A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
June 20, 2005The Debate That Won't Go AwayDarryl Fears has an article in today's Washington Post covering a topic that seems to come up ever year or so--reparations for slavery. Wachovia Corporation, one of the largest banks in the nation, has recently discovered that two banks that it purchased were involved in the slave trade during the 1800's. Most of the involvement was restricted to using slaves as collateral for loans, but in the instances where those loans defaulted, those two predecessor banks repossesed the slaves and sold them to recover their losses. This announcement has followed on the heels of previous admissions from leading finance and insurance companies, including Aetna, J.P. Morgan & Company, Lloyds of London, and numerous others that their firms--or firms that they have purchased--were somehow involved in exploitation of African-Americans leading up to the Civil War. Although a 2000 lawsuit against Aetna and various other corporations was thrown out of court, many backers of reparations continue the fight. That lawsuit, if it had gone forward, would have most likely asked for about $1 trillion dollars in damages--a figure that certainly would get anyone's attention. Many companies, while expressly stating their opposition to reparations, have begun to fund scholarships at traditionally black colleges, and invest in inner-city neighborhoods--all attempts to show their desire to distance themselves from their past. While many of the inequities for African-Americans that still persist in modern society can perhaps be traced to slavery, I'm not sure cash payouts are the answer. In fact, I'm not yet sure that the government should be involved at all. Instead, I think the steps that have been taken--shaming, so to speak--are productive. They have, in some cases, led companies to involve themselves in equalizing the playing fields within the communities they service. Scholarships, inner city investments, and adopt-a-school programs are some of the ways that can be done. I'm not sure that the end result of cash payouts would produce the results that supporters say they want. (Rosewood, Fl--a small city about 15 miles from where I grew up--is mentioned in the article. What became of the $1.8 million that the State of Florida paid out in 1994 would be an interesting case study.) On the opposite end, many Americans argue that they cannot be punished for sins that our ancestors committed well over 140 years ago. Polls show that over 90% of white Americans and rougly 50% of black Americans are opposed to reparations. Would cash heal the wounds of the past? Comments
Other than the part about holding the people who didn't do the wrongs responsible, and the part about providing redress to those who didn't actually directly experience the wrongs, this seems like a splendid idea to me. Posted by: bk at June 20, 2005 10:52 AMNot only would cash not heal the wounds of the past, it would rip them wide open and likely inflict more wounds. And, not unrelatedly, who would get how much of the money? Imagine the fight over that. Posted by: WHQ at June 20, 2005 11:59 AMI would think that the most legal traction for the reparations movement would come from asking for the 40 acres and a mule (plus interest) the government promised but did not deliver to African Americans who fought for the Union. Otherwise, seeking general reparations can only be more divisive than working for peace and justice in the present. If there was moral justification for reparations, the Union dead and maimed have paid this debt, in excess, while freeing the slaves Posted by: tmitch at June 20, 2005 04:51 PMWhile many of the inequities for African-Americans that still persist in modern society can perhaps be traced to slavery, I'm not sure cash payouts are the answer. Two comments. First: the inequities for African-Americans that still persist can in fact be traced to slavery. There's no "perhaps" about it. I hope you're not implying that perhaps blacks are genetically inferior. Second: I'm sure that cash payouts are not the answer. Posted by: Oberon at June 20, 2005 06:37 PMOberon, Did I say that they were genetically inferior? Thank you, I didn't think so. That's the problem...people try to imply and twist...read it as written...don't try to twist it. Posted by: AR at June 20, 2005 08:09 PMAR, Did I say that you said that blacks were genetically inferior? No, I did not. I read your statement exactly as written. That's why quoted you. You clearly stated that some, and perhaps many or all, inequities faced by African-Americans cannot be traced to slavery. I was pretty sure you did not mean to imply that genetics is the problem, which is why I used the phrase "I hope you're not implying..." Which, I admit, is an obnoxious way of criticizing your writing style. So, I apologize for being obnoxious. If I may offer some humble advice, drop the "many of" "perhaps" and "I'm not sure". You have an admirably precise style of writing, but do you really think that cash payments might be the answer? C'mon, man, it's a blog. Take a stand. Posted by: Oberon at June 20, 2005 10:53 PMBack in my younger days, I joined my share of demonstrations where we chanted (among other things) "No Justice, No Peace." In fact, that chant is usually exactly wrong. You can have justice or peace. Choose. Justice is offended when those who have been mistreated--or are suffering because of mistreatment--remain uncompensated. Peace is impossible when we uncover old wounds and try to treat them once again. So we must choose: Justice or Peace? We can try to fix the past, usually at the expense of modern-day innocents who share some common trait with yesterday's perpetrators. We can try to move forward to the best possible futures, leaving past injustices unresolved. We can't do both. Choice sucks. Welcome to life. Posted by: The Informationist at June 20, 2005 11:04 PMIf I may offer some humble advice, drop the "many of" "perhaps" and "I'm not sure". You have an admirably precise style of writing, but do you really think that cash payments might be the answer? C'mon, man, it's a blog. Take a stand. Oberon, many of us would disagree. I'm not sure that this a good approach. Perhaps you're being too absolutist? :-) Seriously though, I think it's such qualifications that allow us to avoid the level of flaming and trolling that other sites experience. It happens here, but not as much as elsewhere, IMO. Speaking for myself and likely many of the other regulars, we're interested in exploration and discussion, which is at least in theory a bit different from taking a stand and defending it. That said, I agree that the roots of racism can be traced back at least as far as slavery. Since I give Abel the benefit of the doubt as a regular, I took his qualifiers to be shorthand for the idea that some 140 years later, racism's endurance might not be exclusively attributable to slavery. Oberon, Thanks for the comments. I'm always open to suggestions. I intended the final sentence as a rhetorical question, placed there to urge the reader to ponder that exact thought. When I write, I've not always felt the need to explicity answer the underlying question...rather I simply lay out the facts, ask the question, and leave the choice to the reader. I left the window open with the use of "perhaps," because I'm just not someone who makes blanket statements. (I do not believe in the superiority of any race...I come from a mixed family myself, so I hardly hold to that type of belief.) Once again, thanks for the comments...just wanted to explain some of my thoughts. When I typed my response last night, I was doing several things at once, actually didn't realize I had even posted it until this morning...lol. (I'm not typically good at multi-tasking.) Oberon, what you're implying is that the only possible reason for inequities is slavery, and that saying otherwise is to claim racial inferiority. Beg to respectfully disagree, on both counts. False dichotomy. Nothing is that simple. Racism and other cultural idiocies have never really needed any helping hands to flourish as sources of racial/cultural inequity. Look to Eastern Europe and the Middle East and Africa of today. Or jump back sixty years and change, and remember the 11 million dead in the Holocaust, 6 million of them Jewish. Don't mistake the symptoms for the disease itself. Posted by: Tully at June 21, 2005 11:29 AMReparations in nearly any form is unpractical. Having said that, however, I do believe this country as a whole, built on the backs of both slaves and free men, has an obligation. This would clearly be an opportunity to get several birds with one stone. We could ease our collective guilt by applying funds, in the name of reparation, not to Americans, but Africa, and Native Americans-after all, if we're going to start feeling guilty, might as well start at the beginning- Imagine if this administration actually kept it's promise to Africa, to help. We can't save the millions of slaves dead over a hundred years, but we can, maybe, save millions of people alive today. Posted by: Ryan at June 21, 2005 02:44 PMHow much of an obligation do we have? African per capita GDP: $1,700 – $2,400. African-American per capita GDP: $25,000 African lifespan: 49-52 years. African-American lifespan: 71 years. Posted by: ROA at June 21, 2005 03:41 PMWell, that question brings us back full circle... how much obligation would the government, and thus, the tax payer, have to African Americans for reparations? At the least, I would say we have the obligation to try, to get HIV fighting drugs there... at the most, I would say we have the obligation to wipe out HIV and AIDS in Africa and across the globe. I imagine we'll tend toward the former. Posted by: Ryan at June 21, 2005 03:56 PMMy concern with reparations exists on several different levels. To begin with, I'm not convinced that forcing today's Caucasian decendants to pay for sins that they did not personally commit would solve the problem. If anything, I would be concerned that it might instill deeper resentment between the races. Secondly, where does it end? I'm sure there are die-hard descendents of the South who would ask that they be compensated for the land that was stripped from them at the end of the war. It's just a vicious cycle that goes on and on. That's why I think it's so important that these companies participate in improving the communities that they serve. I don't think it should be legislated, but I certainly think that the government could encourage via tax incentives and the like. Posted by: AR at June 21, 2005 04:08 PMROA has hit on the key point. If their ancestors had not suffered through the institution of slavery today's African-Americans would be African-Africans and they would be much worse off. Posted by: Alf at June 21, 2005 06:53 PMhow much obligation would the government, and thus, the tax payer, have to African Americans for reparations?Wow. That strikes me as one of the biggest non sequiturs I've seen in a while. How does the U.S. Government's alleged "obligation" to a subset of its citizens lead to "wiping out AIDS ... across the globe"? Also, I find the idea that the U.S. has some sort of unique "obligation" to "wipe out AIDS", well, odd. David, You must have missed the fact that we are responsible for all of the world's problems. They didn't teach you that in school? Posted by: AR at June 22, 2005 09:22 AMYou cannot have reparations without separation, in other words, you cannot have your 40 acres without the mule. Racism is still a virus that runs thru America's vienns, BUT many of the problems of not only African-Americans but ALL Americans are moral in nature not social. If you look at the poverty rates you'll see a pattern that most families in poverty are headed by single women who had children before being married. I'm a moderate or "centrist" democrat who can honestly state that my party has actually increased poverty by not speaking out on these issues which has lead to a hard core pocket of poverty. When these so-called leaders of the African-American community start addressing these issues along side of reparations then we'll get somewhere Posted by: Paul at June 22, 2005 10:24 AMDavid- see my earlier post at 2:44 pm 6/21. Essentially, I argued that rather than struggle to define who does or doesn't get reparations in the US, and how much, that money would be better spent easing national "guilt" by aiding a developing community, i.e. Africa, or even certain Native American communities within the US. -they have just as much a claim against the White Man as any African American- Posted by: Ryan at June 22, 2005 03:22 PMI agree with you Ryan, the money could be used to erase debt owed by African nations. But as far as I see it most African-American leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton only give lip-service to Africa. They only bring it up to stir racial tensions here in the U.S. Posted by: Paul at June 22, 2005 09:02 PMthat money would be better spent easing national "guilt" by aiding a developing community, i.e. Africa, or even certain Native American communitiesI'd rather that the U.S. spend scarce funds doing something useful, rather than trying to "ease guilt". Frankly, that sounds like a to great way tranfer millions of dollars to thugs and petty tyrants, while accomplishing very little of use. In terms of obligation, I would argue that Native Americans have by far the greatest claim on the government - Africa has none at all. Posted by: David Fleck at June 22, 2005 10:40 PMYo. Word. We seem to be making up for it in casino licenses. Posted by: Tully at June 22, 2005 11:14 PMyeah... if only that money was actually going to Native Americans... Posted by: Ryan at June 22, 2005 11:24 PMI'd rather that the U.S. spend scarce funds doing something useful, rather than trying to "ease guilt". Yup. In my opinion, that's one of our biggest problems. We love to dole out those funds...just one big problem. As long as we are running a deficit, there really aren't any funds, right? It's like charging your donation to United Way on your credit card. Most financial professionals wouldn't recommend it. Posted by: AR at June 22, 2005 11:45 PM |
Archives
January 2006
December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
A Pattern to Break...
Friday Open Thread 50 State Centrist Strategy Republican Division, Even in Texas Opposites Attract? The End of Insight? Is the Party Over? Hugo Goes to Economics Camp Obligatory Rose Bowl Thread White Washing History
|
