sad to say it, but I'm slowly coming around on reparations

So you don't believe in it, but will do it for the good of all people. You are a big person.

Really? This is what you came up with? wrote:

So you don't believe in it, but will do it for the good of all people. You are a big person.

I legitimately can't tell if you are mocking me or praising me.

bonkers! wrote:

Really? This is what you came up with? wrote:

So you don't believe in it, but will do it for the good of all people. You are a big person.

I legitimately can't tell if you are mocking me or praising me.

I'm pretty sure that he should be mocking you. There isn't any reason for him to be praising you.

One question I have is what if you're 50% black, or 16% black. Also, what if you're RICH AF? What about native americans?

I used to hate the idea of reparations, until I read some sensible proposals. Reparations might not look like what everyone thinks. Most people who know what they are talking about (black or white) know it would be preposterous to give every black person $300k cash. You would have to determine who is black and "deserves" reparations. This would make everyone angry.

The better alternative that has been floated is massive investment in the black community. Things like grants for black artists, donations to black museums and cultural institutions, scholarships and small business loans, public health outreach to the black community. New parks and community initiatives. In that way reparations don't just "pay" people, it strengthens their lives and makes the world better for EVERYONE by lifting up black people and sharing black culture.

The problem with just paying money is it actually cheapens racism. Its says "this is how much your life is worth, and now that you have money you can't complain." Investment in the black community says "we know your life has worth, and that is why we are investing in you!"

I'm good with 14 trillion dollars.

All of those things you are advocating for have been going on for years. A better plan would be to give incentives to not have kids outside of wedlock or incentives / reduced tax rates for couples that stay married. Those two things would do far more than anything you are advocating.

bonkers! wrote:

not because it's the right thing to do from a moral perspective, but it probably needs to happen at some point to prevent a complete revolution / overthrow of the government.

it's not going to be fun.

I am completely offended by the idea that reparations should be paid that will come out of my pocket for things that happened decades before I was born or before anyone of my ancestors came to this country.

If we do reparations do you think anything will change? It will not, there will be a short change then things will go back to normal and those who were paid reparations will complain that it wasn't enough and demand more. It will also create resentment between the races and lead to others demanding more of each other.

Not my regular Handle wrote:

bonkers! wrote:

not because it's the right thing to do from a moral perspective, but it probably needs to happen at some point to prevent a complete revolution / overthrow of the government.

it's not going to be fun.

I am completely offended by the idea that reparations should be paid that will come out of my pocket for things that happened decades before I was born or before anyone of my ancestors came to this country.

If we do reparations do you think anything will change? It will not, there will be a short change then things will go back to normal and those who were paid reparations will complain that it wasn't enough and demand more. It will also create resentment between the races and lead to others demanding more of each other.

The argument for reparations is that even though you weren't around segregation/Jim Crow/slavery etc, you've benefited from those institutions at the expense of black people (as a group). An intellectually honest person would have to agree that there is at least some degree of truth in that idea.

Why the current reparations argument fails, though, is that it ignores the millions of white people in poverty and the millions of wealthy or upper middle class black individuals in its analysis. Should a unemployed white factory worker living under the poverty line be responsible for re-paying a wealthy black family for his privilege? Of course not.

Also, the question of who will pay and who will receive. Do ALL black people get reparations? Does a Nigerian immigrant working in a high-paying finance job get paid? Do ALL white people need to pay up - the first generation Polish immigrant cleaning toilets at $9/hour? What about mixed-race people?

So, the conclusion I've reached is that reparations will need to come in some other form, but I haven't heard a good argument for what that should be.

comedyrelief wrote:

All of those things you are advocating for have been going on for years. A better plan would be to give incentives to not have kids outside of wedlock or incentives / reduced tax rates for couples that stay married. Those two things would do far more than anything you are advocating.

Please, explain more. The birth rate for Black women is the same as the general birth rate, so you can't be advocating for fewer Black babies. And there are more children living with single white parents than there are living with single Black parents. So you can't be talking about a volume problem.

So the only other possibility is that reason you might think this is an adequate solution is that single Black mothers are less equipped than single white mothers to take care of their children.

Why might that be?

I’m down. 40 acres and a mule. I think there is enough land in Alaska. Offer it up to slave family descendants. If they don’t want it they can try to sell it.

bonkers! wrote:

Why the current reparations argument fails, though, is that it ignores the millions of white people in poverty and the millions of wealthy or upper middle class black individuals in its analysis. Should a unemployed white factory worker living under the poverty line be responsible for re-paying a wealthy black family for his privilege? Of course not.

why not? Reparations specifically addressed compensation for past misdeeds. Whether a family was able to succeed despite its limitations, or whether a white family blew its advantage, doesn't undo the misdeeds that occurred before either of those things happened.

Reparation, as a concept, has nothing to do with whether the victim needs it, or whether the perpetrator can afford to pay it.

I’d be in favor of it for all races. Kids do best when there are two parents around. If you look at unwed births, income, and crime, there is a strong correlation. Ultimately incentives like I described would decrease crime and lessen taxes overall.

comedyrelief wrote:

I’d be in favor of it for all races. Kids do best when there are two parents around. If you look at unwed births, income, and crime, there is a strong correlation. Ultimately incentives like I described would decrease crime and lessen taxes overall.

That has nothing to do with the discussion, which is reparations.

White man's eyes see all wrote:

bonkers! wrote:

Why the current reparations argument fails, though, is that it ignores the millions of white people in poverty and the millions of wealthy or upper middle class black individuals in its analysis. Should a unemployed white factory worker living under the poverty line be responsible for re-paying a wealthy black family for his privilege? Of course not.

why not? Reparations specifically addressed compensation for past misdeeds. Whether a family was able to succeed despite its limitations, or whether a white family blew its advantage, doesn't undo the misdeeds that occurred before either of those things happened.

Reparation, as a concept, has nothing to do with whether the victim needs it, or whether the perpetrator can afford to pay it.

"Reparation, as a concept, has nothing to do with whether the victim needs it, or whether the perpetrator can afford to pay it." - this is an interesting perspective. What is the point of reparations then?

Also you failed to address who needs to pay whom - are first generation European immigrants cleaning toilets for $9/hour benefiting from the legacy of Jim Crow/slavery? Do mixed race people get reparations? Do first generation African immigrants get reparations?

24% of white children live in single parent households.

65% of black children live in single parent households.

bonkers! wrote:

not because it's the right thing to do from a moral perspective, but it probably needs to happen at some point to prevent a complete revolution / overthrow of the government.

it's not going to be fun.

I wouldn't say categorically that there's never ever any reason to do reparations, but if your goal is appeasement then it won't work. At best it will just buy you some more time. A little time down the road when it becomes apparent that the reparations didn't magically turn the black community into a perfect utopia, they're just going to come back and say that it wasn't enough and start over right back where we were.

Look into the current situation between South Korea and Japan over the "comfort women" if you want a good real-life example of how this type of situation plays out. The short, simplified version is that after WW2 there was a point where everything was basically considered settled. But then later after more information about the comfort women situation came to light and into public knowledge, there was a lot of outcry from South Korea saying that the matter was not settled because the full extent of it was not publicly known at the time when everything was considered settled. This led to long-running tensions between South Korea and Japan for many years, and eventually Japan agreed to a deal to pay a bunch of money and do a bunch of other stuff to settle the matter. Presumably there was some disagreement in South Korea even at the time about whether Japan had done enough, but certainly over time public opinion has shifted to the point where the predominant view is that the South Korean government at the time had compromised too much and not demanded enough. So now South Korea is right back to holding a massive grudge against Japan and bringing this issue up in every single trade negotiation and boycotting Japanese products and protesting outside Japanese embassy and even putting a pretty stark memorial statue right outside facing the Japanese embassy. So yeah, Japan tried caving in and making a deal to pay off the South Koreans to settle the matter, but it failed spectacularly because South Korea changed its mind later and decided that the deal they agreed to wasn't enough.

24% vs 65% wrote:

White man's eyes see all wrote:

Please, explain more. The birth rate for Black women is the same as the general birth rate, so you can't be advocating for fewer Black babies. And there are more children living with single white parents than there are living with single Black parents. So you can't be talking about a volume problem.

So the only other possibility is that reason you might think this is an adequate solution is that single Black mothers are less equipped than single white mothers to take care of their children.

Why might that be?

24% of white children live in single parent households.

65% of black children live in single parent households.

That's a percentage. That works if you need to make a chart for something.

But there are more children living in white single-parent households than in Black ones, so all your percentages show is there are a lot more married white people. Which has nothing to do with this conversation.

White man's eyes see all wrote:

24% vs 65% wrote:

24% of white children live in single parent households.

65% of black children live in single parent households.

That's a percentage. That works if you need to make a chart for something.

But there are more children living in white single-parent households than in Black ones, so all your percentages show is there are a lot more married white people. Which has nothing to do with this conversation.

Your ability to think appears to be close to nil.

Percentages are all that matter. Providing incentives to get married and stay married for folks with children would have a far larger impact on the black community than on the white community because of the massive difference in percentage today. And that was the point that the individual who proposed such incentives was making.

Try to think. Even if just a little. It will help the conversation. And I promise, it won't be too painful.