These Church must make reparations for the sins of their past.
None of those people did anything to anyone and its just an excuse for the normal resentment to go fanatic. "Permission" to act like blm.
What was the study in despicably "early childhood psychology" is how the govt simply pulled it out of a hat and they all ate it right up and proved there is not one bit of truth to their whole social (imploding) system and they are as easily directed to indulge in gross hypocrisy as antifa and blm here.
There isn't even anyone left alive to blame and nobody owes anybody anything, unless people today are still supposed to pay for WW1. Its completely psychotic, juvenile and mindless frenzy. Lowest iq scale on the totem pole, comparable to countries on other continents where they are as paleo as it gets and must rave and rage. Afghanistan street mob level.
They should look at what that grotesque stunt was a distraction from? The adult intelligent ones are.
I made it through - just. For me, it was a little thick on "human interest" story and thin on a lot of details and nuance that I think are important to the discussion. They did a decent job but I have a lot of questions about details. That said, if a city wants to vote in "reparations", a case could certainly be made - though I still have a lot of problems with it. Federally however, I see no reasonable path. I'm willing to listen but I remain pretty skeptical.
Are there any instances that you see where reparations might be good? For me the canabis one is a gold star example because the war on drugs really fucked things up so bad and I believe that it isn't a situation where we the gov can apologies and everyone move on and be ok with what happened. I think it's the same for the indigenous cultural genocide thing too.
Me personally think reparations need to be made but I'm like you, I focus on the details how it's being done to have my vote for it. In my city I support reparation initiatives like pumping extra money into poor schools and expunging non violent drug charges. If your curious why please DM me I'd be happy to explain my thinking.
Good, aside, I'm not sure that reparations are tenable. Let's leave aside the question of indians or indigenous peoples, etc, which seems to be a pretty important part of this concept. How are reparations employed? How are those responsible determined? Does one get reparations because their great grandparent was enslaved? What if they are, say, Americans of Jamaican descent? Their ancestors enslaved by the British but not people in the U.S.? What if the one eligible for reparations has an income higher, even considerably so, than those paying out those reparations? Doesn't this imply that slavery was not a barrier to, for example, economic success? What about "white" families who must pay reparations who have also lived through generational poverty? I can't say this with certainty but I would imagine there are considerably more white people in poverty in the U.S. than any other "race" (Fwiw, race is farce. A social construct that we would all benefit from it's demise). Are people being payed back for the harms wrought by failed drug policy? Isn't everyone a victim of this? If that's the measure, wouldn't you only pay reparations to those incarcerated due to drug prohibition?
I have a lot more where that came from.
Here is an interesting "discussion". It's Ta-Nehisi Coates and Coleman Hughes presenting arguments in front of Congress on whether reparations, as noted within a particular bill brought, should be enacted. I won't lie that I am endlessly impressed with Hughes. I think he's about 21, maybe as much as 24 in this video, which is several years old now. I have listened to a lot of what he has to say about multiple topics. Coates, while eloquent, doesn't sway me...in almost any of his content. I only say this so that my "biases" are laid bare.
You bring up really good points. If considered reparations you really gotta consider it all.
Good, aside, I'm not sure that reparations are tenable. Let's leave aside the question of indians or indigenous peoples, etc, which seems to be a pretty important part of this concept. How are reparations employed?
I imagine it being like an all encompassing public aid plan that has many assets including but not limited to some economic stimulus. It could look like redistributing funds in a cities school network where undeserved schools get the funds they need. It could look like expunging criminal records so people can get better jobs. It could be providing some cannabis business license to poor people instead of only rich people. I know it might seem cray but I see reparations being carried out in these ways. As you see I don't really think of cash stimulus but I could see how it could be helpful.
I doubt its tenable but I dream!
How are those responsible determined?
While people have different ideas of this I think the most fair is based on class. Notice how all the things I think of reparations aren't about race and apply more to class. Modern reparations would be about modern racism like the war on drugs for instance. It's easy to see now that the war on drugs has really hurt poor people the most and most of the arrest are for cannabis. I highly support portions of a canabis tax going twords raising poor communities up.
Does one get reparations because their great grandparent was enslaved?
If reparations were ever made for slavery then I would think something like that yeah. However I think that racial reparations would be better suited with a more modern flare like : sorry for always antagonizing you in society, instead of sorry for slavery.
What if they are, say, Americans of Jamaican descent?
Well lets say your and American Jamaican and you got locked up for canabis 4 years ago. You're conviction is gone and you can get more jobs now. Even white people would benefit! Hell yeah there's lots of love to go around and even white people are getting helped out.
What about "white" families who must pay reparations who have also lived through generational poverty?
Nope. Were all allied! All people in generational poverty would be helped out.
I can't say this with certainty but I would imagine there are considerably more white people in poverty in the U.S. than any other "race" (Fwiw, race is farce. A social construct that we would all benefit from it's demise).
I think this answers your question:
"
In fall 2017, the percentage of public school students in high-poverty schools was higher than the percentage in low-poverty schools (25 vs. 21 percent), and both percentages varied by race/ethnicity. The percentages of students who attended high-poverty schools were highest for Black and Hispanic students (45 percent each), followed by American Indian/Alaska Native students (41 percent), Pacific Islander students (24 percent), students of Two or more races (18 percent), Asian students (15 percent), and White students (8 percent). In contrast, the percentages of students who attended low-poverty schools were higher for Asian students (39 percent), White students (31 percent), and students of Two or more races (23 percent) than for Pacific Islander students (12 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native students (8 percent), Hispanic students (8 percent), and Black students (7 percent).
"
Are people being payed back for the harms wrought by failed drug policy? Isn't everyone a victim of this? If that's the measure, wouldn't you only pay reparations to those incarcerated due to drug prohibition?
YES
Here is an interesting "discussion". It's Ta-Nehisi Coates and Coleman Hughes presenting arguments in front of Congress on whether reparations, as noted within a particular bill brought, should be enacted. I won't lie that I am endlessly impressed with Hughes. I think he's about 21, maybe as much as 24 in this video, which is several years old now. I have listened to a lot of what he has to say about multiple topics. Coates, while eloquent, doesn't sway me...in almost any of his content. I only say this so that my "biases" are laid bare.
When Coates was writing for The Atlantic and they still had a comment section he personally banned me from their whole platform for asking questions about how indigenous populations figured into reparations calculus (I asked my questions under one of his opinion pieces) and where everyone eligible for them should be placed in line (who gets paid or whatever first?). He engaged with my initial comment rather condescendingly since I wasn't towing the line he was trying to sell but then he simply deleted my follow-up question (which was entirely reasonable) and banned me. So I don't take him seriously (I would probably have a higher opinion of him now if he'd just ignored my questions altogether).
Are there any instances that you see where reparations might be good? For me the canabis one is a gold star example because the war on drugs really fucked things up so bad and I believe that it isn't a situation where we the gov can apologies and everyone move on and be ok with what happened. I think it's the same for the indigenous cultural genocide thing too.
Me personally think reparations need to be made but I'm like you, I focus on the details how it's being done to have my vote for it. In my city I support reparation initiatives like pumping extra money into poor schools and expunging non violent drug charges. If your curious why please DM me I'd be happy to explain my thinking.
That's a good point; "reparations" don't have to be cash payments. They probably can't be cash payments if the concept is to be viable at all, I'd guess.
And in the case of the insanely unjust War on (people with) Drugs we're ALL owed some reparations in the form of pardons and commutations of sentences for victimless drug crimes. We all know people who've been screwed by this insanity.
That said, it would be a great start if shit like drug war were ended today. Reparations seem to gloss over the causal factors of injustice which is another reason I think of the concept as a distraction.
It would arguably be much more productive towards achieving goals of social justice to fix the ongoing problems that maintain inequality (like the drug war, the existence of private prisons, etc.) before trying to redress injustices of the past.
Rectifying the past is not practical so long as injustice is still rampant in the present. We can't heal an injury while the injury is still being actively inflicted. But the clusterfuck that trying to do so anyway will almost certainly cause will make a bunch of lawyers a fortune and I would hope that there are at least a couple involved who aren't white. For optics, of course.
These Church must make reparations for the sins of their past.
None of those people did anything to anyone and its just an excuse for the normal resentment to go fanatic. "Permission" to act like blm.
What was the study in despicably "early childhood psychology" is how the govt simply pulled it out of a hat and they all ate it right up and proved there is not one bit of truth to their whole social (imploding) system and they are as easily directed to indulge in gross hypocrisy as antifa and blm here.
There isn't even anyone left alive to blame and nobody owes anybody anything, unless people today are still supposed to pay for WW1. Its completely psychotic, juvenile and mindless frenzy. Lowest iq scale on the totem pole, comparable to countries on other continents where they are as paleo as it gets and must rave and rage. Afghanistan street mob level.
They should look at what that grotesque stunt was a distraction from? The adult intelligent ones are.
Whatever someone's opinion of the viability of reparations for various injustices of the past happens to be, the issues involved are a lot more complicated than your characterization of them. A whole lot.
That doesn't mean that the discussion isn't being used by some as a distraction or wedge issue to divert our energy and attention away from some horrible crime that's taking place in the present, but an issue being hijacked for propaganda purposes by those who have hidden agendas doesn't mean the issue is invalid or bogus, either.
I think TVC pretty much has it with this being a red-herring argument.
The division is endless. United, we can do something better.
My ancestors were here when Columbus arrived. If anyone is due compensation, we're first in line. However, my family never taught me to wait around for a handout. Instead we were taught to make the best of what we have available. My great grandmother (who I knew while she was alive) was forced to march the Trail of Tears when she was nine years old. Once on the rez.....children were stuck into "Indian School" where they were stripped of culture. None of my family ever talks about this. I've only read about it in tribal histories. We don't dwell on the past and look to the future.
I am light-skinned, blue-eyed, brown hair - and a card-carrying member of a federally recognized tribe. To pass me on the street you might identify me as one of the "entitled" white folks at a glance. Just goes to show that a book can't be judged by its cover.
If I were asked for an "official" opinion, I think our energies are better spent in other areas rather than parsing-out reparations.
TVCasualty, August West, Juthro and 1 other like this
When Coates was writing for The Atlantic and they still had a comment section he personally banned me from their whole platform for asking questions about how indigenous populations figured into reparations calculus (I asked my questions under one of his opinion pieces) and where everyone eligible for them should be placed in line (who gets paid or whatever first?). He engaged with my initial comment rather condescendingly since I wasn't towing the line he was trying to sell but then he simply deleted my follow-up question (which was entirely reasonable) and banned me. So I don't take him seriously (I would probably have a higher opinion of him now if he'd just ignored my questions altogether).
There's a disturbing pattern of thinkers (I use that liberally in some cases) who's controversial ideas appear to be being ushered into practice without running those ideas up against rhetorical opposition. There's a few other folks occupying a similar space in the, for lack of a better phrase, culture wars. Several even have far less compelling narratives than Coates. Of course, why would you accept the challenge to debate your ideas when they are built on such a shaky foundation?
When Coates was writing for The Atlantic and they still had a comment section he personally banned me from their whole platform for asking questions about how indigenous populations figured into reparations calculus (I asked my questions under one of his opinion pieces) and where everyone eligible for them should be placed in line (who gets paid or whatever first?). He engaged with my initial comment rather condescendingly since I wasn't towing the line he was trying to sell but then he simply deleted my follow-up question (which was entirely reasonable) and banned me. So I don't take him seriously (I would probably have a higher opinion of him now if he'd just ignored my questions altogether).
There's a disturbing pattern of thinkers (I use that liberally in some cases) who's controversial ideas appear to be being ushered into practice without running those ideas up against rhetorical opposition. There's a few other folks occupying a similar space in the, for lack of a better phrase, culture wars. Several even have far less compelling narratives than Coates. Of course, why would you accept the challenge to debate your ideas when they are built on such a shaky foundation?
That sucks TV, really a shame to his ideas that he blocked you. For someone like me your questions and criticism are intellectually challenging to respond too and sometimes I walk away. I would expect someone who is a big thinker to be able to clear up your questions.
Yeah, to hell with that brutal child-raping slaver who only got famous because he didn't know where he was.
And it was assholes like him who demonized MY ancestors as "barbarians." But mine didn't overstay their welcome, so they were model guests unlike the late-comers who showed up 500 years late to the party (the Spanish, British, French, etc.). The only thing Leif and co. fucked up was bringing Xtianity over with them, but nobody's perfect and it didn't really take on this continent the first time so no harm, no foul on that point.
When Coates was writing for The Atlantic and they still had a comment section he personally banned me from their whole platform for asking questions about how indigenous populations figured into reparations calculus (I asked my questions under one of his opinion pieces) and where everyone eligible for them should be placed in line (who gets paid or whatever first?). He engaged with my initial comment rather condescendingly since I wasn't towing the line he was trying to sell but then he simply deleted my follow-up question (which was entirely reasonable) and banned me. So I don't take him seriously (I would probably have a higher opinion of him now if he'd just ignored my questions altogether).
There's a disturbing pattern of thinkers (I use that liberally in some cases) who's controversial ideas appear to be being ushered into practice without running those ideas up against rhetorical opposition. There's a few other folks occupying a similar space in the, for lack of a better phrase, culture wars. Several even have far less compelling narratives than Coates. Of course, why would you accept the challenge to debate your ideas when they are built on such a shaky foundation?
This points to something my favorite teacher ever (a Prof. of Comparative Lit) liked to point out, that "power is the ability to make it stick."
It doesn't matter what "it" is. At all. Power is asserting that 2+2=5 and everyone else agrees. Saying "no, it's actually 4" in that context makes you a dangerous and subversive revolutionary; all of a sudden simple arithmetic isn't so boring anymore; it might even get you killed. Orwell got that part right in his warning about our impending dystopia (with Huxley nailing most of the rest).
Perhaps too complicated of an answer to give to this question considering all the different history that has evolved over centuries. But here I go.
Where is the cut off point. Perhaps you have to go country by country, case by case to asses such a thing?
Its such a complicated issue to try to talk out
People worry about a flood gate being opened when you start giving out free money so where do we figure out a cut off point to try to stave it off from never ending payback? Genuinely I wonder that, should we start at the birth of said nations? Should all peoples of all nations be seeking reparations from monarchies that ruled over us for thousands of years. If anyone who has benefited its the royal families and their immense stolen wealth. But we obsess about them and worship the ground they walk on, take pictures of them and fawn over their weddings. They drove people into poverty and kept them illiterate and easier to control. Over the course of modern history we really don't have to look hard to find instances genocide being committed either. There could be all manner of reparations honestly being paid from the last century alone. I mean the Jewish people got some form of reparations when the international body formed the state of Israel.
Don't even get me started on the Uyghurs.
But back to the west
You don't hear much talk about reparations for the Japanese folk that also had their land stolen when they were shoved into interment camps during ww2. They returned to their homes to find others had moved in and claimed it as their own. That was a dual fuck up by the two North American governments during that time. Surely they would have to be considered in there at some point as well. Then there is the slavery argument but since none of those people are alive how long do we compensate ancestors if at all? Some of the conversations around black reparations focus on decades old goverment housing policies that in their mind created systemic issues that they have to deal with so that brings it into modern times. It's a fairly complex issue I guess.
It seems for the reparations in Canada in regards to the residential schools you had to prove some form of abuse. It was not as if your were indigenous and started getting money in the mail from the government. It seems like a reasonable example of how it can work. The did shift the program later on as it was considered a bit greasy to be asking these people to relive past trauma. Having to prove their scars so to speak in a courtroom in order to receive compensation. The goverment sure did not do themselves any favors when they refused to unseal documents that proved said abuse, they had been collected years in advance. Making these folk fight for their right to reparations. So now anyone who went to a residential school can qualify for the reparations. Should their children and their children's children receive the same compensation. I guess that is where I would say probably not
You don't hear much talk about reparations for the Japanese folk that also had their land stolen when they were shoved into interment camps during ww2. They returned to their homes to find others had moved in and claimed it as their own. That was a dual fuck up by the two North American governments during that time. Surely they would have to be considered in there at some point as well.
It's actually an argument used for the idea of reparations for slavery.
The act granted each surviving internee US$20,000 in compensation, equivalent to $38,000 in 2019,[1] with payments beginning in 1990. The legislation stated that government actions had been based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership" as opposed to legitimate security reasons.[2] A total of 82,219 received redress checks.[3]
Because the law was restricted to American citizens, and to legal permanent residents, ethnic Japanese who had been taken from their homes in Latin America (mostly from Peru), were not covered in the reparations, regardless of whether they had remained in the United States, had returned to Latin America, or had been deported to Japan after the war. In 1996, Carmen Mochizuki filed a class-action lawsuit,[4] and, from what was left of the funds from the CLA, won a settlement of around $5,000 per person for those who were eligible. Of those affected, 145 were able to receive the $5,000 settlement before funds ran out. In 1999, funds were approved for the US Attorney General to pay compensation to the remaining claimants.[5]
