Reparations - Is it time to get the lead out?

[ruby sparks]

Should all men receive reparations for the draft? No, but men who have been drafted certainly can receive compensation for events that happened as a result. Families can receive benefits for those killed in the line of duty. Those subjected to unreasonable conduct while in service, or who were experimented on without their consent, can sue and have successfully done so in the past.

No one has ever recommended nor could possibly enact a system in which anyone who belongs to a "race" or "class" or "gender" or whatever other classification is due compensation for wrongs done to that gender; it is always a discussion of those who either are or are direct descendants of the original victims of a crime. For instance, a Native American tribe that has had land stolen and managed to file a successful claim while the Indian Claims Commission was still in operation had freedom to distribute those funds however they liked, but the funds officially went to the tribe itself as a collective entity, because legally speaking they were the original wronged party, and they weren't just given out to whomever asked; they had to prove that the initiating action was unjust, and the amount of compensation was based on some manner of appraisal of the real material value of the land. In practice, you will always need to prove that you were materially wronged in order to receive monetary compensation. In fact, real victims are generally the first to complain if fakers are trying to take advantage of a situation, and will vigorously object to and report such fraudulent activities if they become aware of them. Hence, in Native communities, generations of in-fighting over matters of "blood quantum" and who can or cannot be considered a tribal member.

Without taking away from anything you say, I think it could be said that the OP suggestion would be a non-monetary form of reparations (and in some ways a cousin of or variant on AA).

I'm not totally against that, in principle, but, I would rather it was done just for its own reasons.

That said, I doubt it'll ever happen though, because in the main the USA is not a good place to expect that sort of thing on a public scale, whether you're poor and black or just poor and anything.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In fact, real victims are generally the first to complain if fakers are trying to take advantage of a situation, and will vigorously object to and report such fraudulent activities if they become aware of them.

Is that also true of legal immigrants regarding illegal immigrants?

 

[Gun Nut]

Okay, so let's keep the lead paint in the homes?

no, why?

moving forward and not trying to "repair history" logically includes providing a safe environment for everyone, regardless of their race's history.

Why would you think not?

Yes, but we shouldn't do it for race reasons. Because housing conditions have nothing to do with race.

They have everything to do with economic class, though... and that is also correlated to race... so indirectly related.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, but we shouldn't do it for race reasons. Because housing conditions have nothing to do with race.

They have everything to do with economic class, though... and that is also correlated to race... so indirectly related.

Yes. I was being a tad ironic, to be honest.

And I also think there are and were stand-alone racist factors too, in the mix.

ETA: but that said, I would distinguish between (a) the question in principle of whether it would be right and fair to for example do something about it and mention race in the same breath (or even do it partly for those stated reasons) and (b) the question of whether doing that might be the best way to go about it. The answers might be yes and no respectively, imo.

 

[ruby sparks]

In other words, I think there would, understandably, be more support for doing it for social reasons than by making race a criteria, even if it did result in some racial minorities benefitting disproportionately.

But hey, pm me when USA does it for social reasons.

I am now going to brag. Ireland does it for social reasons. Well, to be precise, the state helps with the costs. Up to £4000 per household. You may notice that I identify with being British and Irish interchangeably as and when it suits (dual nationality is useful).

 

[Metaphor]

In other words, I think there would, understandably, be more support for doing it for social reasons than by making race a criteria, even if it did result in some racial minorities benefitting disproportionately.

But hey, pm me when USA does it for social reasons.

I am now going to brag. Ireland does it for social reasons. Well, to be precise, the state helps with the costs. Up to £4000 per household. You may notice that I identify with being British and Irish interchangeably as and when it suits (dual nationality is useful).

So do all hellbound Protestants.

 

[ruby sparks]

In other words, I think there would, understandably, be more support for doing it for social reasons than by making race a criteria, even if it did result in some racial minorities benefitting disproportionately.

But hey, pm me when USA does it for social reasons.

I am now going to brag. Ireland does it for social reasons. Well, to be precise, the state helps with the costs. Up to £4000 per household. You may notice that I identify with being British and Irish interchangeably as and when it suits (dual nationality is useful).

So do all hellbound Protestants.

Stop oppressing me.

 

[Politesse]

In fact, real victims are generally the first to complain if fakers are trying to take advantage of a situation, and will vigorously object to and report such fraudulent activities if they become aware of them.

Is that also true of legal immigrants regarding illegal immigrants?

This certainly does happen sometimes, though it is less likely if we're talking about people turning in, say, their own family members versus random strangers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think it really counts as whataboutism. That's generally meant as a way to distract from an issue. In this case, however, if people are saying that the descendants of Wronged Group A deserve taxpayer money as compensation for historical oppression, then the question of why Wronged Groups B, C and D don't similarly deserve taxpayer money as compensation seems to me to be valid and on point.

Which, if I dare reference the OP, is what I'm trying to accomplish here. Reparations creates a muddled mess of drawing lines and getting people upset or triggered.

So, can we address the issues without using the word "reparations", and instead deal with problems brought forth by such problems, such as living in homes with poison in the paint. Viable fixes that improve the national infrastructure and reduce poisons in the blood of poor children's brains (potentially helping with crime levels). The government reduced my tax bill a little to put insulation in the home. Can't it help and pay the bill to get poison out of the paint of the homes of poor people?

OK, I had missed the context of what the thread was about. You should probably use the word "repairs" instead because "reparations" generally refers to other stuff.

The OP was pretty fucking clear.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

OK, I had missed the context of what the thread was about. You should probably use the word "repairs" instead because "reparations" generally refers to other stuff.

The OP was pretty fucking clear.

Ya, but then the discussion got derailed despite that due to the poor wording.

 

[ruby sparks]

The OP was pretty fucking clear.

I think that because you brought reparations into it, some people, including me, thought that you were essentially saying that doing this would in effect be a sort of reparations in a way, or a way of doing something which would particularly help those that reparations are normally talked about in relation to.

Which to me personally was sort of ok (the way I interpreted it I mean, which may have been different from the way you meant it). I do not fully subscribe to 'whatever you do, don't mention the R word', whether it be race or reparations. In some ways I partly do, for a variety of reasons.

In any case, opponents of doing anything that even hints at being motivated partly by race repairs or whatever we call it will say that it is being done by proxy anyway. Though a lot of the time I'm not sure what the problem with that is.

 

[dismal]

Yes, but we shouldn't do it for race reasons. Because housing conditions have nothing to do with race.

They have everything to do with economic class, though... and that is also correlated to race... so indirectly related.

Actually white people can generally pull out their White Privilege card and receive high quality housing for 72 cents on the dollar.

Oh wait, that's my Male Privilege card.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sen. Mitch McConnell's great-great-grandfathers owned 14 slaves, bringing reparations issue close to home

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said recently he opposes paying government reparations to the descendants of American slaves, has a family history deeply entwined in the issue: Two of his great-great-grandfathers were slave owners, U.S. census records show.

The two great-great-grandfathers, James McConnell and Richard Daley, owned a total of at least 14 slaves in Limestone County, Alabama — all but two of them female, according to the county “Slave Schedules” in the 1850 and 1860 censuses.

The details about McConnell’s ancestors, discovered by NBC News through a search of ancestry and census records, came in the wake of recent hearings on reparations before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Asked about the reparations issue, McConnell, R-Ky., said he was opposed to the idea, arguing it would be hard to figure out whom to compensate.

 

[SLD]

Sen. Mitch McConnell's great-great-grandfathers owned 14 slaves, bringing reparations issue close to home

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said recently he opposes paying government reparations to the descendants of American slaves, has a family history deeply entwined in the issue: Two of his great-great-grandfathers were slave owners, U.S. census records show.

The two great-great-grandfathers, James McConnell and Richard Daley, owned a total of at least 14 slaves in Limestone County, Alabama — all but two of them female, according to the county “Slave Schedules” in the 1850 and 1860 censuses.

The details about McConnell’s ancestors, discovered by NBC News through a search of ancestry and census records, came in the wake of recent hearings on reparations before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Asked about the reparations issue, McConnell, R-Ky., said he was opposed to the idea, arguing it would be hard to figure out whom to compensate.

I saw this too, but it is utterly irrelevant. We are not our ancestors. I suspect all of us have answers who owned slaves at some point in our history. My family did. And I'm a civil rights lawyer. Hell, I've had ancestors in the Klan too! What your ancestors did is utterly irrelevant to who you are. You make your own life and your own choices. That should be the only thing we should be ever judged on. I don't like Mitch McConnell for a whole bunch of reasons. But that he had southern ancestors who owned slaves is utterly irrelevant to his faults today - which are numerous.

SLD

ETA: His family is from North Alabama and according to the records they owned 4 or 5 slaves a piece. Not very much by the standards of the day, where hundreds often worked on large plantations. But this is probably typical for north Alabama; it's never been a cotton growing area and there are no large plantation antebellum homes (although Huntsville downtown has some). The economy up there just didn't support much slavery, like east Tennessee it is too hilly and mountainous for such type of farming. As a result the people in those areas were generally opposed to secession. In fact, Winston County, just south of that area famously seceded from Alabama during the Civil War and many people from that area joined the Union Army, not the Confederate one. However, the famed 4th Alabama Regiment is from that area. It was very divided. So it might be that McConnell's slave owning ancestors were unionists. Maybe. Bears further research but only for historical purposes.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I saw this too, but it is utterly irrelevant. We are not our ancestors. I suspect all of us have answers who owned slaves at some point in our history. My family did. And I'm a civil rights lawyer. Hell, I've had ancestors in the Klan too! What your ancestors did is utterly irrelevant to who you are. You make your own life and your own choices. That should be the only thing we should be ever judged on. I don't like Mitch McConnell for a whole bunch of reasons. But that he had southern ancestors who owned slaves is utterly irrelevant to his faults today - which are numerous.

Absolutely this. Inherited sin is a morally bankrupt concept whether its coming from bible pushers or anybody else. You are guilty for what your ancestor did. You are not guilty for what people who are your race or gender or sexual orientation did either. You are responsible for what you do.

Likewise, you are not owed anything for hardship that didn't happen to you, just because it did happen to somebody who was your ancestor or is your gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.

If you want "reparations" you better be able to show that YOU were wronged personally as an individual.

 

[Trausti]

On the issue of reparations, should the children of crime victims be permitted to sue the children of crime offenders for reparations?

 

[Gospel]

I saw this too, but it is utterly irrelevant. We are not our ancestors. I suspect all of us have answers who owned slaves at some point in our history. My family did. And I'm a civil rights lawyer. Hell, I've had ancestors in the Klan too! What your ancestors did is utterly irrelevant to who you are. You make your own life and your own choices. That should be the only thing we should be ever judged on. I don't like Mitch McConnell for a whole bunch of reasons. But that he had southern ancestors who owned slaves is utterly irrelevant to his faults today - which are numerous.

Absolutely this. Inherited sin is a morally bankrupt concept whether its coming from bible pushers or anybody else. You are guilty for what your ancestor did. You are not guilty for what people who are your race or gender or sexual orientation did either. You are responsible for what you do.

Likewise, you are not owed anything for hardship that didn't happen to you, just because it did happen to somebody who was your ancestor or is your gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.

If you want "reparations" you better be able to show that YOU were wronged personally as an individual.

So why don't we handle everything inherited the same? For example inheriting money from rich parents? I mean we are not our parents. I suspect all of us have answers who earned the money at some point in our history. What your parents did is utterly irrelevant to who you are. You make your own life and your own money.That should be the only thing we should be ever judged on.

 

[Politesse]

On the issue of reparations, should the children of crime victims be permitted to sue the children of crime offenders for reparations?

No. But if an institution enabled the rape, they have every right to sue that institution on their parents' behalf.

 

[Gospel]

On the issue of reparations, should the children of crime victims be permitted to sue the children of crime offenders for reparations?

If they currently benefit in some way from the offense? Sure. For example if the children of said crime offenders were put through school using funds from said offense and their current financial success is the end result.

 

[Mumbles]

Sen. Mitch McConnell's great-great-grandfathers owned 14 slaves, bringing reparations issue close to home

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said recently he opposes paying government reparations to the descendants of American slaves, has a family history deeply entwined in the issue: Two of his great-great-grandfathers were slave owners, U.S. census records show.

The two great-great-grandfathers, James McConnell and Richard Daley, owned a total of at least 14 slaves in Limestone County, Alabama — all but two of them female, according to the county “Slave Schedules” in the 1850 and 1860 censuses.

The details about McConnell’s ancestors, discovered by NBC News through a search of ancestry and census records, came in the wake of recent hearings on reparations before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Asked about the reparations issue, McConnell, R-Ky., said he was opposed to the idea, arguing it would be hard to figure out whom to compensate.

Mildly interesting in that, for all his complaints about how he wasn't around for slavery, he still inherited the wages of it, but ultimately unimportant; but not for the "we don't inherit the sins" reason given below. It's absurd to say that stolen goods are somehow laundered simply by passing them down. Rather, it's for the reason stated by Ta-Nehisi Coates:

It is tempting to divorce this modern campaign of terror, of plunder, from enslavement, but the logic of enslavement, of white supremacy, respects no such borders and the guard of bondage was lustful and begat many heirs. Coup d’états and convict leasing. Vagrancy laws and debt peonage. Redlining and racist G.I. bills. Poll taxes and state-sponsored terrorism. We grant that Mr. McConnell was not alive for Appomattox. But he was alive for the electrocution of George Stinney. He was alive for the blinding of Isaac Woodard. He was alive to witness kleptocracy in his native Alabama and a regime premised on electoral theft. Majority Leader McConnell cited civil-rights legislation yesterday, as well he should, because he was alive to witness the harassment, jailing, and betrayal of those responsible for that legislation by a government sworn to protect them. He was alive for the redlining of Chicago and the looting of black homeowners of some $4 billion. Victims of that plunder are very much alive today. I am sure they’d love a word with the majority leader.

What they know, what this committee must know, is that while emancipation dead-bolted the door against the bandits of America, Jim Crow wedged the windows wide open. And that is the thing about Senator McConnell’s “something”: It was 150 years ago. And it was right now.

Again, this is not about individual punishment, it's about redress to a group of people who have been grievously harmed both by government action in taking part in theft, and by government inaction in refusing to protect against it.