I do not have a problem agreeing that the slavery of early America was a horrendous evil. Nor do I deny that some of it was perpetrated by people calling themselves Christians and suggesting that they had biblical merit for doing so. It's all wrong. Predicated as it is on the evil of racism, it just stinks and continues to stink. That being said, I have a few difficulties with the idea of reparations.
The idea is that we Americans should pay some sort of repayment for the evil that was slavery to those who are the descendants of those who endured it. Seems straightforward, doesn't it? To me it's not. By "we Americans" do we mean "all Americans"? Because that would entail taking money from those who are the descendants of slaves to pay for reparations to ... those who are descendants of slaves. That doesn't seem fair. There should be a "trap" for that, some sort of "You don't have to pay because you don't owe; you are owed." But how would that come about? It doesn't get easier. Do we assume that all African Americans are descendants of slaves and are owed reparations? That doesn't seem right because they're not. And paying reparations to those who are not owed it seems counter productive. (It's a "Hey, how come he got money? He wasn't part of this problem" kind of problem.) Then there's the question of payment of reparations for slavery by people who have no connection to slavery. Their families weren't here at the time or they weren't slave owners or, worse, they were fighting to free slaves ... and will now need to pay for it. You can see, then, that the mere bookkeeping of this thing would become huge. You'd have to determine if your family was on the "slave owner" side or the "once a slave" side. It's complicated further by the fact that some blacks in the 18th and 19th centuries actually owned black slaves and then further by the fact that some of those blacks that owned slaves were freed slaves. Wow, what a mess that would be! Then, as Elizabeth Warren voiced, what about others? We were definitely unfair to Native Americans in that same time frame. Shouldn't they get equally compensated? But, then, you'd need to determine the culpability of each person/family there, too, wouldn't you? At some point the debt owed by the "actually culpable by family association" to the "actually wronged" would be so huge that the "actually culpable by family association" side couldn't pay it. Never mind the "guilty by association" fallacy. So we're looking for everyone to pitch in to pay off a debt no one today owes to an unclear number of people for something they never did and, perhaps, suffered from. That, dear reader, is what is being deemed "fair and reasonable."
There is the question of expected outcome. The idea is to right a wrong, to move away from what they did wrong to making things right. Do we actually expect that to happen? Setting aside all those problems I just mentioned above, let's say we came up with a suitable amount to pay out. Someone has suggested $100 billion with $10 billion paid out each year for 10 years. Fine, if that's acceptable. (With approximately 50 million African Americans in the U.S., that would work out to about $200 each per year.) Whatever. So we pay out the "right amount" and those who are descendants of slaves get compensated. Do we expect that this solves the problems? Do they stop feeling harshly toward white people? Do we expect that, having paid so much, racists will stop being racist? Will this eliminate the income disparity between those who paid and those who received? What do we hope to gain here? I don't think that's clear at all.
There is a theological aspect to the question. I've heard many people object to the notion that Christ paid for our sin. "It's not right," they say. "You can't make someone else pay for what you did wrong." (And, of course, that's not the argument. Christ volunteered.) So they deny basic Christianity because it would be unfair of God to accept on our behalf payment by Christ. On the other hand, it is right and just to accept on behalf of people who lived a century and a half ago payment by modern Americans? Seems inconsistent.
In fact, my primary objection is a theological one. We, as sinners, violated God's glory. We made ourselves debtors to Him. He has every right to collect. That would be just. If Someone else comes along and says, "I'll pay it!" that would be grace and mercy, but it would not be justice. That is, the One to whom the debt is owed is not obligated to accept payment from One who owes no such debt. So God's acceptance of Christ's payment on my behalf is huge. He didn't have to do it. There was no requirement of justice to accept it. He did. God reconciled us to Him. What reparations would say is the exact opposite. Those who were wronged are obliged to accept as payment in full from those who did no wrong. And those who did no wrong but pay it will do so without choosing to. It will be required by law. It states in exact opposition what I see to be a primary component of the gospel.
I find the current notion of slavery to be inexcusable (save by the blood of Christ, of course). We have no version that works in any sense of morality. But I also am dismayed at the notion of charging people who committed no crime with a crime of such magnitude and making them pay for it. Worse, forcing people who suffered from the effects of the crime to pay for the crime is unconscionable to me. Finally, making "I wasn't even there, Officer" pay for the crimes of the ones that were there does not sound like justice to me. Now, if they want to do so voluntarily, I won't object. Making it a law would negate the good will of those who think they should contribute and call guilty those who did nothing and require payment from the victims they wish to compensate. That, somehow, seems completely wrong to me.
Postscript
I need to address this. I've said (with others in the comments) that the concern is justice. I've been assured that the reason I am saying I'm concerned about justice is because I'm actually a white racist who is just concerned about my pocketbook (and maybe keeping the black man down). That's a blatant lie.
The story (I got from another blog) goes like this: If a Jewish family had art in Nazi Germany that was stolen by Nazis and that direct family was killed off by Nazis, but descendants of that Jewish family had escaped and a great grandchild was to find out today that a great grandchild of the Nazi that stole their family's art still had that art, then it would be reasonable to expect that the art would be returned to the family from which it had been stolen. That wasn't to cast any blame on the descendant of the original Nazi thief ... to say that they were to blame for the Holocaust or anything ... only that to be just to the aggrieved family, it is reasonable that this debt should be paid.
This idea is, of course, reasonable. This idea, of course, is not what reparations is about. The direct relations of the Jewish family who were wronged should get reparations from the direct relations of those who wronged them. In this perfectly suitable example, the wronged family gets back precisely what was taken from the relatives of those who took it. In reparations EVERYONE, whether or not they are in the line of those who did it, is required to pay back ALL of a group of people, whether or not they are descendants of the wronged. Going with the Nazi parallel, if a Jewish family survived the Holocaust and returned to Germany and Germany decided to pay reparations to Jews, the descendants of this Jewish family would pay into the fund that would pay them reparations. Justice? In the Nazi story above, they were paid back exactly what was taken. In the reparation story this is, in fact, impossible. One pro-reparation type has suggested $100 billion. Is that it? Each of the entire group (wronged or not) gets $200/year for 10 years and that is just? That's payback? That's what was taken?
The reason I say justice is not in view here is because the call is not that the ones who were in the line of those who were wronged would get paid back what they lost from the line of those who did the wrong.
Another thing. I'm not opposed to justice. If you could come up with a way that the families of those who perpetrated the wrongs could pay back at least some of what was taken to the families of those who were wronged, I'd be for it. (Paying it all back is, frankly, impossible.) No one is offering that.
One last thing. It's not because I'm white, and only a racist assumes that it is from the beginning. I'm actually amazed that white people can be so hateful of whites merely because of the color of their skin.
Postscript II, the sequel
There is a biblical principle here.
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezek 18:20)I'm really disappointed that people that call themselves Christians think that the son should suffer for the father's iniquity. In essence, they argue that God would be unjust to make this true in the case of reparations.
27 comments:
What I'm being told, essentially, is "Justice has got nothing to do with it. Whether or not it is just, African Americans like the idea so we should just go with what they like even if it's not just. Penalize those who were not here. Penalize those who were descendants of those who were wronged. It's all good. They want it; you're a white racist if that bothers you." (Without regard, apparently, for the Native Americans who suffered at the hands of America forefathers, too.)
My point is justice. The opposition is "They'll feel a lot better about it" whether or not it's just."
Aren't we already still paying reparations to Native Americans? They already get money for the crimes committed so long ago. I even know a Native American that thinks it should end. All you have to do is look at Native Americans and see that throwing money at a group of people won't automatically fix their problems. It may help a few, but most are either minimally benefited or downright destroyed because of it. And as you said, the administration of said funds would be nearly impossible to control. What about multi racial people? By this point in time, I'm pretty sure there are very few people with bloodlines that run directly back to Africa. These days, almost nobody in America that is more than 3 generations in are "pure blood". So now you have to start administering mandatory genetic testing to determine percentage of blackness and figure out the math to decide the percentage splits. Not saying that something difficult shouldn't be done, but this is downright impossible, and as you pointed out, unfair to everyone.
Of course it isn’t about justice. So much of this sort of thing isn’t about justice. It’s about “Do what we want or else.”
I haven't been interested enough in the family genealogy to pay much attention to details. But one of us who is into that commented last year at the holiday meal, "If reparations are the next big thing, our family should get reparations from the Roman Catholic church because some of our ancestors were stripped of assets in _________ (France, I think it was) just for being Protestant."
Not that I have any expectation for this compensation to happen.
On Native Americans, David, I suppose that would count. Maybe we should offer the same deal to African Americans?
You bring up good points. It gets way too complicated. But I don't think anyone cares. First, the source of the funds: Everyone. Second, the recipients of the funds: African Americans. Easy. No one will care about who was guilty, who was not guilty, who was wronged, or who was not wronged. They will tell themselves, "All white people by virtue of being white are guilty, so much of the funds will rightly come from them. African Americans have been slighted, whether by slavery or racism, so most of the funds will go to them. Good enough."
Craig, I think we're repeatedly proving in this country that justice has nothing to do with it. Every time you hear, "No justice, no peace," it is highly likely that they mean exactly what you said: "You didn't do what we want."
Anonymous, good point with the following exceptions.
1. France is another country and the Vatican is another source. We can't do much about that.
2. If the family in question was white, their losses are just regardless of what they may think.
You have to be "woke."
If reparations are going to be a thing then shouldn’t the Muslim slavers who captured Africans be on the hook? Also I think I’ve read that the RC church actually temporarily held slaves and “converted” them so they’d go to heaven if they died in transit, wouldn’t that put the Vatican on the hook as well?
One of the most interesting conversations I’ve ever had on this general topic was with a black friend on a roof in Haiti. The short version was, “Aren’t you glad the ships your ancestors were on didn’t end up here?”, his response “Yes.”.
As horrible as slavery was in the US, it was worse elsewhere.
I understand, but don't think "it was worse elsewhere" is a good place to go.
I do wonder, though, what would have happened if the whole thing had never happened. Where would those who are offspring of 19th century slaves be today if their progenitors had remained in Africa?
None of this absolves the evil of slavery, and I still maintain that reparations doesn't either. I understand that you don't either.
Dan, do you have a learning disability? I ask because I'm not posting your comments and I'm not even reading them, but you keep pouring them on. They are not qualified for release (the rule there is "Let's keep it friendly, though, okay?" and you've gone out of your way to make sure your comments aren't). I'll pray for you, but you should spare yourself the trouble, the ire, the frustration, the indignation, perhaps even the indigestion for working so hard to comment where no comment will be allowed or even noted. Go somewhere else. Just for your own benefit.
I completely agree that it's not a good argument, and I wouldn't use it as one. I just thought it was a very revealing look into the insights of one black man when confronted with the possibility that he could have been born in Haiti and how different his life would have been.
I also agree that it's interesting to consider what Africa would look like today had slavery never happened or been significantly lessened.
Neither of those absolves the evil of slavery, nor would they be intended to, but both are certainly interesting to consider.
I figured we were on the same page.
I don't see justice in any of this. There is no way to measure the harm by any given slave owner to any of the slaves he owned, as if it is the same from one owner to the next or one slave to the next, and then from or to any of the descendants of either, even if it could be accurately tracked. That's only the first problem. It only gets worse from there and further from any semblance of true justice for the wronged...who are all dead.
Those that came after are not necessarily suffering as a result of their ancestors' enslavement. More often than not, they are suffering from the consequences of their own actions or the actions (or inaction) of their own parents.
Frederick Douglas was asked what the gov't should do for the Negro. He said basically, "nothing beyond allowing them to thrive by the merits of their own efforts". What a concept! And what more truer form of "reparation" can there be but to cease all actions designed to get in the way of another's right to life, liberty and their own pursuit of their own happiness? We have ample evidence of how the welfare system has done more to perpetuate poverty than to alleviate it. "Reparations" is just another form of it.
And even if "white privilege" is an actual "thing" (it is not), it constitutes but one of the myriad obstacles that can stand in anyone's way, none of which are true excuses for not striving to overcome and achieve.
Reparations is a sham and a money grab. It is supported by those who seek to offer another bribe for one's vote. It's a falsehood meant to convince voters that the candidate truly cares.
I don't agree with you entirely, Marshal. For instance, white privilege has actually occurred without a doubt, just as "black privilege" would occur in a society dominated by blacks. I don't know how much suffering today is the result of institutional racism perpetrated for centuries by white people over black people, but I can't dismiss it as inconsequential.
However, it is true that past exercises in "reparations" in whatever form it has been done have not ended well for the recipients. I remember the story of one little island in the south Pacific that the Navy wanted to use to test weapons. They paid the inhabitants to move elsewhere, blew up the island (so to speak), rebuilt their village, and returned them home with new homes and a stipend. This self-sufficient little village became an unproductive little village. Why work when someone is paying you just to exist? Right or wrong, good or bad, without assigning blame or defense, I think we have clear examples of how giving money away like that does not help those as intended. That's a human nature problem.
As to "white privilege", what you suggest is no more than outright racism. The notion that one has a leg up simply because one is white is nonsense. If some white guy thinks me more likely as an employee to benefit his business than a competing black job applicant simply because I'm white, that's racism...not privilege, even though I benefited by it. Do we see that form of blatant racism in the here and now? I don't think so. I'd say we're more likely to see a black guy get the chance out of white guilt.
As to "how much suffering today is the result of institutional racism perpetrated for centuries by white people over black people", the answer is "none". One who disagrees would be hard-pressed to prove the charge. There are so many factors that could explain what is said to be privilege that really aren't a matter of privilege at all. I would wager that any charge of privilege is no more than a lame excuse for something lacking in the black person that could have been improved upon by that black person.
I'm so incredibly sick and tired of the whole racism discussion, and every iteration and variation on its theme. Even talking about it seems to perpetuate it rather than to mitigate it. If someone wishes to pretend I'm a bigot, fine. I'm bigoted against black people who whine about being denied because of their race. I'm bigoted against white people who think they're doing black people any good by embracing that narrative. Let's all just cut the crap already. Jeez!
Maybe that's true in developed nations within the last 30 years, but do you truly believe that white people in predominantly white areas haven't historically had a leg up over minorities? I agree that it isn't nearly as bad of a problem as it used to be, but I'm willing to bet it still happens in more racially charged areas. Saying white privilege is simply racism is like saying a square is a rectangle. Yes, they have similar rules, but one is not directly the other. Yes, giving good things to someone based on race is racism, but it is also a privilege when you're on the receiving end of it for something so far out of your control. I agree that too much attention is given to something that rarely is a deciding factor in most situations, but there are still segments of the population that are racist and will give privileges to members of their own race. Minorities do it too. The "problem" is that whites have been getting away with it for so long and so openly, historically. I do agree too many people do blame it for their situation, but who's to say if historical racial privilege hasn't denied people certain advantages that have trickled down to there offspring?
David,
History is irrelevant. We can only discuss "privilege" in the here and now. The notion that it exists is absurd. Privilege based on one's race MUST be proven and it can't be without actually proving racism. The intrepid Dan Trabue tried with two different links to "prove" privilege and neither did so. They were each simply lists of things that the authors tried to use as examples. One was by a black dude and other a white dude. The latter was the more ridiculous as he tried to assert that things like having childhood books with characters that looked like him was a privilege. How so? Even if the authors of such books intended to compel such an idea by portraying characters as being of the same race as they are, how does it succeed in that? Does a child automatically make the connection between the child's skin color and his own? What if the hair and eye color were different than the child's? Would the child feel less privileged as a result?
In this country, it is far more likely, particularly in this day and age, that people will segregate themselves than be segregated by others. People have a natural tendency to gravitate to those who are most closely like themselves. (If we lived in a world of a majority Klingon population...to use this as a distinct difference..., the race differences of the minority humans would be far less important and all humans would gravitate to each other because the similarities of common humanity would overwhelm any attention to racial differences.) Yet whatever results in terms of opportunity can't then be blamed on privilege. "White privilege" is an excuse...a cheap rationalization for one's own shortcomings. It's a myth.
David, arguing with Marshal Art on this is pointless. It is an example of confirmation bias. We all do it -- believe what we believe, reject arguments to the contrary. He won't convince you; you won't convince him.
White privilege is the societal privilege that white people experience, intentionally or otherwise, when they live in a predominantly white society. You can call it racism or plain, ordinary, human nature. No one talks about it, but if you're a white person in a predominantly black society, you will see black privilege. If you're a Christian in a Muslim society, you will experience Muslim privilege. If you're an American in France, you'll experience French privilege. If you're a woman in a company dominated by men, you'll see male privilege first hand. And, in all cases, vice versa. And it is in a variety of settings, including age, religion, gender, nationality, race, family, even mode of dress. (One study showed that people who were dressed casually received less preference than those who were wearing a suit.) We tend to favor what we know and shun what we don't know. That is not approval or dismissal; it's simply human nature. Overcoming it is not achieved by ignoring or denying it. But so rooted is it in our subconscious, it is likely that we won't see it if we are on the "privilege" side of it. It is normally not a conscious act.
I'm curious, how is history irrelevant? Without history, we wouldn't be who/what/where/how we are. History doesn't define current events, but it certainly effects them. How is denying history helpful?
David,
I agree with your comment that whites have a leg up in majority white societies. Certainly to some degree. But I’d suggest that that’s true of any society. Certainly Asians have a leg up in Asian societies. (The Japanese concept that non Japanese are barbarians for example). What you’ve pointed out is a majority problem not so much a race problem.
Stan,
It seems you're saying what I'm saying whether or not you recognize you're doing it. But you're still calling it privilege when in reality it is racism or bias. I guess one could say that if you're not the victim of racism, that somehow you are then privileged, but that's a stretch. Yet, you insist other factors result in different manifestations of the same bias, i.e., suit vs. casual clothes. Any way you slice it, regardless of the words you choose to use, there are only two possibilities here: racism/bias is absolutely at play, or racism/bias is the excuse one uses to explain one's failures. There is no "privilege".
David,
History is irrelevant in the sense that the slavery issues of the pre-Civil War era have no bearing on whether or not one is "privileged" today. The connection is fiction, especially given Stan's last comment.
I'm saying that "privilege" in this sense is the benefit you get for something other than your merit. Racism, bias, whatever you want to call it. The origin of the privilege doesn't negate the existence of the privilege. We tend to give privilege to whatever we are familiar with. If the "we" in that sentence is "the dominant item," be it race, culture, gender, or whatever, it is still privilege.
But what I was actually saying (besides defining "privilege") was there is no sense in arguing with you about it.
Is history irrelevant in all areas of life or do you pick and choose where history is applicable?
Hey, you guys ain't talking to Dan Trabue here. "White privilege" is a fiction. It is a meaningless phrase which only applies to those who whine about not getting what they think they deserve. It's an excuse.
I'm not "picking and choosing". I'm saying referring to slavery and past discrimination does not justify perpetuating the "white privilege" fiction, and therefor history is irrelevant.
Jeez.
Whatever you want to call it, in some areas in the US, certain people get things better than others only dependant on skin color or gender. You don't like the word privilege? Fine, but ignoring the truth of the concept by denying the word doesn't negate the truth. Should it be an escape clause? No. Just because someone got something better than you for such an arbitrary reason as skin color don't remove your need to strive for success.
*sigh*
You truly don't believe people today receive good things or better treatment based on skin color or gender?
Post a Comment