H.R.40, the “Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act”

Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.) has re-introduced H.R. 40, the “Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act,” for the 111th Congress.

This legislation is enthusiastically supported by several DeWolf family members who appear in Traces of the Trade, and Rep. Conyers prominently mentioned our documentary when he introduced the bill. He is also a long-time supporter of our work, having flown to Park City, Utah last year to appear at the film’s world premiere on Martin Luther King Day at the Sundance Film Festival.

In his remarks introducing H.R. 40, Rep. Conyers invoked Traces of the Trade as an illustration of our society’s continuing need to grapple with the sin of slavery. He also mentioned the Episcopal Church’s apology for slavery in October, which was brought about in part because of our advocacy at General Convention in 2006, which is shown in Traces of the Trade.

Conyers summarized the purpose of H.R. 40 in these words:

Attempts to eradicate today’s racial discrimination and disparities will be successful when we understand the past’s racial injustices and inequities. A commission can take us into this dark past and bring us into a brighter future.

H.R. 40 and related legislation

Rep. Conyers has introduced H.R. 40 in every Congress since 1989, making this the 20th anniversary of the bill. In the last Congress, however, there were several notable achievements related to this legislation, suggesting that substantial progress on the bill may be likely in this Congress.

In July, the House issued a formal apology for slavery and Jim Crow, and committed itself to “rectify the lingering consequences” of that history. The House and Senate also passed legislation in the last Congress to establish a commission to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade.

Meanwhile, H.R. 40 was itself the subject of its first congressional hearing, with witnesses including Professor Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School and Episcopal Bishop M. Thomas Shaw of Massachusetts. Rep. Conyers has indicated that he intends to hold further hearings in the future.

H.R. 40 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which Rep. Conyers chairs, and has been referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

The bill currently has three co-sponsors: Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.).

What H.R. 40 would do

H.R. 40 would establish a commission to examine the history of slavery and racial discrimination in the U.S. to the present day. The commission would consider the role of federal and state governments, as well as private citizens, in enabling and supporting slavery and discrimination, and would assess the legacy of this history for freed slaves and for their descendants today.

The commission would then be charged with recommending ways to educate the public about this history and its legacy, and to recommend “appropriate remedies” in light of these findings. In weighing potential remedies, the commission would be specifically required to consider a formal apology from the U.S. government “on behalf of the people of the United States,” and the possibility of “any form of compensation” for the descendants of slaves.

Within the next few days, I will put up a separate post with my own views on the various issues raised by H.R. 40: acknowledging the nation’s history of slavery and discrimination; issuing apologies for that history; and offering reparations, whether in the form of financial compensation or otherwise.

Conyers and the Bush era

As the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Conyers is also leading the effort to create an independent commission with subpoena power to inquire into Bush administration policies related to interrogation, detention, surveillance and other practices of the “war on terror.”

This effort has received renewed prominence in recent days, following the release of a selection of discredited Bush-era legal opinions on the powers of the presidency and the revelation that the CIA destroyed 92 interrogation videotapes despite pending court cases.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), is scheduled to hold a hearing on the issue of an independent commission tomorrow. Both Leahy and Conyers have been pressing for such an inquiry, while President Obama has indicated that he is not eager to support such efforts to look into the recent past.

57 Responses to “H.R.40, the “Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act””

7:37 am, 17 March, 2009.
ChrisA says:

When you can prove to me that ONE living person in the USA today has been held in slavery…or that _I_ had anything to do with slavery…then _I_ will write the check.

Considering that “African Slaves” were sold to “slavers” by Africans themselves…and not only to the west coast of Africa for trade to the Americas…but the west coast to be sold in Asia…and THEY ARE STILL SELLING THEIR PEOPLE TODAY…I think this bill has a rcist agenda!
8:05 am, 17 March, 2009.
James says:

Welcome to the conversation, Chris. You raise some important issues about reparations for slavery.

No one alive today, of course, was enslaved. However, reparations don’t need to be seen as compensating people for the suffering of their long-dead ancestors. Many people in the U.S. today suffer from the legacy of American slavery and the Jim Crow century which followed. Similarly, all Americans today enjoy substantial benefits, to a greater or lesser degree, from those historic events.

You are not responsible in any way for slavery. If, however, you enjoy the standard of living of most U.S. residents, rather than the typical standard of living in the developing world, then you benefit from the decisions of people long dead to engage in the institution of slavery.

Whether or not this bill is racist is a particularly interesting question. It doesn’t single anyone out on the basis of race, of course, except insofar as it only addresses the legacy of American slavery for those whose ancestors were black. It doesn’t single out anyone who’s white in any way, and it doesn’t suggest that anyone will receive compensation merely because they’re black.

Now, how does the nature of the transatlantic slave trade, in which Americans, Europeans, and Africans all conspired, suggest to you that this bill is racist? This bill is about the descendants of slaves, not about blacks as such, so why is the race of the slave traders in Africa relevant?

To put this differently, why shouldn’t I see you as the one injecting race into the discussion, by making an issue of the race of the people involved at the other end of the Middle Passage in Africa? I don’t hear you complaining that the bill doesn’t consider the white Europeans who dominated the trade, or their descendants. Why is it important to consider the black Africans who participated, and not the white Europeans?

Why, to put it another way, should the descendants of American slaves be denied reparations on the ground that some of the descendants of the slave traders, in Africa, are still involved in slavery there?
12:50 am, 18 March, 2009.
N. B. Forrest says:

I don’t think they should get a DIME! Also our government should not make a public apology! I am so tired about hearing about slavery! Its OVER, and done with! Move on, I’m sorry that your great great grand parents were slaves but you aren’t and you are just as free as I am and have every opportunity that I do! So you can kiss my ass about using my tax dollars to give someone who was not a slave anything!
7:48 am, 18 March, 2009.
James says:

N.B., why shouldn’t blacks receive compensation, or our government offer an apology for its actions? After all, we agree that what the U.S. did was dreadfully wrong, don’t we?

You say that slavery is “over,” and that we should simply move on. Are you aware that the legacy of slavery is still with us, in the form of unequal opportunities today and massive differences in what white and black families have inherited from that history?

You suggest that blacks should be satisfied simply to be as “free” as you are, and to have the same opportunities in life. Yet even if blacks had equal opportunities–and research consistently shows that blacks still face discrimination in hiring, promotions, education, housing and so on–is it right that black families have inherited so much less than white families, because of slavery and racism in the past?
2:26 pm, 18 March, 2009.
P. Strout says:

While you’re at it, why don’t you compensate all the immigrants who arrived in this country. They were treated like crap, especially the Chinese who were slaves for the gold mines and railroads, not to mention that Chinese women and young girls were sold to whorehouses.

Now that you mention it, how about all the poor whites who didn’t have a chance because of the poverty they grew up in?

Enough is enough. Leave the past where it belongs…IN THE PAST
2:43 pm, 18 March, 2009.
James says:

It’s certainly true that many immigrants to these shores were discriminated against, notably your example of Chinese workers in the 19th century.

However, black slaves and their descendants were treated far, far worse than most immigrants to the U.S. historically were. Most immigrants were allowed to arrive with far more resources, especially intangible resources, than slaves were permitted. They were able to compete for jobs and work hard to improve their lives and those of their families, while black workers were limited to more menial and lower-paying jobs than white immigrants. White immigrants and their families also benefited from vast federal programs in the early and mid-twentieth century; these programs were largely closed to black citizens.

As for all of those poor whites, it’s true that poverty (or class) is an independent and powerful factor in people’s lives. No one should think that white families are well off, and black families are poor.

However, this only emphasizes that because of our nation’s history of slavery and discrimination:

(1) Black families have, on average, far less than white families. They started out with much less in 1865, had few opportunities to make progress in the Jim Crow century which followed, and have still faced obstacles since the improvements of the 1960s and 1970s. Studies confirm that much of what the average person achieves in his or her lifetime is due to their family’s circumstances.

(2) All families in this country benefit significantly from the nation’s history of slavery. Our nation’s economic standing in the world today, and our standard of living, are due in large part to slavery’s role in our early economic development. Virtually all families in this country benefit from being in the largest economy in the world, and from a standard of living much higher than in the developing world. This includes most white families, even those which aren’t as well off as most.
5:30 am, 26 March, 2009.
Chip Wiliford says:

I support Congressman John Conyers. Slavery was not right! Thank God for those who are willing to fight and express the importance of the bill. Those who endured Slavery should be honored and their heirs should be compensated. Just knowing from whence you came is healing. I would love it that all African Americans are given free DNA test to give them the knowledge of where in Africa they are from. Slavery robed us from the memories of who we are. Now it’s time to try to restore that.
8:48 am, 26 March, 2009.
Matt says:

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of! It seems a good majority of African Americans are more interested in gang bangin or robbing liquor stores than learning their ancestry. (Look at the US Department of Corrections statistics.) Who cares about slavery? Yes, it was an important part of our history… and we should learn from our mistakes. But, we don’t live in the past. We live in the “now”. And “now” we don’t have slavery. So why doesn’t everyone just get off their asses and get an education and/or a job? Ohhhhh… but let me guess, slavery (from over 200 years ago) is keeping African Americans from getting education and jobs. Yeah right…. just sounds like some people are looking for a handout! If slavery is still oppressing the black man, then why do we have an African American President? I don’t know what my ancestors did… but I do know they couldn’t have been that successful. Nobody left me any money or great family treasure. But that doesn’t affect how I live my life today. I worked three jobs to put myself through college. I went out and found a good job. I don’t think about my ancestors ever…. This bill is not only a waste of my tax payer money; but just another reason to “stir the pot”. OK… your ancestor was forced to pick cotton in a field two hundred years ago…… what the hell do you want me or the US Government to do about it? Here’s a fantastic idea…. LET IT GO! LET IT GO! Consider welfare as reparations.
9:05 am, 26 March, 2009.
Katherine says:

I’m female and my grandmother didn’t get to vote, where’s my reparation? My great grandparents on my mother’s side didn’t even come to America until after the civil war – so they did not own slaves. My great great grandfather fought for the Union side to free the slaves. Where’s my reparation for his loss of life?
When will this insanity stop? Why does anyone think it’s right to reach into one American’s pocket to give to another. Oh, that’s right, we have the U.S. government!
9:44 am, 30 March, 2009.
JR says:

“Now, how does the nature of the transatlantic slave trade, in which Americans, Europeans, and Africans all conspired, suggest to you that this bill is racist? This bill is about the descendants of slaves, not about blacks as such, so why is the race of the slave traders in Africa relevant?”

Obviously, the colors involved in the slave trade are vital to _you_, James, because you are expecting ONLY white Americans to pay these reparations. You are avidly attempting to discount the importance of black African slavers, because your entire stereotype-ridden argument for white-to-black reparations depends on speciously blaming ONLY the descendants of WHITE American slavers for modern black poverty. And the fact that the descendants of black American slaves are usually enormously better off than descendants of black African slavers, blows a giant hole into your argument that the practice of slavery necessarily increases the wealth of the descendants of slavers, while necessarily decreasing the wealth of the descendants of slaves.

The reparations scam is fundamentally dependent upon speciously attributing to “slavery” all black negative differences between white and black economic circumstances, while pretending that the many, many whites poorer than many blacks don’t exist.

Reparationists attribute black poverty ARBITRARILY and exclusively to slavery, because the idea of any personal responsibility for black poverty, such as bad decisions, black school drop outs, sneering at black achievement, drive by black fatherhood, welfare supported, badly parented black children, black gangbanging, black drug dealing and other black criminal activity, just never enters their tiny little minds. Nope, just willy nilly, the fact that black gangs are currently shooting up every neighborhood in America is all the fault of white slavers and their children MUST PAY. This presumption that blacks, due to the consequences of slavery, have no control over their actions when they are both anti-social and economically self destructive, doesn’t say much for your opinion of blacks as mindless ciphers, completely helpless against slavery-mandated self destruction, does it.

So, James, how much do you think Lovelle Mixon, the black bigot who raped a twelve year old and then shot four white cops in Oakland will need in reparations from the families of those cops, to become their “equal.”

.
12:30 am, 31 March, 2009.
James says:

JR, you’re expending a lot of energy trying to tell readers of this blog what I believe, when I don’t say anything of the kind.

For instance, you say that I am “expecting ONLY white Americans to pay these reparations.” I certainly don’t expect only white Americans to pay any reparations for slavery, and I would never want such a thing, either.

You also say that I am “avidly attempting to discount the importance of black African slavers.” In fact, I write frequently, here and elsewhere, about the vital role of Africans in the transatlantic slave trade, and I frequently speak to audiences about the importance of this very fact.

Finally, and perhaps most revealingly, you speak of my “stereotype-ridden argument for white-to-black reparations.” As anyone reading this blog can quickly determine, I do not argue for white-to-black reparations at all.

I am traveling at the moment, so I will return later to finish responding to your comment with the full attention it deserves.
2:00 pm, 31 March, 2009.
JR says:

James says, “I certainly don’t expect only white Americans to pay any reparations for slavery, and I would never want such a thing, either.” Well, I eagerly await your explanation of just exactly how you will rationalize black Americans paying for reparations, while also maintaining the contradiction of black Americans as the helpless victims of the “terrible consequences of slavery.”

Or are you going to appeal to Africa for black American reparations. Guess not, here’s your quote exempting Africans from any responsibility for all that fabled American “slavery” wealth: “If, however, you enjoy the standard of living of most U.S. residents, rather than the typical standard of living in the developing world, then you benefit from the decisions of people long dead to engage in the institution of slavery.”

The standard of living of most U.S. residents is due to historically practiced, but currently unpracticed capitalism, especially that of the 19th century, not long dead slavery, you utter moron. Every city in America HAD a burgeoning black capitalist business center, including Harlem, right up to the day when screaming hordes of socialist thieves demanding tyrannical tax and squander ushered in the socialist welfare state, and half of America’s black population moved into generations long welfare supported dysfunctionality.

But, now after sixty years of debt spending for the enormous UNCOMPENSATED expenses of a welfare state, that much ballyhooed American “slavery wealth” amounts to about a hundred thousand in government debt for every family. Well, you can have my share of the national debt, if you want; you can even call it “reparations,” but nothing is going to rescue America from the economic chaos and eventual revolutionary break up common to all socialist welfare states. There’s a 100% failure rate for the socialist welfare state…. and your attempt to indict “slavery” for socialist squander will not transform failure into success.
4:19 pm, 31 March, 2009.
James says:

To finish responding to your initial comment, JR:

the fact that the descendants of black American slaves are usually enormously better off than descendants of black African slavers, blows a giant hole into your argument that the practice of slavery necessarily increases the wealth of the descendants of slavers, while necessarily decreasing the wealth of the descendants of slaves.

I think you’re confusing issues here, JR. It’s true that the descendants of Africans living in the U.S. are generally far better off than modern Africans. This is because the U.S. is an advanced economy, and in fact the #1 economy in the world, while most African countries are what we politely call developing nations. This is no different than saying that the descendants of immigrants from poorer European nations are often doing far better than the descendants of those who stayed behind (depending entirely on the fate of each particular country, of course).

Now, the practice of slavery certainly did reduce the wealth of slaves and their descendants. No slave survived being stripped of all possessions, as well as, under American slavery, language, religion, culture, social institutions, and family structure, without losing almost everything of value.

Freed slaves were left with almost nothing following the U.S. Civil War, and they and their descendants endured another century of brutal, Jim Crow segregation and discrimination which kept them from most opportunities for advancement.

Does this mean that no black families have succeeded in this country? No, certainly not. Does this mean that families descended from slaves have all been held back to a significant degree in the past, and that on average, black families are still nowhere near equality with white families? Yes, it certainly does.

Now, let’s look at the other part of your argument. You somehow believe that white families in this country are not better off as a result of slavery. How so? Slavery was the main driver of the U.S. economy until the Civil War, and slavery is what made the industrialization of the U.S. possible. How does the U.S. not owe its economic success, and how do all Americans (white families to a larger degree, of course) not owe their present standard of living in large part to the practice of slavery?

The reparations scam is fundamentally dependent upon speciously attributing to “slavery” all black negative differences between white and black economic circumstances

JR, black families have never caught up to white families following the end of slavery. This is on average, of course, and no one should ever pretend that no black families have succeeded. But neither can we ignore the dramatic racial disparity between white and black families.

To be sure, there are complex factors at work, starting with the fact that you keep discussing slavery, while in reality slavery was followed by the Jim Crow century of racial discrimination–and our society is hardly free of racial prejudice, with implications for economic and social advancement, even today.

the idea of any personal responsibility for black poverty, such as bad decisions, black school drop outs, sneering at black achievement, drive by black fatherhood, welfare supported, badly parented black children, black gangbanging, black drug dealing and other black criminal activity, just never enters their tiny little minds.

Then what’s your explanation, JR? Do you believe that black families have, on average, less personal responsibility and other good values than white families? Why would this be, if not because of our history of slavery and discrimination, and the poverty and despair those institutions have engendered?

Or can you believe the economic facts, that black families could not possibly have caught up to white families by now, with white families being given significant advantages until the 1960s and 1970s, and continuing to strive to get ahead themselves in the years since? Blacks would have to work much harder than whites, or be much more talented, to actually do much better than whites and close the gap that quickly.
4:48 pm, 31 March, 2009.
James says:

I eagerly await your explanation of just exactly how you will rationalize black Americans paying for reparations, while also maintaining the contradiction of black Americans as the helpless victims of the “terrible consequences of slavery.”

JR, I don’t know why you believe that I intend to try justifying any form of reparations for black Americans.

However, it is impossible to look at the dramatic disparities between black and white families in this country, and the consistency of those disparities since slavery, and not to conclude that slavery and the brutal discrimination which followed were responsible for creating this situation.

This doesn’t mean that black Americans are merely “helpless victims,” but it does mean that their efforts have historically been far less likely to pay off with economic success than the efforts of white Americans.

As for who will pay for any reparations, I would think that the obvious answer would be American taxpayers, individuals and companies, in the same proportions as they pay taxes now. That naturally means that many black Americans would contribute, in accordance with the degree of economic success which they have attained.

Is there any reason why we should not expect individual families to have succeeded? Race and racial discrimination are hardly the only factors in American life, as you clearly realize, and slavery has, as I’ve repeatedly noted, created dramatic opportunities for Americans. The key is simply that black families have also been burdened by this history, and have not enjoyed these benefits to the same degree as white families.

here’s your quote exempting Africans from any responsibility for all that fabled American “slavery” wealth

I certainly don’t exempt Africa from responsibility for its role in the transatlantic slave trade, JR.

However, does Africa strike you as the right place for the U.S. to turn, in order to address U.S. inequality and our own responsibilities? I think this would be an important point, even if it weren’t the case that the U.S. still enjoys tremendous benefits as a result of its slavery, while much of Africa was subsequently burdened by mistreatment at the hands of European colonial powers.

The standard of living of most U.S. residents is due to historically practiced, but currently unpracticed capitalism, especially that of the 19th century, not long dead slavery, you utter moron.

JR, the U.S. industrialized in the antebellum North, via the cotton trade and the cotton textile industry. These businesses were entirely dependent upon the benefits of Southern slavery for their existence.

What else do you think took place in the 19th century to make that century’s economic activity the foundation of our present standard of living, as you agree it was?

Every city in America HAD a burgeoning black capitalist business center, including Harlem, right up to the day when screaming hordes of socialist thieves demanding tyrannical tax and squander ushered in the socialist welfare state, and half of America’s black population moved into generations long welfare supported dysfunctionality.

Where did you get the idea that the black population of the U.S. was doing better before the advent of the welfare state than afterward?

The black share of U.S. wealth, income, homeownership, and so on was virtually the same in the years before the 1960s and 1970s as it was afterward. Year by year, since the Civil War, there have been slight changes, but no dramatic changes from year to year, or even decade to decade.

that much ballyhooed American “slavery wealth” amounts to about a hundred thousand in government debt for every family

You’re talking about the expenses of welfare, JR. Now, I’m not even going to address your belief that welfare spending constitutes the main source of the federal debt.

But let’s not forget that most welfare spending goes to white families, and only a portion to black families. Welfare is simply not a program to provide reparations for slavery, as you suggest, whether effective or otherwise.

There’s a 100% failure rate for the socialist welfare state…. and your attempt to indict “slavery” for socialist squander will not transform failure into success.

I hope, one of these days, to have the time to write a post about the bizarre use of the word “socialist” which has sprouted up in recent years. The differences between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, for instance, on welfare spending are matters of degree, not of kind; this could hardly be the basis for labeling one approach capitalist, and the other socialist.
9:41 pm, 31 March, 2009.
JR says:

> JR, I don’t know why you believe that I intend to try justifying any form of
> reparations for black Americans.

Well, damn…I could have sworn H.R. 40, so prominently displayed on your website, was specifically about reparations for black Americans. Yep there it is…. “H.R.40, the “Commission to Study
Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act”".
http://living.jdewperry.com/2009/03/hr40-the-commission-to-study-reparation-proposals-for-african-americans-act/

What are you advocating then, reparations for the decimation of the bison herds. Maybe I’ll just skip on down to the coherent parts of your response.

> However, it is impossible to look at the dramatic disparities between black
> and white families in this country, and the consistency of those disparities
> since slavery, and not to conclude that slavery and the brutal discrimination
> which followed were responsible for creating this situation.

Wow, so amazing that you can omnisciently determine the cause (slavery) of the economic circumstances of every single American, without reference to any individual’s intelligence or value choices. Why, if you ran the world, I’ll bet you could redistribute paychecks so that everybody, everywhere, was exactly “equal” right down to the very last penny. And all you’d need was a single, simple(minded) glance at color differences coupled to a history lesson.

> This doesn’t mean that black Americans are merely “helpless victims,” but it
> does mean that their efforts have historically been far less likely to pay off
> with economic success than the efforts of white Americans.

A larger percentage of whites than blacks work for a living, a larger percentage of blacks than whites live in welfare housing and cash food stamps for a living…looks like your “slavery disparity” is actually an “effort disparity.”

> As for who will pay for any reparations, I would think that the obvious answer
> would be American taxpayers, individuals and companies, in the same
> proportions as they pay taxes now. That naturally means that many black
> Americans would contribute, in accordance with the degree of economic success
> which they have attained.

But,but,but…the civil right era was all about taxing people, yet denying them the benefits of that taxation on the basis of color differences…surely you’re not insisting that there’s nothing wrong with racial discrimination after all.
>
> Is there any reason why we should not expect individual families to have
> succeeded? Race and racial discrimination are hardly the only factors in
> American life, as you clearly realize, and slavery has, as I’ve repeatedly
> noted, created dramatic opportunities for Americans. The key is simply that
> black families have also been burdened by this history, and have not enjoyed
> these benefits to the same degree as white families.

Slavery ended a hundred years before the “great immigration wave” that brought most European immigrants here. What “dramatic slavery-derived opportunities” waited the average European immigrant here in America. Did they all get their own slaves, cotton fields, white suits and whips the minute their boat docked in NY city. Seems to me that whatever the civil war didn’t wipe out of your pie-in-the-sky American “slavery wealth,” the great depression and WWII did, while immigration, escaping the socialist chaos of Europe had more to do with building American prosperity than slavery ever did, but since Europe’s socialist BS followed those immigrants, now it’s all gone.

> I certainly don’t exempt Africa from responsibility for its role in the
> transatlantic slave trade, JR.
>
> However, does Africa strike you as the right place for the U.S. to turn, in
> order to address U.S. inequality and our own responsibilities? I think this
> would be an important point, even if it weren’t the case that the U.S. still
> enjoys tremendous benefits as a result of its slavery, while much of Africa
> was subsequently burdened by mistreatment at the hands of European colonial
> powers.

Why not Africa…a slavers a slaver, by golly. (Frankly, it seems to me, tribalism caused a lot more tragedy than European colonization and now that Africa is returning to tribalism, is once again.)

But my point, which you predictably ignored is that if slavery _inevitably_ creates wealth for the descendants of slavers, why is there such poverty amongst the descendants of African slavers.

>
> JR, the U.S. industrialized in the antebellum North, via the cotton trade and
> the cotton textile industry. These businesses were entirely dependent upon the
> benefits of Southern slavery for their existence.

Gee…I never knew they made Model Ts with cotton.

DeTocqueville wrote in the 1830’s that the colonies in which there were no slavers became more populous and more prosperous than those in which slavery flourished…so much for your theory that slavery is the only origin of American wealth.

> What else do you think took place in the 19th century to make that century’s
> economic activity the foundation of our present standard of living, as you
> agree it was?

By now, I’m pretty sure that whatever my answer, you’ll insist that it was “segregation” that created whatever wealth wasn’t created by “slavery.”

> Every city in America HAD a burgeoning black capitalist business center,
> including Harlem, right up to the day when screaming hordes of socialist
> thieves demanding tyrannical tax and squander ushered in the socialist welfare
> state, and half of America’s black population moved into generations long
> welfare supported dysfunctionality.
>
> Where did you get the idea that the black population of the U.S. was doing
> better before the advent of the welfare state than afterward?

From books by either Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell…but you wouldn’t have read them, as they contradict your agenda.I distinctly remember a passage about Harlem as economically booming mecca attracting both black and white New Yorkers and others, but they were library books so can’t look it up, now.

> The black share of U.S. wealth, income, homeownership, and so on was virtually
> the same in the years before the 1960s and 1970s as it was afterward. Year by
> year, since the Civil War, there have been slight changes, but no dramatic
> changes from year to year, or even decade to decade.

Between 1967 and 1990, the percentage of black families with incomes of a least $50,000 more than doubled from 7 to 15 percent. The median income of African-American families in which both husband and wife worked rose from $28,700 in 1967 to $40,038 in 1990, an increase of more than 40 percent. By comparison, the median of white family incomes with two wage earners increased 17 percent during this period, from $40,040 to $47,247. Cornell West, “Race Matters.” ( do remember we are talking about WORKING blacks, here, as opposed to welfare blacks. )

> that much ballyhooed American “slavery wealth” amounts to about a hundred
> thousand in government debt for every family
>
> You’re talking about the expenses of welfare, JR. Now, I’m not even going to
> address your belief that welfare spending constitutes the main source of the
> federal debt.

Actually I said that the slavery wealth you are greedily yearning to confiscate no longer exists due to welfare state debt spending, however, welfare/human services spending does exceed other expenditures, don’t know if that is true for debt spending.

> But let’s not forget that most welfare spending goes to white families, and
> only a portion to black families.

Let’s not forget that while the welfare population is 38% white, 37% black that the black/white population percentages means that there are three times as many black welfare recipients as white. Once again…an “effort disparity,” not a slavery derived disparity.

>Welfare is simply not a program to provide
> reparations for slavery, as you suggest, whether effective or otherwise.

Where did I suggest that… my preference is an end of the socialist welfare state and thus welfare for everybody of every color. It stands to reason that reparations is out as well…nobody gets to help themselves to anybody’s paycheck for any reason, because “capitalism” is the real source of mutual prosperity, not slavery, whether chattel or socialist.
>
> I hope, one of these days, to have the time to write a post about the bizarre
> use of the word “socialist” which has sprouted up in recent years. The
> differences between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, for instance, on welfare
> spending are matters of degree, not of kind; this could hardly be the basis
> for labeling one approach capitalist, and the other socialist.

I can’t wait to read that post on the “bizarre use of the word socialist.” No doubt you’ll insist that the differences between Reagan and Obama on socialist welfare state squander, merely represents degrees of “capitalism,” while forgetting that capitalist trade enriches only the participating traders, not government employees.

No doubt you’ll write that today’s hostile, conniving intolerance generated by hordes of socialists who fervently believe that chaining all in service to a single moral imperative, that of government enforced servitude and sacrifice to America’s welfare state, is the essence of
“capitalism.”

You’ll likely add that “capitalism” is represented by today’s self righteous population demanding tyrannical government in order to compel all to self destructive socialist slavery in the holy name of some pseudo-religious “plan for man.”

And that “capitalism” encourages the artificial ego inflation achieved by so many socialists in pretending that the use of a voting booth to annually enrich themselves by way of taxation and debt spending is a “civil right,” while jailing only those who steal in person. Likely you’ll insist that “capitalism” encourages the use of government force to help yourself to your neighbor’s paycheck as the means to a “ universal good.”

Probably you’ll say that “capitalism” is the reason so many American job providers shifted factories overseas to escape the penalties and taxation of American socialist squander, while benefiting from the socialist tax funded preferences awarded to “foreign investment,” by non-American governments. And that a cabal of “capitalists” is the cause of today’s angry, polarized squabble to profit from socialist taxation and regulation, while evading its penalties.

Yep, that’s what you’d write, because I sense a profound fear of personal autonomy and of truth, a fear of facts that would shatter your ego, were you ever to discover that “capitalism” is the exact opposite of the American welfare state.
4:20 pm, 2 April, 2009.
ShoDid says:

LOL….Are you freaking serious? How about Americans put a term limit on Congressional members so that personal agendas will never pass, and that only agendas of the people who elected those Congressional members get passed?

America, 1776 – present…what is this 1600s bull junk? I’m not paying anyone, espeically for a system that was set up by European nations that a young, newly found Republic adopted.

Give me Liberty, or give me death!
4:48 am, 4 April, 2009.
Anonymous says:

Hi James,

Looks like you have your hands full with the “taxation is slavery” branch of Ayn Rand extremists.

Nightline just had a segment on an island chain in the Pacific that is going to disappear in the next decades because of global warming. Naturally, I thought of you and this blog.

Global warming is significantly caused by burning coal and oil==something the Pacific Islanders don’t do at all. As their islands are being inundated, some two groups of 50 Islanders have been “accepted” by New Zealand and Australia for relocation. Lots of Anger because they take locals’ jobs. Question posed: where are these global warming refugees supposed to go when their homelands disappear?

The two biggest polluters on earth today are USA and China. My thought is that much like your argument, it is the society of USA and China that has benefitted the most from being allowed to pollute the WORLDS environment. When the tab comes due to care for these Island refugees, it makes sense to me that the USA and China should bear the brunt of it? Reparations of a real sort for harm occurring TODAY/TOMORROW, for a real benefit to us all that can’t be denied.

I thought this was the blog entry where you commented you were going to describe your plan of possible approaches to reparations in a concrete way? Well, thats quite a challenge and it will be fun to see how the plight of these islanders might use the same approaches?

Reading thru the comments and your responses, I am struck at how various positions are reached by assuming one single cause having one single effect. I suppose/hope that if asked directly if that were true, everyone would deny it and admit that all issues are much more complex. Perhaps so complex that “in truth” causation cannot be established?

Glad you are back safely.
4:49 am, 4 April, 2009.
Anonymous says:

I’m not anonymous. I’m bobbo.
9:17 am, 4 April, 2009.
JR says:

Anonymous says…
> Looks like you have your hands full with the “taxation is slavery” branch of
> Ayn Rand extremists.

Taxation is slavery, unless, of course, one is receiving the benefits of taxation and then, of course, it’s “capitalism.” This is particularly true if one is either a millionaire politician, or one of today’s many big business beneficiaries of global preferencial policies and tax breaks, or in a much, much smaller way, a welfare supported thief. So what are you getting, or hope to get, out of taxation…it must be something really special or you wouldn’t be so keen on it.

> Reading thru the comments and your responses, I am struck at how various
> positions are reached by assuming one single cause having one single effect.
> I suppose/hope that if asked directly if that were true, everyone would deny
> it and admit that all issues are much more complex. Perhaps so complex that
> “in truth” causation cannot be established?

Actually it is James that is attributing all black adversity to a single cause…slavery. _I’m_ saying that the infinite number of value choices made by the billions of people on earth have an infinite number of consequences, some of them destructive, some beneficial to self and society and that James cannot presume knowledge of those infinite number of _causes_ with a simpleminded glance at color differences.

Btw, Ayn Rand was wrong…since all values are subjectively chosen, there’s no such thing as an “objective value,” which is, of course, the exact same error that James is making, as do governmentalists and religionists of every description…the idea that all should be forced to serve a single bogus authority-granted “truth,” in the name of an equally bogus “objective value,” or, that more common definition of objective value, a “universal good,”

Is there a “Reparations God,” who has established James’ reparations cannon as a “universal good.” Please send its email and I’ll take my argument there; no point in talking to the minions when I can go directly to the source.

Ditto for your “Environmental God;” let’s read its rules on its phantom “universal good,” instead of yours. Your idea of chaining all in service to the “universal good” of taxation for environmental issues is the same as chaining all in service to the “universal good” of reparations…notice how that “universal good” differs with every person, proof of a truth with a single cause…that this so called “universal good,” or Rand’s “objective value,” is simply the desire of thieves to present a bogus “universal good” as the reason they require other the theft of people’s lives and resources to establish a personally preferred set of circumstances.

Last, you are looking pretty stupid claiming pollution is primarily “caused” by the USA and China, and then immediately contradicting yourself by writing this: “…”in truth, causation cannot be established.” Not to mention that if, as you said, causation is so complex an issue that it cannot be “in truth” established, then James’ reparations scam is also invalidated, since black adversity is an “effect,” and thus its remedy fundamentally depends upon the accurate validation (establishment)and termination of its “_cause_.”
7:46 pm, 4 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

JR–lets go piecemeal and snack at the table James has set before us.

If taxation is slavery, what would the absence of taxation be? Can a viable society be formed, maintained, persevere against their neighbors/competitors who do tax and even draft militaries for the conquest of those with no tax base?

Can no tax societies exist outside of theory?
1:37 pm, 5 April, 2009.
JR says:

Bobbo says:
> JR–lets go piecemeal and snack at the table James has set before us.

Okey, dokey

> If taxation is slavery, what would the absence of taxation >be?

Freedom.

> Can no tax societies exist outside of theory?

Not without the philosophical reversal of indoctrination to the contrary. But the answer is “yes.”

Fundamentally, there are only two means of social interaction in pursuit of the fabled peace and prosperity; “agreement” vs. “enforced servitude of one to another’s benefit.” Picture amiable agreement and you also picture capitalism…no action outside of agreement/compromise. (Btw, two thieves “agreeing” to rob a third as a definition of agreement, neglects the lack of agreement from the victim.) Two untaxed capitalists exchange an apple for an orange…both get what they want, both voluntarily trade a lesser value for a greater, both are enriched. Multiply these two free trades by billions and on a world wide scale, capitalism is both mutual prosperity and peaceful coexistence, with nothing left over for politicians and their millions of minions currently imposing taxes and regulation, most of it as uncompensated squander on themselves, such as limousines, trips to exotic locales, gourmet meals and their marble palaces in every city, town and burg.

Picture the enforced servitude of one to another’s benefit, in other words, picture socialism. Immediately the population is polarized over who should benefit from taxation and who should pay these penalties. Taxation is _necessarily_ uncompensated for some, in order to be beneficial to others. There is no point in taxation, if all remain completely unaffected; taxation would then be an irrational waste of time and money. Since this is obvious, immediately the population appeals to government reps as a means to escape destructive tax and regulatory penalties, as well as benefit from preferential tax and regulatory legislation.

Immediately government power begins to grow and there is no way to stop it within the political box built by taxation. The people look exclusively to government reps, rather than each other, as superior problem solving entities, and that conclusion results in centralized governmental growth… if the local government fails to satisfy, they turn to the state to overrule the locals, if the state fails, they turn to federal governments, and from national government to global government is not only a small step, but an inevitable step. The actual cause of their problems is the burgeoning tax and regulatory legislation continually written to pacify the people and solve every problem. It follows that those perpetually seeking additional taxes and regulations as resolution for existing taxes and regulations will eventually tax and regulate themselves into tyranny.

>Can a viable
> society be formed, maintained, persevere against their neighbors/competitors
> who do tax and even draft militaries for the conquest of those with no tax
> base?

The question regarding the existence of no-tax societies surrounded by taxing societies is different from questioning whether they can exist at all, hence the separation. The answer is also different…not a chance.

Obviously tax and squander societies require constant replenishment of the _uncompensated_ squander and any prosperous capitalist society, even if they existed on an isolated island, would be subjected to invented reasons for the confiscation of their wealth and land.

The G-20 meet-and-greet was evidence of exactly that, the hope that leaders of different countries can staunch the fatal economic wounds of national socialism by redistributing wealth on a global scale. Eventually the world’s mighty leaders, through uncompensated taxation, will create worldwide circumstances of poverty stricken populations surrounding a wealthy governmental/governmentally favored elite, which will foment, as it always does, revolution, this time global, and probably nuclear.

So in the end the argument for peace, in keeping with the entire idea of capitalism (real capitalism, no action without agreement, not welfare state pseudo-capitalism) is exclusively one of philosophical victory, no military necessary. Will I, or anyone, win it. Of course not. Maybe ten thousand years from now, when civilization may be a fact and not just a thin veneer that intermittently obscures the predatory instincts of the human animal.
7:34 pm, 5 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

JR–gee, I was hoping for more. But a bit amusing. Yes, most philosophies work quite well describing the behavior of 3 people on an island exchanging fruit, canoes, or whatever is of value. Scale it up to millions and billions and do you think there would be agreement on when/where to plant apple or orange trees?

The simple answer is “no” and your failure to deal with the simple truths is very telling. How can we discuss anything subtle if you won’t admit simple truths?

We’ll try more more time: Can no tax societies exist outside of theory? I’ll help you along just a little bit. OF COURSE all societies beyond hunter gathers and such require taxation of some sort but the caution you express goes to the recognition that its OVER taxation (note the adjective OVER== it does not mean and is opposed to the concept of MERE taxation) that must be guarded against. There is a tyranny in OVER taxation, just as there is anarchy in UNDER taxation. Civilized people avoid the excesses of either extreme and search for that sweet spot in the middle.

Let me rephrase the discussion JR–are you an extremist, or are you looking for the sweet spot?
10:07 pm, 5 April, 2009.
JR says:

> Author: bobbo
> Comment:
> JR–gee, I was hoping for more. But a bit amusing. Yes, most philosophies
> work quite well describing the behavior of 3 people on an island exchanging
> fruit, canoes, or whatever is of value. Scale it up to millions and billions
> and do you think there would be agreement on when/where to plant apple or
> orange trees?
> The simple answer is “no” and your failure to deal with the simple truths is
> very telling. How can we discuss anything subtle if you won’t admit simple
> truths?

Hit a nerve, did I. You socialist tax and squanderers are always so touchy about the subject of capitalism. As I said…there are only the two means of human interaction…agreement or imposition. You obviously prefer imposition, but your ego does not permit you to say so…hence your self deceit in your presumption that tax free societies are impossible, so best we all get on with the tyranny, and may the best man win.

> We’ll try more more time: Can no tax societies exist outside of theory? I’ll
> help you along just a little bit. OF COURSE all societies beyond hunter
> gathers and such require taxation of some sort but the caution you express
> goes to the recognition that its OVER taxation (note the adjective OVER== it
> does not mean and is opposed to the concept of MERE taxation) that must be
> guarded against. There is a tyranny in OVER taxation, just as there is
> anarchy in UNDER taxation.

Heh, heh, sure there are degrees of taxation, and plenty of meaningless political labels that juxtapose such degrees as opposites, however, any degree of taxation requires control…there are no degrees of control. It exists or it doesn’t, where it exists “the man” is one to see, or be. Hence the frantic squabble to be authority or to win its favor. No doubt you are adept at one or the other, you have way too much invested in the propaganda, to be anything else.

>Civilized people avoid the excesses of either
> extreme and search for that sweet spot in the middle.

Civilized people understand that the label “extremist” is just another way of saying; “I want to own you, but I need your cooperation, otherwise ensuring your obedience will take up too much of my precious time and money.”

> Let me rephrase the discussion JR–are you an extremist, or are you looking
> for the sweet spot?

There are no sweet spots between freedom and slavery, there are no degrees of autonomy, and no degrees of slavery. The sweet spot is freedom. Of course, if the majority of people are like you, and they are, and they really, really, really, really believe that the “freedom” for some to compel others to obedience, is the only kind of freedom that exists, then there are no sweet spots at all.

So go on and fight for peace, build your bombs, grow your germs and be sure to support any and every elite authority that promises to ruthlessly tax its serfs into “equality.” Why I’ll bet world peace is just around the corner, but if it isn’t I’m sure not going to care if you should become a victim of your own stupidity.
10:33 pm, 5 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

JR–So, on your island of 3 people exchaning apples and oranges, what happens when one person wants all the fruit? What do the other two people do?

Hmmm. I see even my own statement about philosophies working on small islands isn’t true either.

So==freedom in your lexicon is everyone agreeing to everything and there is never a disagreement otherwise there is no freedom. Actually, that is quite accurate. There never is freedom defined like that. Life offers nothing but compromises.

Is there any glimmer at all on how nonsensical your position is? Seems to me to be viable/reasonable/sensible a philosophy has to actually “work” in any reasonable possibility?

With as much waste as our government allows right now, I “guess” the taxes should not go any higher until better pragmatic social policy is worked out. With advocates of your stripe, we will loose much of the conservative position. Sad, you have something to offer if you would do the work first to fashion something pragmatic.

Speaking of pragmatic, that will be the key to James’ approaches to reparations. I doubt he can make it, but with our help, maybe he can?
12:46 am, 6 April, 2009.
JR says:

> Author: bobbo
> Comment:
> JR–So, on your island of 3 people exchaning apples and oranges, what happens
> when one person wants all the fruit? What do the other two people do?

Wouldn’t “freedom” mean the other two get to make that decision, as well as deal with the consequences of their decisions.

> Hmmm. I see even my own statement about philosophies working on small islands
> isn’t true either.
>
> So==freedom in your lexicon is everyone agreeing to everything and there is
> never a disagreement otherwise there is no freedom. Actually, that is quite
> accurate. There never is freedom defined like that. Life offers nothing but
> compromises.

A compromise IS an agreement. Conflicts occur; the choices are two, compromise or compel obedience. If there were more capitalists than socialists, you wouldn’t try the latter. Lucky you; there aren’t.

Taxation, however, is not compromise, it’s the counter-productively imposed penalization of success and reward of failure, leading to the gradual destruction of economic innovation; as opposed to free trade in which nothing is forcibly taken without compensation, all is voluntarily traded to equal benefit, which encourages increased production and innovation.

Can you not keep opposites AS opposite; must you think only in degrees of imposition and then claim there is no alternative.

> Is there any glimmer at all on how nonsensical your position is? Seems to me
> to be viable/reasonable/sensible a philosophy has to actually “work” in any
> reasonable possibility?

It is only the amazing success of tax and squander propaganda that makes freedom appear to be an impossible dream to you.

> With as much waste as our government allows right now, I “guess” the taxes
> should not go any higher until better pragmatic social policy is worked out.
> With advocates of your stripe, we will loose much of the conservative
> position. Sad, you have something to offer if you would do the work first to
> fashion something pragmatic.

I’m not a conservative advocate, so don’t worry about any losses on my account. Religionists, whether they worship a god or a politician, are all convinced that their own personal preferences are a compelling moral imperative, and these self righteous “plans for man” leave me cold; knowing, as I do, that all moral imperatives hide the fact that most people want what they want, and they want other people to pay for it, but can’t admit that and still retain their self esteem. Ergo, up pops a moral imperative, oddly always requiring other people’s money… tithes, the welfare state and if you don’t comply you are “eeeevil,” or, worse, an “extremist.” Yawn.

Pragmatic…hmmm is that a word for, “this will never work, but we need to convince people it does, because, by golly, aren’t those of us in political favor making some money now.”

> Speaking of pragmatic, that will be the key to James’ approaches to
> reparations. I doubt he can make it, but with our help, maybe he can?

He can win…likely will. Racial preferences, and its necessary corollary, racial discrimination (when relabeled “equality”) have always been a very successful vote buying, election platform in America. There’s at least one politician who has successfully used this platform on both sides of DuBois’ infamous color line.

But winning isn’t the entire issue. The rest of the issue is, since reparations, like affirmative action, requires the proselytization of racism as racism’s “remedy,” will the consequences of a win for James be the racial equality he expects, or race riots. Only the hate groups know for sure, but I’m taking their well documented growth as a harbinger of the latter.
1:12 am, 6 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

JR-simply put, it just doesn’t scale. I’ll let you imagine issues where people don’t compromise to the point of killing other people. Taxation is the only workable way to address and compromise all the different issues that afflict masses of mankind. Silly to argue otherwise, but it takes two fools to have an argument. I’ll leave you with my disagreement.
12:13 pm, 6 April, 2009.
JR says:

> Author: bobbo
> Comment:
> JR-simply put, it just doesn’t scale. I’ll let you imagine issues where
> people don’t compromise to the point of killing other people.

Geez…hardly have to imagine…can pick up any history book documenting the millions of deaths caused by uncompromising, tax and squandering societies… Tribalism, monarchy,theocracy, democracy, socialism, fascism, communism… the difference rests exclusively in the amount of hostility and violence engendered by the uncompensated “sacrifice” mandated by the chiefs du jour.

And btw, killing isn’t off limits to the defense of freedom; it’s only the numerical superiority of those who prefer to be slaves or slavers that currently makes such action fruitless. But the occasional criminal preferring to steal or murder, rather than peacefully trade in a capitalist society, would never stack up the massive death toll of history’s elite compelled “plans for man.”

>Taxation is the
> only workable way to address and compromise all the different issues that
> afflict masses of mankind. Silly to argue otherwise, but it takes two fools
> to have an argument. I’ll leave you with my disagreement.

Yeah, I figured you’d make your final exit, once you noticed that further argument would simply continue to expose your penchant for slavery and theft as means to your personally preferred circumstances, coupled to an ego claiming that “liberty, equality n’ justice for all” necessitates, without alternative, the elite mandated, ruthlessly imposed taxation and militarily enforced control of anybody that gets in your way.

But hey, thanks for saying bye…most don’t.
12:02 am, 7 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

JR–are you against all taxation or just certain taxes. In either case, do you admit to a need to provide/pay for certain societal needs that cannot be arranged any other way. The easiest being national defense.

Would you raise an army or just rely on individual responses in time of need?
10:10 am, 9 April, 2009.
Jeremy says:

Just wanted to say that I am in support of the bill, and I don’t see anything wrong with a public apology from the government. Some of the first people to comment on this post were so against reparations and a public apology, and I don’t get it. A public apology is only accepting responsibility for their previous action, and if a simple apology can at the very least get though to even one person it is effective. At the very least it would bring about public awareness of the situation and the bill.
10:11 am, 9 April, 2009.
James says:

Matt, I want to apologize to you for not having approved your comment (#8, above) sooner. Most comments appear automatically, but those which are tagged by the spam filter have to wait until I can review them. Since I’ve been overseas, I’m only now working through the hundreds of spam comments which have been accumulating in the last two weeks.

You write:

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of! It seems a good majority of African Americans are more interested in gang bangin or robbing liquor stores than learning their ancestry.

You might consider not painting everyone with the same, broad brush, especially on the basis of racial stereotypes.

Yes, it is a serious problem that many black communities in this country suffer disproportionately from such deficits as poverty, despair, inadequate or crumbling infrastructure, lack of job opportunities, and crime.

This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take seriously the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination. In fact, it merely highlights that we still haven’t done so. For the fact that blacks in this country are disproportionately involved in crime can mean only one of two things: either race truly matters and blacks are racially predisposed to crime, or else our nation’s historic treatment of blacks have left them in a situation, like the one I outlined in the last paragraph, in which more people are likely to resort to crime. I think it’s safe to say that it’s the latter.

Who cares about slavery? Yes, it was an important part of our history… and we should learn from our mistakes. But, we don’t live in the past. We live in the “now”. And “now” we don’t have slavery.

Matt, is there a reason why you think the impact of slavery isn’t important today? Or do you simply not know what that impact is, and how it affects us in the present?

So why doesn’t everyone just get off their asses and get an education and/or a job? Ohhhhh… but let me guess, slavery (from over 200 years ago) is keeping African Americans from getting education and jobs. Yeah right….

Matt, if black families started out with almost nothing, a century and a half ago … and if those same black families were prevented for another century from competing for the same jobs, federal funds and other opportunities … how can you suggest that everyone has the same opportunities today?

Naturally, many black families will not have magically caught up. If one generation has very little in the way of education, job experience, housing, and so on, and if entire communities collectively suffer the same, then do you think their children have the same likelihood of succeeding as more fortunate families do?

Nobody left me any money or great family treasure. But that doesn’t affect how I live my life today.

Okay, Matt. Did you grow up in poverty, in a community with a high crime rate and urban decay? Did your parents have a better education than the average black parents of their generation? Factors like this dramatically affect the opportunities and likelihood of success of the next generation.

I don’t think about my ancestors ever….

Perhaps you should, Matt. If your ancestors lived in this country, and were white, then they benefited substantially from slavery and racial discrimination. If you’ll give me an example of who they were, or where they lived or when, I would be happy to be more specific.

Consider welfare as reparations.

How can blacks consider welfare as reparations? Welfare goes primarily to white families, and is certainly not aimed at correcting racial inequality. Moreover, welfare only benefits poor citizens.
10:47 am, 9 April, 2009.
James says:

ShoDid, I’d like to offer you the same apology as I did to Matt, in my previous comment, for not having seen your comment (above) in the blog’s spam folder until just now.

You write:

How about Americans put a term limit on Congressional members so that personal agendas will never pass, and that only agendas of the people who elected those Congressional members get passed?

This remark invokes a long-standing debate in political theory, about the proper role of elected representatives in a democratic society. Should they use their own judgment in carrying out the public business, or should they substitute the judgment of popular opinion?

As my phrasing suggests, I tend to side with Edmund Burke, who famously argued that a representative owes the people due consideration for their opinions, but also owes them the benefits of his own judgment.

In any event, reparations for slavery may be a passion of at least one member of Congress, but it is also a passion of many of those who have elected him as their representative. The fact that you or I don’t favor this policy doesn’t make his representation of his district illegitimate.

America, 1776 – present…what is this 1600s bull junk?

The U.S., which was founded by the Constitution of 1787, has plenty of responsibility for slavery and racial discrimination over the following two centuries.

However, this society dates back to the early 1600s, and it benefits from slavery going back that far. We also tend, in this country, to take pride in colonial days. Think of the Mayflower, the Boston tea party, or most of the accomplishments of Benjamin Franklin, for instance. If that’s the case, then I think we need to acknowledge the darker aspects of our colonial history, too.

I’m not paying anyone, espeically for a system that was set up by European nations that a young, newly found Republic adopted.

The Republic enthusiastically embraced and enlarged that system, and used it to profit enormously and to generate an economic system which, today, forms the backbone of the leading economy in the world.

I would hardly say that you have an argument that the U.S. is innocent in this history, and that only Europe bears responsibility for the consequences.
12:13 pm, 25 April, 2009.
kerijay says:

What the hel# has this got to do with us? Their own people sold them. Our ancestors suffered and worked their buns off so move on and forgot about wanting something for nothing.

They get more support from the government than whites do what else do they want.
1:40 pm, 25 April, 2009.
James says:

Thanks for sharing your reaction with us, kerijay.

The ancestors of today’s black Americans were not sold by “their own people.” They were sold exclusively by people from other, often distant, societies. I’m not sure whether you thought that Africans sold members of their own societies into slavery (which is not true) or whether you meant that it was significant that African slaves were sold by people from the same continent (or race).

As for “our” ancestors having suffered, I have no idea who your ancestors were. However, all white Americans have benefited substantially from slavery and its aftermath. While it’s true that these same Americans usually had to work hard for what they achieved, they also received a significant boost from the treatment accorded to those of African descent–and those members of our society, in turn, were significantly disadvantaged.

Finally, U.S. citizens are given government support according to their economic needs. The bulk of this support goes to white citizens, not black. If black families, on average, are more likely to qualify for government support, this is a consequence of our long history of slavery and racial discrimination.

What many black citizens want is to be placed, for the first time, on an equal footing with white citizens–so that blacks will not, in fact, be poorer on average than whites, and will not be more likely to qualify for government assistance. Whatever you or I think about reparations for slavery and discrimination, this is not about an unfair handout. Rather, this is a matter of correcting an historic injustice which has largely been ended, but whose victims were never compensated, and whose descendants are likely to suffer ill effects to this day.
2:51 pm, 25 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

James==when/where/(have you already?) are you going to post a SPECIFIC plan of fairness to compensate the qualifying for the harm caused by slavery?

Many issues can be discussed pro or con “in a vacuum” the kind of vacuum you maintain on this blog. Certainly EVERYONE wants to be FAIR to one another, but the detail, the substance, the real issue==is in the details.

As you know, many people think that the lives spent in fighting the Civil War is payment enough. Apparently, that compensation is not enough in your eyes==so what would be?

As you know, many people think that the Great Society Program of Lyndon Johnson is payment enough. Apparently, that compensation is not enough in your eyes==so what would be?

As you know, many people think that the Affirmative Action programs of the 60’s thru and continuing today 40 years later is payment enough. Apparently, that compensation is not enough in your eyes==so what would be?

Apparently, these programs together is not enough, so in your eyes, what would be?

You really do owe your audience at least one model that would satisfy you, or is it all open ended until blacks score the same as whites on all measures of “wealth” as it is variously defined?

You have surprised me with every challenge I have offered you. Looking forward to your effort.
7:25 am, 27 April, 2009.
James says:

Bobbo, I’ll see if I can find time to post an entry about specific reparations proposals. It’s an interesting topic, and I’m sure you would have sharp criticisms of most, if not all, of the plans that I’m aware of.

Please bear in mind, as always, that I’m not advocating reparations for slavery, and I’m certainly not endorsing any specific proposals. I agree that getting into details can be an excellent way of sharpening the discussion, but the fact that I discuss the legacy of slavery and race on this blog doesn’t mean that I’ll defend any particular response to that legacy.

As you know, many people think that the lives spent in fighting the Civil War is payment enough.

I can’t imagine why they do, Bobbo.

I will definitely be offering a post on this topic before long. In short, however, those lives were not sacrificed with the goal of ending slavery. They may, of course, have been a price the nation inevitably paid for its sins, but even that doesn’t mean that this price was, in any way, payment to those slaves or their descendants.

I’ve used this analogy before, but when a thief is caught, no one says that he has offered “payment enough” when he hasn’t offered anything back to his victims, but merely pledges to stop robbing them in the future. This doesn’t mean that the U.S. necessarily owes compensation to its black citizens, but I fail to see how the nation can be said to have done so in the past.

As you know, many people think that the Great Society Program of Lyndon Johnson is payment enough.

Again, I can’t imagine why anyone would think this, Bobbo. The federal programs of the Great Society went primarily to white Americans. To the extent that blacks benefited significantly, too, it was because blacks have been disproportionately poor in this country, as a consequence of our history of slavery and race. This is a reason to consider addressing the underlying problem, not to complain to blacks that they’re disproportionately poor. Whatever you think should or shouldn’t be done, however, federal aid which benefits whites more than blacks can’t be said to be compensation to blacks for racial inequality, since it doesn’t even begin to address the problem.

As you know, many people think that the Affirmative Action programs of the 60’s thru and continuing today 40 years later is payment enough.

My response here is exactly the same as to the Great Society programs above: white have benefited more than blacks from affirmative action. Moreover, affirmative action has not even begun to redress the racial inequality that our society today has inherited. Whatever you think of affirmative action or proposals for the future, it’s a simple fact that this set of policies hasn’t corrected the legacy of the past when it comes to racial inequality.

Apparently, these programs together is not enough, so in your eyes, what would be?

The issue here, Bobbo, is the fact that black Americans suffer significant disadvantages as a result of the treatment of many of their ancestors under American slavery, and from the century of brutal discrimination which followed the end of slavery.

None of the programs you mention has done much, if anything, to address those disadvantages. By any socioeconomic measure I’m aware of–income, wealth, education, homeownership, and so on–black families have been making slow but consistent progress year by year, decade by decade. The programs introduced in the 1960s and 1970s have barely altered that trajectory, so they can’t possibly be said to have “compensated” blacks.

You really do owe your audience at least one model that would satisfy you

I’m not sure how else to put this, Bobbo. I believe strongly in acknowledging the facts of this situation, including the nation’s history around slavery and race, and its implications for our society today. This does include acknowledging that there have never been reparations in this country’s history, and it does include talking about the variety of proposals for addressing the situation (including acknowledgment, apologies, reparations, education, dialogue, and other ideas). This doesn’t mean that I endorse reparations for slavery, and so I couldn’t possibly offer you a specific plan for reparations which would “satisfy” me.
7:11 pm, 27 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

James==not one single time have you failed to surprise me. We must still not be on the same wave length, or even the same spectrum? What do you think my “constant” criticism is my way of getting to the best answer, or do you think I am a knee jerk critic only? I find half of what you say very insightful and educational, the other half some kind of fantasy world of denial you have carefully constructed. All words. Words the thicket of definitional defense, of arrows straight and true.

I could say “looking forward to whatever you create” but on first read, several things you said jumped out at me. So, asking you for a little extra work, why not provide some of my own?

1. Bobbo, I’ll see if I can find time to post an entry about specific reparations proposals. It’s an interesting topic, and I’m sure you would have sharp criticisms of most, if not all, of the plans that I’m aware of. /// Thank you. Every social critic deserves a boatload in the opposite direction. Only makes the final ideas all that much better. Criticism can be mindless, or constructive, or a request for more information. I hope you don’t think I have been a purist in my responses?

2. As you know, many people think that the lives spent in fighting the Civil War is payment enough.

I can’t imagine why they do, Bobbo. /// Really? I mean REALLY? An expert in a subject becomes one when they know the opponents argument better than the opponent does. Do you REALLY mean you can’t imagine or rather that you fully understand the argument and simply, or even complicatedly, disagree. OR, AS I WOULD HOPE, you understand the argument, agree with the central idea of it, yet still find a supervening concern that trumps that argument?

Actually, I can smile at the situation. Your position is in fact the minority one–that reparations are due. Quite strident and a bit unbelievable you CAN’T IMAGINE the very status quo you argue against? I think you can do better on this issue.

3. MAN!! I just went back to your post to pick up another issue to review and I found this: “Please bear in mind, as always, that I’m not advocating reparations for slavery.” /// I’m still butting heads on this pirouette you do. I’m not intentionally trying to put words, ideas, positions onto you, yet we keep colliding on this issue. What special way do you vibrate among your different definitions of this term? What IS the purpose of this blog? Don’t all people want to “rectify the lingering consequences” of slavery and Jim Crow? I call that reparations but you neject that term. I “know” we discussed this before, but can’t review the entire blog to find it. I will review this thread though. xxxxxxx. /// Its worse than I remember. Your Post #2==lots of double talk nonsense there. The slaves were black people from Africa. Their descendants who haven’t crossed over by miscegenation are still black regardless of their shade. Your quibble here makes no sense. Now, I do understand that “if” reparations were made from general funds, then race would not be an issue in who had to make payment, so I’m open to a “race free” discussion of equitable harm and its remedies. No way I guess to tell what the heck you are talking about until we see your PLAN OF RESPONSE which unless you are totally inane, will include something more than a mere apology? Your post #4 is the type of post that makes me think you are for reparations: “N.B., why shouldn’t blacks receive compensation, or our government offer an apology for its actions? After all, we agree that what the U.S. did was dreadfully wrong, don’t we?” /// Now, I “suppose” you can ask that question purely in a vacuum or to plumb the other’s position, but not as the Author of the Blog: “Living Consequences.” Whatever shaving of meaning you use to think you are not an advocate of reparations ((which in my mind DOES NOT INCLUDE an apology–apologies falling far below reparations by definition)) falls in comparison to what you actually post when you aren’t addressing that question directly. I don’t know, I can’t imagine, why you do this, but it is a distracting conflict.

4. I’ve used this analogy before, but when a thief is caught, no one says that he has offered “payment enough” when he hasn’t offered anything back to his victims, but merely pledges to stop robbing them in the future. This doesn’t mean that the U.S. necessarily owes compensation to its black citizens, but I fail to see how the nation can be said to have done so in the past. //// You are right, NO ONE SAYS THAT. So how is the analogy relevant? Some analogies help some people understand an issue, or aspects of an issue, by analogy when they can’t understand the issue directly, but ALL analogies fail direct application because by definition “they aren’t the same thing.” A thief who offers to give the money back, the USA in your example, is far preferred to the thief who wants sympathy while keeping the money, or who wishes to continue to rob? (A true repentant reformed sinner vs. Bernie Madoff.) So, even by analogy, the USA offering up “something” is better than offering nothing. But in this case, the thief by closer analogy would be saying, I can never give you back what I took, but how about if I sacrifice two of my own children? You say the Civil War was not fought for Slavery–more quibbling on your part, this time rather dastardly. No reason to try to score points on such thinking once it is admitted that “slavery was intertwined in the Civil War.” Honest people don’t quibble.

5. The federal programs of the Great Society went primarily to white Americans. To the extent that blacks benefited significantly, too, it was because blacks have been disproportionately poor in this country, as a consequence of our history of slavery and race. /// You are dastardly quibbling once again. Here and elsewhere you directly acknowledge that Great Society/Welfare disproportionately benefit Black and you correctly identify the reason YET FOR SOME REASON you want to maintain at the same time that benefits went primarily to White Americans. Why don’t you sit down and think about which way you want it. Again, fatally conflicted.

6. The issue here, Bobbo, is the fact that black Americans suffer significant disadvantages as a result of the treatment of many of their ancestors under American slavery, and from the century of brutal discrimination which followed the end of slavery. /// I agree, but only as a “group statistic.” Many, or some if you will, blacks are doing much better than some whites. Obama is doing better than Biden for example. So, other elements besides the legacy of slavery truly is at work. Thats one strong reason why any “actual plan of reparation/equity recovery etc” is complicated beyond reasonable approach, and is why I think the exercise of coming up with even a first draft plan will prove this notion dead on serious contemplation. Not because the morality of it isn’t right, but the real world calculation is too complicated with too many unknowns.

7. None of the programs you mention has done much, if anything, to address those disadvantages. //// Hah, hah. So General Colin Powell is wrong when he recounts that without Affirmative Action his life would have turned out quite worse huh?

8. By any socioeconomic measure I’m aware of /// Years ago I saw one study that stated if you control for all the variables, the income gap for race is for all intents and purposes closed. The same study said the remaining gap was in “net wealth” meaning the life time help whites get from family members in time of need, buying the first house, inheritance is far greater than what black get. Looking at my richer white friends, ITS TRUE!! The son’s and daughters of physicians get the two year old cars as gifts while I have to earn the wrecks I drive. Its not FAIR!!!!!!!! My great granddaddy was denied admission to Medical School because he was Irish. I want reparations too!!

9.–Your last para==I basically agree with what you say until the last sentence: “This doesn’t mean that I endorse reparations for slavery, and so I couldn’t possibly offer you a specific plan for reparations which would “satisfy” me.” /// I could never write/think such a thought. Until you craft a plan that actually would be satisfactory to YOU, and you alone, other don’t have to agree with you, then you are being nothing but hysterical in your approach and understanding of the issue. Until you have your own plan, it is knee jerk negativism to reject anyone else’s plan of correction.

You see, the devil IS in the details. Until you craft a specific plan, the real “meaning” of your blog is simply and only that slavery was a terrible thing, and everyone, even most red neck racists, agree with that.

So in conclusion, “if I were you” ((and I’m not, I know)) I would see the drafting of a PLAN, THE PLAN, as nothing but a joy and a sharpening of my own convictions. You might disagree, but you would be wrong.

I remain, sincerely bobbo.
8:14 pm, 27 April, 2009.
James says:

Do you REALLY mean you can’t imagine or rather that you fully understand the argument and simply, or even complicatedly, disagree.

I suppose, bobbo, that I mean I can’t imagine what the reasoning behind such an argument would be. Every time I’ve heard that argument, it’s been based on an erroneous understanding of the history of the Civil War. Once factual issues are out of the way, I don’t believe I’ve heard anyone make such an argument and I can’t imagine how they would.

Your position is in fact the minority one–that reparations are due.

Again, bobbo, I do not support reparations.

Nor do I believe that the position you’re describing about the Civil War, that it was “payment enough” for slavery, is in any sense the majority view of the U.S. population today.

What special way do you vibrate among your different definitions of this term?

I don’t believe the issue is that I’m employing different definitions, bobbo. I believe it’s that you have great difficulty imagining that I could recognize certain basic historical truths, and their empirical implications today, without necessarily adhering to a particular set of public policy prescriptions going forward.

Don’t all people want to “rectify the lingering consequences” of slavery and Jim Crow?

I can assure you, from extensive experience, that a great many Americans do not believe that there is any need to do so, and are adamantly opposed to any discussion whatsoever about doing anything to address the lingering consequences of this history. This is not merely a disagreement about what those consequences are, or what should be done about them.

I call that reparations but you neject that term.

What, exactly, do you mean to say that you call reparations, bobbo? Your previous sentence was the one about “lingering consequences,” which I agree sounds a great deal like reparations. Any dispute after that, I would think, would be about the extent of the consequences or about the best way to rectify them.

The slaves were black people from Africa. Their descendants who haven’t crossed over by miscegenation are still black regardless of their shade. Your quibble here makes no sense.

Bobbo, what quibble? You seem to be referring to the discussion in comment #2 in which I responded to the issue of whether reparations proposals necessarily focus on people based on their race. They don’t, at least when they’re aimed at the descendants of slaves and not at people of any particular race. There are plenty of black citizens of this country, for instance, who are not descended from slaves (including our president). What about this seems like quibbling to you?

No way I guess to tell what the heck you are talking about until we see your PLAN OF RESPONSE

Bobbo, if I don’t support reparations for slavery, what sense would it make for me to pick a detailed plan for reparations? It would only make sense for me to explore what proposals have been offered for reparations.

Your post #4 is the type of post that makes me think you are for reparations: “N.B., why shouldn’t blacks receive compensation, or our government offer an apology for its actions? After all, we agree that what the U.S. did was dreadfully wrong, don’t we?”

Bobbo, do you not recognize this question, and the rest of that comment, as an attempt to get at the basis for any disagreement about reparations?

This is not “quibbling.” It’s one thing to oppose reparations, on any number of grounds. But there are bases for opposition to reparations which are founded not on philosophical or other differences, but on incorrect knowledge of history or society.

For instance, suppose someone opposed reparations on the basis that the transatlantic slave trade or chattel slavery were myths created by angry black citizens in order to seek federal government handouts.

What would you do then? I would try to correct the misimpression about history, and if this false history were merely implied, but not stated, I would ask a question designed to draw out the basis for the objection. Wouldn’t you?

In the same vein, I want to make sure that anyone here who opposes reparations does so on grounds which constitute a legitimate basis of disagreement with those who support reparations. Not on the basis of historical myths which are all-too-common in our nation.

You are right, NO ONE SAYS THAT. So how is the analogy relevant?

Because I believe it is an accurate analogy, in all relevant particulars, to the argument frequently heard about the U.S. Civil War constituting “payment enough” for slavery.

If you believe that analogy fails, then by all means, please enlighten us.

A thief who offers to give the money back, the USA in your example, is far preferred to the thief who wants sympathy while keeping the money, or who wishes to continue to rob?

I would think that would be true, yes, ceteris paribus.

However, the U.S. has not demonstrated any intention to “give the money back.” And certainly didn’t at the time of the Civil War. So why is this an objection to the analogy?

the thief by closer analogy would be saying, I can never give you back what I took, but how about if I sacrifice two of my own children?

By closer analogy, bobbo, the thief would be saying that he couldn’t even stop robbing in the future without making a sacrifice. It has nothing to do with compensating the victims.

I don’t know anyone who feels sympathy for a criminal who has to sacrifice in the process of stopping his life of crime. (Disentangling from criminal associates, perhaps?)

Now, we can be more sympathetic in the case of the Union, losing citizens in part because of slavery. But this was hardly a sacrifice made in order to end slavery, since it was made before the Union even decided to end slavery after the war.

You say the Civil War was not fought for Slavery–more quibbling on your part, this time rather dastardly.

This isn’t quibbling, bobbo. The U.S. decided only in 1865 that it would seek to end slavery once it had won the war. In other words, the conflict was joined, and most casualties were already incurred, long before the decision to end slavery.

In what possible sense are the war or the dead soldiers, then, a sacrifice to end slavery? Roughly 600,000 died before the decision was even made to end slavery; that’s a harsh reality, not quibbling.

You are dastardly quibbling once again. Here and elsewhere you directly acknowledge that Great Society/Welfare disproportionately benefit Black [yet] you want to maintain at the same time that benefits went primarily to White Americans.

Bobbo, both things are quite true.

Blacks have benefited from these programs more than their proportionate share of the population would indicate.

Whites have still benefited more than blacks.

Let me give you an example: suppose blacks were 10% of the population, and whites 90%. Yet blacks receive 20% of welfare benefits, and whites 80%.

In that case, blacks have benefited disproportionately, yes? And whites have benefited primarily, yes?

other elements besides the legacy of slavery truly is at work. Thats one strong reason why any “actual plan of reparation/equity recovery etc” is complicated beyond reasonable approach

I’m certainly inclined to agree with you here, bobbo.

I would simply note that even blacks who are “doing much better than some whites” may still “suffer significant disadvantages” from the history discussed on this blog. In a world free from racial inequity, almost all blacks would be doing much better than some whites; while that may be taking your words a bit literally, the essential point is that Barack Obama has suffered considerable racial injustice in his lifetime, and a high-paid lawyer at a top law firm may still be doing less well than she would be doing if she were not black.

I think the exercise of coming up with even a first draft plan will prove this notion dead on serious contemplation.

Perhaps not “dead on serious contemplation,” but likely beyond anything you would remotely consider appropriate for the real world.

Please notice the nature of the points I try to make on this blog, and which you cite, over and over again, as an indication that I’m “quibbling” or some such. These points are related to the ideas you concede here (for instance, that many or even most black citizens still suffer significant disadvantages as a result of our nation’s historic treatment of blacks). They are not related to your objection to reparations that, in practice, it may not be reasonably possible to disentangle the effects of the past.

Please also notice that your argument is about the difficulties or complications inherent in any concrete plan for reparations. As such, it is highly vulnerable to compromise proposals which seek to maintain a reasonable degree of fairness for both sides, while accomplishing something of value. It is barely possible, bobbo, that you are more inclined to favor reparations than I am.

So General Colin Powell is wrong when he recounts that without Affirmative Action his life would have turned out quite worse huh?

Not at all.

However, that doesn’t address the point you’re quoting me as making, which is that affirmative action has not done much to correct the socioeconomic disadvantages I mentioned.

Years ago I saw one study that stated if you control for all the variables, the income gap for race is for all intents and purposes closed.

That’s wildly off the mark. The income gap between the races is substantial and largely independent of other factors.

There is a significant body of research on this question, and it all comes to the same conclusion on this issue.

The same study said the remaining gap was in “net wealth” meaning the life time help whites get from family members in time of need, buying the first house, inheritance is far greater than what black get.

This is an important point, bobbo. It’s not that income levels have been equalized between the races, which isn’t true, but that there is a separate and significant gap in wealth and other issues related to family resources.

Much of the racial disparity in this country comes from just such inter-generational resource transfers. This is one reason why racial inequality has been maintained so strongly over the generations, while many white Americans can’t understand how this could be so.

There’s a powerful scene in Traces of the Trade in which one of my fellow DeWolf descendants talks about getting into Harvard College on his own merit. He simply misses the fact that while his family wasn’t wealthy, his own father, a minister, had gone to Harvard, and factors like this made it much more likely that he, in turn, would attend a college like Harvard.

My great granddaddy was denied admission to Medical School because he was Irish. I want reparations too!!

That’s funny, and there’s also a significant element of truth in it.

However, let’s please also bear in mind that Irish immigrants in this country never faced what black slaves or their descendants faced. In fact, Irish immigrants may have arrived on these shores to face discrimination of their own, but they were also immediately elevated above millions of blacks who had been here for generations, and those Irish immigrants and their descendants then benefited from tremendous government largess in the 20th century.

Until you craft a plan that actually would be satisfactory to YOU, and you alone, other don’t have to agree with you, then you are being nothing but hysterical in your approach and understanding of the issue.

Bobbo, I don’t know why you believe that no one can possibly discuss the range of proposed responses to this history (acknowledgment, apology, reparations, education, dialogue, etc.) without agreeing with a particular type of proposal (reparations).

Clearly, we have to agree to disagree about that, unless you can say something about why you believe that doing otherwise would be an “hysterical” approach.

Until you craft a specific plan, the real “meaning” of your blog is simply and only that slavery was a terrible thing, and everyone, even most red neck racists, agree with that.

I have spent a great deal of time discussing these issues with people across the country, bobbo, and I am confident that most Americans disagree with the fundamental premises of this blog, including the basic outlines of the history of slavery and race in the U.S. and the legacy of that history for our society today. This remains the “real meaning” of this website, despite your fervent desire that it be a site endorsing and promoting reparations for slavery.
8:39 pm, 27 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

James==well done. I’m a bit awestruck. There is no doubt I am mostly isolated in my own thinking and values. I think I would actually have to hurt myself physically before I thought MOST (ie like 99%) of all people, including Americans, recognize the evil of slavery. You sure you aren’t gilding the rose, or more likely, you have just attracted to your life, a very malignant section of homo sapiens?

I have few “fervent desires”, but one certainly is for clarity and consistency which is why an actionable plan would be beneficial. You see this in family counseling a lot. Couples thinking the other is being outrageous. Sometimes getting the unverbalized thoughts out from between their ears and objectified even as minimally as mere verablization, allows the speaker to recognize how silly their position is.

Quite a few loose threads we could follow up on but I think we both did a good job today and tomorrow will provide a better continuation. One definition of progress could be stumbling towards the truth. We (ok, maybe just me?) are certainly stumbling.

Keep the faith.
8:54 pm, 27 April, 2009.
James says:

I have few “fervent desires”, but one certainly is for clarity and consistency which is why an actionable plan would be beneficial.

I respect that, bobbo, and it’s one reason why I said that I would try to offer a selection of such proposals here.

I would just hope that you wouldn’t then turn around and argue that I must support this or that plan, simply because I’ve discussed it on this site.

Meanwhile, as you suggest, let’s both keep trying to hang in there.
8:29 am, 28 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

James, lets review 3 points.

1. The “cause” of the Civil War. It was Slavery. More specifically to stop the “spread” of slavery into the new territories swiftly to become new states of the union. Lincoln kept the Union his superior concern over human rights because without the Union, there could be no human rights. Had he set the slaves free earlier than he did, he may have lost the borderline states and hense the Union and the slaves would have remained as such. It was politics and timing. I agree the CW was not fought to free slaves, but that was the immediate effect. Why separate the concepts except to avoid the natural consequences of the one leading to the other?

2. Great Society/Welfare. If a program is race neutral on its face, but has a disproportionate impact on a race, the courts can find it to be racially discriminatory in effect and illegal subject to remedy. It makes no legitimate/socialogical/legal sense not to have the same concept apply to programs that benefit a race.

3. Affirmative Action. Whaaaaa? You say: “However, that ((Colin Powell)) doesn’t address the point you’re quoting me as making, which is that affirmative action has not done much to correct the socioeconomic disadvantages I mentioned. /// Colin Powell is only one example of AA helping blacks recover from their living consequences. There are 1000’s if not millions of other examples. Maybe we both would benefit from FACTS rather than our mutual assumptions? I had a friend who was a Hollywood Camera Man. He supported AA except that it entirely replaced non-black Hollywood Camera guys with Black Camera Guys. Fire Departments are currently suing for situations along these lines. AA has had and is having an extensive impact on righting the wrongs of the past.

These are simple truths. A lot has been done to rememdy the past harms. Anyone requesting more needs to specify what that more should be. Same is true for the offering of information. Information for what end? Unless some goal is in mind, seems to me education on increasing personal health or how to make money would be many times more relevant to any American. Educating people on the Living Consequences becomes relevant only with a solution in mind.
9:19 am, 28 April, 2009.
James says:

The “cause” of the Civil War. It was Slavery.

As an historical matter, bobbo, there was no single cause of the U.S. Civil War. It was the result of a variety of factors, among which was the complicated role played by slavery.

You don’t have to believe me about that, but surely you can accept the issue at hand: that the casualties of that war, even if they may have been caused in some sense by slavery, were not a sacrifice to end slavery.

Perhaps you can understand it this way: As I’ve said, the U.S. only decided in 1865 that it would seek to end slavery after the war. Suppose the U.S. had decided not to seek the end of slavery after the war? If the Civil War had been fought and won by the North, but slavery had continued until the present day, would you still say that 600,000 died to end slavery? If not, then how can you say that now, since they died before the change in history that I’m talking about?

More specifically to stop the “spread” of slavery into the new territories swiftly to become new states of the union.

Bobbo, this was a complicated political issue. It’s true that the potential spread of slavery into new territories threatened at times to remake the balance of national politics. Even here, though, the goal of most northern interests was to maintain the balance of free and slave states — not to end slavery in existing states.

Had he set the slaves free earlier than he did, he may have lost the borderline states and hense the Union and the slaves would have remained as such. It was politics and timing.

You’re talking about what Lincoln’s true desires may have been. That’s fine, but it wasn’t his decision to end slavery after the war. That was the job of Congress, which wasn’t able to decide on amending the Constitution to end slavery until January 1865.

I agree the CW was not fought to free slaves, but that was the immediate effect.

That was “the immediate effect”? It wasn’t an effect until long after those soldiers were dead, and it wasn’t by any means certain when they died. And they most definitely weren’t, at least in the vast majority of cases, sacrificing themselves in the hope of ending slavery. Nor were they being sent out by the Union in order to end slavery.

All of this, of course, also ignores the central issue, which remains that even if the war had been fought to end slavery, merely ending such an evil institution is not, in any sense, “payment” to its victims for what has been done to them.

It makes no legitimate/socialogical/legal sense not to have the same concept apply to programs that benefit a race.

Not at all, bobbo. First of all, the issue is whether or not whites were the primary beneficiaries of these programs, and they were. I had also acknowledged that blacks benefited disproportionately, i.e., more than their simple share of population would imply.

Secondly, however, the courts do not strike down laws or find actions illegal on the mere basis that they have a disproportionate impact based on race.

Colin Powell is only one example of AA helping blacks recover from their living consequences. There are 1000’s if not millions of other examples.

No, bobbo, there aren’t millions of examples. This is a common myth.

If you want to see the effect of affirmative action on racial inequality in this country, which is the issue we’re discussing, then look at its impact on income levels or wealth, for instance. It has had only a margin impact at best.

Why is this the case? Well, for starters, as I’ve said, affirmative action has mostly benefited people who aren’t black. The idea that affirmative action has been about advantaging blacks over other Americans is just a myth.

It’s also important to recognize that affirmative action hasn’t changed most people’s life circumstances as much as the mythology of affirmative action would suggest. So, for instance, affirmative action hasn’t made it easier for blacks, as a whole, to get jobs or higher education than it is for whites. Some blacks have received a slight boost — a better job or college, for instance, than they would have had otherwise; and some blacks have received a job or higher education when they would have had only a menial job or no higher education at all. However, most blacks haven’t landed far from where they would have been initially, which is evident from the statistics on blacks in professional jobs or higher education, or racial statistics in income, wealth, hiring, promotions, and so on.

Fire Departments are currently suing for situations along these lines.

The case currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court isn’t about white firefighters having been “entirely replaced” by black firefighters, or anything close to that. Such situations are, again, a myth.

The case is about a promotions test for firefighters which was thrown out because NO black firefighter qualified for a promotion under the test.

Same is true for the offering of information. Information for what end? Unless some goal is in mind ….

You seem to believe that there is no goal in mind here. I would respectfully disagree. I think it’s damaging that many Americans are convinced that slavery is in the past … that they haven’t been advantaged by slavery and racial discrimination … and that black Americans have long since been put right, or at least have had ample opportunity to catch up.

These myths badly skew our national conversation on these issues.

Educating people on the Living Consequences becomes relevant only with a solution in mind.

Again, I would respectfully disagree. We can only come to a solution when we have a deeper appreciation of the nature of the situation, and when we can all participate in the conversation. Talking about particular solutions when we can’t yet agree on the nature of the problem (or that there is a problem) isn’t helpful.

A lot has been done to rememdy the past harms. Anyone requesting more needs to specify what that more should be.

Let me turn that around, bobbo: How about saying that anyone who argues that enough has been done to remedy past harms should specify how much has been done, and put that alongside how much harm still remains? I’ve yet to see anyone do that, and come away arguing that we should simply move on.
10:11 am, 28 April, 2009.
Dave says:

I have a few questions about HR40 if anyone can answer these for me. I am trying to understand this Bill and can see that many people have different views of HR 40.

1. What factors were considered most important for the formulation of the policy?
2. What causal theories were discussed for explaining why these were important factors to be addressed by the policy? Who proposed the causal theories?
3. How did the causal theories relate to the proposed goals of the policy formulation?
4. What were the goals of the policy formation?
5. Whose behavior does the policy attempt to change? How?
10:15 am, 28 April, 2009.
James says:

Dave, you frame these questions as if this were a policy change which had already been debated and enacted. They also sound as if they were questions posed by an instructor for an academic exercise.

Perhaps if you could offer questions which are tailored more specifically to the circumstances and nature of H.R. 40, it would be easier to offer information to help you.
10:29 am, 28 April, 2009.
Dave says:

James. This is for an academic excersise given to me by a professor. I was given a paper to write on the HR 40 bill and am trying to find in depth anylisis of the proposed bill. It is hard to find concrete sources to back up my opinions because it has not passed. if you have any sources other than the Bill itself that would be great. Again I have asked these questions because I discussed the topic with my professor and he told me that these would be questions to potentially discuss in the paper.

If you could help at all that would be greatly appreciated

Sincerely,
Dave
10:38 am, 28 April, 2009.
James says:

Dave, several of these questions are relevant to H.R. 40, at least if they are re-phrased to indicate that this is proposed legislation, and has not yet been fully debated or passed.

Because H.R. 40 has not been the subject of a staff report or been voted on by the subcommittee to which it is assigned, there is little formal record in Congress. There has also been relatively little discussion of the bill in public, although you can find many superficial discussions of it online.

Your best sources of information would probably be the public statements about the bill on Congressman Conyers’ web site, and the record of the hearing held in December 2007. For the latter, I would suggest that you visit the the web site of the House Judiciary Committee, where I believe both video and a hearing transcript were available.

If, after reviewing these sources, you have specific questions, I would be happy to try to help answer them.
10:58 am, 28 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

James – my quick google found the majority of website recounting that the gap between white and black incomes is large and growing. A few sites say the opposite, or near opposite, once variables are controlled for:

http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/55_closing_the_income_gap.html

Still, if blacks are less likely to receive a good education because of the legacy of slavery, seems to me the legacy of slavery is still impacting people even if racism per se is not?

So many issues.
11:27 am, 28 April, 2009.
James says:

It’s certainly a complicated issue, bobbo. The black-white income gap has progressed, slowly but steadily, over the generations. However, there are short-term trends, such as the fact that in a recession like this one, black incomes tend to be hit especially hard, and the income gap grows dramatically.

There are also other specific trends, such as the differences in income between men and women, and the one your link discusses, which is the income gap among college-educated blacks and whites (not among all blacks and whites).

if blacks are less likely to receive a good education because of the legacy of slavery, seems to me the legacy of slavery is still impacting people even if racism per se is not?

That’s absolutely right, bobbo. I think it’s important to divorce talk of racism, and other forms of prejudice and discrimination (conscious or unconscious), from the simple unfolding of our past history of discrimination.

If one generation of black parents are less likely to be college-educated, this will impact the next generation, independent of any other factors, and so on. If one generation of black parents is less educated than whites, and has been able to achieve less success in their careers, then this would inevitably impact the incomes of the next generation, even without any intentional discrimination against that generation.
12:21 pm, 28 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

James, we are circling towards agreement on some nebulous point? The nut remains: is the situation one that has a rememdy and if so, what?

There is a legal principle regarding statistics–that what may be true about a group has no bearing on any given individual of that group. In court, you can’t prove blacks are more likely than whites to be redlined, you have to prove the person in front of the court has been redlined.

This legal concept can even be bizarre, my favorite example: Statistically, women outlive men by seven years. Life Ins Co’s want to take this into account by charging men and women the same amount of premium until age 65 but then pay out women less money per month because of their longer life expectancy. Statistically, on average, by group, the women and men get paid the same over their life but not the same per month. Court acknowledge the truthfulness of this statistical outcome, but strike down the plan as being violative of individual right to be free from discrimination.

At least, that was the outcome of a case I read years ago, don’t know if it is still true or state specific or whatever BUT I have remained mindful of things that can be statistically true but irrelevant. Another eg: Men are taller than women but we can’t guarantee who will be taller between the next man and woman that enter thru the door.

So, blacks get paid less than whites “as a group.” That doesn’t mean we can tell who will make more when the next two walk thru the door, nor who “really” has a cause of action or a claim of redress.

Just as the Civil War, or really anything of import, has many interactive and even conflicting causations, so does the group statistic of success and failure among the racial/cultural groups.

Why single one issue out from the many?
12:41 pm, 28 April, 2009.
James says:

There is a legal principle regarding statistics–that what may be true about a group has no bearing on any given individual of that group.

You’re referring to the ecological fallacy, which isn’t necessarily a legal principle, but rather, as you suggest, a logical error in mathematics.

When you say that one needs to prove individual, not group, harm in court, this depends entirely upon the legal principle or provision of law at issue in a particular case. There are plenty of circumstances in which aggregate harm, rather than individual injury, is what needs to be proven.

So, blacks get paid less than whites “as a group.”

This is certainly true, and it’s an issue I’ve raised on this site many times. It is also, I think, an important complicating factor, and is just one of the ways in which any attempt to remedy the past will inevitably be difficult, imperfect, and perhaps simply undesirable.

This doesn’t mean, however, that you’re ever likely to encounter a black citizen of this country who is paid as much as he or she would be paid if there had never been racial discrimination in this country, or that any individual white member of our society doesn’t benefit from our nation’s history of slavery and discrimination.
1:31 pm, 28 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

James, you say: “This doesn’t mean, however, that you’re ever likely to encounter a black citizen of this country who is paid as much as he or she would be paid if there had never been racial discrimination in this country,…” Thats just plain silly. All members of Congress, the President, Court Justices etc are all paid the same regardless of race. All members of the military. Ward Conners. The heads of Motown records. The local crack dealer.

Your argument here is that more people discriminated against should occupy offices. And thats true, but once there, they get paid the same.

Further, you are saying that Oprah would be paid more if she were white? How can you be paid more than the highest paid person male or female in talk show history????

But that brings me to my main reaction–it may vary from exact slice of subject to other slices, but I think you are evaluating too much thru a filter of race. Indeed, race may tint many subjects and even all subjects, but not as darkly as you would have it. Maybe I need to see race more clearly==I’m sure that will be true from time to time. You should take those shoes off and walk barefoot every once in a while.

I laugh, as the different facets of the subject get illuminated, I am getting a constant theme, a rather heavy handed theme in your comments.

I’ll bet any discussion of whether or not the Black who were kidnapped and made it thru slavery to today are better off in the USA than any of their ancestors who remained free in Africa?

How do you take that issue? I would say that while true, its irrelevant because we are all Americans and should be treated equally and our injuries are the same. But reparations, which you are against, or noncomittal but can’t imagine any plan that is acceptable to you, would speak against all Americans being equal. I’ll bet your own answer will surprise me.
2:24 pm, 28 April, 2009.
James says:

Thats just plain silly. All members of Congress, the President, Court Justices etc are all paid the same regardless of race.

That last part is true, bobbo.

So if you assume that all black members of Congress and Supreme Court justices are in the exact same jobs they would have had absent racial discrimination, then yes, any time you meet one of them, you’ll have found a black citizen being paid the same as he or she would have been paid absent our history of discrimination.

You certainly have a fair point that there are plenty of individuals in this country who are black and who are paid what their white counterparts are paid. A few of them might even be in the same jobs if their ancestors had not faced generations of brutal discrimination.

However, what makes you think that those members of Congress, for instance, wouldn’t be titans of industry, earning far more than they do now, rather than having gone into politics (usually in majority-black districts)?

You may feel that this is sophistry, but I do not. I believe it is the literal truth, and an important one.

The broader point, of course, is that there would be more black members of Congress if there were no history of discrimination in this country, and that millions of black citizens would be earning more than they do now.

Your argument here is that more people discriminated against should occupy offices. And thats true, but once there, they get paid the same.

That’s not true, bobbo. While a large part of the income gap is due to blacks not being hired and promoted into the same jobs, there are also frequently gaps in what white and black employees are paid for the same jobs.

you are saying that Oprah would be paid more if she were white?

I said that you were unlikely ever to meet someone black who was paid as much as if they were white.

I put in the qualification specifically thinking of Oprah, and the fact that I couldn’t possibly prove that she would have earned even more, with her entertainment and business talent, if she were white.

However, the fact that you and I both thought of the same exception says a great deal about how rare those exceptions are.

How can you be paid more than the highest paid person male or female in talk show history????

By being Bill Gates? Or Warren Buffet? Or any of the many people who earn more than Oprah and whose business success wouldn’t have been as great (or likely at all) if they weren’t white?

What about all those white people who inherited more money than Oprah will ever have?

In the last decade, Oprah has been listed each year as among the 400 richest Americans. She is usually the only black person on the list.

There should be about 48 blacks on that list, bobbo, if not for our nation’s legacy of racial discrimination.

That doesn’t mean that we should give blacks money until there are 47 more on that list. It does mean, at a minimum, that we should lament the fact that the signs of racial discrimination are all around us, and that millions of Americans are affected by that legacy in their daily lives.

I think you are evaluating too much thru a filter of race

I think it’s easy to talk about any one social issue, bobbo, and to leave the impression that it’s the only important issue. We should always strive to avoid that trap.

However, that doesn’t mean that race doesn’t play the role that I suggest it does.

In a purely statistical sense, for instance, we can eliminate the effects of poverty and other factors, and see how much race alone influences the life outcomes of Americans.

I’ll bet any discussion of whether or not the Black who were kidnapped and made it thru slavery to today are better off in the USA than any of their ancestors who remained free in Africa?

How do you take that issue?

I think this is an important historical truth, bobbo. Just as it’s important to note that most white citizens of this country are better off here than the descendants of those who remained in their home countries.

I wouldn’t want any Americans to be judged by the conditions of modern Africa, on the basis of ancestry, just as I wouldn’t want any Americans to be judged by the conditions prevailing in Ireland, Poland, Russia, Vietnam, or any other location where their particular ancestors may have once lived.

We should all be judged as citizens of this country, and disparities between us resulting from ill treatment in this country should not be dismissed with the argument that any of us is probably better off than if our ancestors had never come here.
12:55 pm, 29 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

James–Hah, hah, I thought you might get more upset by my post than you are indicating. I fear you are patting me on my pointed head and grouping me with Al. Just as I imagined you sitting with Al on the issue of slavery and the Civil War. Its how I demonize my enemies. Ooops. “people who disagree with me.”

I think life, human culture and history is COMPLEX. Philosophies and ideologies and congressional bills are simple. I approach complexity only with a feeling of “oceanic wonder.” Its layered, conflicted, ying and yang, different in all aspect to different degrees and sometimes not at all.

But you aren’t for reparations. I keep forgetting that. Who can be against education, ourselves being the final frontier?
1:08 pm, 29 April, 2009.
James says:

I fear you are patting me on my pointed head and grouping me with Al.

Not at all, bobbo. We do see certain issues differently, you and I, and I do sometimes wonder why I can’t make myself better understood with you. But I don’t remotely consider you in the same category as Al, believe me.
5:09 pm, 29 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

I think “some” black people could be a bit miffed at your assertion that “its unlikely ever to meet someone black who was paid as much as if they were white.”

Just to begin with, and yes I know its people with money who tend to say this (although I’m saying it?)—but, who says money is the measure of a successful personal life? Creative artists, novelists, scientists, sports figures, adrenaline junkies, explorers are stereotyped as having devout interests having nothing to do with filthy lucre. But beyond that, “if I were black” and grew up with loving parents who encouraged me to do whatever I wanted to do, and I did, and along the way I met a few black and white people who treated me in racist asshole ways, but along the same path I met other black and white people who lead me to believe that there are all kinds of people in this world and my mission was to find my own way, and I did, and I am now the proud night shift manager of the local xyz company and I am happily married, and enjoy roasting my own espresso beans and growing my own tomatoes and being a pastry chef for a few local restaurants, and YOU come around telling me I would be more successful or make more money if I were white===why I think I would smile and say “maybe so” but Inside, I’d be telling you to frick off.

The statistical truths you can document may not affect as many people as you think, or not affect them in the same way it would you.

Life is complex.
5:32 pm, 29 April, 2009.
James says:

who says money is the measure of a successful personal life?

Not me! I was speaking about the ways in which our history of racial discrimination impacts black members of our society today, and simply using income and wealth as handy and important examples. You’re right, though, that it’s usually people with some money who question the importance of money. Those who are in the lower income brackets in this country don’t necessarily say that money is a measure of personal success–but they do tend to believe that money is important, and that fairness in terms of money is essential.

Creative artists, novelists, scientists, sports figures, adrenaline junkies, explorers are stereotyped as having devout interests having nothing to do with filthy lucre.

As that may be, bobbo, it’s also important to note that historically, many potential American artists, novelists, scientists, sports figures, and explorers have never been able to realize their potential, because of their race. That was more true in, say, 1949 than in 2009, but that effect hasn’t exactly disappeared, either.

“if I were black” and grew up with loving parents who encouraged me to do whatever I wanted to do…and YOU come around telling me I would be more successful or make more money if I were white===why I think I would smile

You raise an excellent point, bobbo. Certainly, we should be hesitant in jumping from averages to individual cases, which is why I phrased my observation in terms of likelihood. I never suggested that I would tell an individual that he or she would necessarily be enjoying more success with a different skin color.

On the other hand, I don’t personally know many black people who believe that they’ve gotten as fair a deal as most whites in terms of upbringing, education, hiring, promotion, and so on.

The research also firmly backs this up. Your hypothetical, in which a black person receives every advantage in life, would be the exception, not the rule.

You might also want to take a closer look at your hypothetical.

Despite having loving, encouraging parents, does this hypothetical black person have parents who have the same education and careers as if they were white? Do they live in the same neighborhood, and go to the same schools, churches, and community institutions? The odds are overwhelmingly against it, and without that, it would take greater talent, luck, or hard work to do just as well–in which case, the person still isn’t doing as well as they could have!

I’m not trying to speak to what makes people happy and satisfied in their lives. I certainly do not live my life with the primary aim of making as much money as I can–quite the opposite, in fact.

However, it’s still a serious injustice if one group in our society is doing less well financially–and is much more often impoverished–because of this nation’s sad history around race.

The statistical truths you can document may not affect as many people as you think, or not affect them in the same way it would you.

I strong believe that statistics are going to give us the best possible sense of how many people are affected.

As for how people are affected by having less money, I’m right there with you. As I mentioned above, I’m not urging people to focus on earning money or to judge their worth by their financial success–nor do I live my own life that way.
6:11 pm, 29 April, 2009.
bobbo says:

James, as always, well done. I also think statistics tell us a lot.

Sometimes, life is simple. (smile!)
8:40 pm, 5 April, 2010.
bobbo says:

Hi James

Its been a year, but you/slavery are constantly on my mind. Watched “April, 1985″ on tv again last night. It revealed to me another way to slice the baloney on the issue of causes/results of the Civil War, – - – - with a twist.

I actually have come around to the view that “The North” did not fight the South to end Slavery. ((I’m not totally immune to your cogent opposition!)) But I do think “The South” did fight the North to “keep” slavery. Indeed, “Slavery” was “inextricably entwined” in the Civil War.

What this raises is the whole issue of “who writes history” and the “interesting” way that bias creeps into the very way we think about issues. The winner writes the history and the winner infects how the entire history is viewed. It may be just “an accident” that the South started the armed conflict by its attack on Fort Sumptner (sp?) but to me the linguistic/rhetorical issue is set by that action.

If the South was concerned that it’s way of life, a way of life based on slavery, was being interfered with by anti-slavery legislation initiated by the North, and therefore fought to keep slavery, and the North fought to maintain the union then was the Civil War fought to end Slavery of Not?

As stated, the argument proceeds by definition. Or is the definition, whatever it is, so ambiguous, so entwined, as to be the task of a fool? All very much goes to how one defines “cause and effect.”

Interesting stuff–and probably more present in our daily lives than we even recognize. Who is defining the cause and effect of global muslim based jihad against the West for instance.

Yea, good stuff to cogitate over. Think I’ll have another espresso.

Cheers.

Where was President Obama born? (7)
- Super5o: Thank you and GOD help us all!!!
- Super5o: Well if u play Obama saying “yes we can” backwards he is saying thank u satin.So that said I...
Mexican braceros to receive compensation (26)
- JuanG: My father has a Bracero card and I was not aware that there had been a settlement. He is a U.S. citizen now...
- Maribel: my father in law worked in agriculture from 1942 to 1964 his name is Ramon Salazar Arroyo I heard that there...
Reparations and African complicity in the slave trade (8)
- Damani: Well, James…….. You have my email, so you can let me know what is going on. Damani

The Living Consequences

H.R.40, the “Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act”

57 Responses to “H.R.40, the “Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act””

Leave a Reply

Using This Blog

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Featured Posts

Categories

Blogroll

Administrative