I've heard some people talk about this like it's a good idea, so I'm curious.
I'm pretty solidly against the idea personally, but I'd like to hear from some smart people who are for it so that I can understand where they are coming from.
Slavery was a terrible thing, but almost all of our ancestors lived pretty terrible lives by modern standards. TheCSO has been known to point out that his people were so poor that mine owners hired them to work in the mines instead of slaves because slaves were too expensive to risk doing such dangerous work. (As someone who has some familiarity with modern workers compensation law, it amazes me that it used to be that a generous employer was one who paid you for the day that you maimed yourself in an accident, given that you hadn't worked the full day.)
I'm not saying that this was worse that slavery, I bet both ways of life were awful and I certainly don't know enough to rank them even if I wanted to. But it seems weird that we would draw an awfulness line that would make some ancestors lots sufficiently awful to rate reparations and some not.
Plus the economic impact on people today. I can't imagine the reparations would be good for the economy and I can't imagine how the calculations of what decades of suffering are worth will go. How much is sufficient if it was your whole family? How much if you're related to only one slave? If your ancestor figured out a way to buy his or her freedom, do you no longer get a check?
Plus the moral question. Will throwing money at the issue heal society's wounds?(The answer "No, but it's the best we can do," is, of course, not unreasonable. WASPy girl that I am, throwing money at the problem is often my solution for things, I will be the first to confess.) But is "the best we can do" good enough to merit all of the problems the mere act of giving reparations may cause?
Anyway, explanations and arguments are welcome. I'm just trying to understand the ideas.
I am neither very learned nor energetic about reparations, but everything I've heard about it from advocates who had done their homework is that reparations would NOT be given to individuals or families, but to institutions that are focused on meeting the needs of AAs economically, educationally, and medically.
"WASPy girl that I am"
Well to be precise CC you are actually a WASU*U girl. ;-)
Speaking of unfortunate acronyms. . . I am not sure that it is such a good idea to identify African Americans with the acronym AA given the much better known meaning of that particular acronym.
Regarding CC's third paragraph (first big paragraph), why is this not an argument for granting reparations to CSO too? Since his forebears lived in conditions even worse than slaves?
Of course, some slaves, (a few) lived relatively well, at least judged by physical comforts. Many others lived in horrific conditions. Some were treated with less decency than you or I would extend to a rabid dog. As I see it, the issue hinges on a lot more than simply how well or how poorly the slaves were treated.
the documentary "traces of the trade" addresses reparations, and the arguments for and against, pretty well. a family descended from a big time slave trader journeys around the world to see the places that their ancestors took slaves from and to. most of the people who went eventually decided they were for reparations
Well, I don't know, PG, but I suspect that if you were a mine worker and your boss wanted to rape or assault you, the consequences for doing so would be pretty minimal.
That said, I was looking to avoid the awfulness comparisons and accept that most people's ancestors had it pretty terribly and that drawing a line between "terrible enough to deserve reparations" and "not" would be damn near impossible.
I suspect that if you were a mine worker and your boss wanted to rape or assault you, the consequences for doing so would be pretty minimal.
No, they wouldn't, because the rule of law was established in the U.S. quite a long time ago, and the mine manager could not rape and assault people with impunity unless they were his property. Workers were not his property unless they held the legal status of slaves. A worker who was beaten up by the mine manager could bring assault charges against that manager. The worker also had the option to leave; he was not required to stay at that job. A slave had no legal rights whatsoever, including, per Dred Scot, even the right to file a lawsuit. Being property is just a dehumanization on a different scale from living in poverty and working in mortally unsafe conditions. There is, for one thing, the distinction of having a choice in the matter.
Post a Comment