Talk:Reparations for slavery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reparations for slavery article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Archives: 1 | |||
| A summary of this article appears in Slavery. |
| WikiProject African diaspora | (Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
| Page 1 |
 |
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
[edit] Seems balanced to me
I just wanted to say that this article in its present states seems very balanced and informative. --Darth Borehd (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the article does a fair (enough) job highlighting the debate and the arguments on each side.
I think the key questions being debated are:
Should reparations be paid for institutionalized slavery?
To whom? (Descendants of slaves?)
By whom? (US Governemnt, other governments, businesses, tax-payers?)
How (money, land, tax breaks, education, etc) and how much?
The arguments for answer the first question "Yes" and treat the other 3 questions as details to be worked out. The arguments against take one of the other 3 questions as central, untractable and derive "No" for the first question. Some of the arguments against aren't properly arguments against the idea of reparations but against an assumed solution, e.g., an argument against the US Government paying for reparations. (Although Horowitz's point 8 does address the first question).
The section that reparations could lead to increased racism is extremely thin--surely there's stronger research on the topic than a Libertarian Party press release? Otherwise this section should be removed. 146.184.0.119 (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just found and edited out a couple of personal opinions. The article is mostly fine, but a few sentences appear to have been edited in a personally invested tone. I've changed some of the wording to make the tone of the article more neutral.Pstanton 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
[edit] Worldwide focus of article
I'm aware that reparations for slavery have been proposed in Australia. Does anyone know of countries other than the USA and Australia where they are are seriously proposed? I'm searching, but haven't found any yet. Bry9000 (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed "reparateme.com" from external links
Deadlocked as of 06:42, December 29, 2009 (UTC)The site isn't just about slavary reparations, it is about all types of reparations. It is also a pretty open forum, more about opinions and name calling than facts.
- The above comment was added by user "Silverfern nc." Please sign your posts by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~ Bry9000 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The website is about all reparations but there are several topics related to slavery reparations. The link should go to one of those.
Heart Blackwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.126.49 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. ReparateMe.com should be included but only with links to relevant stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.231.244 (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's a bloggish website that does not pass WP:EL, and should not be linked to from anywhere in Wikipedia. If anonymous or newly-registered users continue to spam it across articles, it's a good candidate for the WP site blacklist. --CliffC (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
-
- I also disagree, after looking at the site itself, ReparateMe.com looks pretty much like brain dead complaining. It looks mostly like a "Feel good" site where people can wallow in their sense of self-righteous martyrdom and write explanations for why governments should pay loads of money. Pstanton 04:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
From my watch list, it looks like we're starting a revert war with users going by their IP addresses. I'm going to suggest we use semi-protection to stop anonymous users from repeatedly re-adding repartme.com to this article. Pstanton 20:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
[edit] David Horowitz's 2001 Article
In 2001, David Horowitz's article was published in the Free Republic, in which he set forth ten reasons why reparations was a bad a idea -- and racist too. The ten reasons follow:
One
There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery
Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestors of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slave-owners in the ante-bellum United States. Are reparations to be paid by their descendants too?
Two
There Is No One Group That Benefited Exclusively From Its Fruits
The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. The GNP of black America is so large that it makes the African-American community the 10th most prosperous "nation" in the world. American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.
Three
Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them
Only a tiny minority of Americans ever owned slaves. This is true even for those who lived in the ante-bellum South where only one white in five was a slaveholder. Why should their descendants owe a debt? What about the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves? They gave their lives. What possible moral principle would ask them to pay (through their descendants) again?
Four
America Today Is A Multi-Ethnic Nation and Most Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery
The two great waves of American immigration occurred after 1880 and then after 1960. What rationale would require Vietnamese boat people, Russian refuseniks, Iranian refugees, and Armenian victims of the Turkish persecution, Jews, Mexicans Greeks, or Polish, Hungarian, Cambodian and Korean victims of Communism, to pay reparations to American blacks?
Five
The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury
The historical precedents generally invoked to justify the reparations claim are payments to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Japanese-Americans and African- American victims of racial experiments in Tuskegee, or racial outrages in Rosewood and Oklahoma City. But in each case, the recipients of reparations were the direct victims of the injustice or their immediate families. This would be the only case of reparations to people who were not immediately affected and whose sole qualification to receive reparations would be racial. As has already been pointed out, during the slavery era, many blacks were free men or slave-owners themselves, yet the reparations claimants make no distinction between the roles blacks actually played in the injustice itself. Randall Robinson's book on reparations, The Debt, which is the manifesto of the reparations movement is pointedly sub-titled "What America Owes To Blacks." If this is not racism, what is?
Six
The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination
No evidence-based attempt has been made to prove that living individuals have been adversely affected by a slave system that was ended over 150 years ago. But there is plenty of evidence the hardships that occurred were hardships that individuals could and did overcome. The black middle-class in America is a prosperous community that is now larger in absolute terms than the black underclass. Does its existence not suggest that economic adversity is the result of failures of individual character rather than the lingering after-effects of racial discrimination and a slave system that ceased to exist well over a century ago? West Indian blacks in America are also descended from slaves but their average incomes are equivalent to the average incomes of whites (and nearly 25% higher than the average incomes of American born blacks). How is it that slavery adversely affected one large group of descendants but not the other? How can government be expected to decide an issue that is so subjective - and yet so critical - to the case?
Seven
The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt To Turn African-Americans Into Victims. It Sends A Damaging Message To The African-American Community.
The renewed sense of grievance -- which is what the claim for reparations will inevitably create -- is neither a constructive nor a helpful message for black leaders to be sending to their communities and to others. To focus the social passions of African-Americans on what some Americans may have done to their ancestors fifty or a hundred and fifty years ago is to burden them with a crippling sense of victim-hood. How are the millions of refugees from tyranny and genocide who are now living in America going to receive these claims, moreover, except as demands for special treatment, an extravagant new handout that is only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others -- many less privileged than themselves?
Eight
Reparations To African Americans Have Already Been Paid
Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) - all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances. It is said that reparations are necessary to achieve a healing between African-Americans and other Americans. If trillion dollar restitutions and a wholesale rewriting of American law (in order to accommodate racial preferences) for African-Americans is not enough to achieve a "healing," what will?
Nine
What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?
Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade was born, and in all societies. But in the thousand years of its existence, there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans -- created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still be slaves. If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world, and indeed one of the highest standards of living of any people in the world. They would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?
Ten
The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom
Blacks were here before the Mayflower. Who is more American than the descendants of African slaves? For the African-American community to isolate itself even further from America is to embark on a course whose implications are troubling. Yet the African-American community has had a long-running flirtation with separatists, nationalists and the political left, who want African-Americans to be no part of America's social contract. African Americans should reject this temptation.
For all America's faults, African-Americans have an enormous stake in their country and its heritage. It is this heritage that is really under attack by the reparations movement. The reparations claim is one more assault on America, conducted by racial separatists and the political left. It is an attack not only on white Americans, but on all Americans -- especially African-Americans.
America's African-American citizens are the richest and most privileged black people alive -- a bounty that is a direct result of the heritage that is under assault. The American idea needs the support of its African-American citizens. But African-Americans also need the support of the American idea. For it is this idea that led to the principles and institutions that have set African-Americans - and all of us -- free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.4.47 (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The exact article that you have reproduced here has already been quoted and cited to in the Wikipedia article itself. Horowitz is quoted separately in another part of the article as well. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion about the topic itself. So your lengthy copy-and-paste doesn't seem to be very helpful or even new. Bry9000 (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Non-African reparations?
This article talks almost exclusively about african reparations and nothing else. Isn't there slavery reparations for other ethnic or racial groups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.127.207.170 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I read somewhere that land previously owned by white planters was at first, after the Civil War, given to blacks but was later taken away & returned to the "former" slave masters. That's a sort of "reparation" but to rich (or formerly rich) slave masters, isn't it? And I think it should be added to this article if it's true, & if anyone can find out if it's true. Sundiii (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Finally someone has addressed the issue of reverse racism. My family was poor immigrants of German and Irish descent. The Irish have been enslaved for much longer than nearly any other culture, first in England and then here in the U.S. While the North did not own many black slaves, they benefited from labor provided by the Irish. In many cases, the Irish were actually treated much more poorly than the slaves. They weren't even considered to be of the white race, despite many assumptions that all whites owned slaves. Instead of seeking reparations from the British or those in the U.S. that our descendants were mistreated by, we have done what many in this country have done and pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps. If every mistreated immigrant class in America tried to sue for reparations, we'd be broke.
- Aren't slaves the ones who don't get paid AND are owned by somebody? I hardly think the Irish were slaves either in England or the USA. Tough luck yeah, but not slaves. The Saxons on the other hand were forced into slavery and cultural genocide by the Normans in 1066, where the majority of the natives became physical property. Probably there was slave class even before the Normans arrived. It wasn't until cash-based economies appeared hundreds of years later, that this problem was overcome. It resulted in a large underclass treated much the same as irish in any case. Way I reckon, the landed class in England owe me about 500-2000 years of reparations. CJ DUB (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Can we lock this article?
People unclear on the concept of NPOV persist in using this article to push their own opinions. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a blog. Encyclopedia articles are meant to explain and describe concepts, not to defend or attack them. There are plenty of places to do that. Vcrs (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Start-class?
Despite the veracity of what the previous poster said, this article seems to me to be a balanced and fairly well-sourced look at the topic in its current state. Surely it qualifies for something more that start-class? How would I go about making this feeling more than just a comment on a talk page? --72.35.67.9 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Opening paragraph is non-NPOV
I consider this line: "...in consideration of the labor provided for free over several centuries, without which the United States would likely have never attained its wealth and global power," to be non-neutral, a personal opinion and a unsubstantiated claim. While African slavery in the 1700's and 1800's did have a huge impact on the agricultural community in the south, as well as strong political ramifications, during the same time period - I consider it quiet a stretch to claim that it's "likely" that without slaves the US wouldn't be the global super power it is today.
The USA's current dominant status in global politics and economics is derived directly from the events leading up to, and the outcomes, of WWII. I see no correlation between the industrial manufacturing and production capabilities which originally brought the US power during the 1940's to slaves who worked in the cotton fields over 100 years prior to the attaining of wealth and power in these modern times.
If someone wants to try and justify this, fire away.
Hyperion395 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Civil War destroyed much pre-war wealth and value.
Has the point been addressed that the Civil War destroyed a significant portion of the wealth and value that existed prior to the war; a pre-war value contributed to by several forms of wage slavery, as well as physical slavery? The value created to that point that ceased to exist did not accrue to the present, much less with interest. Moreover, various recessions and depressions since then removed much more of the pre-Civil War value. Recovery of that value in several steps to the current level of national wealth stems from the hard work of post-Civil War, and mainly post-1800's, generations.
The point that the Civil War was payment in material and lives by the generation at the time for slavery is raised, but is the fact that the total value claimed never made it past the war, much less to the present day, mentioned in the dialogue?
Gloryroad (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Monopoly game link
Can we add a link to the Monopoly game here? It says "Each player begins the game with.....$1500..." which shows every person starts equal in wealth, which is NOT the way slaves had to do after 1865 ended slavery. They started with NOTHING, but were expected to somehow play the game of life & somehow get ahead. The starting money of $1500 would have represented a reparation, right? Then in the game at the end there is only one winner & everyone else is a 'loser'. And it mostly happens with either good luck or bad luck, with only a little bit of strategy. This is similar to today too, so can we add the link? Stars4change (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- And it was also true for every woman & child of every race then, and still today: they start with nothing. I'm adding the Monopoly link if that's ok. Stars4change (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It's also true for most males, except inheritors maybe. Stars4change (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Worst metaphor ever. You think all the white settlers arrived with a big bag of gold each? LOL Most everybody who came to North America and started the game of life had NOTHING. Remove irrelevant that Monopoly link. 21:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] outside US
does the Reparations for slavery discussion also exist outside the us (i don't mean people out of US talk about US, but about Reparations for slavery in outher countries, since slavery existed not only in US) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Post-feudal peasantry in Europe
One broad historical precedent that should be considered is the fate of the post-feudal peasantry in Europe. In a number of European countries the formerly serf peasants were enfranchised by being allowed to hold onto rural properties on which they lived, worked and where they were exploited for generations. No such compensation has been extended to former slaves in the USA, essentially kidnapped people, which in perspective gravely affects the current economic condition of this ethnic group. Orczar (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
