Looking back through my posts I came across one from deep in the mists of time. It was one regarding the concept of reparations for the descendants of former slaves. Here is the original post:
http://whiskeytangofoxtrotblues.blogspot.com/2008/12/all-former-slaves-raise-your-hand.html
A comment was left by a gentleman named James and I felt that it deserved a response, albeit an extraordinarily belated one. Here is James' comment followed by my response:
"(a quote from the original post) Show me, in a calm, logical manner how the argument for reparations is sound."
How's this:
The descendants of American slaves are, today, substantially disadvantaged--in both tangible and intangible ways--because of the legacy of slavery.
Meanwhile, all Americans today enjoy substantial benefits from our history of slavery.
Ergo, reparations for slavery, in the sense of trying to address this manifest injustice, make good sense.
I've tried to make very simple, but entirely true, statements here. I can certainly elaborate if you question any of the facts I've referred to.
I'm not an advocate of reparations, at least in the crude form of cash payments to the descendants of slaves. I do think, though, that there's a strong argument here for addressing the legacy of slavery.
"(a quote from the original post)there is a big difference between the two. Namely, some of the victims of the Japanese internment camps were still alive when the payout was made!"
Some of the victims were still alive, but that's not a big difference between the two cases.
Why? Because payments were also made to the descendants of these victims, in cases where the victims themselves were already dead. So that's a strong precedent in favor of slavery reparations, or at least for not rejecting them on the grounds that the original victims are dead.
"(a quote from the original post)we, logically, must accept the flip side of that argument: If someone in someone's family tree was a criminal, then they should be punished for their crime."
Except that slavery reparations aren't punishment. We all agree, presumably, that punishing people for the crimes of others is morally wrong.
However, compensating people for what was done to their ancestors is a principle that's widely accepted. Your post cites the example of reparations to the descendants of U.S. WWII concentration camps. And I think the general principle is accepted by many people: that if something is taken wrongly from one family, those who inherit the ill-gotten gains may need to return them to the family that should have them.
And now, my response:
First of all, let me apologize for responding to this comment a few years late. Second I would like to thank you for your comment, James. I think I grasp what you are saying but I must respectfully disagree.
First I must disagree that in this day and age the descendants of former slaves are substantially disadvantaged. There are many laws in place to make sure that discrimination does not occur. Are these laws and the system that enforce them perfect? Of course not, but the discrimination sword cuts both ways. At some point in most people's lives, they have been discriminated against no matter what their color or ethnicity.
You say that Americans today enjoy the benefits from our history of slavery. Okay, I can accept that. But don't the people that would receive reparations enjoy the same benefits? Are they not Americans as well?
You make the point that payments were made to the families of the victims of the internment camps. I admit that was a gaff on my part.
However, I believe that the point still stands. Only those who suffered incarceration should have received the payments. As far as sighting this as a precedent for reparations keep in mind that if you look hard enough and broaden your search, you will find a precedent for almost everything. Keep in mind though, a precedent does not make something right. For instance, there is a precedent for slavery itself, does that mean slavery was the right thing to do? Let's look at little more recent history. There is a precedent for imprisoning people indefinitely with out charging them with a crime and denying them representation. Does that make it the right thing to do? I would argue that it does not.
I must respectfully disagree with you on the notion that reparation payments are not a punishment. I believe they are. If a crime was committed against me by someone else I can take them to civil court and be awarded punitive damages as a means of punishing the guilty party. Punitive damaged are awarded above and beyond the actual damages I suffered. I believe the same thing would apply to reparations. Individuals who incurred no damages, I.E. were never slaves, would be awarded a payment over and above the actual damages that they actually incurred, I.E. none. Sighting discrimination as a direct result of slavery, i believe is a false argument. In order to prove that slavery is the sole cause of discrimination. I don't believe that is the case. If it were, no one but the descendants of former slaves would ever experience discrimination. That is clearly not the case.
I feel that the argument that they descendants of slavery were harmed by it is a false one. The sad fact it that it is human nature for any group to elevate itself by belittling and, indeed, persecuting another another. We see it again and again throughout history. The obvious, and one of the most extreme cases of this to occur during the last century, was the Nazi's treatment of Jews, homosexual and gypsies during the second World War. This is just one extreme example, there are many many others. The marginalization of the Irish, Italian, Jews and, yes, Black people in this country. It even extends down to one baseball team belittling another. The only difference is one of degree.
I am descended from those who were kept in ghettos and were ultimately imprisoned and murdered. Am I suffering due to the wrong done to my ancestors? I would argue that I am not, and that occurred during the last century. Does that wrong affect me today? Of course it does. Would I say that I am a victim of the atrocities committed against my ancestors? Of course not.
I realize that this was not the point that you were trying to make but I must say that, in my opinion, counting myself as a victim would belittle what they went through. As I say, I realize that was not your intent, it is just my opinion, no more, no less.
Just as a matter of clarification, I never referred to the camps set up in the United States during WWII as "concentration camps". They were not. As horrible and criminal as they were, they did not rise to the level, or, more accurately, sink to the depths of concentration camps. Places like Dachau and Auschwitz were concentration camps.
I would point out that the fact that something is widely accepted does not mean that it is correct. Many flawed and outright wrong concepts throughout history were widely accepted. I would argue that the acceptance or lack thereof is not proof of the correctness of an idea. The idea that acceptance equals proof is an error in logic.
Another problem is one of logistics. How would we decide who get's the payments? The records that were kept during that time were spotty at best when taken as a whole. Do we simply pay out to everyone who is black? What about the mixed race descendants? Should they receive only half payments? What of those Black decedents that do not hale from traceable lineages? Do they get nothing or do we pay out just to be on the safe side?
Finally, another problem I find with your argument is one of time. how do we decide who gets what from whom? For instance, you seem to believe that the descendants of slaves should receive reparations of some sort. Okay, fine, but what of the others who have suffered under governmental oppression? Should the Native Americans receive reparations? Should they receive them from the British or our government or both? What of the people persecuted during the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition during which the Church was the de facto governing body. Should the Church pay reparations to their descendants? Was their suffering lesser than the victims of slavery in America? What of the many other instances of slavery being sanctioned by the governing body? Should they receive reparations as well? And how about the atrocities carried out by the German government during WWII? Where do we draw the line and say: "your ancestors didn't suffer enough to receive reparations." You may think this is a ridiculous extreme to take this argument to but keep in mind, your argument addresses the issue of reparations to the ancestors of the victims, there for, time would not be an issue. Lets look at it from another angle and say that reparations are payed to the descendants. Would reparations then need to be payed to their children and then their children's children and so on? They would still be descendants, wouldn't they? Their suffering would still exist, wouldn't it? Now you may say that the family has already been paid, but what if the reparation funds paid out are, say, lost on the stock market. The decedents that follow would receive no benefit from the pay out yet any suffering that the parent endured would be endured by the descendant so wouldn't they be entitled reparations for their suffering as well?
As I said in my original posting, this is a red herring, smoke and mirrors that distract us from our more pressing immediate problems, of which there are many.
It boils down to this: The odds that I will change your opinion are slim at best as are the odds that you will change mine. While I would encourage discussion on this subject, ultimately this will be an issue that we will most likely have to agree to disagree on.
Again I thank you very much for your input and apologize for taking such a ridiculously long time to respond.
