Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reparations for African Americans

katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 1:45:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
One of the potential PF topics for Sept/Oct is whether or not the United States government ought to pay reparations to African Americans. I've found plenty of research supporting both ends of the argument, but I am interested in hearing what DDO users have to say about it.

So, do you think the US government ought to pay reparations to African Americans?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 2:41:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No. There is no reason to force people who didn't commit a crime to pay money to people who aren't victims of a crime.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 2:50:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 1:45:48 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
One of the potential PF topics for Sept/Oct is whether or not the United States government ought to pay reparations to African Americans. I've found plenty of research supporting both ends of the argument, but I am interested in hearing what DDO users have to say about it.

So, do you think the US government ought to pay reparations to African Americans?

No. Monetary reparations for events that happened long before any of us alive today were born are foolish.

That being said, I fully support government programs that help bring people out of poverty. I would whole-heartedly support increased funding for schools, libraries, parks, after-school programs, YMCA-type community centers, scholarship programs, internship programs etc. There are ways to help without handing someone a check.

If we want to help impoverished people, then lets just start helping them. We don't need a reason to do it other than our compassion for others. We certainly shouldn't be doing it out of guilt for something none of us ever contributed to.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 3:46:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The only way pro could win that resolution is through bias.

First, there's no reason to punish people for crimes they weren't alive for and crimes their ancestors may or may not have committed. Not to mention that this money comes from somewhere--the tax revenue would come not only from whites, but from Asians, Hispanics as well.

Secondly, even if pro could prove that on some moral level reparations were justified, why should the federal government (the United States) have to cough up? Who fought the war that led to the ultimate end of slavery? Who mandated desegregation? The vast majority of discrimination was perpetrated by the states, not the Feds. While they have some culpability in their silence so does literally everyone else who didn't do anything to stop discrimination. Should Britian pay reparations for buying American cotton picked by slaves?

Thirdly even though it's PF Pro basically has to offer a plan. Good luck not having a million holes poked into that.

Fourthly...opportunity cost, anyone? Take all the money you would use for a one time cash payment and use it to create an effective jobs training program or...basically anything else. Pro has to show that these reparations would be effective in helping the lives of blacks, and while obviously throwing money at people would help a few the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Finally it's so easy to do a case turn on Pro who will try very hard to prove this is still a racist country. Oh, we live in a country with institutional discrimination against black people? In that case we should probably address that instead. Do you have ANY idea how pissed off you're going to make every other ethnicity if you spend a trillion dollars of their dollars on reparations? After reparations there will be no support for anything to help black people for a long time. Racist sentiments will soar and race relations will hit a new low. What would better help the black community, decriminalizing drugs and lowering sentencing disparities, or a one time cash payment? Politically these things are mutually exclusive.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 3:55:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 3:46:35 PM, thett3 wrote:
The only way pro could win that resolution is through bias.

First, there's no reason to punish people for crimes they weren't alive for and crimes their ancestors may or may not have committed. Not to mention that this money comes from somewhere--the tax revenue would come not only from whites, but from Asians, Hispanics as well.

Secondly, even if pro could prove that on some moral level reparations were justified, why should the federal government (the United States) have to cough up? Who fought the war that led to the ultimate end of slavery? Who mandated desegregation? The vast majority of discrimination was perpetrated by the states, not the Feds. While they have some culpability in their silence so does literally everyone else who didn't do anything to stop discrimination. Should Britian pay reparations for buying American cotton picked by slaves?

Thirdly even though it's PF Pro basically has to offer a plan. Good luck not having a million holes poked into that.

Fourthly...opportunity cost, anyone? Take all the money you would use for a one time cash payment and use it to create an effective jobs training program or...basically anything else. Pro has to show that these reparations would be effective in helping the lives of blacks, and while obviously throwing money at people would help a few the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Finally it's so easy to do a case turn on Pro who will try very hard to prove this is still a racist country. Oh, we live in a country with institutional discrimination against black people? In that case we should probably address that instead. Do you have ANY idea how pissed off you're going to make every other ethnicity if you spend a trillion dollars of their dollars on reparations? After reparations there will be no support for anything to help black people for a long time. Racist sentiments will soar and race relations will hit a new low. What would better help the black community, decriminalizing drugs and lowering sentencing disparities, or a one time cash payment? Politically these things are mutually exclusive.

I have to agree with you there. The only pro case I could figure out would be arguing that the direct descendants of slaves have a claim for the inheritance of their ancestors. Basically the argument would be that because the US government supported slavery (until it was abolished), the lost wages and property were essentially seized by the federal government, and thus the descendants of slaves have a claim to recoup their ancestors lost inheritance. I'm the first to admit that this argument is shaky, but it is better than the counterfactual argument involving collective responsibility and compensatory justice.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:04:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 3:59:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At this point, Reparations should be made to whites for the government money wasted on inner city improvements.

How are inner city improvements wasted money? They improve the quality of life of those in the inner city. That should be enough to justify the spending. Additionally, the ripple effect benefits everyone.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:09:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 2:41:23 PM, TN05 wrote:
No. There is no reason to force people who didn't commit a crime to pay money to people who aren't victims of a crime.

That's an interesting thought but they still benefit from those who did commit the crime, and it's not like there was a clean break from "institutional racism" to "no institutional racism" after slavery either. It's still in effect to this very day.

Also, OP, I highly suggest you read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:15:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 3:55:32 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 7/29/2015 3:46:35 PM, thett3 wrote:
The only way pro could win that resolution is through bias.

First, there's no reason to punish people for crimes they weren't alive for and crimes their ancestors may or may not have committed. Not to mention that this money comes from somewhere--the tax revenue would come not only from whites, but from Asians, Hispanics as well.

Secondly, even if pro could prove that on some moral level reparations were justified, why should the federal government (the United States) have to cough up? Who fought the war that led to the ultimate end of slavery? Who mandated desegregation? The vast majority of discrimination was perpetrated by the states, not the Feds. While they have some culpability in their silence so does literally everyone else who didn't do anything to stop discrimination. Should Britian pay reparations for buying American cotton picked by slaves?

Thirdly even though it's PF Pro basically has to offer a plan. Good luck not having a million holes poked into that.

Fourthly...opportunity cost, anyone? Take all the money you would use for a one time cash payment and use it to create an effective jobs training program or...basically anything else. Pro has to show that these reparations would be effective in helping the lives of blacks, and while obviously throwing money at people would help a few the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Finally it's so easy to do a case turn on Pro who will try very hard to prove this is still a racist country. Oh, we live in a country with institutional discrimination against black people? In that case we should probably address that instead. Do you have ANY idea how pissed off you're going to make every other ethnicity if you spend a trillion dollars of their dollars on reparations? After reparations there will be no support for anything to help black people for a long time. Racist sentiments will soar and race relations will hit a new low. What would better help the black community, decriminalizing drugs and lowering sentencing disparities, or a one time cash payment? Politically these things are mutually exclusive.

I have to agree with you there. The only pro case I could figure out would be arguing that the direct descendants of slaves have a claim for the inheritance of their ancestors. Basically the argument would be that because the US government supported slavery (until it was abolished), the lost wages and property were essentially seized by the federal government, and thus the descendants of slaves have a claim to recoup their ancestors lost inheritance. I'm the first to admit that this argument is shaky, but it is better than the counterfactual argument involving collective responsibility and compensatory justice.

Yeah, well, my ancestors had their land stolen from them due to Enclosure. Am I entitled to reparations from the British government? I actually disagree with you about slavery being the best argument for this reason--a much better argument imo for what hurts black people today is the legacy of Jim Crow which is still in living memory. Sadly it's been a while since I did a PF debate but I'm pretty sure I could blow out of the water a case arguing for slavery restitution. For one, who gets them? I'm about as white as snow and aryan looking. Yet my family has been in this country since the 1600s. I'm sure somewhere along the way I could prove an enslaved black ancestor. Should I, an extremely privileged person, be just as entitled to reparations as someone who has actually suffered from discrimination?

This is a lot more compelling of an argument than you would think at first glance. We need to create a standard for who gets reparations. People who are majority black? The average black person in this country is 1/8th to 1/4th white. Any "half black" person is actually majority white, and wouldn't get reparations under this standard. You would either need to set up a standard for who qualifies as black and risk excluding people, or let everyone make reparation claims and forcing people to prove their enslaved ancestry which costs money and time if it's even possible and defeats the purpose in the first place.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:15:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:09:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
That's an interesting thought but they still benefit from those who did commit the crime, and it's not like there was a clean break from "institutional racism" to "no institutional racism" after slavery either. It's still in effect to this very day.

Also, OP, I highly suggest you read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Thanks for the article, I checked it out and it definitely makes some interesting, valid points. The problem I've run into is justifying the US government paying reparations. How do you justify that every American contribute to reparations because many people immigrated to America and didn't benefit from the practices of slavery and institutional racism?
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:21:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:15:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yeah, well, my ancestors had their land stolen from them due to Enclosure. Am I entitled to reparations from the British government? I actually disagree with you about slavery being the best argument for this reason--a much better argument imo for what hurts black people today is the legacy of Jim Crow which is still in living memory. Sadly it's been a while since I did a PF debate but I'm pretty sure I could blow out of the water a case arguing for slavery restitution. For one, who gets them? I'm about as white as snow and aryan looking. Yet my family has been in this country since the 1600s. I'm sure somewhere along the way I could prove an enslaved black ancestor. Should I, an extremely privileged person, be just as entitled to reparations as someone who has actually suffered from discrimination?

This is a lot more compelling of an argument than you would think at first glance. We need to create a standard for who gets reparations. People who are majority black? The average black person in this country is 1/8th to 1/4th white. Any "half black" person is actually majority white, and wouldn't get reparations under this standard. You would either need to set up a standard for who qualifies as black and risk excluding people, or let everyone make reparation claims and forcing people to prove their enslaved ancestry which costs money and time if it's even possible and defeats the purpose in the first place.

The problem is that the pro case is very limited and the majority of the arguments have major holes in them that would be easy for the con to expose. In terms of Jim Crow, I don't know how you would justify compensating all African Americans? Obviously it has lasting effects, but how can the federal government be implicated in a way that doesn't place the burden on taxpayers? By arguing that the American public has a collective responsibility to compensate African Americans for laws that they did not enact and/or directly support, the claim is shaky at best because it rests on the assumption that Americans are culpable for the actions and inaction of the federal government.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:24:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:21:41 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:15:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
Yeah, well, my ancestors had their land stolen from them due to Enclosure. Am I entitled to reparations from the British government? I actually disagree with you about slavery being the best argument for this reason--a much better argument imo for what hurts black people today is the legacy of Jim Crow which is still in living memory. Sadly it's been a while since I did a PF debate but I'm pretty sure I could blow out of the water a case arguing for slavery restitution. For one, who gets them? I'm about as white as snow and aryan looking. Yet my family has been in this country since the 1600s. I'm sure somewhere along the way I could prove an enslaved black ancestor. Should I, an extremely privileged person, be just as entitled to reparations as someone who has actually suffered from discrimination?

This is a lot more compelling of an argument than you would think at first glance. We need to create a standard for who gets reparations. People who are majority black? The average black person in this country is 1/8th to 1/4th white. Any "half black" person is actually majority white, and wouldn't get reparations under this standard. You would either need to set up a standard for who qualifies as black and risk excluding people, or let everyone make reparation claims and forcing people to prove their enslaved ancestry which costs money and time if it's even possible and defeats the purpose in the first place.

The problem is that the pro case is very limited and the majority of the arguments have major holes in them that would be easy for the con to expose. In terms of Jim Crow, I don't know how you would justify compensating all African Americans? Obviously it has lasting effects, but how can the federal government be implicated in a way that doesn't place the burden on taxpayers? By arguing that the American public has a collective responsibility to compensate African Americans for laws that they did not enact and/or directly support, the claim is shaky at best because it rests on the assumption that Americans are culpable for the actions and inaction of the federal government.

Yea.

Best pro argument = current institutional discrimination hurts black people and they're entitled to restitution. My final point, I think, turns it.

So, are you a PF debater?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:27:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not to meddle too much into America's internal affairs (because it requires reading a lot about Republicans' opinions, and I don't like feeling nauseous), but I think this would be a really bad idea. You would literally anger millions of Americans who are already really twisted in their heads. Instead, why not treat them (mentally) and help your country progress toward a better future? In fact, I think that Europe should help with this (especially the Brits): http://www.debate.org...

It's a win-win situation for all, then:

1 - The Republicans will become sane, and therefore probably leave the party.
2 - Black Americans will be better treated in their society.
3 - The world will have less chaos caused by America because, well, politicians will now have to pander to smarter and kinder people, and war politics will be no-no.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:37:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:09:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:41:23 PM, TN05 wrote:
No. There is no reason to force people who didn't commit a crime to pay money to people who aren't victims of a crime.

That's an interesting thought but they still benefit from those who did commit the crime, and it's not like there was a clean break from "institutional racism" to "no institutional racism" after slavery either. It's still in effect to this very day.

Why should the descendants of Jewish holocaust survivors or Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famine have to pay money to a descendent of descendent of a descendent a freeman? What about people of mixed-blood? How about people of other races, like Asians, Native Americans, and Hispanics? What do they have to pay? How about the descendants of a Union soldier who paid his life to help end slavery? Who gets the money, and who pays? Does a poor family in Appalachia have to pay rich black doctors in Maryland? The whole idea is patently ridiculous

The problem with reparations is they punish people who did nothing wrong, and reward people who haven't been wronged, all based on their skin color and what you assume that means. We got rid of guilt by association centuries ago, and for good reason.

Also, OP, I highly suggest you read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Not OP, but I've read that before, and I'm not impressed.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:44:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:24:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
So, are you a PF debater?

Yup! Excited to be back after a year of partnerless-ness
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:05:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:37:56 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:09:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:41:23 PM, TN05 wrote:
No. There is no reason to force people who didn't commit a crime to pay money to people who aren't victims of a crime.

That's an interesting thought but they still benefit from those who did commit the crime, and it's not like there was a clean break from "institutional racism" to "no institutional racism" after slavery either. It's still in effect to this very day.

Why should the descendants of Jewish holocaust survivors or Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famine have to pay money to a descendent of descendent of a descendent a freeman? What about people of mixed-blood? How about people of other races, like Asians, Native Americans, and Hispanics? What do they have to pay? How about the descendants of a Union soldier who paid his life to help end slavery? Who gets the money, and who pays? Does a poor family in Appalachia have to pay rich black doctors in Maryland? The whole idea is patently ridiculous

The problem with reparations is they punish people who did nothing wrong, and reward people who haven't been wronged, all based on their skin color and what you assume that means. We got rid of guilt by association centuries ago, and for good reason.


It isn't guilt by association. NOt sure why people don't get this. If YOU benefit from a system established THEN t
Also, OP, I highly suggest you read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Not OP, but I've read that before, and I'm not impressed.

Not impressed with what? Did you actually read the entire thing? What specific part were you not impressed with?

I think if you had read it you'd find your questions easily answered.

But while the people advocating reparations have changed over time, the response from the country has remained virtually the same. "They have been taught to labor," the Chicago Tribune editorialized in 1891. "They have been taught Christian civilization, and to speak the noble English language instead of some African gibberish. The account is square with the exR09;slaves."

Not exactly. Having been enslaved for 250 years, black people were not left to their own devices. They were terrorized. In the Deep South, a second slavery ruled. In the North, legislatures, mayors, civic associations, banks, and citizens all colluded to pin black people into ghettos, where they were overcrowded, overcharged, and undereducated. Businesses discriminated against them, awarding them the worst jobs and the worst wages. Police brutalized them in the streets. And the notion that black lives, black bodies, and black wealth were rightful targets remained deeply rooted in the broader society. Now we have half-stepped away from our long centuries of despoilment, promising, "Never again." But still we are haunted. It is as though we have run up a credit-card bill and, having pledged to charge no more, remain befuddled that the balance does not disappear. The effects of that balance, interest accruing daily, are all around us.

Broach the topic of reparations today and a barrage of questions inevitably follows: Who will be paid? How much will they be paid? Who will pay? But if the practicalities, not the justice, of reparations are the true sticking point, there has for some time been the beginnings of a solution. For the past 25 years, Congressman John Conyers Jr., who represents the Detroit area, has marked every session of Congress by introducing a bill calling for a congressional study of slavery and its lingering effects as well as recommendations for "appropriate remedies."

A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in Conyers"s bill, now called HR 40, the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act. We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions. But we are not interested.


"It"s because it"s black folks making the claim," Nkechi Taifa, who helped found N"COBRA, says. "People who talk about reparations are considered left lunatics. But all we are talking about is studying [reparations]. As John Conyers has said, we study everything. We study the water, the air. We can"t even study the issue? This bill does not authorize one red cent to anyone."

That HR 40 has never"under either Democrats or Republicans"made it to the House floor suggests our concerns are rooted not in the impracticality of reparations but in something more existential. If we conclude that the conditions in North Lawndale and black America are not inexplicable but are instead precisely what you"d expect of a community that for centuries has lived in America"s crosshairs, then what are we to make of the world"s oldest democracy?

One cannot escape the question by hand-waving at the past, disavowing the acts of one"s ancestors, nor by citing a recent date of ancestral immigration. The last slaveholder has been dead for a very long time. The last soldier to endure Valley Forge has been dead much longer. To proudly claim the veteran and disown the slaveholder is patriotism " la carte. A nation outlives its generations. We were not there when Washington crossed the Delaware, but Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze"s rendering has meaning to us. We were not there when Woodrow Wilson took us into World War I, but we are still paying out the pensions. If Thomas Jefferson"s genius matters, then so does his taking of Sally Hemings"s body. If George Washington crossing the Delaware matters, so must his ruthless pursuit of the runagate Oney Judge.

In 1909, President William Howard Taft told the country that "intelligent" white southerners were ready to see blacks as "useful members of the community." A week later Joseph Gordon, a black man, was lynched outside Greenwood, Mississippi. The high point of the lynching era has passed. But the memories of those robbed of their lives still live on in the lingering effects.Indeed, in America there is a strange and powerful belief that if you stab a black person 10 times, the bleeding stops and the healing begins the moment the assailant drops the knife. We believe white dominance to be a fact of the inert past, a delinquent debt that can be made to disappear if only we don"t look.

There has always been another way. "It is in vain to alledge, that our ancestors brought them hither, and not we," Yale President Timothy Dwight said in 1810.

We inherit our ample patrimony with all its incumbrances; and are bound to pay the debts of our ancestors. This debt, particularly, we are bound to discharge: and, when the righteous Judge of the Universe comes to reckon with his servants, he will rigidly exact the payment at our hands. To give them liberty, and stop here, is to entail upon them a curse.
"
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
plants
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:27:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 1:45:48 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
One of the potential PF topics for Sept/Oct is whether or not the United States government ought to pay reparations to African Americans. I've found plenty of research supporting both ends of the argument, but I am interested in hearing what DDO users have to say about it.

So, do you think the US government ought to pay reparations to African Americans?

Interesting that this topic could be used for public forum, I thought it sounded like more of an LD topic (and I believe it was almost an LD topic last year).
plants
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:32:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 1:45:48 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
One of the potential PF topics for Sept/Oct is whether or not the United States government ought to pay reparations to African Americans. I've found plenty of research supporting both ends of the argument, but I am interested in hearing what DDO users have to say about it.

So, do you think the US government ought to pay reparations to African Americans?

Ok, what's the actual resolution?
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:39:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 5:27:30 PM, plants wrote:
At 7/29/2015 1:45:48 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
One of the potential PF topics for Sept/Oct is whether or not the United States government ought to pay reparations to African Americans. I've found plenty of research supporting both ends of the argument, but I am interested in hearing what DDO users have to say about it.

So, do you think the US government ought to pay reparations to African Americans?

Interesting that this topic could be used for public forum, I thought it sounded like more of an LD topic (and I believe it was almost an LD topic last year).

It would be interesting, but I think it would just be:

Pro: Howard Zinn Narrative or "You're rascist."
Con: Education, Capitalism, Conquest theory, and Nation building.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:41:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:09:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:41:23 PM, TN05 wrote:
No. There is no reason to force people who didn't commit a crime to pay money to people who aren't victims of a crime.

That's an interesting thought but they still benefit from those who did commit the crime, and it's not like there was a clean break from "institutional racism" to "no institutional racism" after slavery either. It's still in effect to this very day.

Also, OP, I highly suggest you read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Whites in the South really have not inherited the economic development caused by slavery, seeing as how:
A. Most whites didn't own slaves and thus didn't take part in this wealth, much less pass it on to their descendants.
B. The South's economy was obliterated, so any gains to the economy caused by slavery were negated.
C. Many whites were left with nothing by the war, putting them pretty much in the same situation as freed blacks, and many whites were already pretty much as poor as freed blacks would be.

A better argument could be made for the sharecropping system and other stuff that followed the war.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:46:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:04:05 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 7/29/2015 3:59:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At this point, Reparations should be made to whites for the government money wasted on inner city improvements.

How are inner city improvements wasted money? They improve the quality of life of those in the inner city. That should be enough to justify the spending. Additionally, the ripple effect benefits everyone.

I don't know if you are familiar with the situation. In New Orleans, where the majority of the population is black, outrageous amounts of government money was spent for housing. The residents then destroyed them and made them into crimehouses.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 7:35:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 5:05:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:37:56 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:09:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:41:23 PM, TN05 wrote:
No. There is no reason to force people who didn't commit a crime to pay money to people who aren't victims of a crime.

That's an interesting thought but they still benefit from those who did commit the crime, and it's not like there was a clean break from "institutional racism" to "no institutional racism" after slavery either. It's still in effect to this very day.

Why should the descendants of Jewish holocaust survivors or Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famine have to pay money to a descendent of descendent of a descendent a freeman? What about people of mixed-blood? How about people of other races, like Asians, Native Americans, and Hispanics? What do they have to pay? How about the descendants of a Union soldier who paid his life to help end slavery? Who gets the money, and who pays? Does a poor family in Appalachia have to pay rich black doctors in Maryland? The whole idea is patently ridiculous

The problem with reparations is they punish people who did nothing wrong, and reward people who haven't been wronged, all based on their skin color and what you assume that means. We got rid of guilt by association centuries ago, and for good reason.

It isn't guilt by association. NOt sure why people don't get this. If YOU benefit from a system established THEN t

Yes, it is. The poor farmer in Appalachia is white, so therefore he's assumed to be complicit in a system of racial discrimination even though he has no actual benefit from anything, because he is dirt-poor and his family has been dirt-poor for generations. That's guilt by association.

Also, OP, I highly suggest you read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Not OP, but I've read that before, and I'm not impressed.

Not impressed with what? Did you actually read the entire thing? What specific part were you not impressed with?

Most of it is just an angry tangent from somebody with a toxically negative worldview. It makes no actual proposal for reparations, and isn't really a 'case' for reparations.

I think if you had read it you'd find your questions easily answered.

Because it makes no actual case for a proposal for reparations, it does not answer any of those questions.

But while the people advocating reparations have changed over time, the response from the country has remained virtually the same. "They have been taught to labor," the Chicago Tribune editorialized in 1891. "They have been taught Christian civilization, and to speak the noble English language instead of some African gibberish. The account is square with the exR09;slaves."

Not exactly. Having been enslaved for 250 years, black people were not left to their own devices. They were terrorized. In the Deep South, a second slavery ruled. In the North, legislatures, mayors, civic associations, banks, and citizens all colluded to pin black people into ghettos, where they were overcrowded, overcharged, and undereducated. Businesses discriminated against them, awarding them the worst jobs and the worst wages. Police brutalized them in the streets. And the notion that black lives, black bodies, and black wealth were rightful targets remained deeply rooted in the broader society. Now we have half-stepped away from our long centuries of despoilment, promising, "Never again." But still we are haunted. It is as though we have run up a credit-card bill and, having pledged to charge no more, remain befuddled that the balance does not disappear. The effects of that balance, interest accruing daily, are all around us.

Broach the topic of reparations today and a barrage of questions inevitably follows: Who will be paid? How much will they be paid? Who will pay? But if the practicalities, not the justice, of reparations are the true sticking point, there has for some time been the beginnings of a solution. For the past 25 years, Congressman John Conyers Jr., who represents the Detroit area, has marked every session of Congress by introducing a bill calling for a congressional study of slavery and its lingering effects as well as recommendations for "appropriate remedies."

A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in Conyers"s bill, now called HR 40, the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act. We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions. But we are not interested.


"It"s because it"s black folks making the claim," Nkechi Taifa, who helped found N"COBRA, says. "People who talk about reparations are considered left lunatics. But all we are talking about is studying [reparations]. As John Conyers has said, we study everything. We study the water, the air. We can"t even study the issue? This bill does not authorize one red cent to anyone."

That HR 40 has never"under either Democrats or Republicans"made it to the House floor suggests our concerns are rooted not in the impracticality of reparations but in something more existential. If we conclude that the conditions in North Lawndale and black America are not inexplicable but are instead precisely what you"d expect of a community that for centuries has lived in America"s crosshairs, then what are we to make of the world"s oldest democracy?

One cannot escape the question by hand-waving at the past, disavowing the acts of one"s ancestors, nor by citing a recent date of ancestral immigration. The last slaveholder has been dead for a very long time. The last soldier to endure Valley Forge has been dead much longer. To proudly claim the veteran and disown the slaveholder is patriotism " la carte. A nation outlives its generations. We were not there when Washington crossed the Delaware, but Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze"s rendering has meaning to us. We were not there when Woodrow Wilson took us into World War I, but we are still paying out the pensions. If Thomas Jefferson"s genius matters, then so does his taking of Sally Hemings"s body. If George Washington crossing the Delaware matters, so must his ruthless pursuit of the runagate Oney Judge.

In 1909, President William Howard Taft told the country that "intelligent" white southerners were ready to see blacks as "useful members of the community." A week later Joseph Gordon, a black man, was lynched outside Greenwood, Mississippi. The high point of the lynching era has passed. But the memories of those robbed of their lives still live on in the lingering effects.Indeed, in America there is a strange and powerful belief that if you stab a black person 10 times, the bleeding stops and the healing begins the moment the assailant drops the knife. We believe white dominance to be a fact of the inert past, a delinquent debt that can be made to disappear if only we don"t look.

There has always been another way. "It is in vain to alledge, that our ancestors brought them hither, and not we," Yale President Timothy Dwight said in 1810.

We inherit our ample patrimony with all its incumbrances; and are bound to pay the debts of our ancestors. This debt, particularly, we are bound to discharge: and, when the righteous Judge of the Universe comes to reckon with his servants, he will rigidly exact the payment at our hands. To give them liberty, and stop here, is to entail upon them a curse.
"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 8:23:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most of the arguments in favor of repartitions take for granted that African Americans are poor because of the legacy of slavery. This assumption is refuted by the fact that blacks who emigrate here from places like the Caribbean and Haiti are just as poor (often times poorer), even after many generations.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 8:37:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:09:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:41:23 PM, TN05 wrote:
No. There is no reason to force people who didn't commit a crime to pay money to people who aren't victims of a crime.

Also, OP, I highly suggest you read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com...

I hate to say I agree with the kid. THis guy is ranting. I could make this case in one line. Its not that complicated.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 8:59:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 5:32:57 PM, plants wrote:
Ok, what's the actual resolution?

Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 9:06:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 8:37:05 PM, fazz wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:09:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:41:23 PM, TN05 wrote:
No. There is no reason to force people who didn't commit a crime to pay money to people who aren't victims of a crime.

Also, OP, I highly suggest you read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com...

I hate to say I agree with the kid. THis guy is ranting. I could make this case in one line. Its not that complicated.

Point out when and where he is ranting.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 9:10:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 7:35:49 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:05:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:37:56 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:09:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:41:23 PM, TN05 wrote:
No. There is no reason to force people who didn't commit a crime to pay money to people who aren't victims of a crime.

That's an interesting thought but they still benefit from those who did commit the crime, and it's not like there was a clean break from "institutional racism" to "no institutional racism" after slavery either. It's still in effect to this very day.

Why should the descendants of Jewish holocaust survivors or Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famine have to pay money to a descendent of descendent of a descendent a freeman? What about people of mixed-blood? How about people of other races, like Asians, Native Americans, and Hispanics? What do they have to pay? How about the descendants of a Union soldier who paid his life to help end slavery? Who gets the money, and who pays? Does a poor family in Appalachia have to pay rich black doctors in Maryland? The whole idea is patently ridiculous

The problem with reparations is they punish people who did nothing wrong, and reward people who haven't been wronged, all based on their skin color and what you assume that means. We got rid of guilt by association centuries ago, and for good reason.

It isn't guilt by association. NOt sure why people don't get this. If YOU benefit from a system established THEN t

Yes, it is. The poor farmer in Appalachia is white, so therefore he's assumed to be complicit in a system of racial discrimination even though he has no actual benefit from anything, because he is dirt-poor and his family has been dirt-poor for generations. That's guilt by association.


Meh. We've already been through this. Denying intersectionality is ridiculous.

Also, OP, I highly suggest you read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Not OP, but I've read that before, and I'm not impressed.

Not impressed with what? Did you actually read the entire thing? What specific part were you not impressed with?

Most of it is just an angry tangent from somebody with a toxically negative worldview. It makes no actual proposal for reparations, and isn't really a 'case' for reparations.


So there isn't any specific point that is actually in dispute here? A tangent from what?

It's a case for making the reparations question a "live" one and not a dead one which is pretty good.

I think if you had read it you'd find your questions easily answered.

Because it makes no actual case for a proposal for reparations, it does not answer any of those questions.


It's a call to study the issue rather than dismiss it, and if the main objections are merely practical rather than moral that's absolutely not reason not to study it.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 9:10:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 8:37:05 PM, fazz wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:09:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:41:23 PM, TN05 wrote:
No. There is no reason to force people who didn't commit a crime to pay money to people who aren't victims of a crime.

Also, OP, I highly suggest you read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com...

I hate to say I agree with the kid. THis guy is ranting. I could make this case in one line. Its not that complicated.

Then explain why in a situation like New Orleans where the whites have minimal power and are in fact a huge minority, that the Black residents should be rewarded for throwing away decades of State and Federal tax dollars, and have the right to declare "reparations"...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 9:12:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:15:57 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:09:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
That's an interesting thought but they still benefit from those who did commit the crime, and it's not like there was a clean break from "institutional racism" to "no institutional racism" after slavery either. It's still in effect to this very day.

Also, OP, I highly suggest you read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Thanks for the article, I checked it out and it definitely makes some interesting, valid points. The problem I've run into is justifying the US government paying reparations. How do you justify that every American contribute to reparations because many people immigrated to America and didn't benefit from the practices of slavery and institutional racism?

It depends on if morality or practicality is the main issue of the debate.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 9:25:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 9:10:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2015 7:35:49 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:05:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:37:56 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:09:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2015 2:41:23 PM, TN05 wrote:
No. There is no reason to force people who didn't commit a crime to pay money to people who aren't victims of a crime.

That's an interesting thought but they still benefit from those who did commit the crime, and it's not like there was a clean break from "institutional racism" to "no institutional racism" after slavery either. It's still in effect to this very day.

Why should the descendants of Jewish holocaust survivors or Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famine have to pay money to a descendent of descendent of a descendent a freeman? What about people of mixed-blood? How about people of other races, like Asians, Native Americans, and Hispanics? What do they have to pay? How about the descendants of a Union soldier who paid his life to help end slavery? Who gets the money, and who pays? Does a poor family in Appalachia have to pay rich black doctors in Maryland? The whole idea is patently ridiculous

The problem with reparations is they punish people who did nothing wrong, and reward people who haven't been wronged, all based on their skin color and what you assume that means. We got rid of guilt by association centuries ago, and for good reason.

It isn't guilt by association. NOt sure why people don't get this. If YOU benefit from a system established THEN t

Yes, it is. The poor farmer in Appalachia is white, so therefore he's assumed to be complicit in a system of racial discrimination even though he has no actual benefit from anything, because he is dirt-poor and his family has been dirt-poor for generations. That's guilt by association.

Meh. We've already been through this. Denying intersectionality is ridiculous.

And I think intersectionality is self-evidently ridiculous that you think a poor Appalachian farmer is complicit in racism, regardless of if he is actually racist, while the son of a rich black doctor is a victim of racism, regardless of if he is actually a victim of racism.

Also, OP, I highly suggest you read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Not OP, but I've read that before, and I'm not impressed.

Not impressed with what? Did you actually read the entire thing? What specific part were you not impressed with?

Most of it is just an angry tangent from somebody with a toxically negative worldview. It makes no actual proposal for reparations, and isn't really a 'case' for reparations.

So there isn't any specific point that is actually in dispute here? A tangent from what?

If there was a point to the article, I would be talking about it.

It's a case for making the reparations question a "live" one and not a dead one which is pretty good.

I think if you had read it you'd find your questions easily answered.

Because it makes no actual case for a proposal for reparations, it does not answer any of those questions.

It's a call to study the issue rather than dismiss it, and if the main objections are merely practical rather than moral that's absolutely not reason not to study it.

Then the article should be called 'The Case for Studying Reparations'. I'd argue the idea is self-evidently ridiculous, for the reasons I've given earlier.