Ms. Siv

Suppose a particular group of people (belonging to a particular gender, race, caste or religion) have been discriminated against and oppressed for centuries.
And one fine day, people wake up and decide the discrimination was wrong and pass laws to prevent it.

But is that all ?

Is it not necessary to compensate for the centuries of discrimination and oppression ? How can the oppressed group suddenly consider themselves equal and compete as equals ?

I like to cite a particular analogy for this.

Suppose there's a swimming race. The race has begun. But a few of the contestants are not being allowed to swim freely. They are forcibly being held down in the water ... their faces submerged. They are spluttering and gasping for breath, nearly passing out . Suddenly someone comes along and says ... hey that is wrong. So the force is removed.
Can you now expect these people to swim like the rest and compete equally ?
If they dont, is it fair to say "See, I knew they were bad swimmers all along. Lets accept that fact and not deny it. "

- Sivakami.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]</p>

DarkDruid

The problem with the above analogy is that it assumes that the people who were oppressed are the ones who are going to recieve the compensation. Whenever I hear someone suggesting compensation for slaver on behalf of white people, I burst out laughing. I'm a white person, and I've never owned a slave in my life... niether has my parents or my grandparents or their grandparents, and so on. All of my ancestors came here from Germany well after this whole slavery thing had been settled. Would it be right to use my tax money or force me as a white person to compensate for slavery?

The problem with the whole idea of compensation is that there is a thin line between repayment and revenge. Hell, the Irish are still blowing eachother up for crimes that were committed 500 years ago!

Ms. Siv

Isn't that the argument from adverse consequences logical fallacy ?!
Since compensation can be misused, we should not compensate ?! Where's the logic to that ?

- Sivakami.

echidna

The trouble is that compensation is a double-edged sword.

The case here is obviously the infinite wrongs imposed on the Australian Aborigines / Kooris. Appalling health statistics, bad social problems, poor employment and literacy rates etc. How do you compensate ? Land rights were a good start. But after that, what is it ? A once-off payment, an ongoing subsidy for being of black descent ?

There is strong argument that this cuts away at Aboriginal Pride and maintains a victim mentality. Surely economic and social independence are the keys to undoing the wrongs of the past, and by further patronising black people, the government would only be maintaining the status quo of white subjugation.

There are deep social problems and I object to whites who think that simply throwing money at them, or even worse, simply apologising, is the only solution. To me in many ways this trivialises the problems and achieves more in satisfying our own white consciences than actually solving problems.

But a no-compensation direction is not cut-and-dried. There are many for whom this approach will take a long long time, and many for whom it will never work. I don’t think there is a perfect solution.

Vorkosigan

Also, there is no group somewhere that has gone unoppressed. My ancestors are serfs from Poland. Can I apply to warsaw for compensation?

Compensation should only occur when the victims and perpetrators are both still alive. Here in Taiwan this is a vital issue, where many of those who tortured and killed in the 60s are still around, and as the victims' families, many of them prominent in the new democratic party.

Michael

Ms. Siv

Again, that there might be cases when it backfires or is misused is no excuse to abandon the (much needed) idea.

The first step is to make the different groups equal under the law and punish discrimination. Make discrimination illegal. If schools refuse to take blacks, punish them. If employers pay women less than men (for the same job, same output) punish them.
Then start encouraging the discriminated group. Ads for women to join the army or for educating the girl child etc are good examples.
The media can play a very important part here.

- Sivakami.

Ms. Siv

Well, obviously some gradation and categorisation has to be done. Not all discrimination is equal.
So ??

Sure. That makes sense.

- Sivakami.

Jane Bovary

[b]Is it not necessary to compensate for the centuries of discrimination and oppression ? How can the oppressed group suddenly consider themselves equal and compete as equals ?[b/]

I think that is so right Sivakami. How can they? As though the oppressions of the past have no bearing on the here and now? In the case of Australian Aborigines, many whites resent "special treatment" for blacks, that is, government grants, subsidies, land rights, university quota's etc. This is a kind of "downward envy" which feeds off the social and economic dissaffections of those whites who are themselves struggling in the society.

But if we look at blacks as a group we can easily see that, in contrast to white Australia, they do indeed suffer from poor health,alchoholism, poverty, lowered life expectancy, higher infant mortality and other social ills. Yet government aid has made inroads in the wellbeing of the black community...in arts, in education, in land ownership and Aboriginal pride.
"Special treatment" has helped give black people dignity...not damaged it. Yes, there still these problems, but how great were things before Australia became conscious of her reprehensible past? How good was black self-esteem? Are two hundred years of oppression to be remedied in one or two generations?

I just don't agree with this "victim mentality" idea, as though if government aid is withdrawn people will pull themselves up and live fulfilled lives. This isn't true. Look what happens in countries without adequate social welfare or compassion...what is the result? Poverty, increased crime, poor health. Don't give money and aid to the people who need it...keep it in the hands of the people who dont? What sort of reasoning is that?

DRFseven

It's rationalization; that's what it is. I'm not well-versed about what has gone on in Australia, but in the U.S., we owe it. Virtually all members of black culture here are descendents of slaves and white Americans were enriched by what was stolen from them. Slave descendents were denied the opportunity for that enrichment, even though it was their own ancestors who provided it for everyone else.

It's bullshit to say that the descendents of slaves were not harmed by slavery; every adult in the U.S. knows they were. People made a lot of money on the backs of slaves and, because they were slaves, the people who did the work were never able give their children the resources they needed to compete in our society. To whine about never having owned slaves and so not owing anything is a pitiful excuse; we owe it because we received more than our fair share and we need to try to correct this inequity in some way. I'm not sure what would be the best way, but I'm thinking of something like educational entitlements for X number of years, not cash handed out. This would work to correct the terrible problem with our society we've all inherited that continues to perpetuate itself after all these years.

Pomp

DRFseven (and others),

I see your point, but have a question:

Why would it be preferable to give support, educational entitlements, etc. preferentially to members of a formerly oppressed demographic rather than to everyone who needs them, based on present economic status?

Edited to change "preferably" to "preferetially," thus making me appear to have a basic grasp of the English language.

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>