Someone recently posted an entry lambasting the idea of reparations for slavery, and, claiming African-Americans benefitted from one of the most monstrous acts in history, to a large blog. He stopped short of calling for the re-enslavement of African-Americans, but that would be the outcome if one took his beliefs seriously. Why end a good thing? The entry reminded me that though there is intelligent, thoughtful information about the idea of reparations to the descendants of slaves available, it does not get read often enough. Instead, the kind of nonsense in that entry is what most people know about the idea.
The best article I've located online about reparations was published by Harper's Magazine in November of 2000. The periodical hosted a symposium on the topic, inviting legal experts Jack Hitt, Dennis C. Sweet III, Alexander Pires, Jr., and Willie E. Gary.
Does America owe a debt to the descendants of its slaves?
Hardly a week goes by that we don't read of another gigantic lawsuit with thousands of plaintiffs and billions in damages. Once an esoteric legal device, the class-action lawsuit has become the dominant form of litigation to resolve bitter disputes over collective guilt and innocence that not so long ago played out in Congress. Indeed, our preening national legislature, besotted with special-interest money, seems rivaled by the big budgets and major issues that now thrive in the class-action courtroom.
At the same time, one hears rumblings among historians and philosophers to consider a lawsuit for slave reparations. After all, class-action lawyers have ridden to the rescue of those forced into slave labor in Germany and prostitution in Korea. The academics discuss such a slavery suit in moral, historical, or metaphysical terms. That's nice. But in this, the land of show-me-the-money, the thinking quickly becomes practical: Who gets sued? For how much? What's the legal argument? How do you get a case into court?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jason Koulouras
Very informative links and articles
thanks for the balanced viewpoint and well written blog post
Cheers
2 - bhw
The Harper's article is excellent.
One of the participants stated the crux of my objection to monetary reparations -- money alone just won't help:
SWEET: ....If the outcome of this suit were to give each black person $5,000, that would be a disaster. Then we would have eliminated any moral claim to criticizing the causes that have led to widespread African-American poverty, and in return for what?
In return for just about nothing. It will hurt more than help to give a simple payment to black families today without fixing the racial inequalities in our society. White people will think the problem is solved: you got your money, now shut up about it. And then nothing will change -- or it might even get worse.
So the answer is in holding the government accountable for the overt acts it made to perpetuate the second class citizenship of black Americans well into this century by making it, the government, pay for programs that will work to undo the damage.
When you read the timeline on the last two pages, it's a friggin' embarrassment right up until after WWII, and even then, you realize that conditions in the south with the Jim Crow laws were still particularly heinous.
3 - bhw
Oh, and the letter from the former slave to his former owner is brilliant. In the most polite tone, he says he'll return to work for his former owner only if he can trust that he'll be paid. How can the former owner show that he can be trusted to pay the man and his family? By paying for all the hours he and his wife worked while slaves. Then the guy calculates that back-pay to be about $11k. When he gets the $11k, he says, he'll come back to work.
Heh.
4 - Phillip Winn
BTW, "person who's" should be "person whose".
5 - Eric Olsen
I think Constitutionally-compatible affirmative action is a better form of reparations
6 - bhw
Philip's apostrophe misuse alert is set to RED.
7 - Tim Hall
Are we still allowed to gratuitously split infinitives, or do we get red-carded for that too?
8 - Eric Olsen
as long as it isn't gratuitous
9 - Mac Diva
Not only has this entry been edited, which Blogcritics claims not to do, and badly, it has been edited for a shameful reason. I stated the name of the person who posted the entry claiming slavery was beneficial for African-Americans. I also stated the name of the person responsible for the presence of that person and the bumper crop of people friendly to racist beliefs at this site, Eric Olsen. Olsen regularly takes credit for anything he believes will put Blogcritics in a positive light. However, at the same time, he welcomes members such as the person who bombarded the site with entries that would have made most bigots blush in a 24-hour-period, Stewart White. Olsen is responsible for Blogcritics. Therefore, he is responsible for the fact that it is a racism friendly site. The unedited version of the entry will remain on my blog. And, henceforth, whenever it is necessary to discuss racism at Blogcritics, the responsibility for the situation with be placed where it belongs, on the site's proprietor.
10 - Shark
And don't forget to mention that he is responsible for you being here -- which means Eric probably owes us all reparations.
PS: While we're giving writing lessons, (Phillip) somebody missed:
"Someone recently posted an entry lambasting the idea of reparations for slavery, and, claiming African-Americans benefitted from one of the most monstrous acts in history, to a large blog."
---which qualifies for the worst opening sentence in the history of written language.
Just tryin' to be helpful.
xxoo
S
11 - Bryan McKay
Mac Diva, your comment falls just short of declaring our own Eric Olsen a member of the apparently burgeoning Aryan Death Squad within the ranks of our fellow Blogcritics. His actions, or in this case, inactions, were simply upholding the right to free speech that everyone in America has. It is this right that allows people like you and the poster of the entry in question to voice your opinions on this site, polarizing and potentially offensive as they may be. YOUR post was edited because it contained potentially offensive and detrimental libel. The other post, although it certainly stirred up quite the shitstorm, didn't contain such a blatantly personal attack. The fact that most of the Blogcritics community turned up to rip that poster a new one, causing him to pack up his bags and leave, should be a testament to the power of free speech.
12 - Mac Diva
My point is that Eric, as the proprietor, is responsible for both the good and the bad at Blogcritics. But, he refuses to take responsibility for the presence of several proven members of the so-called 'scientific racism' movement on the site. (And yes, it does influence what they post. For example, all those slams of black celebrities by Marty Dodge are not coincidence.) Eric pretends to be all of the three monkeys (see no, hear no, say no) in regard to these people. Yet, they would not be able to spread their poison without his approval. I, at least, will hold him responsible for that.
As for Stewart White screeching libel every other comment, so what? Criticism of him, or anyone else, is not libel unless it meets a strict legal definition. My remarks fall well short of that definition. (Not that most people can afford to sue anyone for libel anyway.)
13 - boomcrashbaby
Mac Diva, I love you dearly but must disagree with your comment.
I do not think allowing a blog to be post on a conglomeration of blogs is necessarily an endorsement of the ideology. It is the acceptance of free speech. And there is room and ability for counterspeech.
The problem comes in how one defines what constitutes a personal attack. People see it differently. I understand your viewpoint, it affects me the same way. I can see how you saw the original blog differently than most, and I agree that you saw it as a personal attack. There are blogs here that practically bring tears to my eyes to hear what some of these conservatives say.
The principle goes like this:
If someone were to say to me, "Steve, I believe you are leading to the decay of society and the destruction of family values", that gets censored as being a personal attack.
If someone says to me "Steve, I believe gay people are leading to the decay of society and the destruction of family values", then it is considered an ideological viewpoint worthy of debate. (The irony of course, is that I need to 'debate' my worth to society, but that's nothing personal)
This is a world-wide perception, not just here on this site. But both to me are a personal attack, which is why I see many personal attacks that have stayed on this site, but I acknowledge that I define it differently. It's also why I've started generalizing about conservatives though. Quite a few have gotten upset over it, but it's nothing personal, just a new ideology I'm thinking of acquiring. I understand your perception better than most, I think, but I guess I disagree with the handling of it. I've never advocated removing or not allowing a blog who's viewpoint I find offensive. Supressing a voice is not defeating the ideology behind it.
14 - Eric Olsen
Mac, I won't address the clockwork-like periodic outbreak of self-righteous indignation against the site and me - it's circadian and predictable.
But I am in a state of wonderment at your failure to apprehend the thunderclap irony of your statements: that which you complain most vociferously against is - as Bryan points out - exactly the same policy that affords you a comfortable and secure perch from which to chirp.
15 - Mac Diva
Steve (Boom) I understand what you are saying. I incorporated some of the approach you suggest into my response to Stewart White. As you may know, in addition to the barrage of race-baiting entries, that person referred to me as an 'asshole' twice and 'It' at least once. Since that is clearly name-calling and violates the so-called rules, I asked Eric Olsen to sanction him. Eric refused to do so. If he had that would have meant punishing a white person for abusing a person of color. One can only wonder why Eric believes that is not an appropriate thing to do.
Actually, sanctions might have worked to White's benefit as well. Informed that his 'wow them with attacks on blacks, Democrats and gays' (I suspect that the next easiest abused group would have been next on his list) was not going to win him plaudits from many of us, the fellow might have cleaned up his act. But, n-o-o-o. Eric would not even consider it. Right Wing white guys are sacrosanct around here.
16 - Mac Diva
I am neither on my period nor pre-menstrual. Furthermore, the behavior at issue was not by a woman, but a man. Assuming he has not found a way to menstruate, circadian rhythms have nothing to do with this. The man's behavior -- the battery of race-baiting, name-calling and threats -- are what deserves criticism. Your effort to shift the blame for Stewart White's behavior to me somehow is pathetic.
17 - Eric Olsen
The implication was not related to female biology, but to the regular outbursts against the site whenever a writer appears with whom you strongly disagree. Rather than focusing on refuting the facts and assertions with which you disagree, you almost invariably extrapolate out the writer's position to an endorsement of that position by the site.
The irony is that you never seem to see the countervaling appearance of positions - including your own, obviously - with which you agree as also being endorsed by the site.
This is logically bewildering and would be funny if I were in a better mood.
18 - Joe
Technically, circadian rhythms and mentrual cycles would be mutually exclusive in that circadian expressly deals with a short duration cycle of less than 24 hours and the menstrual cycle is roughly 28 days. Glad to be of service!
19 - Mac Diva
Wow! I must be imagining things. I could have sworn that I set aside my plan to write about music yesterday and researched, wrote and posted an entry describing how a case for reparations for slavery would work to my civil rights blog and Blogcritics. But, since Eric suggests otherwise, it must be a delusion fueled by circadian rhythms.
20 - Joe
Well, if it was over 24 hours ago, that would really be more of what's called an infradian rhythm. The menstrual cycle actually would be classified as one of these.
21 - Eric Olsen
The post, other than the now irrelevant opening paragraph (the post you were responding to does not exist), is a fine and appropriate response. Your slide into temper tantrums and wild accusations was not.
It is further irony that I agreed more with your position than the original poster's - and said so publicly - yet you accused me of endorsing his position.
Then you accused me of taking no action, which is an impenetrable mystery to me and observers, who saw that both Phillip and I began editing his offensive comments as soon as we became aware of them.
So what exactly is the issue here, other than once again I, and the site in general, have become the butt of a seemingly boundless frustration with the universe that appears to transcend time, space, and attention to detail?
22 - Eric Olsen
And one more thing: I KNOW that you know that I have no sympathy for racism or racists, and to state or imply otherwise is not only factually false but utterly disingenuous as well.
23 - Justene
Since that is clearly name-calling and violates the so-called rules, I asked Eric Olsen to sanction him. Eric refused to do so. If he had that would have meant punishing a white person for abusing a person of color. One can only wonder why Eric believes that is not an appropriate thing to do.
What the hell are you talking about? The editing system is the sanction system and those comments were edited out before the posts disappeared. Eric did it since I was on vacation so the statement that he refused to sanction him is an outright lie. Since that's a lie, the rest of your conclusions about racial motivation and how it illustrates a larger racial motivation are equally lies.
Usually, I'd edit them but you're posting one of these false accusations against Eric every couple of minutes and I have work to do so an explanation to the readers may work better.
24 - Mac Diva
Since Justene deletes anything that strikes her [edited].
25 - Joe
Have you considered boycotting as one of your possible options?