Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black man

[Vixen]

Okay, do you get that this isn't the same thing at all?

This was the record of "livestock" held by the slave owner at the time slavery was abolished in Britain. The slave owners were compensated for their "lost property" when it was abolished. It tracked the number and quality of the slaves, but not the individual identities of those slaves. It was, in essence, calculating the value of livestock, and didn't care one whit about the individual "animals" at all.

Furthermore, this compensation was paid out at the time, not 150 years later. Slave owners at the time submitted documentation of their "property" so that the taxpayers could pay them.

This is entirely different from what you're proposing for reparations. For the kind of reparations that you have proposed, Britain would have needed to track all of the individual slaves, and all of their descendants, up to current times.

There is such a thing as public records. How else do you think the press managed to identify Meghan Markle's slave ancestors? From public records.


As I tried to explain, it is not difficult. You simply put out a notice that people who believe they have a claim should register their interest. This can be done on a simple internet platform. For example, in the UK a few years ago, literally millions of people were able to claim back 'missold PPI' by making such a claim.

Britain has kept census records since way back as far as the fifteen century and likely so has the USA. Completely untrue to say, 'there are no records'.
Saying 'it can't be done' sounds like 'I do not want it done'.

 

[Vixen]

It's hush-money. As soon as the reparations have been made, there's likely to be a lot less emphasis on fixing the broken parts of our system.

No, because now each descendant of slaves and ex-slaves will now be just as rich as the persons who profited from their unpaid labour via family inheritances down the ages.

So from being 'bottom of the pile' they too can now live in the best neighbourhoods and send their children to the best schools. Top of the heap A#1.

Nothing left to fix in that respect. So we can move on to the next problem.

 

[Vixen]

How would you go about doing your job if the company that is being liquidated had become insolvent 150 years ago? And if the creditors and shareholders were from 150 years ago? And if many of those creditors were companies that had been liquidated in the intervening 150 years? And if the descendants of the shareholders hadn't kept records of the devalued shares that their great-great-great-great grandparents used to have?

Is it perhaps a little teensy bit more difficult to work out the value of the assets for a company that went under five generations ago? Is it perhaps a wee bit more troublesome to determine the value of the contribution for companies and descendants of individuals who may or may not exist anymore?

I've done similar work with a demutualization several years ago. Very similar concept. It was a year and a half process. I wouldn't call it "easy"... and we were working with predominantly current information. The oldest of the shares went back several years, but weren't credited to policyholders who had left more than five years prior to the demutualization - it was simply too difficult to track them down.

That is why and advertisement is put out asking creditors to come forward and state their claim. Sure you have to make some effort to track people down but as with persons charged with probate seeking out the next of kin for people who died without a will, all it needs is some detective work going through the relevant records - registrar of births, marriages and deaths, census records, land registers, tax records, etc.

If after say, a two-year cut off period there are persons you know exist but can't be traced, put those funds into a trust for ten years at the end of which, if still no sign, then give it to a community project.

 

[Distracted1]

The problem with this argument is that women being discriminated against did not affect the wealth of their descendants, because if they had descendants that meant (in most cases) that they had married and formed a bond with a man. The husband benefited from the discrimination against women as much as his wife lost from it, so the net effect on the family was zero.

Blacks being discriminated against in housing, employment and elsewhere has certainly led to their descendants having less wealth than they would otherwise have accumulated.

The repartions discussion, it seems, does this frequently- Switching back and forth between reparations for actual slavery, and reparations for discrimination.

They are clearly not the same thing- and slipping back and forth between them in attempting to justify an action is arguing in bad faith.

One could make an argument that the descendants of slaves are due recompense from the descendants of those who profited from their enslavement (forgetting about all of the details that make such a thing a tricky proposition in practice for a moment)- that argument, at least has logic behind it that is generally accepted.

The bad faith part of the argument comes in when the pro-reparations arguer asserts the same reasoning for reparations that are not for slavery, but are instead for more nebulous practices that were in place post-slavery. Those activities had a much less clearly defined result- and even an even muddier path leading to who the "beneficiaries" might be. The switch-up of using the logic that might justify one action as justification for the other action taints the integrity of both.

 

[Distracted1]

The argument is that there has been a systematic locking-out of black people in America, from full access and participation in the engines of economic improvement of our society. Not all whites were complicit in this lockout. Not all whites saw improvement in their own economic conditions from generation to generation. But as a class, the white majority has done better over time than the black minority. And as a class, whites can be found across the full spectrum from rich to poor, more evenly distributed than blacks in America. If some blacks were poor because some of every demographic end up poor, that would be one thing. Some whites are poor, too. But the issue is that many blacks are poor because they have been locked out of full participation in the economic and commercial activity of our society.

So I am not sympathetic to the white complaint that "my ancestors had it hard, too; where's my reparations?" Your reparations came when you were denied a home loan because you're a bad credit risk, not because you're a good credit risk and also black.

Nor am I. Penalizing/Rewarding people for the historical actions of their ancestors is a non-starter in most cases.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To recap the topic, the OP asks how can we help? You seem to be focussed on concentrating on why we cannot help. Given that the institution of racism and social inequality is largely a result of the Atlantic Slave Trade, and conversely making the slave trade nations extremely rich, then it seems to me the simple solution is to recompense those who were forced to work for life, and their descendants to produce this wealth, often under conditions of extreme cruelty.

Since early modern history/medieaval times torts have been rectified by compensation of the hurt party. This is the simplest and earliest form of our modern justice today. Of course the offending party will object!!!

No surprises there.

I'm not focused on why we cannot help. I am rebutting your proposal of financial reparations.

Your repeated insinuation that my objection is due to me being personally offended due to racism is noted, and rejected. Once again, I invite you to read the reasoning I provided for why I think that financial reparations is not a good proposal to address the situation in the US.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, because now each descendant of slaves and ex-slaves will now be just as rich as the persons who profited from their unpaid labour via family inheritances down the ages.

So from being 'bottom of the pile' they too can now live in the best neighbourhoods and send their children to the best schools. Top of the heap A#1.

Nothing left to fix in that respect. So we can move on to the next problem.

Do you actually think that having money and being rich will magically erase police profiling of black men, will magically erase subconscious racial bias that prevents black people from getting good jobs, and will completely eradicate all of the residual systemic bias that has materially contributed to the disparate opportunities that black people in the US face today.

 

[Distracted1]

Do you actually think that having money and being rich will magically erase police profiling of black men, will magically erase subconscious racial bias that prevents black people from getting good jobs, and will completely eradicate all of the residual systemic bias that has materially contributed to the disparate opportunities that black people in the US face today.

If those things are far less prevalent than sometimes asserted, then the money would do the trick in a heartbeat.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If those things are far less prevalent than sometimes asserted, then the money would do the trick in a heartbeat.

That would suggest that Vixen believes the systemic issues are negligible, and that the only reason for the disparate experiences is lack of money? That seems... flawed.

 

[Distracted1]

That would suggest that Vixen believes the systemic issues are negligible, and that the only reason for the disparate experiences is lack of money? That seems... flawed.

Not really.
Starting out poor is a well known handicap to advancement in life.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not really.
Starting out poor is a well known handicap to advancement in life.

That may be, but poverty <> racial disparity. And with respect to the things I mentioned above, those are independent of income. Case in point: that black guy in the really nice area whose neighbors called the cops on him because they assumed that he was breaking into his own house...

 

[Vixen]

That may be, but poverty <> racial disparity. And with respect to the things I mentioned above, those are independent of income. Case in point: that black guy in the really nice area whose neighbors called the cops on him because they assumed that he was breaking into his own house...

That is an example of 'White privilege' but you haven't explained why we should stand behind it and uphold it.

 

[Myriad]

That is an example of 'White privilege' but you haven't explained why we should stand behind it and uphold it.

Yeah, it would be better if no one could enter their homes without their neighbors calling the police on them! Down with "privilege!"

 

[Vixen]

Yeah, it would be better if no one could enter their homes without their neighbors calling the police on them! Down with "privilege!"

Exactly. The reason people don't want to live in a 'Black neighbourhood' is because it is perceived as downmarket and poverty stricken. Reimburse those persecuted African Americans who made the USA rich and then the leafy suburbs won't be dominated by people who equate Black with crime, violence and poverty.

You can mock, but that woman felt entitled to approach that Black guy in his own home and talk down to him, confident that she just can.

Whilst we may laugh at her, what have you done today to make someone else's lot better?

 

[bluesjnr]

...snip... what have you done today to make someone else's lot better?

Why should any part of my day be dedicated to this end?

Isn't enough that I've done nothing, nothing at all, to make anybodies lot worse?

 

[rockinkt]

Exactly. The reason people don't want to live in a 'Black neighbourhood' is because it is perceived as downmarket and poverty stricken. Reimburse those persecuted African Americans who made the USA rich and then the leafy suburbs won't be dominated by people who equate Black with crime, violence and poverty.

You can mock, but that woman felt entitled to approach that Black guy in his own home and talk down to him, confident that she just can.

Whilst we may laugh at her, what have you done today to make someone else's lot better?

One heck of a lot of wealthy black people don't live in those neighborhoods either.

 

[Brainster]

The repartions discussion, it seems, does this frequently- Switching back and forth between reparations for actual slavery, and reparations for discrimination.

I oppose reparations for slavery, on the grounds that it really is too long ago. Nobody living today was a US slave; in all probability there are very few living today whose grandparents or great grandparents were former US slaves. Plus there are major issues with determining who pays and who gets paid. For example Barack Obama would presumably not qualify (not descended from African-American slaves), and he might even be descended from slave-owners on his mother's side. And there is the issue of all the white people who immigrated to this country after slavery. Why should they be forced to pay for a sin that they had no part in committing?

On the other hand if we accept that anti-Black discrimination not only existed but in many places was enforced by the government, and that this negatively impacted many black people alive today, and effectively gave whites an unearned advantage, that would overcome my two main objections to reparations for slavery. We have actual living victims, and a large pool of people who benefited.

 

[theprestige]

Mostly because England, Britain (or Great Britain), and the United Kingdom (UK) are all different things and are not synonymous. It's similar to saying California, the Continental US, and the USA are all the same thing and using them as synonyms.

England is a country that shares the island known as Great Britain, the largest island in the British Isles, with the two other countries of Wales and Scotland. While England and Wales tend to be more connected and Wales holds forty seats in the UK House of Commons, it does have its own parliament as well, the Senedd Cymru. Likewise, Scotland holds fifty-nine seats in the UK Parliament but also has an independent parliament of its own.

Britain is the name for the three countries on the island of Great Britain as a whole, and Britain and Great Britain are generally synonymous, though technically Britain contains the various smaller islands that are a part of England, Wales, and Scotland, while Great Britain when taken pedantically as just the island, does not (Note here that most uses of Great Britain refer to all of Britain including all small islands with the exception of the Isle of Man which is its own thing and not a part of the UK or Great Britain, though is a sort of protectorate...)

The United Kingdom also includes Northern Ireland or Ulster which from 1998 to 2017 had its own Assembly, which after collapsing in Jan of 2017 has been restored as of Jan 2020. It also has three seats in the UK Parliament. Hence its full name of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." What a mouthful...

Interestingly, England is the only country in the UK that does not have a separate Assembly or Parliament outside of the Westminster UK Parliament and has not had one since the last English Parliament officially merged with the then Scottish Parliament to form the Westminster Parliament of Great Britain in 1707

Okay, history lesson part over.

Why it matters. Because you are talking about different entities. When you say "England should pay," this is different from saying "Britain should pay" or "The UK should pay." It would be like saying that "Mississippi should pay," is the same as "The South should pay," is the same as the "US Federal Government should pay."

In fact when you say "England" should pay, then what does that mean because England has no parliament as such anymore, but just representatives in the UK one.

When you say that "Britain should pay" well again, what does that mean? Because the Parliament of Great Britain hasn't existed since 1801 when Ireland joined it to become the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland. Of course that no longer exists either with the Irish Free State, to become Eire or Ireland, and now the Republic of Ireland, splitting off in 1922, leaving the current UK Parliament. Should Northern Ireland have to help pay when it wasn't even a part of the Parliament of Great Britain in 1776?

It was suggested that it fall on the crown, but then there is the issue that the House, House Hanover, who held the Crown in 1776 ended with the death of William IV on 26th June 1830. Should the current House, House Winsor, be responsible for another House's actions just because they inherited the Crown? The suggestion is that the USA shouldn't inherit the debts of the Thirteen Colonies as they were under British sovereignty, but couldn't the same argument be played out with the Crown?

So yes, being clear about these things and not using them all to mean the same thing does have ramifications for different groups of people and is important, especially if it was to actually be more than a suggestion but something that was to have a legitimate and legal force behind it.

No, that's not right. Britain is England and Wales. Great Britain is the island (including Scotland) geographically, and also includes the smaller islands politically.

If we're being pedantic, that is. Britain, Great Britain and the UK are often colloquially used to mean the same thing, and it's not generally seen as problematic if they are. Even the Olympic team that includes athletes from all four countries in the UK is known as Team GB.

England is definitely wrong to use as a synonym, though.

The way I see it is like this: using Britain, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom as synonyms is like calling the USA America. America is the continent, and my Mexican step-sister-in-law indeed does hate when people use the term America when they mean the USA. But, generally speaking, while they're not technically synonyms, if you use America, the US, and the USA interchangeably, then people are going to understand what you mean and it's accepted as a common colloquialism.

OTOH, saying England when you mean the UK is like saying Hawaii when you mean the USA. It's just wrong.

Thanks! I'll try to stick to "Britain", then, unless I need to make some intra-kingdom distinction.

 

[Darat]

Two long derails have been sent to AAH.
1) Discussing UK v England v Great Britain - I’ve left a couple of posts in place that cover the slightly relevant points. If you want to continue to discuss this matter start a thread in a relevant section.
2) Vixen’s mistake in her use of units - I’ve left the original post with the mistake and a couple of follow-up posts. If you want to discuss how currency units are denoted - again start a new thread in an appropriate section.

Don’t ignore this mod box. You will be suspended if you ignore it.

Keep on topic for this thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Emily's Cat]

That is an example of 'White privilege' but you haven't explained why we should stand behind it and uphold it.

We should stand behind it and expand it to everyone.

The objective is NOT to eliminate privilege so that everyone suffers the same amount. The objective is to extend privilege so that nobody suffers from a lack of it.