Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ms. Siv · 03-07-2002, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna:


It's aguable that Australia has done those things albeit way too slowly. And yet the improvements in social indicators are very very small. In a sense the damage has already been done. Making the playing field level again is not sufficient, the players also need to be trained and motivated.

No matter how efficent one's laws are, the biggest hurdle to overcome is still people's attitudes, the justified and unjustified generalisations which we all hold.

Question is how do you measure the degree of compensation or its effectiveness ?

If you have some logical, empirical indicators suggesting that Australia is worse off than some other country which has not implemented these compensations, and you prove that this difference is only due to the implementation of these compensations, then you have a case. Else, no.

- Sivakami.

Ms. Siv · 03-07-2002, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkDruid:
No. I am saying that the entire reasoning behind compensation is faulty. It would be much more effective to issue aid to all of those that needed it, rather than rooting through one's background to find reason for recieving things based on a people's past grievences.

Noone's preventing you from providind aid to all those who need it. We're talking about compensation for centuries of oppression here. The question is whether or not these groups should be compensated. Whether other groups get compensated too is not a part of this topic.

Quote:

Here's the way I see... and please forgive me for twisting your sports analogy a bit... Say the US bobsled team was obstructed from competeing fairly, and they went home defeated. Four years later, the bobseld team comes back, and says, "Okay... since we were held back during the last Olympics, we demand that you subtract 5 seconds from our clock this year!"

You're assuming that there are 2 distinctly separate races . By what logic are you assuming that ?!

Also, my suggestion would be to consider the older victory null and void. It is not valid, simple.

But if the obstruction had been so severe that some of those people had severely damaged lungs (or something else) then how can you ask them to compete on the same level ?

- Sivakami.

DRFseven · 03-07-2002, 08:29 AM

Quote:

PB: The question, to my mind, is �do we have some sort of ethical obligation to help those who were born into unfavorable circumstances?� If A, a member of a �majority� demographic, was born into poverty through no fault of her own and B, a member of a formerly oppressed demographic, was born into poverty through no fault of his own, why draw an ethical distinction between the two for purposes of the question?

We draw a distinction because we (by we, I mean the U.S., though I'm well aware that most citizens don't agree with compensation) were the recipients of their money and profited by it. All except for those who actually earned it! In all other situations, we certainly want the government to make amends.

Quote:

Note that this objection assumes that, as in the case of American blacks, the group in question is at least one generation removed from legal systematic oppression. Obviously, I agree that the immediate victims of oppression should be compensated fairly.

What difference does it make whether the generations are removed or the discrimination is legal or not? It was the the fact that in order to make slavery possible, the members of the slave group were relegated to the ranks of the "subhuman." Our government stated that "all men are created equal" and simply decided that African-Americans were, then, not men. Bingo; end of discussions of equality for sucha a long time that the country still suffers the effects today.

Pomp · 03-07-2002, 11:45 AM

Sivakami S,

If you have an alternative or better method for compensation, let us hear it

As far as methods of compensation, I agree with DRFseven. Educational entitlements are probably the best way to go about it.

The first question is ... whether or not centuries of oppression need compensation. IMO, YES !

I disagree. Show me someone who has been oppressed for centuries. The problem isn't that individual A's acestors were oppressed, the problem is that individual A is facing negative circumstances now. Let's help individual A because he needs it, not because his ancestors were oppressed.

Pomp · 03-07-2002, 12:05 PM

DRFseven,

We draw a distinction because we (by we, I mean the U.S., though I'm well aware that most citizens don't agree with compensation) were the recipients of their money and profited by it. All except for those who actually earned it!

Did you mean to say "recipients of their labor," perhaps? I'm not sure what money you're talking about. At any rate, my response assumes you meant "labor" or something similar.

I both agree and disagree with you. It's true that the existing US infrastructure was possible, in part, due to the labor of slaves who were never fairly compensated for their labor, and I think that those slaves should have been compensated to a much greater degree upon emancipation, but those slaves are dead and gone. There is no one alive today whose labor "we" profited from unjustly.

In all other situations, we certainly want the government to make amends.

Of course. Why the distinction, then? If we agree that we want to make amends in all situations, why bother to distinguish between the two cases?

What difference does it make whether the generations are removed or the discrimination is legal or not?

I think I explained why generational differences matter at the beginning of this post. The legal status of discrimination matters because the charge in the OP is that we (as members of a never-oppressed group) owe compensation because of systematic oppression. Oppression hasn't been systematic in the US for over a century.

I'm very much in favor of programs (educational entitlements, etc.) to help those who are behind catch up, but I would very much prefer that they be based on present need, not past injustice.

DRFseven · 03-07-2002, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Dark: Answer me this; how many products were manufactured by slaves in the early 20th century when my ancestors arrived? How have I benifitted from slavery at all?

How many families were bankrolled by slaves? How many businesses? How many businesses sprang up in response to those who made their living from slave labor? Just like any other huge business, it has a vitalizing effect on the whole economy. What do you think happened to all that money? It was invested, inherited, reinvested and spent. People whose families were slave-owners bankrolled their own businesses with their financial legacies and so on and so on. People whose families owned businesses that sprang up to serve the needs of those who were paid by slave profits also had money to invest. The actual money earned by slaves was a drop in the bucket compared to the eventual economic ramifications. And while all this was going on, African-American descendents were being willfully excluded from the process.

Quote:

And what about the white farmers in the south who were plunged into perpectual poverty because their labor could not compete with the free labor slaves were producing? Do they owe black people anything at all?

Certainly; they (including my own maternal ancestors), like almost all other white citizens, were not denied the opportunity to enjoy full citizen rights. Their children were not sold, their culture ripped from them; they were not denied the right to education, property ownership, or political power through the vote.

John Page · 03-07-2002, 01:30 PM

I go with Pompous Bastard on the present need issue, although I'm not sure I would say forgive governments currently abusing human rights etc.

I'd like to add some points:

1. When I was a kid in the '70s living in the UK, my memory is that the government started a repatriation program which basically said "If you don't like it here, we'll pay your fare back to the part of the Commonwealth you came from". The government had encouraged immigration but when the oil crisis hit there was an oversupply of labor and a backlash against immigrants. Repatriation was not forced, however. Ironically, this offer applied to immigrants for repatriation to Jamaica - where they had ended up as slaves originally....

2. I forget his name but a black correspondent of the Washington Post went to take a look at Africa and came back with the conclusion he was better off as an American citizen and lucky his ancestors had been slaves.

3. Slaves were sold by Africans to white slave traders, a continuation of centuries old practices in slave trading (still legal in Mauritania, I'm told). I've been doing some business in Ghana lately and, having come to understand a little more some of the tribal relationships etc., suggest that the sellers should be held partly responsible for any compensation. Incomes in Ghana BTW are about one hundredth here in the US.

So, slavery is against internationally recognized human rights. As my surname indicates, my paternal ancestors were servants, possibly indentured in some way. I don't want to feel I owe anybody anything - let's stop oppression where we can and just get on with our lives.

Pomp · 03-07-2002, 01:34 PM

John Page,

I go with Pompous Bastard on the present need issue, although I'm not sure I would say forgive governments currently abusing human rights etc.

Just to clarify, I never took the position that governments currently abusing human rights (persons' roghts, dammit!) should be "forgiven." By all means, anyone whose rights have been violated should be immediately compensated to whatever degree is deemed just.

I'm not sure if you were actually attributing that position to me, but it sounded like it and I wanted to be clear.

John Page · 03-07-2002, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompous Bastard:

Just to clarify, I never took the position that governments currently abusing human rights (persons' roghts, dammit!) should be "forgiven." I'm not sure if you were actually attributing that position to me, but it sounded like it and I wanted to be clear.

I didn't mean to imply that you did, just wanted to clarify that I didn't. Apologies if it read differently.

echidna · 03-07-2002, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sivakami S:
If you have some logical, empirical indicators suggesting that Australia is worse off than some other country which has not implemented these compensations, and you prove that this difference is only due to the implementation of these compensations, then you have a case. Else, no.

Since neither side can ever be objectively proven, it�s a debate which will never end. FWIW, I also support subsidised education, but I place an even higher priority on employment programs and self-determination.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2002, 11:45 AM	#24
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Sivakami S, If you have an alternative or better method for compensation, let us hear it As far as methods of compensation, I agree with DRFseven. Educational entitlements are probably the best way to go about it. *The first question is ... whether or not centuries of oppression need compensation. IMO, YES* !** I disagree. Show me someone who has been oppressed for centuries. The problem isn't that individual A's acestors were oppressed, the problem is that individual A is facing negative circumstances now. Let's help individual A because he needs it, not because his ancestors were oppressed.

03-07-2002, 12:05 PM	#25
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	DRFseven, We draw a distinction because we (by we, I mean the U.S., though I'm well aware that most citizens don't agree with compensation) were the recipients of their money and profited by it. All except for those who actually earned it! Did you mean to say "recipients of their labor," perhaps? I'm not sure what money you're talking about. At any rate, my response assumes you meant "labor" or something similar. I both agree and disagree with you. It's true that the existing US infrastructure was possible, in part, due to the labor of slaves who were never fairly compensated for their labor, and I think that those slaves should have been compensated to a much greater degree upon emancipation, but those slaves are dead and gone. There is no one alive today whose labor "we" profited from unjustly. In all other situations, we certainly want the government to make amends. Of course. Why the distinction, then? If we agree that we want to make amends in all situations, why bother to distinguish between the two cases? What difference does it make whether the generations are removed or the discrimination is legal or not? I think I explained why generational differences matter at the beginning of this post. The legal status of discrimination matters because the charge in the OP is that we (as members of a never-oppressed group) owe compensation because of systematic oppression. Oppression hasn't been systematic in the US for over a century. I'm very much in favor of programs (educational entitlements, etc.) to help those who are behind catch up, but I would very much prefer that they be based on present need, not past injustice.

03-07-2002, 01:30 PM	#27
John Page Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: US Posts: 5,495	I go with Pompous Bastard on the present need issue, although I'm not sure I would say forgive governments currently abusing human rights etc. I'd like to add some points: 1. When I was a kid in the '70s living in the UK, my memory is that the government started a repatriation program which basically said "If you don't like it here, we'll pay your fare back to the part of the Commonwealth you came from". The government had encouraged immigration but when the oil crisis hit there was an oversupply of labor and a backlash against immigrants. Repatriation was not forced, however. Ironically, this offer applied to immigrants for repatriation to Jamaica - where they had ended up as slaves originally.... 2. I forget his name but a black correspondent of the Washington Post went to take a look at Africa and came back with the conclusion he was better off as an American citizen and lucky his ancestors had been slaves. 3. Slaves were sold by Africans to white slave traders, a continuation of centuries old practices in slave trading (still legal in Mauritania, I'm told). I've been doing some business in Ghana lately and, having come to understand a little more some of the tribal relationships etc., suggest that the sellers should be held partly responsible for any compensation. Incomes in Ghana BTW are about one hundredth here in the US. So, slavery is against internationally recognized human rights. As my surname indicates, my paternal ancestors were servants, possibly indentured in some way. I don't want to feel I owe anybody anything - let's stop oppression where we can and just get on with our lives.

03-07-2002, 01:34 PM	#28
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	John Page, I go with Pompous Bastard on the present need issue, although I'm not sure I would say forgive governments currently abusing human rights etc. Just to clarify, I never took the position that governments currently abusing human rights (persons' roghts, dammit!) should be "forgiven." By all means, anyone whose rights have been violated should be immediately compensated to whatever degree is deemed just. I'm not sure if you were actually attributing that position to me, but it sounded like it and I wanted to be clear.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.