MacRaven - Dave Haxton's Weblog

Mon, 10 Jul 2006

Slavery reparations gaining momentum

Uh, I want my reparations! Some of my Scottish ancestors were enslaved and raped by Norwegian Viking raiders: they owe me!

I'm certain some of my even more distant ancestors were enslaved in Rome - the Italian government owes me! And I have no doubt at all that some of my more easterly ancestors suffered under the Mongol yoke: the Chinese owe me, too!

This isn't a slippery slope, it's a greased ski run.

AP - Advocates who say black Americans should be compensated for slavery and its Jim Crow aftermath are quietly chalking up victories and gaining momentum.

(link) [Yahoo! News: Top Stories]

/Politics | 14 writebacks | permanent link

On 7/10/2006 06:11:51
Thud wrote

A significant point, I think: Firstly, the Mongol and Roman empires are at least a thousand years dead and gone. Slavery ended here less than 150 years ago. We don't just know that there was slavery, in many cases we still know who's family owned whom. And we can still see, very clearly, the economic effects. There might be a reasonable argument against reparations, or certain reparations strategies, but this one ain't it.

On 7/10/2006 07:16:37
Bjorngrímnir wrote

Okay, how 'bout this argument, then? Because there is a difference between someone who profits and someone who profiteers. There is nothing that America can do to help the people who were enslaved - they are long dead and beyond the effects of reparations. What America can do now is try to repair the current economic effects of slavery that you pointed out, along with the social effects; and at the same time try to combat the slave trading that still goes on in the world today. Apologies and payment plans will not achieve this. Education and genuine action are what will help this to happen. When that happens, then not just the descendants of slaves (of which almost all people of all cultures can claim) will have profitted, but the rest of the world. The payment-plan-approach to reparations takes things in the wrong direction because it does not address the current social and economic divides - only the past ones.

On 7/10/2006 07:45:02
Zach Wendling wrote

Don't believe everything that the article's author, Erin Texeira, tells you: http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2006/07/erin_texeira_is.html

On 7/10/2006 08:27:09
Dave H wrote

I'll stick with my original argument

thank you very much! Although I must confess that Bjorngrimnir has a good point too. But what does time matter? Why does the fact that slavery ended here 150 years ago matter more than that it ended in Rome 1500 years ago? Why is the oppression suffered by a black man two centuries past more worthy of redress than that suffered by a central Asian a millennium ago? Everybody has ancestors who were slaves at some point - and royalty at others. Can we inherit kingdoms based on our "royal blood"? Then why should we receive reparations based on our "slave blood"? The other argument based on this line of reasoning is compelling as well: the paternal side of my family did not arrive in the United States until nearly sixty years after slavery ended. So do I only pay a "half share" to former slaves? What if I can prove that my maternal side never owned slaves at all? And I off the hook for cash entirely? Should we return to the Old Testament principle of visiting the crimes of the father up his children to the seventh generation? Or the fiftieth? The whole thing smacks of rounding up my entire first grade class of 1962-63 today and fining us, with the proceeds going to a another group related to a kid in the class who got beat up on the playground by another kid - and both the victim and the oppressor are now dead and gone. It's group punishment run amok. And I'm very aware of the author and the "narrative journalism" school. News should remain news, and polemic should remain polemic and when the twain mix it should be on the editorial page, not the front page. To AP's credit they at least threw in a bit of balance in quoting a fellow from the Manhattan Institute. Thanks for the comments and, Be well, Dave H.

On 7/10/2006 09:58:00
sari0009 wrote

Passion, Attitude, Knowledge & Money

The sacred passions of equality & liberty are so sweet, profound, steady, loyal and enduring in nature that, once accepted, they will last through a whole lifetime -- if not asked to give/gain reparations 150 years after slavery. Give the average person a lump sum of money, and the individual will soon be back to the previous financial point, roughly Give a person money is small portions … that was called welfare. Interesting Fact: Many millionaire entrepreneurs have lost it all at least once, only to rise again. My mother had to flee Russia and then Germany -- came to America on a boat. No one handed her anything and yet she became financially successful, as did her sibblings.

On 7/10/2006 11:17:01
Thud wrote

Bjorn, that would be one of the better arguments. In the face of an unwillingness to pursue affirmative action policies, though, reparations appears to be the only alternative. Dave, you said: "Why does the fact that slavery ended here 150 years ago matter more than that it ended in Rome 1500 years ago? Why is the oppression suffered by a black man two centuries past more worthy of redress than that suffered by a central Asian a millennium ago?" It's not a question of being more or less worthy. The failure of others in other cultures recompense a millenia ago does not absolve us of the responsibility to take care of what we can for our much more recent sins. Our closeness to American slavery means we can do more about it this time; and the after-effects of modern slavery are more accutely felt. The oppression of a black man two hundred years ago is still felt by that black man's great-grandchildren, who continue to suffer the long-term after effects of an economy based on slavery. And regardless of immigration status or heritage, I think if you are an American you not only have access to the rights of American citizenship but also the debts -- moral as well as financial -- of that government. In many ways, American stature and authority is what it is *because* of Slavery. Even if our great grandfathers never held a whip, and even if we're from recent immigrant stock, we are benefiting from acts of American slavery and genocide. I don't think it's unreasonable for the decendants of those who's work created America ask America to give them the recompense denied for so long.

On 7/10/2006 16:26:23
sari0009 wrote

"LIberty and Justice for All" ... & Survival

To to close the book on misdeeds of the past and to prevent writing new ones, it is better to both pay it back and to pay it forward in the currency of sense, liberty and equal rights. I'm part Native American, my mother stepped off the boat, and my N.Y. relatives were against slavery. Reparations for 150+ years ago is a messy and impractical snarl of complexities that no one is willing the pay the taxes to have figured out properly and fairly. To transform unjust structures and live out the determination to make the world a better/fairer place (or at least a stepping stone) helps combat loosing ground/rights while providing the backbone and environment for any able and willing to survive and excel. True on many levels.

On 7/10/2006 17:13:37
Bjorngrímnir wrote

Thud - Sari's post reminded me of something. It has been less than 150 years since we took land from Indians. If your logic is sound, then it must also be consistent...do you propose that we give it all back, to be fair and equal?

On 7/10/2006 18:23:14
Thud wrote

I'm not sure that completely returning stolen land to the Indian nations _is_ fair, equal, or consistent with the idea of black slavery. Reparations is not a balanced, full monetary accounting of the value of human suffering. Neither would be returning lands to the Indians. That doesn't mean we can't make some meaningful, constructive gesture. I certainly believe we should settle our 1870 trust fund. This is a *live* trust fund that government money is still allocated to manage, but billions of dollars appear to be missing from it. (See Cobell v. Kempthorne, http://www.indiantrust.com/) Stolen artifacts (and bodies) are another matter; they should be repatriated. Fortunately, that's now the law (The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 1990) and the American Government appears to be working towards that goal in good faith. And many American Indians -- Ethnic American Indians living as tribes -- are still not recognized by the Federal Government. Most people consider Federal Recognition to be the road to casino ownership; few people know that unrecognized tribes are frequently unable to practice their religion. We should give these approximately 225 tribes their legal rights. That's not a total accounting, but I assure you-- if all this happened in the next decade, there'd be a lot of happy Indians.

On 7/11/2006 04:23:01
Bjorngrímnir wrote

Giving land back to the Indians isn't consistent with Black slavery - but reparations for crimes committed against an entire people is perfectly consistent with this theme. Since you are obviously boned up on Indian issues, I don't need to go into detail about these crimes, or the fact that they are still committed; other than to state that the result of these crimes has led to an economic and social effect even worse in many cases than that experienced by Black Americans. Because this effect is similar, if not stronger, and because the time frame is roughly the same, it would stand to reason that if we are making monetary and apologetic reparations to Blacks, that we also do the same to the Indians. We wouldn't necessarily have to give the land back - we could offer a monetary amount equal to the estimated value of the land, plus interest, plus a bonus for treaty violations and individual documented cases of rape, torture and murder. Or, we could simply try to help the Indians along with the Blacks to recover some of that social and economic distance (beyond the measures you cited), try to promote the idea that everyone (regardless of race or religion) is American, and thus neighbors to one another. And I'm not just talking about a few multicultural commercials on television, but genuine action - along with strict enforcement of criminals who commit hate-based crimes, regardless of their race, religion or position in society.

On 7/11/2006 04:39:39
Thud wrote

Bjorn, ideally I think what you suggest in your last 'graph is the most constructive and most efficient solution. Unfortunately, such talk tends to get people up-in-arms about "affirmative action" and "reverse racism," and under current circumstances it looks like those measures are pretty much dead in the water. So I sympathize a bit with people who say "okay, then, just give us the money." Either way, we do have an obligation beyond saying "not my fault, tough."

On 7/11/2006 15:01:49
Bjorngrímnir wrote

Since you explain it that way, I believe I can understand your position much more clearly. But, to me, it would make more sense to make sure that we're doing the right thing, rather than the only thing available to do. I think that would demonstrate some sort of growth from 150 years ago. If the right thing isn't a viable option, then I think the money should be spent to figure out what makes it viable. Otherwise, to return to Dave's point, the difference between 1,500 years ago, 150 years ago, and even 15 minutes ago is absolutely nothing - unless we have actually managed to learn something and put said lesson into practice.

On 7/13/2006 09:34:50
Noddy wrote

Thud said: <i>Even if our great grandfathers never held a whip, and even if we're from recent immigrant stock, we are benefiting from acts of American slavery and genocide. </i> Are you including in this that the descendents of former African slaves in America are themselves benefiting from acts of American slavery? They have access to the same opportunities many Americans have – education, employment, healthcare, food, clothing, shelter. They benefit from the same inventions and discoveries and businesses made possible by slave labor. The descendents of former African slaves in America who attend the same schools as my children have the same opportunities my children have. They use the same textbooks, the same teachers, take the same field trips. They dress similarly, have the same hobbies and interests, cruise the same websites, listen to the same music, work in the same places, own similar quality cars. The only difference between them is attitude. What about the fact that the slave owner was just as likely to be of African descent? Records from states like South Carolina indicate that many free blacks owned slaves for the investment value as well as the work they could get from them. A few purchased relatives, but records don’t indicate a high rate of manumissions among the purchased relatives, although they may have received better treatment. Are we expecting the former African slave owners to also participate in paying reparations to descendents of former African slaves – or are we expecting only Caucasians to do this? And who gets the reparations? How do we determine who was a real descendent of a former African slave in America, or a slave owner, or a more recent African immigrant? It’s been 141 years, that’s a lot of time for Africans to immigrate to America who have never been slaves. What process are we going to use to filter them out from the ones whose ancestors were slaves in America? With mixed marriages, the person genetically a descendent of a former African slave in America could look very Caucasian. Are we prepared to deal with the confusion and anger of those with darker skins towards those who appear to be Caucasian getting reparations? And wouldn’t it be ironic to give monetary reparations to descendents of former slave owners who were free blacks, or to people whose ancestors were never American slaves? It is better to work towards changing public attitudes than handing out money.

On 7/13/2006 09:36:50
Noddy wrote

Bjorngrimnir said: ”If the right thing isn't a viable option, then I think the money should be spent to figure out what makes it viable.” The right thing is *always* a viable option. It may not be pleasant, easy, cheap, or convenient, and that, I think, is the sticking point for far too many people.

:: Categories ::

agriculture
asatru
copywrongs
humor
musings
politics
technology
index
haxton.org

:: Search ::

:: Blogroll ::

A Mindful Life
The Accidental Smallholder
Austro-Athenian Empire
Cauldron Born
Center for a Stateless Society
Dances with Ewes
Dispatches
egregores
Hardscrabble Creek
Honk & Helen
In Siberia
Laudator Temporis Acti
Lorrie's Livejournal
Masson's Blog
MyAppleMenu
NoNAIS
Notes on Religion
Numenous Thoughts
OrangeGuru
Overlawyered
Prophet or Madman
rogueclassicism
Sugar Mountain Farm
Thud Factor
Universe of Discourse
Wildhunt Blog
within the crainium

:: Archives ::

←May→
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

:: Site ::

Contact Me

MacRaven
Dave Haxton's Weblog
Musings, Reflections, Rants and Comments from a Hoosier Heathen husband, father, grandfather, farmer and software engineer. There's really only one of me ...

lunar phases

Unless otherwise noted, all original
work on this site is licensed under a

comment...


Notes: If you put a <mailto:> link in the URL field your address will not be mangled: this could be a bad idea as your email address could be easily harvested by bots designed for SPAM. The comments field should now format correctly for line feeds and carriage returns: when you hit the 'Enter' or 'Return' keys in your comment it should break to a new line. The text should wrap cleanly. Please let me know if it doesn't. No HTML tags will pass through - entering links seems to be the main cause of comment SPAM. Also, please be sure that Javascript is enabled in your browser before attempting to post a writeback. Sorry for any inconvenience, but this really helps cut down on the amount of comment SPAM I have to deal with.

Name:
URL:	(optional)
Title:	(optional)
Comments:
Save my Name and URL/Email for next time