There has been alot in the news about Slave Reperations lately.

August 18, 2002 11:30 AM

There has been alot in the news about Slave Reperations lately. Friday while at the store, the register clerk started to ask me about my family history and then accused me of being a descendant of her ancestor's slave master and told me i owed her. What type of scam is this?
posted by crackheadmatt (135 comments total)

You've been accused of being a slave owner too? I remember once I was arguing against affirmative action (I think it often causes more harm than good). But that's beside the point. This girl I was arguing with eventually started screaming at me and called me a slave owner. After I had told her to shut the fuck up (which was the only way to get her attention and break her out of her ranting), I calmly informed her that I was not born in this country and that none of my ancestors within the last five generations could have possibly owned slaves. She wouldn't hear it, the debate ended in silence, no minds were changed. I wonder how often this scenario has been played out in America. A lot of people have strong opinions about this.

It seems like a scam to me.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:35 AM on August 18, 2002

It is an amazingly ill-conceived, poor, stupid idea that needs to die if there is to ever be true racial reconciliation and harmony. Sadly, the idea of getting something for nothing appeals to many who refuse to think.
posted by owillis at 11:39 AM on August 18, 2002

Isn't there soemthign int he constitution about the Sins of the father and no tainting of blood?
posted by crackheadmatt at 11:48 AM on August 18, 2002

I forgot to spellcheck..
posted by crackheadmatt at 11:48 AM on August 18, 2002

Well, the punishment for treason, the worst crime imaginable to them, can never have any "corruption of blood" by which I can get punished for something your ancestor else does. Not exactly written out, but if the worst crime can't carry that, the precedent is nothing can.

Bad idea written all over it.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:52 AM on August 18, 2002

I am curious to see how this works out. I had some relatives pass away in the potato famine back in the mid-1800's and I could use some of that sweet limey cash!
posted by umberto at 11:55 AM on August 18, 2002

I considered posting the news about the pro-reperations rally but title it "KKK recruitment rally in progress in Washington DC". I burned all my troll points in the thread about how some Canadian hates us and wants us all to die, however.

Anyway, as someone who has never owned slaves I find this greedy racist money grab appalling. Like Owillis said, its only effect will be to stir hatred on both sides. And that is exactly the opposite of what is needed.
posted by eszetela at 12:00 PM on August 18, 2002

It's a scam fostered by those who see their power coming from friction between the races. The more friction, the more influence they have. It's not in their interests to promote any sort of harmony or reconcilliation, because it would lessen their influence.

You'll note that when things start going better as far as race relations goes (and measuring from the 60's, we've come a hell of a long way) what comes along but the idea of 'reparations'? Can you think of any BETTER way to stir things up?

Smells like a scam to me...

J.
posted by JB71 at 12:04 PM on August 18, 2002

As it turns out, *I* have never owned slaves, nor was *I* responsible for decisions made hundreds of years ago by sick and twisted men who were no part of my ancestry (my family history in America never places anyone related to me in an area where slavery was ever legal). And, as it turns out, there is no one alive today in America that was subject to the slavery of which we speak. The reparation that all of America owes anyone here is to see them all as equals, and treat them as such.
posted by BlueScreen at 12:07 PM on August 18, 2002

I was once accused of being a descendant of a slave owner. I just pointed out that my ancestors were Cherokee and Creek Indians and that since the person accusing owned a house that therefore they were on my land.

I then told them to please move out, I would be moving back in on the first of the month.

That shut them up.
posted by nyxxxx at 12:09 PM on August 18, 2002

"They owe us. I want justice," said Antoinette Harrell-Miller, who drove 19 hours from New Orleans with her husband Dennis to attend. "They built this country off the free labor of our ancestors."

"They owe us. I want justice money"

More logical brilliance: "America likes to pretend there are equal rights for everyone but look at the history of black people," McDouall said.

Yes, look at the history. I would hope that things have gotten progressively better over the last several decades.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:09 PM on August 18, 2002

Sorry Umberto, you can't have any of our sweet limey cash as I'm trying to get money off the French for invading us in 1066. When that's settled then I'm sure we can come to some agreement.

And no, I don't consider this to be on a par with African slavery, it's just if we're going to be visiting the sins of our ancestors to achieve reparations I thought I'd get my name on the list.
posted by ciderwoman at 12:14 PM on August 18, 2002

I find it disturbing that I respect Samuel L. Jackson more than I do the majority of popular black leadership.
posted by Stan Chin at 12:15 PM on August 18, 2002

Whats a Jive Token?
posted by stbalbach at 12:22 PM on August 18, 2002

Here's some background on the "40 acres and a mule" that emancipated slaves were promised.

I'm actually for reparations *ducking*
If we gave money to the Japanese Americans we interned during WWII, surely the people we "imported" against their will deserve something.
posted by amberglow at 12:24 PM on August 18, 2002

surely the people we "imported" against their will deserve something.

Yes, lets do something for the people who were slaves.

What do you propose? Setting up a memorial on their graves or something? The difference between the Nisei and the slaves is that the Japanese who actually suffered the injustices were still alive enough to receive compensation.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:29 PM on August 18, 2002

I think reparations, if passed, would ultimately be divisive and harmful to race relations in the United States. Too many people in this country are immigrants and recent immigrants that have absolutely no ties to slavery and reparations would in effect be penalizing them and engender a great deal of bitterness.
posted by rks404 at 12:34 PM on August 18, 2002

were still alive

Is that the criteria for righting wrongs? That the people whose lives we hurt or destroyed have to be alive to receive compensation?

What DID we do for freed slaves when they were still alive?
posted by amberglow at 12:35 PM on August 18, 2002

What DID we do for freed slaves when they were still alive?

We? There is no "we" in this equation. Maybe "they" but definitely not "we". We didn't do jack shit for them, we couldn't because "we" didn't exist.

Is that the criteria for righting wrongs?

Well, it is helpful when trying to compensate victims. How will giving money to wealthy, free blacks right the wrongs of the past?
posted by insomnyuk at 12:38 PM on August 18, 2002

Is that the criteria for righting wrongs?

One of them, I'd say, yes. Unless you know of a good way to help people who are dead.
posted by normy at 12:38 PM on August 18, 2002

Amberglow, there are, of course, some differences between the japanese internment case and that of the slaves. First, there are actually some of the people interned are still alive, which makes a lot easier to understand the legal basis for a lawsuit. The same is true for the people who unwillingly participated in the Tuskegee (?) syphilis experiment.

Second, a whole heck of a lot has happened in the US since the end of slavery. My relatives, for instance, immigrated her in the early part of the 20th century and were in no way responsible for slavery. We certainly never lived in the South or ran any kind of plantations.

Then, there's the whole matter of the civil war. I mean, people did die on the battlefield to free the slaves (among other things, of course). Add to that issues involved with welfare, affirmative action, etc...
posted by ph00dz at 12:43 PM on August 18, 2002

insomnyuk, by "we" I mean this nation and government. My family wasn't even here until 1906, but I recognize when people didn't even get a stick, let alone the short end of one.

It would be a very important symbolic gesture, much like the reparations to the interned during WWII were.

I'm not even going to touch wealthy, free blacks with the above-mentioned stick.
posted by amberglow at 12:43 PM on August 18, 2002

I'm sure that there are many people who are very sorry for the slavery suffered 200 years ago. However, echoing many of the thoughts already posted: How exactly is giving their ancestors money or land going to accomplish anything? It looks like the slave-ancestors are giving the white folks a chance to soothe their consciences.
"They owe us"??? Who owes you? The government who gets their money from black, white, brown, yellow, pink, and blue people? People with no relevance to slave-owners except that it turns out they happen to share some genetics, or have the same colour skin? What have *you* done to deserve special treatment?
Please, this is ridiculous. This is not equality or justice. All I see are whiners who think they can cash in from the suffering of others. It's a step backwards.
posted by twos at 12:45 PM on August 18, 2002

Come to think of it, I never got paid for building that railroad...
posted by Stan Chin at 12:50 PM on August 18, 2002

amberglow: Ignoring the fact that everyone on both sides of this case is long dead, most of us here have no ties to slaveholders and therefore zero culpability here. You said yourself you have none yet your guilt for actions you didn't do is such you want us to pay up? That's quite a bit of towering arrogance to force others to recompense for your imagined sins. If you want to send in your own money, that's fine.

If this does go through, which I doubt, breaking it will be easy. Every American, regardless of racial history or anything else, should immediately sign up for their cut of the pie. Discrimination based on race is illegal. If ANYONE is denied for any reason, scream discrimination and sue them into oblivion.
posted by eszetela at 12:53 PM on August 18, 2002

In all fairness, it should be pointed out that Jeffrey Dahmer *might* have had an ancestor who was a missionary in Africa...
posted by kablam at 12:56 PM on August 18, 2002

Since those who were directly affected by slavery are (forget me if I'm wrong here) deceased, if anything, wouldn't it be best to serve their memory with a national memorial acknowledging the wrongs that they suffered?

Yes, we gave money to Japanese-Americans who were imprisoned during WW2 - not their great-great-grandchildren.
posted by tpoh.org at 1:02 PM on August 18, 2002

jive "token"?
i can only assume its something along the lines of "the ant sir" is blowin' in the wind, "butt" naked, and low "self of steam".
posted by quonsar at 1:04 PM on August 18, 2002

That's quite a bit of towering arrogance to force others to recompense for your imagined sins. If you want to send in your own money, that's fine.

Darling, it's America's sin, and not imagined, but I can see that most people think that how this country has treated people in the past doesn't matter and isn't still affecting today's America.

As for money, we (you too!) just gave farmers something like $100 billion in ill-considered farm subsidies. We can certainly pay to install computers in minority schools or a fund for college scholarships--something that would directly enrich all of America, now and in the future.

Again, don't ever underestimate the power of symbolic gestures.
posted by amberglow at 1:05 PM on August 18, 2002

in a haze these days
i pull up to the stoplight
i can feel that something's not right
i can feel that someone's blasting me
with hate and bass
sending dirty vibes my way
cause my great great great great grandad
made someone's great great great great grandaddy slaves
it wasn't my idea
it wasn't my idea
it never was my idea
i just drove to the store
for some preparation h
- Ben Folds
posted by tpoh.org at 1:06 PM on August 18, 2002

tpoh, I like the memorial idea too.
posted by amberglow at 1:07 PM on August 18, 2002

I honestly have no idea if I'm descended from slave owners or not. My father's roots are in Missouri which is north of the Mason-Dixon. On his side my bloodline contains at least a dozen different European countries from Ireland to Czeckoslavakia. I'm a living example of the American Melting Pot. There was even a rumor of Native American blood in my family history, but it was never proven in court (My great great great great grandmother was ..shy about her infidelity). My mother was adopted but apparently came from cajun country, so it is entirely possible that I'm descended from both slaves and slave owners simultaneously.

My point is, this is irrelevant. The Sins Of The Great Great Great Great Grandfather do not trickle down into the souls of the living sons. It's preposterous and laughable to even contemplate. Yet this is what people are doing.

I saw this coming. I was afraid this would happen back when Bill Clinton made his public apology to Black Americans during his presidency. It was a magnanimous gesture, and long overdue, but it only gave legal precedent for greedy descendants of slaves to attempt to get more than their share in response to it.

I cite this viewpoint I found on the Web in a simple search:

"There is an African adage which says that if one is courageous enough to kill a snake, the one must be brave enough to cut the snake’s head, In other words, since we have become courageous enough to realize our wrongs to Africa and its peoples for centuries of deprivations and destruction, We should be brave and realistic enough to repair the grave damages done to Africa and its people..."

When a corporate or government entity publically accepts blame for past wrong-doing, it gives lawyers legal precedent to start asking for monetary compensation for damages on behalf of clients. McDonalds apologizes to the lady for spilling hot coffee on herself, and a lawyer convinces her this is sufficient for a lawsuit.

The difference here is that slaves didn't cause it to themselves. However, for the most part those who actually were slaves are mostly dead and buried now. Their descendants are wanting reparations when it's physically impossible. The snake's already dead. Its head is already cut off.

If there are Black Americans still upset over the existence of slavery, it would be better for them to focus their attentions on stopping the slavery that exists all over the world today. If their intentions were noble and sincere, that's where their efforts would be. But their efforts are in filling their pocketbooks with money intended to appease their ancestors.

This is why it looks like a scam. Cuz it is. And there ain't a crayon box on the planet that can cover up the black & white of it.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:13 PM on August 18, 2002

Slavery isn't America's sin. There were people fighting to abolish it almost since the Revolutionary War. The Federal Government probably shouldn't pay reparations, the Southern States, thats a different issue.
posted by philcliff at 1:21 PM on August 18, 2002

All this reparations stuff is plainly BS.

What black people should do to help themselves is drive the druggies who are screwing up their neighborhoods away.

That'd be one good step.

Another would be reading up on elections instead of just automatically voting Democrat.
posted by RobbieFal at 1:21 PM on August 18, 2002

The U.S. of A. has a long history of fucking over its citizens and residents. If the government paid out a settlement to every race that was fucked over our national debt would be a gagillion dollars.

The fact that 60 years ago the U.S. rounded up Americans whose only crime was being of Japanese ancestory shows that America didn't evolve much in the 20th Century. Let's hope that our current war on terrorism does not mean we'll have camps for people whose only crime is being of Middle Eastern ancestory.

The best we can do (and by we I mean Americans of all races) is to ensure that the US government fucks over fewer people. In a dream world, we'd not fuck over anyone.
posted by birdherder at 1:24 PM on August 18, 2002

Phil, even while America's founders were writing about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" most of them owned other human beings.

I don't know of studies on the economic and social impact slavery had in the development and growth of America, but I'm sure they're out there.
posted by amberglow at 1:27 PM on August 18, 2002

The Ecnomist did an article on this, maybe six months to a year ago.

Just from memory, the fundamental problem that they identified with reparations was slavery was legal at the time, until perhaps 1863 or so. You can't penalise firms retroactivley for business activities that were in fact legal at the time. What a can of worms that would open up, and I'm not just talking about Slavery Reparations.

Interestingly, the lawyers launcing these suits plan to go after Aetna (an insurance company that apparently insured the lives of slaves), and the US Federal Government.

They are trying to model these suits on recent court actions against against companies that benefited from The Holocaust. But they ignore fundamental differences that render such comparisons questionable.

For example, most companies that benefited directly from slavery (once again, at that time legal) are either out of business or have been acquired, and sometimes manytimes over. They are few - if any - corporate entities in the US where someone could open the books, and directly account for any profit from slavery.

Also, the entire affirmative action thing in the 60's was at the time justified to the US Tax Payer largely to make up for the damage done by slavery. Seems like the bill has already been paid.

Also, the solicitors involved aren't really looking at the entire issue, and trying to pick and choose to build a case, however flimsy it might turn out to be.

Doesn't surprise me at all though since, as other posters have pointed out, they are little more than rabblerousers.
posted by Mutant at 1:29 PM on August 18, 2002

...nor was *I* responsible for decisions made hundreds of years ago...

...everyone on both sides of this case is long dead...

The Sins Of The Great Great Great Great Grandfather...

Slavery isn't something long in the past.

The last slave ship pulled into Alabama in 1859. Photography was gaining popularity. Dickens was becoming famous. The Suez canal was being built. Modern times, really.

Slavery was formally abolished by constitutional amendment on December 18, 1865. That's only 137 years ago -- barely longer than the lifespan of the oldest citizens.

The last living slave died some time around 1950, aged 90ish.

Slavery wasn't much more than two long-lived generations ago. People you know today -- parents and grandparents -- could well have chatted with a former slave.

Slavery isn't something from "hundreds of years ago," nor are the people impacted by it "long dead." Their children are alive today. And it wasn't a Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfatherly time ago: your great grandfather may well have owned slaves.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:38 PM on August 18, 2002

I continue to be discriminated against, angered upon, and told that I am worthless, because I am gay.

Reparations? How about civil liberties? Blacks have got them. If someone doesn't want to rent to you because you are black, you can sue them. If someone doesn't want to rent to me, there isn't one thing I can do about it. Every other group in this country is protected, and yet sit there and complain that they are not treated fairly, while at the same time, knock homosexuals down as deviants.

In Miami, right now, there are black ministers rallying to repeal civil rights for gays in the city. More than anyone, I would thing that they would understand the plight of a minority, one that has been historically treated as a second-class citizen group. Apparently, I was wrong.

So before someone says to me "we deserve" anything, tell me your personal plight, tell me where you have been wronged. Tell me you were fired because you were black, and that you could do nothing about it. Tell me you, yourself, did not openly discriminate against someone else. And the ones who can tell me these things, they are the ones that are not accepting reparations, who think it is a stupid idea.

It's not about money, but about dignity. Don't make it about money, and express your horrible plight. You've never been enslaved, yourself.
posted by benjh at 1:41 PM on August 18, 2002

ZachsMind: Missouri was a "border" state, with plenty of slaves.

Mutant: Affirmative action was and still is meant to overcome the effects of legal discrimination - as in Jim Crow, not slavery specifically. The lawsuit, I don't think, will work, and its value is questionable if it only leads people such as yourself to conclude that all bills have been paid in full. It's even more questionable if it leads store clerks to harass customers, or just leads people to generally treat one another with less civility.

But the debt's been paid in full? I've been reading Diane McWhorter's Carry Me Home this week. Read it and tell me what sort of debt you think has been repaid for America's sins against black people (and yeah, it's clearly shown that the problem is America's - the U.S. Govt. of almost the entire 20th Century, the FBI and corporate America all play prominent roles.)
posted by raysmj at 1:42 PM on August 18, 2002

thanks five and ray, i was feeling lonely here!
posted by amberglow at 1:44 PM on August 18, 2002

Okay, she wants justice, "they owe us" she says. Cool, however, one might ask her how the slaves were captured in the first place to be brought to the United States and elsewhere. It's a given that the tribes of Africa caught and sold their captives to the slave traders. Therefore, shouldn't the main payee of said reparations be the African countries?

This is such a silly, silly event that I'm embarrassed for everyone who says that they are owed. What a sad commentary on our society.
posted by damnitkage at 1:45 PM on August 18, 2002

On reparations - As cash payments to individuals, I am in not in favor. However, there are cogent arguments for the concept. Here is one BJ Reynolds linked in this thread on March 27 of this year. Here is Charles J. Ogletree Jr, a professor at Harvard Law School and co-chairman of the Reparations Coordinating Committee in an editorial from the New York TImes (User: Metafilter 46 Password:Metafilter.) On a related topic, here is a thoughtful meditation on a related topic--what is owed to Native Americans for the destruction of their cultures--and another more cogent to the topic at hand--in these comments are actual true ideas as opposed to mere MetaFilter liberal bashing. I would like to see more of these and less of the latter...

I understand owillis's objections but still I applaud amberglow's courage. It will be a long time before the playing field is level. Arguing you owe nothing because of when your grandparents immigrated is one thing, how you are treated at a traffic stop if you are white as opposed to if you are black is another.
posted by y2karl at 1:52 PM on August 18, 2002

I'm thankful of Amberglow and Raysmj for preventing this thread from being a one-sided conversation (despite the fact that I disagree with their positions.)

Reparations ultimately strike me as a cynical money-grab, and one that would do more to exacerbate racial injustice than than ameliorate it. Now, if the parties advocating reparations wanted the funds to go to some non-profit like the NAACP or any of a thousand worthy Martin Luther King Jr. inspired organization, I could almost see myself getting behind the idea. But it's difficult to not question the sincerely of anyone in any situation who insists that the only way to right a moral wrong is to give them a handful of free money.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 2:06 PM on August 18, 2002

great links y2k! and thanks!

people in the other threads were right...it's an issue that's not going away anytime soon.
posted by amberglow at 2:09 PM on August 18, 2002

Shadow, read the NYT editorial y2k posted...it specifically says that the money wouldn't go to individuals.
posted by amberglow at 2:11 PM on August 18, 2002

amberglow, how much money will you give? I didn't do a damn thing, and you want me to shell out some cash? I don't think so. I will fight racism as much as I can, but I will not pay someone money because their great great great grandfather was a slave. Hell, why don't we just start dishing out dollars to every person whose great great great grandfather or grandmother was killed by an American serviceman. This is a load of crap. They( the descendants of the slaves) think they deserve MONEY because of something that happened a long long time ago.
posted by Hall at 2:22 PM on August 18, 2002

REPARATIONS FOR SLAVERY IS ILLEGAL. why? because it was legal at the time. what we did to the japanese americans was illegal at the time.

EX POST FACTO!

NOW EVERYBODY SHUT THE HELL UP.

end of conversation!
posted by wantwit at 2:23 PM on August 18, 2002

amberglow: by "we" I mean this nation and government.

How would the burden fall on the government when at the time there were two of them in civil war?

Slavery on this continent existed since the earliest days of settlement (and later became a catalyst in ending the civil war) but that doesn't mean that the government of today is somehow linked and accountable. The opportunity to make amends has long since passed. The value on land and currency has totally changed, and we live in a country where the only slaves left are believed to be in graphic design (no offense meant, back to being serious...).

I'm not about to say that the impact of slavery years ago has no bearing on life in the US of today. It's obviously still an open political wound. Even with all of the imagined woe's related to slavery, there still exists many real problems in our country regarding even more recent segregation laws and civil rights movements. And alongside that are also many problems regardless of race such as the cost of living that contributes to an already recognized hardship for many of us.

But whatever the root of the problem is deemed to be, many people, whatever their background, are simply just having a hard time making ends meet financially and could use extra money no matter what the cause. It can be an ugly place to live when the perceived economy dictates poverty in order to balance the insanely rich and fortunate.

My general opinion is that reparations, in any form, consists of making everyone financially happy enough to where they can enjoy their lives and don't have to shift blame for their misfortunes. Sadly, I am clueless as to how that could be achieved in a society that seems to not want "enough being enough."

Those that contributed to the slave trading and owning business screwed up badly, very badly. But they are no longer around. The children of victims are still around, but even with the accused dead, I don't see how the government holds fiscal responsibility. I mean, what account would that come out of?
posted by samsara at 2:28 PM on August 18, 2002

wantwit: Thanks for that bit of enlightened commentary. The U.S. internment of Japanese was declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1944.
posted by raysmj at 2:29 PM on August 18, 2002

but my point still stands.
posted by wantwit at 2:30 PM on August 18, 2002

wantwit: Nope. Doesn't.
posted by raysmj at 2:31 PM on August 18, 2002

It doesn't matter how long ago it was, even if someone who used to be a slave were alive today, they would only be owed by the person who claimed to be their owner. The US government is not a person, it is discontinuous.

Slavery was one of the most horrible institutions ever, but those wrongs will never be erased. There were and are effects of slavery that persist today, and the government is the appropriate effector for fixing these inequalities if they are perceived to exist by the current electorate. This is not an acceptance of blame for the past, because the current government is discontinuous from the past. This shouldn't deter us from removing inequalities though, not out of obligation, but out of desire. If the electorate decides to give reparations to individuals who can show that their ancestors were seen to be slaves then that if fine. But the electorate does not owe these people anything anymore than my body owes my hand.
posted by rhyax at 2:34 PM on August 18, 2002

The conversation never ends when someone screams and swears, wantwit.

It seems like a lot of people object to reparations in these threads because it's all about cash, and that these people are greedy. But I'm pretty sure the short- and long-term consequence of slavery is poverty. Owning people is only about cash.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 2:38 PM on August 18, 2002

Amen to that. They want the Federal Government to pay them for something that individuals did in the past. Perhaps they would be closer (but still completely wrong) if they tracked down the actual descendents of slave owners and sued them. That still would fail miserably. Yeah, I'm sorry for what happened back then, but no, I will not give them any money for something I had NO CHANCE OF STOPPING and NO CHANCE OF SPEAKING OUT AGAINST, for something DONE BEFORE I WAS EVEN ALIVE.
posted by Hall at 2:39 PM on August 18, 2002

Wantwit, your userpage says a lot. If you dislike this place so much then why are you here? Oh, and I suggest you do a little research into Ex Post Facto law making because you have no understanding of it.
posted by anathema at 2:47 PM on August 18, 2002

Enough with the all caps, already, people--if you can't make a point without yelling, you can't make a point.

And, on a side topic, what if the scam regarding tax exemptions as slavery reparations was proposed as an actual concept--would that bother all you in the "I don't owe a thing just because the descendants of slaves got shoved aside when my immigrant grandfather was offered a job" crowd here. After all, you wouldn't be paying a thing now, would you?

Here's more Slavery and Reparations links, pro and con.
posted by y2karl at 2:56 PM on August 18, 2002

My ancestors came here from Norway and Germany to cut timber in the Pacific Northwest almost twenty-three years after slavery was abolished. If I'm paying anybody, I'm paying the indentured Chinese who built the railroads for them.

But I'm not paying anybody. The way I see it, the only way Americans are going to give up money for reparations is if it is taken from then by a law. In other words, against their will and not in the spirit of harmony. Any just compensation for slavery would have to be about the equivalent of what a slave lost over his lifetime due to slavery, and what his children lost due to the effects of slavery. So, in a sense, the government would merely be merely performing a financial equivalent of the effects of slavery on non-black groups, which doesn't solve any kind of problem.
posted by Hildago at 3:02 PM on August 18, 2002

It would be a very important symbolic gesture, much like the reparations to the interned during WWII were.

Uh, no. Reparations are real money, there's nothing "symbolic" about it. It comes from somewhere, and the diversion of that money from its original purpose in order to pay reparations has an effect on real people -- including those who are receiving the money. Whether it goes to organisations (knowing the leadership of the local branch of the NAACP well, I'd be damned before I'd let them handle a penny) or individuals, its all the same -- real cash, impacting real companies and real people in the present to inadequately and inappropriately compensate unaffected parties for injustices done before anyone living was born.

If you have been wronged by someone, you can attempt to sue them for civil damages. In order to prevail, you have to prove that their actions were the specific cause of a quantifiable harm to you. The Japanese-Americans who were interred during WWII didn't have to litigate their claim, but they could have and they would have won. Those who were paid reparations claims had personally lost real property, income, health and freedom as a direct result of the interment.

Can anyone make a provable claim for loss of something quantifiable as a direct result of slavery? No. Many of those who would ultimately benefit from reparations in any of the forms that are currently proposed couldn't even prove that they were descendants of slaves, and some, in fact, would not be.

Moreover, no party should be forced to provide remuneration for wrongdoing that they had no part in and did not personally, directly benefit from. If governmental reparations were to occur, not only would the recipients be paying themselves (via tax dollars) many, many who had no connection to slavery would be forced to pay for it. If companies are forced to pay, shareholders and employees, who again have no direct ties to the slavery connection of the company's past, are going to be directly, negatively affected. Overall, either are simply unconscionable ideas.

Unless...

Unless we get honest. These demonstrators don't want reparations for slavery at all. They want reparations for racism and racial inequality. This isn't about compensation for wrongs committed more than 130 odd years ago. This is not about descendants of slave hodlers making right with the descendants of slaves. But slavery is the unquestioned moral wrong which "legitimises" the reparations demand. The reality is that the demand is really about money which will supposedly "level the playing field" between black and white Americans to make up for the oppression and injustices leveled by racists from time immemorial, ignoring that doing so would only fuel racist fires like nothing we've seen in recent history. Reparations would cause a plethora of problems that cash can never fix, and there is absolutely no precedent nor framework nor evidence that a simple influx of cash into communities or the pockets of individuals would really have the positive effects that are being bandied about.

Reparations: clearly inappropriate, unjust and unworkable on multiple levels, with no proof of any positive effect to balance the unquestionable negatives. So we're supposed to give serious consideration to these notions, why, exactly?
posted by Dreama at 3:05 PM on August 18, 2002

Dreama: excellent, right on point, and leaving me nodding sychophantically.
posted by umberto at 3:21 PM on August 18, 2002

And, on a side topic, what if the scam regarding tax exemptions as slavery reparations was proposed as an actual concept--would that bother all you in the "I don't owe a thing just because the descendants of slaves got shoved aside when my immigrant grandfather was offered a job" crowd here. After all, you wouldn't be paying a thing now, would you?

I'm no tax expert here, but wouldn't this mean some government-funded organizations would receive less funding? And what would those organziations be? And would it be the slave-owners fault?

Wouldn't someone have to pay more taxes? Even non-whites?
posted by Homeskillet Freshy Fresh at 3:25 PM on August 18, 2002

The reason that reparations is a very bad idea is that it would split the black community on the idea of how much would each descendant get. Also, it would anger some whites whose ancestors were not slave owners, and could turn them into racists.

Even with reparations, the stain of slavery will be on America for all eternity. It is a shame that we have to live with, but the best way to make America a truly united nation is to bring people together, not divide them over this issue.
posted by jasonbondshow at 3:25 PM on August 18, 2002

Oh, please.

According to the Civil War Soldiers & Sailors System, it looks like a couple of my ancestors served in the Union army. I don't imagine those people would be thrilled to hear that the you-owe-me nuts have decided their service didn't mean anything, and I'm still responsible for their ancestors' being sold out to Americans by their own countrymen in Africa.

This is entirely an unconstitutionally ex-post-facto action, although, as raysmj has been kind enough to point out, that's never stopped the government before. It didn't stop the EPA from ordering GE to clean pollutants out of the Hudson that were legally dumped decades ago, and I have a bad feeling that it won't stop them now.

However, I can see which way the wind is blowing and so I figure I might as well get in on this. I'll be letting you all know how my lawsuit against the Italian government for the Roman enslavement of my German ancestors goes.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 3:33 PM on August 18, 2002

y2karl: It's not the muddy waters of racism today.. the problems a black guy has flaging down a cab or how anyone is treated at a traffic stop, that's beside the point. Over there. Beside.

As a programmer I'm thoroughly out of touch with the world and good grammar but I'm glad it's easy to see that this is considered a payment on generic racism against blacks.

(And then Dreama goes and says it much better than I ever could.)

//

In New Zealand there have been reparations payments over years now (for land confiscation, land lost in losing wars). The people who benefit are few, and here they have become skilled in their industry of guilt and blame. Here there have been multiple final payments to several tribes. Even the suffering masses are embarassed, and angry, at those getting fat off them.

This money won't get to the masses they speak for. It'll be locked up in a trust and wasted away by a few elite.

If a government does decide on a payoff please just define what it is that you're paying for. It's natural for any genuine victim to show further pain after a payout, they may still feel it, but multiple payouts will happen when they got an initial payment on "racism" itself.

By all means help out those still suffering, if they are, but a government payout won't get to anyone who matters.
posted by holloway at 3:48 PM on August 18, 2002

According to Hugh Thomas, It was the Islamic nations that continued to propagate slavery during the late Middle Ages, "Indeed, Mahomet took over the system of slavery upon which ancient society was based, without question."

And the Africans themselves practiced active slavery long before the Europeans came on the scene, and long after: "Most slaves carried from Africa between 1440 and 1870 were procured as a result of Africans' interest in selling their neighbors, usually distant but sometimes close, and more rarely, their own people."

So the Africans and Moslems are going to have to put some money in, too.
posted by phartizan at 3:51 PM on August 18, 2002

Dreama: excellent, right on point, and leaving me nodding sycophantically.

Ditto. My fear with the reparations concept is that it would fuel a race war like unto one we've never even seen before. There were many classes/races/religions which were surely shat upon when they came to this country.

Most Irish Catholic immigrants were treated no better than slaves, the Chinese workers were treated worse than many slaves, just as a couple of examples.

I agree that racism is still a problem, as is sexism, discrimination against gays, and on and on and on. But, throwing money at the loudest complaining group isn't going to help anything. If anything, it's going to engender more hatred and more racism.

What about all of the white people who were abolitionists? What about the ones who helped with the underground railroad? What about the people in the South who didn't own slaves? (There were lots, you know...not all rebels had slaves. Only the very wealthy had slaves.) What about all the southern non-slave owners who had their property confiscated during the carpetbagger and reformation years?

Should those people be forced to pay reparations?

Should anyone who came to this country after slavery was abolished be forced to pay reparations? And if so, can you expect them to be happy about it? Should we all have our taxes raised to pay reparations to all black people...some of whom are not descendants of slaves?

Some of those arguing for reparations suggest that they want millions of acres of land. Is it reasonable to say that they want to quarantine themselves? Should we allow a separate nation of blacks in the midst of our nation or would it be just another reservation system...degrading and dehumanizing, like the Native American.

The entire concept is flawed. Fight against racism, and I'm right there with ya. But you can't claim special rights because of your skin color and expect me to pay for it. Not when the Native American lives in the worst badlands of the country. Not when medical care and school systems are almost non-existant for those whose land this once was.
posted by dejah420 at 3:57 PM on August 18, 2002

Do whites today indirectly benefit from slavery, even if they didn’t do anything? Yes. Do blacks today indirectly feel negative consequences resulting from slavery even if they weren’t the ones enslaved? Yes. Does pretty much any group of people have a legitimate gripe about being oppressed somewhere, sometime? Yes. Is any of this translatable into who owes who cash except by the Morality Accountant in the Sky? No.

Society does have a responsibility to level the playing field, not just for blacks, but for everyone, either through increased social services or independent organizations. I have no problem with what’s advocated in the aforementioned NYT editorial. Payouts to individuals, though, is just a really, really bad idea that’s founded on a bare minimum of common sense.

On preview: what dejah said.
posted by ligeia at 4:14 PM on August 18, 2002

Let's see. I've got Irish ancestry, so I can sue the English. (They've oppressed the Scots, too, so I guess I can get them double.) I've got Cherokee, so there's that whole Trail of Tears episode. And, well, males have been subjugating women throughout recorded history, so I guess I can clean up there, too.Woo-hoo!

The best way to pay for the sins of the father is to *not repeat them*.

When a corporate or government entity publically accepts blame for past wrong-doing, it gives lawyers legal precedent to start asking for monetary compensation for damages on behalf of clients. McDonalds apologizes to the lady for spilling hot coffee on herself, and a lawyer convinces her this is sufficient for a lawsuit.

Is this example still floating around? For crying out loud, she had 3rd degree burns to her groin, and the reason she sued was that McD's were bastards about it. They didn't offer to help with the medical expenses (which would have been nice) or even apologize.....get that? They didn't apologize. The amount she was awarded in punitive damages was symbolic--equal to two dats of coffee sales. Sorry to be off topic, but I like to see the facts straight.
posted by kayjay at 4:18 PM on August 18, 2002

I don't see what the time when you came to America has to do with anything. It's a collective obligation. If a woman was disciminated against in hiring in 1959 and wins a court case against the Federal government it doesn't just come out of the taxes of those who were Americans then. In fact, it comes out of her taxes as well. If there ever are reparations (pigs could fly) American blacks (along with everyone else) will pay the cost of distributing them to whomever is eligible. Regardless of whether this is a good idea, I don't think that this old chestnut is a good argument against it.

On the other hand, your last point, dejah suggests (along with a billion other commonsense observations) that practically we won't ever do this. We've been violating written obligations to Native Americans since we made them, into last century and today. This, along with slavery, is one of those things that seemed to me to be in bold face in every history class I took, here is where we did wrong. And yet we'd just do it again if we could. (And we do.)
posted by Wood at 4:23 PM on August 18, 2002

What if we'd establish a government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people, altogether, now?
posted by semmi at 5:02 PM on August 18, 2002

Excellent points Dreama, and others, and thanks for being the only sensible homosexual in this thread, benjh. I have the same thoughts every day. What are you complainin' 'bout, Black Brothers? It's still quite legal to discriminate against me, my chosen partner, and our children, should we have any. But I don't expect payola because of it. I expect justice, and after that, nothing else. Black America has gotten its justice, and continues to get its justice. Time to stop crying about the sins of the fathers and get on with your life, like the rest of us.

As for the supporters of this reparations nonsense, THERE! We've run rings around you logically...
posted by evanizer at 5:08 PM on August 18, 2002

What about the people in the South who didn't own slaves?

About 1 in 5 Southern whites owned slaves. The majority of slaves were held by large plantation owners in numbers upwards of 100 per owner. The rest of slaves were usually 1 family owned by another family. I believe in the north the abolition movement was very small but very vocal, I'm not sure on the numbers.

The problem with this issue, also, is that there were slaves who, by manumission (purchasing their own freedom) were freed, or who were freed when their owner died. Do those people deserve reparations? Surely, their slavery was less costly than those enslaved for life. Not to mention the fact that there were blacks in the South who owned slaves. I have heard one argument that the government owes the slaves, because that has been around longer than all of us, but I would posit that 1) a government is comprised of individuals who ought to be held responsible as best as possible 2) our government is fundamentally different than it was in the pre Civil War era.

Anyone who says the Union was solidly anti-slavery, however, should check their facts. Kentucky and Maryland, two Union states, held their slaves through the entire Civil War. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation set off a firestorm of race riots in New York City, and hundreds of thousands of men deserted the Union Army.

Several posters have talked about how nice a symbolic apology and act would be, but the demonstrators in the article don't want just that, they want their apology and their paycheck. Before you know it, anyone with a hint of brown in their skin (that doesn't have any scruples) is going to be trying to prove their slavery lineage. Booker T. Washington would be mortified by this development.
posted by insomnyuk at 5:45 PM on August 18, 2002

People get so worried that someone else will get something they don't deserve...that someone else might get something extra. Yet the government pours our money into "defense," primarily a system of offense against those who would deny our corporate interests, and no one bats an eye.

As someone pointed out, there was a system put out there in the 60s to address what amounts to reparations, in the form of government support to help overcome a history of racial discrimination. Unfortunately, starting almost as soon as it was set up, politics eventually succeeded in undermining every element of it. This is an America where we thinks police have failed if crimes are not solved in an hour, because it happens that way on TV; its the same America that thinks the pathetic actions on the part of our government to overcome systematic racism have indeed succeeded. We believe we have eliminated racism in three decades, and fail to accept the very real truth that black men, and especially black women, are still not born with the same opportunity and privilege afforded to their white counterparts. There are always exceptions, but as a group, as a community, this is still the case.

I think reparations are appropriate, not only in light of the government's failure to fulfill the promise it made in the 60s, but also the way the politics involved have made things much worse than they should be. Racism has been a great tool of the powerful to keep the rest of us preoccupied while they sell off our government to big business, and we fall for it every time. And before you moral accountants get upset--no doubt the same ones who whined endlessly in the 80s about welfare queens (and, again, who say nothing about the much larger big business handouts)--like many, I think the best use of such reparations is to fund blacks as a community through well-planned service organizations.

As a gay man (from the deep south, even), I'm offended that other gays would try to equate their level of discrimination to that of our black brothers and sisters. Having gone through a quite traumatic process of being thrown out of the military for being gay, never would I assume that my own experience comes even close to the daily and, again (this is key, but often overlooked), systematic bias against blacks in this country. Gays have always had the ability to blend in when it's most convenient (and still have the privilege of choosing when to announce it and when to keep it a secret); blacks have no such fallback position.

'Black America has gotten its justice.' What a load of crap. While you're running those logical rings, you might keep in mind that the blacks are as underrepresented on the Internet as they are overrepresented in prisons and in poverty.
posted by troybob at 6:03 PM on August 18, 2002

why are blacks seeking reperations from the ancestors of slave-owners, when instead they should seek them from the people that SOLD their ancestors into slavery?
posted by jcterminal at 6:22 PM on August 18, 2002

Before I get called out, let me say that my phrase 'the blacks' (which, along with 'those colored,' sound like something my grandmother would have said) was an editing error (originally being 'the black race')...
posted by troybob at 6:23 PM on August 18, 2002

I'm in favor of reparations, just because the whole issue will end immediately. Everyone gets paid off, and nobody, anywhere, can complain that they are suffering because of slavery.

I, for one, will be glad to hear the end of it.
posted by dwivian at 6:23 PM on August 18, 2002

I was afraid this would happen back when Bill Clinton made his public apology to Black Americans during his presidency

Could this explain why Australian Prime Minister John Howard refuses to apologise to the aboriginal community for the wrongs that were done to the "stolen generation"? By apologising, he may be legally accepting responsibility on behalf of the current generation for wrongs committed in the past. The confusion over this issue was not helped by an Australian actor called John Howard apologising to the nation on an ABC show. Based merely on personal observation, I feel that John Howard (the PM one) is not happy about having to refuse to apologise, but cannot afford to do so.

There is no possible way of repaying those who have been wronged by slavery, dispossession of lands and all the other sins that have been visited on original or prior inhabitants of many countries (as well as forced importation in the case of slaves) and paying money to their descendants is most certainly not going to undo those wrongs, nor is it going to punish those who committed the wrongs. In which case, what will financial reparations achieve? Nothing, except an increase in the resentment between white and black.
posted by dg at 6:24 PM on August 18, 2002

i've always thought that events like this basically work backwards against the fight for equal rights. i see equal rights as being a situation where there is no consideration of race/sex/creed/whatever. this brings race front and center.

that's all. i dont have a long drawn out commentary for this one. in fact, i'm probably repeating what has already been said.
posted by fore at 6:31 PM on August 18, 2002

I'm offended that other gays would try to equate their level of discrimination to that of our black brothers and sisters...ever would I assume that my own experience comes even close to the daily and, again (this is key, but often overlooked), systematic bias against blacks in this country. Gays have always had the ability to blend in when it's most convenient...

By blend in, I guess you mean languish in the closet, or get married to someone of the opposite sex and devote yourself (and your spouse) to a lifetime of misery, or kill yourself (so that you can blend into the soil), all the while watch our heterosexual black brothers and sisters marry, fuck, sire children, all with the sanction of nearly the whole of society. It's this same logic that led many members of the civil rights movement in the later sixties to laugh at the gay rights movement. After all, they're essential, while us homos choose our abhorrent lifestyle.

And I want to live where you live, a place where a gay man or woman never receives the systematic bias that our fully legally protected black brethren get meted out on a daily basis. I've been the victim of systematic bias my whole fucking life, a bia that I contend is far more widespread and inherent than race-based bias. I've been teased, taunted, had violence done against my person, received stares, rejoinders and even lost a lease once, all because of my choice of loved ones. Even here on the 'Filter, it's acceptable by some to use the word "gay" as an inherently negative adjective. But try using the word "nigger" in an adjective form to modify something bad, and see what happens to you.

But I suppose all this doesn't matter. What I've experienced isn't real bias. I should just try to 'blend in', and let it pass. I've paid for countless thousands of dollars worth of psychotherapy and medication to counteract the mental damage wrought by years of this systematic discrimination. Do I believe that 'society', or the government, owes me money? Hell no. Do I believe 'society', or the government, owes me an apology? It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath and my selfhood and sense of worth is no longer dependant on it. Life has never been fair. I'm lucky to live in the enlightened age and country that I live in, even though it's still far from perfect. What happens to me now is up to me alone.

you might keep in mind that the blacks are as underrepresented on the Internet as they are overrepresented in prisons and in poverty.

Whose fault is that?
posted by evanizer at 6:40 PM on August 18, 2002

[This is my first post here-I have been lurking for months -this thread has finally persuaded me to join.] Lets deal with facts: 1) racism is alive in America and it does impact all affected races (not just blacks) 2) slavery is not an American institution-slavery has existed throughout the world for as long as we have written history, and it still exists today 3) every race, sex, group, whatever, has in the past, perhaps in the now, been somehow discriminated against, subjugated, oppressed, name your evil, and has, more than likely, been perpetrators of this same deeds.

So, how will this country, by saying that as a country, we are responsible for slavery and racism against blacks as a collective-what pandoras box will this open? As a female, do i then, as well as over 3 billion other females, do we have the right to require all men to be responsible for members of their sex's systematic subjugation and oppression of females, which continues today, to provide us reparations? Do all of the races on this planet have the right to demand reparations from other races/groups who in the past oppressed another race? Where would this end?

Lets face it-this planet is filled with people who are all touched by human cruelty. Many people on this planet are themselves guilty of far greater crimes than the ones we speak of in this thread (how about the genocide that exists today-where is the thread on that?).

There is no easy answer-no quick fix to repair the enormous evil people do, have done, will do. To think that gestures such as reverse racism will fix such a complicated issue is shortsighted-like using asprin to fix a brain tumor. I don't pretend to have an answer for slavery, but whatever that answer is, it doesn't involve money or apologies, two very hollow gestures.
posted by emphaticMisanthrop at 6:43 PM on August 18, 2002

jcterminal asks:

why are blacks seeking reperations from the ancestors of slave-owners, when instead they should seek them from the people that SOLD their ancestors into slavery?"

1. No way to track where they came from, realistically.

2. No money if they could. Africa is VERY poor compared to the US. On the other hand mules are relatively cheap and 40 acres in Zimbabwe wouldn't cost much.

Actually, looking at the conditions in Africa today I'd think they'd be glad they were born over here - and not over there. What if each reparations check was attached to a mandatory one-way ticket to the destination of their choice in sub-equatorial Africa? How many would be eager to get the check then?

J.
posted by JB71 at 6:45 PM on August 18, 2002

Does anyone here speak Jive?
posted by stbalbach at 6:58 PM on August 18, 2002

a related thread about reparations for the 1921 tulsa race riot instigated many of the same talking points as this one. although in the riot case, there are actually some survivors that could be directly compensated.
posted by lescour at 7:05 PM on August 18, 2002

So if I descend from mixed ancestry, how big a check am I supposed to cut myself?
posted by Captain Ligntning at 7:37 PM on August 18, 2002

*I* was born and raised in the south. i never owned slaves. and somehow i'm now responsible for making it up to these people who were NOT slaves? seems a simplpe argument to me; something every bit as frivilous as the guy suing fast food restaraunts for making him fat.

aside from that, i feel like i get discriminated against as a result of where i grew up and the accent i have. i, personally, get ridiculed for my accent quite often. my heritage is constantly mocked in media. jerry springer has made a career out of cementing stereotypes about the south. how many movies depict all southerners as stupid, beer swilling racists? how often is ANY ignorant person referred to as a 'redneck?;' which was once a symbol of pride in the south? (it was derived from the red tan on the back of one's neck obtained by working in tobacco, peanut, cotton, fields under the hot southern sun) and while it's true that the south was responsible, and still is, for a lot of the racial issues these days, they exist beyond those borders. i've been all over the country and heard natives from OTHER regions use terms like 'nigger' in response to a black person. yet MY region is the only one ever singled out, as if we're the only area that breeds ignorance and stupidity.

my point?

am i screaming my head off demanding reparations from the people and organizations that shit on me and my family and heritage? no. do i really care when someone makes fun of me or calls me a 'redneck' just because i have a southern accent? no.

maybe i'm thicker skinned.

i'm just curious as to exactly WHAT these people intend to do with these 'reparations?' start community action programs to promote racial equity? why do i doubt that? why do i feel like it's another bullshit scheme to sucker some money from the citizens of the US? it would come from tax money, right? so what do they do? split revenue into 'from people-that-were-never-slaves-but-great-grandparents-may-have-been?' and 'people-who-never-owned-slaves-but-great-grandparents-may-have-but-we'll-never-be-sure-without-a-grand-national-lineage-determination?' and then send it to the oh-so-deserving parties? cuz god knows those people don't want their OWN money back, right?

[sigh]

land of the free, home of the spoiled.
posted by aenemated at 7:39 PM on August 18, 2002

Well, evanizer, no doubt you win the victim jackpot...and that's what it's all about, right? How lucky that you get to point your anger toward blacks (incidentally, the same thing many black men do when they take out their frustrations on the next lower rung...namely black women and black gays and lesbians).

But my point was that when you walk into a store or a job interview, you have the choice of disclosing whether you are gay or not.

With the exception of losing a lease (although my Navy discharge trumps that, if we're keeping score), I've had all the same experiences you mention. I was also gay when gay wasn't cool, but I also feel that things are getting better for us pretty quickly; homosexuality has become almost chic these days, and Matthew Shepherd's horrible murder, rightly condemned by the public at large (not just gays), has gotten much more press than the all-but-forgotten dragging death of James Byrd Jr. in Texas.

As for legal protection, you might take a look around in the real world and find out what happens when a black man claims he has been discriminated against. Like many gays who claim the same thing, he's generally dismissed as wanting special treatment or privileges.

Also, I didn't intend to lay any sort of blame for the fact that blacks are not as well represented as whites in the Internet; I just wanted to point out, following your smug assessment of victory in this argument (As for the supporters of this reparations nonsense, THERE! We've run rings around you logically...), that the deck is stacked against your opposition. That's not new, of course.
posted by troybob at 7:41 PM on August 18, 2002

that blacks are not as well represented as whites in the Internet

What does this have to do with the debate?
posted by insomnyuk at 7:46 PM on August 18, 2002

Someone made an interesting obsevervation (no permalinking, but the blog is here... click on "history" on the sidebar) that during World War II, only half of the "enemy aliens" interned were Japanese - the rest were German and Italian. What the relevance is to the reparations debate, I'm not sure, except that possibly one should be wary of confusing public misconceptions with historical fact.
posted by jaek at 7:58 PM on August 18, 2002

What does this have to do with the debate?

It speaks to the fact that while many here apparently feel that racism is a thing of the past, and that we have dealt with it and just need to move on (even in the presence of suggestions that blacks return to Africa), the primary voice of opposition, indeed the affected group, is not adequately represented in this forum.
posted by troybob at 8:00 PM on August 18, 2002

And, if you're not black, how does anything you say about the plight of the monolithic 'Black Man' (a ridiculously reductive characterization) have any validity? It all seems to be the most patronising form of 'liberal white guilt'. Were any of your fellow sailors tossed from the Navy for being black? Do you ever hear about people picketing the funerals of black people? Can members of congress get up in front of the legislature and condemn black people as evil, and immoral, then legislate away their civil rights today (save for Jesse Helms, who railed against both blacks and gays in the course of his detestable career)? No, no, no. Makes me wish I was a straight black man.

the primary voice of opposition, indeed the affected group, is not adequately represented in this forum

You mean like one of the most read and vocal Mefites, owillis, who posted early in this thread and posted two trackback links on his site about this topic? (apologies for lumping you into the 'affected group' classification, Oliver.)

Actually, I will amend my Pyton quote: THERE! YOU'VE run rings around YOURSELF logically...

And now it's time for the penguin on top of your television set to explode.
posted by evanizer at 8:08 PM on August 18, 2002

You're right. Gosh, what was I thinking? Owillis posts here. Blacks are indeed adequately represented by his singular voice. Thanks. As a group, I'm sure they'd be glad to know that...almost as happy as being "represented" by Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.

I just won $20, because I knew that the phrase 'white guilt' would come up soon enough. It's merely conscience. I'm just as vocal when someone tells me that I'm wrong about government corruption by big business (because if it were true, we would have heard about it on the news).

Question the validity of my arguments if you will (though my life experience and intimate relations undercut the characterizations of being reductive or patronizing), but given that many of the posts here bear a great deal of racist sentiment, I'm only too happy to offer a more rational and thoughful opinion.
posted by troybob at 8:36 PM on August 18, 2002

dwivian :"I'm in favor of reparations, just because the whole issue will end immediately. "

Nope, won't happen. Look at cigarettes, gun control, any other issue. This is being run by race pimps that get there power from the friction (as mention before)

I watched a lot of the rally saturday on C-Span, and I find it interesting that "trans-atlantic" slavery was the phrase. Slavery in the Sudan is ok? (speaking of which, forgive my ignorance, but are Egyptians black? Blacks claim the pyramids as theirs, I always associate that with the Arabs/middle eastern people)

One of the worst stories is Willie Gary. I've met the man on different occasions and he's got a great story ( williegary.com click on the "Willie Gary" link ) of growing up dirt poor and now being a multi-millionaire. The sad part, is he's part of the Reparations Coordinating Committee. Of all people, he's overcome any hurdles placed in his way and them some. Like his bio says, he lives the American Dream.

And not to negate how horrific slavery in America was, which descendents are better off, slaves or those that stayed in Africa? Why not honor the tremendous price paid by slaves by living up to your true potential instead of looking for payback?

Just a southern white guy's thoughts......
posted by jbunch at 8:42 PM on August 18, 2002

It's not really much of a debate, because it's such a colossally bad idea, dreamed up by nasty race-baiters who feed on and are paid for encouraging racist divisiveness.

But I think somebody already said that.
posted by hama7 at 8:43 PM on August 18, 2002

I don't claim to represent black America (and I chafe at the Clarence Thomas allusions). Opinions vary as widely among blacks as among any other group (like homosexuals). I personally believe most of the voices in favor on the non-minority side are "white man's burden" type sentiment, along with some who genuinely believe that reparations need to happen. Some blacks who favor reparations have a real belief in their cause, in my opinion the majority want something for nothing.

I just disagree with them and find that its a school of thought that does more harm than good.
posted by owillis at 8:44 PM on August 18, 2002

Good trackback posts from owillis below.
posted by hama7 at 8:45 PM on August 18, 2002

Oh - and I believe black America's marginal representation online is two pronged:

1. Economics
2. Genuine disinterest (which is the real problem facing black children and passed down generation to generation as children are increasingly younger)

Both of these problems can be solved within the black community, but that involves pointing fingers at self, rather than "other". I'm not holding my breath.
posted by owillis at 8:47 PM on August 18, 2002

correction:
as parents are increasingly younger
posted by owillis at 8:48 PM on August 18, 2002

aenemated: I'm from the South too, and am white and male. I even grew up in Mississippi, which is now blamed for everything bad that ever happened in America, even unrelated problems in Florida. This, in some people's eyes, automatically makes me a person not to be trusted, or to be ridiculed. The only thing being from Miss. or the Deep South has ever cost me, though, is a few might-have-been "friends" (screw 'em anyway) and maybe a bit of personal pride. Any harassment can be automatically stopped by the following (if things get bad enough), however: "Do you have some sort of a problem?"

Imagine the same sort of thing costing you much more, or that, say, the North receives many impossibly huge, but largely overlooked benefits that will never help you (a la the mortgage interest deduction, which helps people of all races but which disproportionally helps the white middle class - no small thing in the go-go '90s, by the way). Imagine race not costing you one job out of dozen, but several dozen, jobs. Imagine not getting a bank loan because you're from the South, etc.

Go ahead, feel free to be miffed when stereotyped. Get outright pissed off. But give us all a break. (Note: This is not to be read as an endorsement of the reparations committee's work or plans.)
posted by raysmj at 8:50 PM on August 18, 2002

I'm not sure what side I fall on in the reparations debate; logically, American blacks have not had an easy time of it, and there's still work to be done. And the practical applications of actually delivering reparations are staggering, as many here have pointed out.

One point I haven't yet read, however, and one I agree with is one that Juan Williams, of NPR fame, made not long ago on the subject, and that deals with what comes after reparations are successfully made. Blacks in America have come very far from slavery in goodly part on the basis of moral righteousness - they as a group have been (and still are) treated both cavalierly and harshly, and have a moral platform to demand change that has significant historical precedent, a substantial measure of white support, and most importantly, the ineffable strength of rightness behind it.

But once reparations are made, all that disappears. The past transgressions from which the power to garner universal support and enact change are effectively erased - repairs have been made, after all. Without that historical moral strength, the power to enact further changes rests simply on political power, which for a demographic minority tends to be local and regional.

The reparations debate brings up excellent points, but actually winning reparations might be a Pyrrhic victory of the worst sort, for it would take the powerful weapons for bringing change away from blacks, while at the same time providing anti-black organizations a crystallizing issue from which to provoke.
posted by UncleFes at 9:13 PM on August 18, 2002

well, I'm glad i left to meet my friends (and no i didn't have a problem getting a cab--i'm white you see)

troybob, you rock!!

and I'm sorry people don't realize that discrimination is wrong, but you see, they got what they wanted and that's what counts, no? If restrictive housing laws were legal until 1950, well, you know, that's life, yes? If people cared about other people, well, maybe they'd be called communist or Hillary or something...

and evanizer, re: the navy--are you unaware that the navy was separate and unequal until after WW2? or doesn't it matter because you were not alive then?

I guess it's true--it's not because black people were and are discriminated against, but that they're lazy, money-grubbing bastards, as so many of you seem to think...

goodnight all...x
posted by amberglow at 9:45 PM on August 18, 2002

I have pictures of family members who were slaves. I think reparations are a bad idea. Make of it what you will. I loathe David Horowitz, but some of his arguments against this idea are very pertinent.
posted by McBain at 10:43 PM on August 18, 2002

It's late, so let me quickly run through an interesting historical parallel:

Back in the 60s and 70s, the federal government thought it had the perfect solution to the problems with Indian reservations (alcoholism, poverty, lack of education): it would simply pay the displaced peoples fair market value for the land they now lived on. The Indians would use the money to buy homes, start businesses, and generally integrate themselves into society. The problem of the reservation would be solved. Sounded like a good idea at the time.

You're probably thinking, "but didn't they have something (land) to exchange for the money?" Yes, but that isn't the point. Within five or ten years, the money was gone; squandered on cars, gambling, alcohol, and swindled away by various con-men.

The moral, people, is that you simply cannot inject money into a section of the population and expect them to magically have the skills to use that money properly. If reparations became a reality, and they were somehow distributed correctly, I still would bet that within a decade, the money would be right back where it started.

Minus the cost to the government and taxpayers, of course.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:03 PM on August 18, 2002

I don't claim to represent black America (and I chafe at the Clarence Thomas allusions).

I've always appreciated owillis's opinions, as much as I've disagreed with them, so I would like to state that I never did feel this was the case. I was merely trying to say that the opinion of one black person did not constitute adequate representation here. The Clarence Thomas reference had more to do with demonstrating that a black voice does not necessarily constitute representation for the black community; I did not intend to tie in owillis with Clarence Thomas, but only to state that the evanizer's insinuation (owillis posted, so blacks are adequately represented) was false.

Also, I wouldn't claim to try to represent black America. I have straight friends who make it a point to argue with anyone who puts forth anti-gay arguments; similarly, for me it feels wrong to ignore that a topic like this is, for some, an excuse to unload racist sentiment (and, on this page, in a manner not particuarly well disguised).
posted by troybob at 11:26 PM on August 18, 2002

Also...excellent post, UncleFes. It's interesting to look at it that way (and I'll certainly seek out Juan Williams' stuff to get more of what he says); however, I think many people believe already, in your words, that 'repairs have been made,' that the work of fighting racism has been done and that there's nothing left but for blacks to get over it. I'm actually wondering if this is perhaps the reason discussion about reparations has widened, that there is more a feeling that this prior deterrent has already come to pass.
posted by troybob at 11:37 PM on August 18, 2002

My favourite part about all this is that the prime movers like Conyers and the Reverend Farrakhan (can a Muslim be a Reverend?) want to administer all the reparation funds and lands; no doubt they don't trust the white devils to properly divvy up the loot. Imagine the battles among all the self-appointed leaders of the "Black Community" over who gets how much of what!
Lets make a deal: Black America never mentions reperations again, and White America eradicates all evidence that Urkel ever existed
posted by BGM at 12:35 AM on August 19, 2002

a couple of points:

1. most slaves were not taken by 'whitey' but were sold by african chiefs to the slave traders. therefor the claims should be adressed to, say, the king of the ashanti

2. i was once with a maasai friend of mine when another african started giving me grief about colonialism, slavery etc. my friend told the guy to shut up and said "if freedom was important to your people, you should have fought harder".
posted by quarsan at 2:02 AM on August 19, 2002

Like empatheticMisanthrope, I'm a longtime lurker posting for the first time, prodded to action by the appearance of an argument I had hoped wouldn't turn up and the absence of one I had hoped would.

Actually, looking at the conditions in Africa today I'd think they'd be glad they were born over here - and not over there. What if each reparations check was attached to a mandatory one-way ticket to the destination of their choice in sub-equatorial Africa? How many would be eager to get the check then?

JB71: I will never cease to be amazed that otherwise rational people choose to undermine their points by making this ridiculous and heartless argument. Are American blacks supposed to be happy that their ancestors were slaves? Do you expect them to be grateful that their relatives were kidnapped, forced to endure horrific shipping and living conditions, and had their families ripped apart? Perhaps if it had been a conscious sacrifice on the part of the ancestor-slaves ("I choose to endure this so that my descendents will have better lives"), you would have a point. But enslaved Africans had neither a choice nor any way to know that America would eventually turn out to be a more prosperous and opportunity-filled land than Africa.

That being said, I am against reparations. Aside from the problems of distributing money to post-emancipation black immigrants (which would make the payments for racism, not slavery) and to people of mixed background (how much black blood is enough?), what offends me is the idea that this is something that can be fixed with money. I agree with Yelling At Nothing's statement that injections of money into any population won't change anything--I can't imagine that giving a poor black family, say, $1000, is going to drastically improve their financial situation in the long term. (To paraphrase someone, rich people invest money; poor people buy dinner with it.) What $1000 would do is make life easier for a year. Fine. That's great. What it does not do is make up for slavery. There is no amount of money that will do that, and to imply that it could is a denial of the gravity of slavery's impact on both black and white Americans. I cannot imagine there is any dignity in accepting money as a pay-off for the trials of one's ancestors.
posted by hippugeek at 2:09 AM on August 19, 2002

quarsan: Thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten to blast those who keep arguing that it's really the African slave traders who are to blame. Of course their role was heinous, but that in no way lessens the crime of American slave traders. It was the American demand for slaves that fueled the African slaving parties, and Americans who bought and mistreated enslaved Africans at the other end of the trip.
posted by hippugeek at 2:16 AM on August 19, 2002

I believe Evanizer was relating how homosexuals can be discharged from the Navy (or any armed force) and discriminated against as blacks were during first half of the century in the armed force.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 2:48 AM on August 19, 2002

hi hippugeek. you are right, but i was trying to show that the situation is more complex than many imagine. i remember seeing the mighty professor gates being literally dunbstruck when he was told, in ghana, that all the slaves were caught and ferried to the coast by the ashanti.

the king of the ashanti is a very very rich man today.

in east africa the practice of slavery continues.
posted by quarsan at 4:05 AM on August 19, 2002

At a tangent: during an argument about Northern Ireland, my comments were branded biased by a (Southern, Catholic) Irish woman on the grounds that, being 'English,' I'm culpable in part for the Potato Famine. Aside from the nonsense of apportioning blame on the basis of ancestry, I'm of Scots, Irish, English and West Indian descent, so the majority of my ancestors were persecuted by the minority of my ancestors (I'm leaving out the question of class here).

My point being that I'm assuming that the overwhelming majority of claimants in this case are of mixed race, regardless of how their skin colour affects their status in contemporary America. So where is the line drawn? I'm white and not an American, but with black forebears, who were slaves owned by white people - can I claim a slice of the pie?

Okay, so I'm being facetious, but what is the value in debating the minutiae of proposed reparations when the goals of the civil rights movement aren't even close to being reached in America, or anywhere else for that matter?
posted by jack_mo at 4:18 AM on August 19, 2002

hippugeek is only partially right.

Everyone is quick to point out that it was the american demand for slaves that fueled the slaving parties. While that may be largely true, we also have to consider the large number of slaves bound for europe and south america. What of this? Should we reduce the amount of reparations by a x amount because of this?

The whole idea is stupid beyond belief and the mere fact that we, all of us here, are even discussing it seriously makes it even sillier.
posted by damnitkage at 4:30 AM on August 19, 2002

A couple of points.

1. Ask robert mugabe if reparations are a good idea. Given the murder of white landowners in Africa, I'd argue that it wasn't.

2. There is a need to address the problems which are a hangover from pre-slavery days. The education and opportunity which is available to African Americans isn't the same as the opportunity available to white people. Black people (and asians, and hispanics, and everyone else who isn't white) are poorer because their parents were poorer, and their parent's parents were poorer. This is something that could possibly be addressed over a number of generations with money. (i.e. reparations)

My analogy is that it's like a race (no pun intended). Even though both parties are currently allowed to run just as fast as each other (debatable), white people have a head start. The only way to make the race fair is to give everybody else a bit of a boost to level the playing field.

posted by seanyboy at 5:07 AM on August 19, 2002

Black people (and asians, and hispanics, and everyone else who isn't white) are poorer because their parents were poorer, and their parent's parents were poorer. This is something that could possibly be addressed over a number of generations with money. (i.e. reparations)

This is faulty logic, along with your statement about the headstart in the race. While the majority of the wealthy 1% is white, there are well-off black, hispanics (which is a demographic that includes Europeans, Spain being the origin) Asians, Arabs.....etc etc. and there are poor whites. True, the majority of wealthy people in this country are white, and a disportionate number of non-whites are poor. However, I'd argue that a disportionate number of *people* are poor. If we are going to start in on parents and parent's parents being poor, that includes a huge number of white people who are still struggling to get by. Racism is still an issue in this country (and the rest of the world) but race is by no means the only factor in class disparity.
posted by kayjay at 6:21 AM on August 19, 2002

As reluctant as I am to join this thread at this late stage, let me add one other thing to think about -- something that is not likely to be very popular, but I think is absolutely at the heart of the issue:

What will reparations do to the average white person who is trying his best to overcome the prejudices inherited from his parents and that he sees from time-to-time from his friends or acquaintances?

This person knows that discrimination is wrong and wants very badly to treat everyone the same. But he's swimming upstream, having grown up listening to his parents (or grandparents) use a variety of derogatory terms for blacks. He probably was a "racist" in his youth. But he's gotten a college education, and works with a number of motivated, talented African-Americans. He might stay quiet when some of his ruder friends make black jokes, but sometimes he gets up the courage to express his disgust.

This person has moved significantly from the generation before -- from the notion of blacks are inferior to the notion that everyone deserves to be treated the same. His position is precarious, however.

What do you think reparations are likely to do for this person? To me it's simple: spark resentment. This person has (admirably, to my mind) worked to become more enlightened, and truly believes everyone should be treated equally. But modern day reparations have nothing to do with equal treatment. In fact, it's the opposite -- it would be legalized discrimination. This person -- and millions more like him -- would surely regress in their opinions on race relations.

Those of you in favor of reparations will say: "Why should we care what a borderline racist white guy has to say anyway?" Because if you truly want to improve race relations (which, after all, should be the goal, right?), that person is exactly the kind of person you need to encourage. But if you want to further damage the state of race relations in this country, by all means pay reparations and alienate this person.*

*I am not this person -- my beliefs aren't so tenuous. But I know many people -- and I'm related to some -- who are just like this person.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:44 AM on August 19, 2002

To paraphrase MLK -- "When you are behind in a race, the only way to get ahead is to run harder and faster than the man in front of you".

That's what we need to be doing. Not waiting for everyone else to stop and let us catch up.

Geoff W.
posted by geoffaw at 6:50 AM on August 19, 2002

can I claim a slice of the pie?

You better start working and pay yourself, you evil slave owning... victim?
posted by insomnyuk at 6:52 AM on August 19, 2002

Insomnyuk: Before you know it, anyone with a hint of brown in their skin (that doesn't have any scruples) is going to be trying to prove their slavery lineage. Booker T. Washington would be mortified by this development.

Indeed.

Booker T. Washington, c.1911: "There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well."

To the reparation enforcers: Nobody ever dipped me in hot wax then slammed my head against the wall. You never did that to me. You owe me reparation money.
posted by Cedric at 7:16 AM on August 19, 2002

You know, as some of my ancestors were slaveholders, I''ll be happy to pay up, just as soon as I collect from the Catholic French, from whom my Huguenot forebears had to flee a few years back. Why is it that none of these cats ever mention collecting from the African chiefs who sold them into slavery to begin with (not to excuse the rest of the slave trade)?

I designate this....bullshit!
posted by Pressed Rat at 7:32 AM on August 19, 2002

why do people say that slavery is 'a sin' or 'sinful'?
posted by tolkhan at 9:46 AM on August 19, 2002

My father's family came over during the potato famine. My mother's family were originally Amish-Germans. I live (and was born and grew up) in Kansas, a state so fanatically anti-slave it was given the title of "Bloody Kansas" back during that era.

Why the hell do I owe the descendents of slaves anything? This is, as it has been said before, a shallow attempt to grab cash that wasn't earned. In our something-for-nothing society, I can understand the sentiment, but I'm not paying for it.

Sean
posted by drstrangelove at 9:53 AM on August 19, 2002

My family also immigrated during the potato famine in the early 1900's. We were accepted fairly well in America since we are classified caucasians, but my great grandfather worked his entire life away to make things better for his children and grandchildren. That's the sacrifice he made to keep us out of poverty.

It seems at first glance that being caucasian is part of the problem, there's too much speculation that all African Americans were decendants of slaves or that all Caucasians were abusive towards them. This is not true by a long shot, but it's often easier to assume that is the reason why whites are better off financially, which makes debates like this often hard to justify when looking at the current state of struggling communties.

There's a bigger problem for today's African American than being the decendants of slavery. It is being trapped in an environment that almost forces poverty and closes off any options. And you can't just throw money at that and expect it to go away. In my opinion, if the government were to do anything, it would continue to help clean up neighborhoods that are often remarked to be "slums" or "crack alleys," and continue the improvment of education and solid employment. Because within these environments exist an endless cycle of reluctancy to invest in better schools and better community services.

How these areas became predominantly black over the past century deserves serious thought. Rebuilding these areas and making them safer places to live seems utopic, but sure beats handing out cash to individuals as reparations for the sake of being practical.

Yet on the same note, no one should sit back and expect handouts from the government, expecting it to fix the entire mess. We work together to clean things up just as families work together to clean the house on the weekends (my family's a little dysfunctional in this department...once again, wishful thinking). Even without using the government, there are plenty of communities doing this for themselves with the help of donations.
posted by samsara at 12:23 PM on August 19, 2002

tolkhan: why do people say that slavery is 'a sin' or 'sinful'?

Well, according to Torah (and, thus the old law of Christianity, and the Book of Islam), there are rules for keeping slaves. You can have a slave, but at the next Jubilee year (every seven years) all slaves are freed. If they want to stay, they have to make a public statement of that desire, and you have their ear pierced on the temple steps....

Thus the maximum enslavement is seven years (coincidentally the length of most indentured servitude). Slavery for life is specifically prohibited by the Law, and keeping slaves past a Jubilee year is a violation of the Law, and thus a sin.

Dunno how many goats it'll cost ya, though.
posted by dwivian at 12:25 PM on August 19, 2002

<rant>
Why should anyone be held responsible for actions that were commited by someone else?

Hell, American's weren't the only slavers and/or slave traders... what about the Dutch? What about the Portuguese? What about the Spanish? What about the African tribesmen who would kidnap their tribal enemies and sell them to the slavers?

Hell, if we all go around seeking reparations for wrongs done to our ancestors then everyone would be screwed. Christians being thrown to the lions, anyone in the way of the Vikings, any "native" who died from a disease brought with some explorer... there'd be no end to it!
</rant>
posted by crankydoodle at 12:31 PM on August 19, 2002

What pardonyou? was just saying I have seen here in New Zealand. Different situation, where reparations were made to maori for blatant land-grabbing, not slavery. (History: The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 and then at times conveniently ignored).
There is a great deal of public dissatisfaction and tension about settlement. Claims keep rolling in, some inevitably preposterous, almost thirty years after a Tribunal was formed to deal with them. Spectacular public failures of tribal trusts and bad behaviour by "leaders" handed millions of dollars, the common man left with bugger all.
My parents' generation were/are stunningly, viciously racist by today's standards, and I have found it doesn't take much scratching to uncover those subconsciously inherited, learned, ideas and poisonous phrases lurking under the skin of this generation.
So yes, I can guarantee that reparations would be socially divisive, and that it is, unfortunately, a scam. If the US gov.t made reparations, what you will never see is every 'slave' household receiving a nice cheque. The money will go...insert own 'will make Enron look like' reference here.
posted by Catch at 2:40 PM on August 19, 2002

I guess it's true--it's not because black people were and are discriminated against, but that they're lazy, money-grubbing bastards, as so many of you seem to think...

Well, amberglow, you successfully fucked up any chances of me taking your point of view seriously by making that comment. No one in this thread said African-Americans were lazy or money-grubbing, but if that's your interpretation of many of the valid points stated here than feel free to stick your head in the sand even further. Your accusations are straight out of the Bill O'Reilly School of Putting Words in the Mouths of People You Don't Agree With.
posted by dhoyt at 2:52 PM on August 19, 2002

Just for comparison, let's look at the two central statements of the sides in this argument:

1. "I have never enslaved anyone. I am not responsible for the sins of my ancestors. I am not them, their actions took place before I was even born. My particular forefathers did not even commit the sins you accuse me of, but that is irrelevant. I do not owe anyone anything and I refuse to pay."

A logical, thoughtful statement totally devoid of racism.

2. "Crimes were committed in the past by white people. Therefore, all white people share a collective guilt merely because they are white. They should be forced to pay reparations, even though they themselves did not commit any crime, just because they are white."

A profoundly racist comment. Disgusting.
posted by eszetela at 4:20 PM on August 19, 2002

Reparations would do more harm than good, and frankly we'd be better off if we took the money / effort / energy to work towards the ideal of treating all people equally (or at least giving them equal opportunity) and so on.

That said, I'm ashamed that my country allowed slavery at all. I feel sick about whatever wealth that I enjoy that was paid for by slavery (and my ancestors came here after slavery was abolished).

I'm also ashamed at what my country has done to the Native Americans. I think we have a better chance at reparations there (returning to earlier, larger tribal boundaries that we agreed to).

Yanking money out of people's pockets is just going to piss them off, and isn't going to fix the problem anyway. The problem is poverty and rot and discrimination and lack of opportunity, something we have to fix in *every* disadvantaged area, not just those relating to African Americans.

Yes, it was wrong. Yes, it sucked. Yes, every American has benefitted somehow, directly or indirectly, imho. (I don't think this country would be where it is today without the slaves). Do we go forward to something better, or prolong the agony? We already fought a war over it, how much more blood is to be shed?
posted by beth at 4:24 PM on August 19, 2002

Hell, American's weren't the only slavers and/or slave traders... what about the Dutch? What about the Portuguese? What about the Spanish? What about the African tribesmen who would kidnap their tribal enemies and sell them to the slavers?

Everyone is quick to point out that it was the american demand for slaves that fueled the slaving parties. While that may be largely true, we also have to consider the large number of slaves bound for europe and south america.

Does the fact that others have committed the same crime make ours any less horrible? I doubt any jury would accept the defense that A shouldn't be jailed for theft because B, C, and D stole from the same bank, raped the same woman, etc. Besides, we would hardly be paying reparations to the descendents of slaves who live in Europe and South America.
posted by hippugeek at 1:42 PM on August 20, 2002

Do whites today indirectly benefit from slavery, even if they didn't do anything? Yes.

Prove it. Do whites benefit from slavery or from racism? Do they even benefit from racism, or simply from being the majority in a racially heterogeneous society? Do they benefit from being the majority or do they benefit from being the first (and for many decades the only) empowered race in this society?

And even still, we are still speaking in inappropriately overly broad generalizations. I think that almost everyone would be hard-pressed to suggest that a white family living in a broken-down schoolbus in rural Appalachia has ever reaped any benefit from slavery. It would be difficult to suggest that poor whites who were sharecroppers or worse in the era of slavery derived any benefit from the practice.

Do blacks today indirectly feel negative consequences resulting from slavery even if they weren't the ones enslaved? Yes.

Again, prove it. Do blacks today experience negative consequences (experience, not feel, feelings are wholly irrelevant and inappropriate to be brought into the issue) as a result of slavery, or as a result of centuries of racism -- racism which helped fuel and bolster and give support to slavery, and may well have even caused slavery, but was probably not caused by slavery?

And of course, again, while all blacks are certainly at risk of having to deal with racists, not all have been held back as a result of racism. And I'm not even speaking of the obvious examples (Oprah, Colin Powell, a plethora of athletes, etc.) but of hundreds of thousands of blacks who are well-educated, successful, productive and involved members of this society.

This whole benefit/oppression thing is a wretched canard.
posted by Dreama at 11:38 PM on August 20, 2002

Okay, I think I'm ready to post now.

There are a few things about this nth iteration of the Metafilter "reparations are dumb" thread that have been bothering me since it first went up. There seem to be quite a few shared arguments between the three threads I've seen on this subject over the past few weeks (this one here, and two others at Fark and Plastic respectively). If you don't mind, I'd like to address them now.

"I had some relatives pass away in the potato famine back in the mid-1800's and I could use some of that sweet limey cash!*
"I just pointed out that my ancestors were Cherokee and Creek Indians and that since the person accusing owned a house that therefore they were on my land."*
"Sorry Umberto, you can't have any of our sweet limey cash as I'm trying to get money off the French for invading us in 1066."*
"Come to think of it, I never got paid for building that railroad..."*

Ah, sweet distraction. The slippery slope (iii) technique, to be exact. "My ancestors in x country were oppressed by nation y, but do you hear us complaining?" Well, maybe you should be. I guess it depends. Did nation y renege on its own declaration of the inherent rights of all its citizens, going so far as to revise its own Declaration of Independence so as to subjugate your people more efficiently? Yes? Then I think you may have a case.

(Actually, since Stan Chin's and nyxxxx's ancestors were mistreated by the U.S. in particular, I would wish them the best of luck in their quest for justice, but I have a sneaking suspicion that they were being sarcastic.)

Basically, this tactic boils down to a variation on an old classic: "But everyone else was doing it!" Yes, the appeal that couldn't win you a half-hour curfew extension back when you were a kid is now one of the chief defenses employed in the name of the United States' involvement with the slave trade.

Speaking of which...

It's a given that the tribes of Africa caught and sold their captives to the slave traders. Therefore, shouldn't the main payee of said reparations be the African countries?"*
"Perhaps they would be closer (but still completely wrong) if they tracked down the actual descendents of slave owners and sued them. "*
"I'm still responsible for their ancestors' being sold out to Americans by their own countrymen in Africa."*
"So the Africans and Moslems are going to have to put some money in, too."*
(Probably more, but I'm getting tired...)

Hmm. I'm gonna go with complex cause on this one. (Although I suppose it could also be seen as a false dilemma: "Don't blame us, blame them!" As if finding fault with both is out of the question.) Yes, slavery existed in Africa before the Transatlantic slave trade took off. Your point? Since we're freely quoting dead black leaders to suit our own purposes here, I'll chime in with a little Booker T. Washington: "Cast down your bucket where you are." I am in the U.S.-- everything else can wait. (Actually,Hippugeek covered this part pretty nicely. Let's just move on.)

"I calmly informed her that I was not born in this country and that none of my ancestors within the last five generations could have possibly owned slaves. "*
"As it turns out, *I* have never owned slaves, nor was *I* responsible for decisions made hundreds of years ago by sick and twisted men who were no part of my ancestry"....*
"Too many people in this country are immigrants and recent immigrants that have absolutely no ties to slavery and reparations would in effect be penalizing them and engender a great deal of bitterness."*
"We didn't do jack shit for them, we couldn't because "we" didn't exist."*
"My relatives, for instance, immigrated her in the early part of the 20th century and were in no way responsible for slavery. We certainly never lived in the South or ran any kind of plantations."*
"The US government is not a person, it is discontinuous ...This is not an acceptance of blame for the past, because the current government is discontinuous from the past. "*
(Lots more, but again I'm tired.)

This is... an interesting argument. Government is discontinuous, and we don't have a stake in anything our ancestors weren't directly involved in? Great! My maternal and paternal great-great grandparents were living in rural Kentucky and Arkansas respectively. Being black and severely undereducated, they were most likely completely disenfranchised. Why do I bring this up? Because it was back then that the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified! I can't wait until next April, when I will walk into the nearest branch of the IRS and try out the "my ancestors didn't have anything to do with this and I won't accept responsibility" clause that some of you seem to be so fond of. No taxation without representation, right? How dare you take money from me to pay for something I never agreed to!

Hey, as a matter of fact, this probably gets me out of a lot of things! Quick show of hands: who here ratified the Constitution? They were really supposed to rework the Articles of Confederation, you know, not start over completely. We didn't give them permission, so I guess we're beyond the reach of that too. Life rocks when you get to pick and choose which rights to accept and which responsibilities aren't worth your time. I didn't realize we could do this!

This is becoming absurdly long, but there's so much here to address!
"(speaking of which, forgive my ignorance, but are Egyptians black? Blacks claim the pyramids as theirs, I always associate that with the Arabs/middle eastern people)"*

Nothing wrong with an honest question, jbunch. Here's a timeline; note that the Muslims didn't conquer Egypt until 640 AD. Egypt is decidedly older than that. Your question is akin to saying "I was in Manhattan the other day and saw nothing but white people. What's all this about Indians once owning it?"

If you're interested in reading about pre-Muslim Egyptian history, you might take a look at the work of Cheikh Anta Diop. His discussion of ancient Egypt seems pretty well researched to me, and he goes into detail about the long-standing bias in the archeological community against the very idea that black Africans were responsible for any sort of civilization and how it could have affected their research.

"Do blacks today experience negative consequences (experience, not feel, feelings are wholly irrelevant and inappropriate to be brought into the issue) as a result of slavery, or as a result of centuries of racism -- racism which helped fuel and bolster and give support to slavery, and may well have even caused slavery, but was probably not caused by slavery?"*
Racism caused slavery? Funny, Dreama: everything I've ever read on the subject has it the other way around. "We need some sort of justification for denying their rights indefinitely... oh! I know! We'll say that they're subhuman!" And so racism was born.

I again apologize for the length here, but I find this thread very annoying. The stereotypes, the generalizations, the bigotry, the near-total lack of any supporting hyperlinks... this thread is rife with poor logic, slander, irrelevant anecdotes, and empty rhetoric. crackheadmatt ran into a cashier with a chip on her shoulder, and now we have to wade through this?!?

I am determined to inject some semblance of a logical debate into this thread-- but it's almost six in the morning right now. If any of you want to come back here and defend your previous statements or point out any errors of mine, I would be glad to get some feedback.

Heh, has there ever been a longer and more argumentative first post? (*waves*) I'm not always like this, I swear, but this thread has really rubbed me the wrong way.

Definitely fewer quotes next time.
posted by tyro urge at 2:46 AM on August 29, 2002

(*twenty-four hours and several deep breaths later*) Okay. While I make no bones about the ideological stance I took in the previous post, in retrospect I really think that it could've been a lot more neutral in tone. It's not exactly conducive my argument to work so much condescension into it. Sorry if the post seems a bit heavy-handed; I'll try to rein it in from now on.

Anyhow, about "white guilt" and its relation to the reparations argument-- I've always been ambivalent about white guilt, but couldn't explain why; now, after seeing this thread, I think I can.

Justice and empathy are two entirely different things. Isomorphisms summed it up nicely, I think: "I don't put much stock in people who judge people based on their feelings alone." For justice to be justice it has to be blind and impartial; ideally, it runs on nothing more than cold hard facts. In that thread, the requisite impartiality was there-- and that impartiality is exactly what this thread needs. "Should I identify the situation as wrong? Yes. Should I devote my time feeling badly about the plight of people that, I repeat, until they appeared on my local news station, I had never heard of? No."

I think that a similar separation of emotion and reason would really benefit the discussion in this thread. Look, despite all the cries of "scam" that took place early on in this thread, I really do believe that the bulk of the reparations movement is based on faith in the United States justice system; there are some people who simply want a chance to logically put forth their case that American slavery unjustly deprived millions of people of their basic human and civil rights and went against the spirit (if not the letter) of the most basic constitutional law. As raysmj said, there does seem to be some precedent to the idea that a lawsuit can be enacted on behalf of a wronged group even when said group's mistreatment was declared "legal" at the time. Why, then, is there so very little impartial consideration of the topic in here?

In the Ward Weaver thread, everyone managed to keep their personal feelings separate from the bare bones facts about the crime; even the people who claimed not to care any more weren't trying to parlay that indifference into a suggestion that charges against Weaver be dropped. For the most part, that detachment doesn't seem to be happening in this thread. Arguments here tend to be mostly (though not completely) informed not by impartiality but by emotion-- "I think it's a scam so it should be ignored" vs. "I think it's a travesty so we should do it" when a more rational assessment of whether or not the litigants have a viable case would have been much more effective.

amberglow, empathy is a good thing, and I'm glad that you can put yourself in someone else's shoes; in a situation like this, however, I think people need to put aside their emotions and examine the facts as dispassionately as possible. Anyone honestly addressing the issue of reparations should want nothing more or less than fair and equal protection under the law. In this case, "white guilt" is counterproductive. Of course, I can't speak for everyone else, but as a black male open to the idea of reparations, I think I'd prefer reasoned discourse to sympathy.

There: did that sound neutral enough? Did it even make any sense? Seeing as how no one else seems to be back here, I guess it's a moot point.
posted by tyro urge at 3:01 AM on August 30, 2002

tyro, what does the term "Black Reparations" mean to you? I'm not sure if it's just an idea, or whether the payoff and execution is planned out. But if not, what would you like to see happen? Who would you like to be responsible for it?
posted by samsara at 2:14 PM on August 30, 2002

Crap, accidentally deleted my post. Still getting the hang of this, you know. Okay, in answer to the three questions:

1. To me, the reparations fight is a struggle to get the government to acknowledge the fact that its endorsement of both slavery and inequality in the form of Jim Crow violated the very civil (not to mention human) rights that that same government should have been protecting. (I've just come up with this loopy strategy on how to make a case on this point, but I'm not a lawyer or anything, so I want to run a few searches to see if what I'm thinking makes any sense at all before I plaster it up here. Let me get back to you on that one.)

2. Payoff? Other people ("Amount and Form of...") seem to be considering it, but I personally hadn't had any particular payoff in mind, if that's what you were asking. I hadn't gotten past getting to court and putting together a viable case.

3. Who should be responsible? Please, ANYONE but Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakhan! Wait, or do you mean who pays? The government, I suppose, since

a) that whole "you should track down and sue the individual slaveowners" argument doesn't hold water when you consider how many other industries were indirectly fueled by the slave trade [or were the slaveholding states fully autonomous even before they tried to pull away in the Civil War?] and
b) slavery could not have continued without the government's refusal to defend [or even recognize] black people's rights.

Of course, African Americans would be expected to continue paying taxes (and therefore partially financing the whole thing) just like everyone else.

At least, those are my off-the-cuff responses. I'll check back tomorrow.
posted by tyro urge at 3:25 PM on August 31, 2002

...Or maybe in a week or so.

Okay, so the whole "loopy strategy" thing (sidestep the whole "it was legal at the time" defense of slavery by arguing that the sections of the Constitution condoning slavery [such as Article V]) went against the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and were therefore legally invalid) fell through (heh, pesky Article VI seems to invalidate that angle of attack).

I was somewhat intrigued by the language of Section Nine in Article I: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States." Couple that section with the "no penalties through corruption of the blood" argument put forth earlier and I think you might be able to put together the interesting argument that slavery violated the Constitution by creating a government-sanctioned title of ignobility in the form of a hereditary slave caste ("following the condition of the mother" and all). I think that the whole "ex post facto" argument probably wouldn't stand up against the fact that slaves, being slaves, were not allowed to testify in court or to petition the government on their own behalf. You know, because of the whole "No rights a white man need respect" thing. I've always found the "they're dead now, who cares" argument wonderfully circular and convenient: they weren't allowed to sue when they were alive because their rights weren't recognized; now, generations later, some want to sue on their behalf, but we dismiss that with a blithe "Well, it's too late now, if they really wanted it they should've done it themselves." It's like some huge trans-generational filibuster.

Look, I'm not a lawyer or anything; my theoretical litigation plans are based on a whopping two hours of online Constitution reading. I don't claim that the reparations advocates have an airtight case or an unassailable position, but I remain surprised by the typical responses I've seen in this thread. Not just the obligatory "Go back to Africa" quotes, but the general tone as well. Rrrrggh, I've been going over and over this thread and could spend another week arguing about the things in it. Reparations would create more tension? So? What does that have to do with whether or not the reparations movement is a just cause? What, was desegregation some sort of universally-approved cakewalk or something?

...No, no. I am not going to sit back here an rave to myself any longer. Let me put it this way: There was an earlier Metafilter thread about the Elgin Marbles-- whether or not England should give them back to Greece and so forth. In it, Frasermoo chimed in with what I thought to be a surprisingly self-centered parallel/anecdote: basically, it boiled down to "they're not rightfully ours, but I want them, so we're keeping them." I see pretty much all of the anti-reparations arguments put forth in this thread in a similar way-- except that none of you seem to have enough self-awareness to be honest with yourselves and admit that the biggest objection to the reparations movement isn't that it's unfair, but rather that it would be too expensive and therefore unfeasible. birdherder came the closest to saying it: The United States was built on injustice; settling every grievance would require huge sacrifices in both cash and property. After all, if we addressed the slavery issue, how could we possibly keep the Natives quiet? They'd have to be fools not to scrounge up every broken treaty they could lay hands on! When the problem is too big to settle with a token gesture, we'd rather just pretend that there is no problem. "It's a shame, but it has nothing to do with us. The past doesn't mean anything today. Besides, even if we did pay them, they'd just waste the money on fried chicken and solid gold Cadillacs. (Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, but that was definitely the import I saw behind your words.) As the indirect beneficiaries of the slave trade, you can trust us when we say that we've objectively decided to keep every cent of profit made on the backs of your oppressed ancestors." Right. Sure. Thanks for thinking it over.

Hell, I can feel myself slipping back into anger and sarcasm again, so let me summarize: I find the arguments in this thread to be piss-poor, unsubstantiated, and incredibly self-serving. There were some valiant efforts to argue the other side (interestingly enough it was that opposition that supplied 90+% of the actual on-topic supporting links while everyone else was running on conjecture and distraction), but for the most part it was more of an opinionated circle-jerk than a reasoned argument. Metafilter isn't just a boyzone: racial issues, like obesity posts and the highly-toxic Israel/Palestine threads, tend to degrade into cheap slander and petty accusations rather quickly here. It's a real shame that there seem to be so many "untouchable" topics where logic goes flying out the nearest window.

Feh, another angry screed written to absolutely no one.
I'm done with this thread now, I suppose.
posted by tyro urge at 10:09 PM on September 8, 2002