 December 2019 20:21
 

Who stood in the way of what, and who spoiled what for whom?

The OP does not call for a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” about history.  Where it’s not vague it calls for arguments why we should not give “reparations/restitution” for wrongs committed by past generations.  Specifically, it notes that the argument that current citizens are not responsible for the “sins of the father” is untenable.  It then notes that “courts, congress, and many, many other institutions think that such past events can be so relevant as to require things like reparations/restitution.” To support this point it offers a Supreme Court case involving Native Americans for as precedence for “reparations” or “restitution” for historic wrongs against blacks.  Three posters respond by acknowledging the truth of these historical wrongs; in fact, they start by “facing the truth” of history.  Two propose to address those wrongs through effective remedies that don’t include reparations or restitution, one calls for making equal opportunity a reality, not just an ideal, and the response to these arguments is the thread’s originator becoming “defensive,” “angry” and “argumentative,” which arguably was his stance from early on.  Given this turn of events it seems that if anyone spoiled anything here, it would be originator himself, for the responses of these three posters shows a willingness to discuss the topic—again, reparations or restitution, not a Truth and Reconciliation Commission—amicably (some ribbing at his expense from one aside).  His replies, on the other hand, do not.

So, again, it bears asking: who stood in the way of what, and who spoiled what for whom?

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
23 December 2019 07:26
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 21 December 2019 08:21 PM

Who stood in the way of what, and who spoiled what for whom?

The OP does not call for a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” about history.  Where it’s not vague it calls for arguments why we should not give “reparations/restitution” for wrongs committed by past generations.  Specifically, it notes that the argument that current citizens are not responsible for the “sins of the father” is untenable.  It then notes that “courts, congress, and many, many other institutions think that such past events can be so relevant as to require things like reparations/restitution.” To support this point it offers a Supreme Court case involving Native Americans for as precedence for “reparations” or “restitution” for historic wrongs against blacks.  Three posters respond by acknowledging the truth of these historical wrongs; in fact, they start by “facing the truth” of history.  Two propose to address those wrongs through effective remedies that don’t include reparations or restitution, one calls for making equal opportunity a reality, not just an ideal, and the response to these arguments is the thread’s originator becoming “defensive,” “angry” and “argumentative,” which arguably was his stance from early on.  Given this turn of events it seems that if anyone spoiled anything here, it would be originator himself, for the responses of these three posters shows a willingness to discuss the topic—again, reparations or restitution, not a Truth and Reconciliation Commission—amicably (some ribbing at his expense from one aside).  His replies, on the other hand, do not.

So, again, it bears asking: who stood in the way of what, and who spoiled what for whom?

So, you don’t care about responses, but you’re going to jump in to create strawmen.  Your self-righteous posturing has gotten old.

 
‹ First  < 5 6 7