It isn't always illegal, nor is it always our fault, so where do the calls for reparations end? by Rimfrel
(libertarian)
Friday, April 2, 2010
Recently the topic of reparations for slavery has been in the news. This would be the slavery practiced in the United States, until President Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves during the Civil War. This was before some people's ancestors arrived in this country; mine showed up after 1900. During this period, slavery, however reprehensible, was common in many countries, and legal in this one.
People were transported from Africa to the United States, against their will. The very first slaves were prisoners captured in battle at sea, and traded to the American colonists for repairs and replenishment of ship stores. The conditions in the colonies were harsh enough that extra laborers were welcomed but it seems they were treated as indentured servants, at first. (See Wikipedia page here.) Slaves tended to be owned by rich farmers who needed extra laborers to work large plantations growing crops for commercial export. Other people didn't find them cost-effective and worked their own land. So even in its heyday, not everyone owned slaves.
Slaves were generally obtained by trading with African tribes for people they had already enslaved. Some slave traders also conducted raids and kidnappings and acquired some slaves. Most slaves, however, were not a priori free people who were enslaved by Americans, but slaves of other Africans that sold them to Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, etc. traders, who brought them across the ocean to be sold to the labor-hungry colonial planters.
While there isn't a lot of debate going on about reparations to be paid for having practiced slavery, the topic keeps coming up. Most recently, Goodwin Liu has allegedly endorsed some form of reparations to be paid.
This whole concept is bizarre. Reparations would amount to punishing people who weren't born yet for doing something that was legal to people who are all dead now anyway. I have wondered how this collection of reparations would be done when many of us weren't involved at all -- surely it would be unfair to exact punitive damages from those of use who came after it was all over? Allegedly, Liu thinks we have all benefitted from slavery and should have to give up something. I have not seen the interview where he made these remarks, but it seems unlikely he really meant "all", Even in the alternate universe where punishing the innocent for having benefitted from something later declared a crime, this would not include the descendants of the original slaves. Presumably they did not benefit. So I expect that blacks would not be expected to "give up" anything.
Implementation of this attitude would be a nightmare, even if people embraced the concept. If you are half black and half white, like Obama, do you take money out of one pocket and put it in the other? Give up some privilege and get on the list to receive it back? Just sit the whole thing out? What about Hispanics whose families were in California from the 1800s on? Did they also benefit? How do you determine who benefitted and how much?
Being white in America in 1900 did not guarantee you a free or cushy ride. Irish and Norwegians (my ancestors) were looked down on by the people already here. It was not all that easy to find work, especially if you didn't speak English or looked rough around the edges, as poor immigrants tend to do.
After all that history, none of which I suffered, I am not headed for New York to look up the descendants of people who didn't give my grandfathers jobs and demand that they recompense me for discriminating against the Irish. I don't plan to sue the Swedish government on the off chance some of my Norwegian ancestors happened, after losing some battle, to be kept alive as slaves.
Personally, I think it's great that some people are rich and I don't expect anyone to be responsible for what their grandparents may or may not have done. I am making my own way in the world. I don't need to claim some compensation for a non-existent grievance.
Of course, it isn't really about the grievance of slavery that actually occurred (and was legal), but about trying to guilt people into giving up the advantages they currently enjoy so that others can enjoy them. It is a scam in which the prize is resources currently controlled by one group, that another group would like to control but cannot afford to buy, but think they can apply social pressure and establish a social context where their group is considered to be "owed" something by modern society.
We didn't invent slavery and we haven't practiced it since 1865 or so (it probably took a few years after the Civil War ended in 1865 before the new law really took effect).
No one who was enslaved in the United States prior to 1860 is still alive. No one who owned slaves prior to 1860 is still alive. There are no real perpetrators and no logical beneficiaries.
We generally didn't go to Africa and get the people who were slaves there, to bring them here. If the slave traders who transported them had been unable to sell them, do you really think they would have gotten a ride back to Africa? Probably would have been taken for sale to some other country, or tossed over the side at sea, like any other cargo that is unsaleable.
Is the United States to be blamed for all slavery everywhere, or just the part that occurred within the borders? What about the American Indian tribes that took slaves of other American Indian tribes? What about the benefits that the slaves experienced from having a higher standard of living? (They may have been considered little more than livestock, but farmers sometimes take better care of their livestock than of themselves.)
It sounds to me like an attempt to create a permanent sense of entitlement that only holds back the people it claims to benefit. If blacks obsess over slavery, it will distract their energies from striving to get ahead like everyone else. If they really want equality, it seems to me they would be better served by not supporting attempts to give them things that other people have to work for.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Rimfrel only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Rimfrel is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You can see an extended clip of Liu's comments on reparations at the link below, along with the question and a comment from another panelist which established the full context:
Today WE ARE ALL SLAVES!!! We have to work for FREE 4 to 5 months out of every year to pay taxes. Then we have to work to survive with whatever is left anfter the Government plunders us. After all that hard work, we get NOTHING back, thus every tax payer is a modern day slave. Where is the 'WE THE PEOPLE' reparations.
Â
The best reparation for every citizen regardless of ancestry, ethnicity, age, etc... is to eliminate the IRS, the biggest enslaver today.
I agree. There have been slaves long before the United States came to be. After thousands of years of slavery in one form or another something called the Constitution came along. With the Constitution came the idea of individual freedom. Under the Constitution slavery was abolished. Ancestors of slaves should be grateful that America was founded and set the stage for slavery to be abolished around the world. The idea of reperations is rediculous.
Penn & Teller did a good episode of Bullsh*t on this subject (the whole thing is on YouTube).
If we, as a society, have benefited, that would mean that black people have benefited in some way too. Does that mean black people (even if they aren't mixed) owe themselves reparations. What about the free blacks that owned slaves? How do we determine who owes reparations to whom?
While we are demanding that people pay up for past injustices, should be expand it to other groups. That would only be fair, right? What about all the Catholics who were persecuted? What about all the victims of anti-Semitism? What about all the people who have experienced institutional discrimination? If that is the case, then the only people who wouldn't be getting some kind of repatriations would be upper and middle class WASPs.Â
I can't wait for my check to arrive. I wonder what I'll get for being half Scotch-Irish and half Hungarian Catholic? Maybe while I'm at it, I should demand payment from the British Crown as well as the Austrian government (for the Habsburgs of course).Â
Hey trd... how ya doon? First, thanks for the high quality response ya did in another thread here... under one of my posts. I appreciate that and they were good words. Thanks for not doing personal bashing. And in your post above... again, excellent words. Yes, the slavery has certainly not ended, as 18 year olds are forced to join (get a job aboard) the imperialism... or starve. OR ELSE! That's felony extortion. Capitalism is loaded to the gills with "do it or else" and "pay up or else" extortion. Ordering. Ain't it fun? Sick, if you ask me. Maybe take a look at http://www.nolanchart.com/article7566.html and see if you agree with my posts there... about money being un-own-able. If you agree that money can't be owned, then you have no stance on the government asking for SOME of THEIR paper coupons coming back to their rightful owners/printers.
But lets take a look at who/what you DID blame... the IRS. The IRS collects funds so the government (of the capitalist people) has some power to operate-with, correct? And what does the government do with at least SOME of those earn'n'deserve coupons? Hire civilian capitalist companies to operate government programs, yes? Tally up the amount of capitalist organizations (civilian businesses) that the government needs to contract/hire. Its a ton or two. Even in hiring government workers for in-house use... it takes piles and piles of AmWay (American Way) coupons... because the hirees need papers that are accepted in civilian supply depots (stores). So the government has use for TONS of AmWay coupons (money)... and some even say the "lucrative government contracts" is the way that "the fed" injects money into its earn'n'deserve system... to compensate for population growth.
Now, what is happening with those done-by-civilians government contracts? Inflating? You bet. The capitalism buy-ins that the government needs to use for slaves... to serve its imperialism and do its dirty works... are near-continuously asking for raises. And quite a few of those contracts are no-bid cronyism contracts... so the government WILL pay for continuance of those programs... OR ELSE. In short, the government needs more and more money because... civilian/capitalist sub-contractors are SOAKING the government for their "services". ANY company that has one of the long-running lucrative government contracts... certainly has no right to complain about taxes, as those tax revenues are keeping that company afloat and corn-fed-pig-grade happy. So really, your blame of the IRS is likely short-sighted. Maybe you should at least INCLUDE civilian companies with government contracts in your blame targets.
But really now, if you want to blame the (in my opinion) CORRECT thing, blame the use of economies and ownership. (From this point forward, I'm going to include ownership as a given in using economies). Are we not REALLY... slaves to using economies? Isn't inflation (growth) a natural condition in economies (and cancerous tumors)? Haven't we seen price tags easing up in numbers... since the very founding of the new world order (USA)? Hell, I should have invested in price tag ink and stickers LONG AGO... I'd be well-indoctrinated to chasing greenpapers by now, if I would have. I might have even self-lied and believed that money was ownable, and labeled a bunch of things as MY this and MY that. My kids, my spouse, my doctor, my lawyer, my divorce, my car, my lunchbreak, my cigarette, my coffee, my life... all those "my" could be replaced with "a" or "the"... but... we're addicted to owning, or at least MANY are. Now go look at the USA military members. Know what? They use TONS less "my" because most of the materials that they "custodian"... are actually owned by the people of the USA. And if you take it a step farther, ALL non-living things are owned by the Earth creators... as they are ALL made from the materials of the Earth. Not a single "for sale" sign or entitle of ownership existed before mankind invented that systemic self-lie.
trd, others, I'd like to see your take on this. I know its far-left... but again, not a single other living creature on the entire planet... uses economies. They are a man-made-up thing, and as best i can tell, economies are a herd control system and lets powerful people have servants (such as waiters and waitresses). May I take your "order"? Then they must (ful)fill your ORDER... or else they are fired or terminated. Nice terms, eh? Yeah, those who were not born set-for-life or with powerful cronies or names... are certainly slaves... and to what? All sorts of things. But mostly, we're slaves to money and ownership... or... slaves to using economies when no other living creatures do such things. I wonder if anyone is watching? I bet the miracle-making "entity" that invented skin and eyeballs and raccoon stomachs and bird ears... is watching us. Maybe someday we'll all quit fighting over materials owned by the Earth creators. Some of us have, already... and have decided not to join the competer's church or play tug-o-war. Thoughts? Anyone? (No personal bashing, please.)
Larry "Wingnut" Wendlandt MaStars - Mothers Against Stuff That Ain't Right (anti-capitalism-ists) Bessemer MI USA
Wingnut -- interesting post. I agree that we are in some sense slaves to the things we consider our possessions, but only to the extent we choose to be. We make some investment of time and energy in acquiring an item (e.g. car, house, turkey sandwich) and for some reason that seems justified at the time. We choose it. We can choose to walk away from it, also, though that is irresponsible if we have borrowed money to fund it.
I disagree with trd in considering the IRS the "enslaver". The IRS is the enforcement arm of the government. The IRS ignores you if you don't make a significant amount of money (enough to pay taxes). I think we choose to work to achieve higher pay because the effective earnings (after taxes and expenses) seem worth it in terms of what we can exchange the money for. We may have no interest in raising our own food so we trade money for it at a grocery store. The storeowner traded money to the farmer for the produce, and the farmer gives it to a bank or something and the money continues to circulate. Money isn't owned per se but is a marker of some amount of buying capability.
The economy is just the system by which people interact to move resources around in order to optimize the tradeoffs between effort and gathering of necessary resources. If tomatoes get too expensive, then maybe I buy potting soil and seeds and cut down a gallon plastic milk jug to create an instant garden. (Probably not large enough.)
But I think the natural world has economies as well. A hungry deer chooses between walking farther in search of more grazing or staying put to conserve energy. Wolves hunt for the pack, and bring food back, so there is a tradeoff for a wolf between cub-sitting and hunting. A lone wolf chooses to hunt for himself rather than be ruled by the alpha male. He trades his time and energy for what is more important to him. There is no "money" that the wolves trade around but there are tradeoffs that they evaluate. The lone wolf gives up time sleeping and spends it hunting. Is that so very different from a person giving up time sleeping to work and get money to buy food?
Hi Rimfrel... thanks for the kind, intelligent, and classy response. I figured you'd be a bit grumpy with us (me) for railroading your intended subject matter way off-kilter. Thanks for being willing to wander-off on this tangent with me/us. Rimfrel... do you have the admin power here... to branch-off a new article? If so, maybe you could start a new article called something like "What IS an economy? What IS ownership?"... and that way we could hammer on that subject without trouncing on your current subject? Feel free to copy/move any posts of mine... from here to there, too, if you have such powers. All in all, its very kind of you to wander off-topic with me/us, and you seem worthy of fine debate, scrutinizing, and weighing. i hope we get to do lots more of it.
To TRY to wander back onto subject and yet honor the branching, and although I have no right to speak for trd, I think maybe we were both trying to say that there is no reason for unfairness reparations when the attrocity of slavery/unfairness/inequality... is still flagrantly happening. I agree that its very difficult to even FIND the right people to make the reparations-TO, even if someone DID think it was the right thing to do. The truth likely is that all men are NOT created equal... and, under capitalism or similar pyramid structures... the ones on the bottom have tons of weight on their backs. The truth MIGHT BE that people are born with the bank account, good/bad name, cronies, and opportunities... of their parents' position on the socio-economic pyramid (amount of wellbeing). Some... are born set for life, and the "get a job OR ELSE" felony doesn't affect them at all. They don't even know what a "job" is, and their day mostly consists of where they will shop and eat-out today... and tomorrow... and forever. Old gold. Golden bloodlines. These children of the rich... fall out of the womb as multi-millionaires... while... according to the W.H.O.... about 20000 kids under five die per day worldwide... due to lack of basic survival supplies. Do we ever see deer born into heaven-on-earth like that? No, because deer can't squat thousands of acres of land in the 1800's at 2-cents per-acre and thus cause "banking" of such hoard or old gold. Deer don't do ownership or mymymy's... and likely the only banking they do is snowbanking. Deer also don't blockade survival supplies from others, and require that the "acquisitioner" only use one type of coupon to satisfy that price tag. A deer would instantly ignore a 25 cent price tag on an acorn its about to eat... and could care less if someone wrote their name on the piece of land where the acorn lies. God's creatures, by their nature, don't use economies/ownership. They DO, though, have self-interest as ONE OF THEIR driving forces... and so do humans. I think its called hunger and comfort. Some say its a right. Some say it must be earned'n'deserved. Is unfairness involved? Should there be more than one type of earn'n'deserve system, and thus more than one type of pricetag and dollar? Do folks figure that, no matter what, SOMEONE is ALWAYS going to be "taking it up the butt" so why bother with reparations and/or compensations?Â
Or maybe... is the CALL-FOR reparations really just a giant reminder and lesson to be learned... to try to get us all to stop doing unfairnesses... and thus stop NEEDING to consider reparations? We ALL see the rich in their Learjets and yachts and fancy houses... while some of us BARELY have our heads above water, and SOME are just plain dying from lack of basic survival needs. When we hear a calling for reparations, are we really hearing a calling for "hey, cut it out with the decadence and inequality crap, eh?".
So maybe there's no way to do reparations for the people on the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid-o-children... especially long-ago-dead ones. Maybe the best reparations... is to just STOP DOING PYRAMIDING (rat-racing/inequality systems) (earn'n'deserve systems) (pay/join OR STARVE systems).Â
Reparations is definitely an interesting subject... and it just might be a call for help from groups of barely-alive folk. Or, it may be Learjet and yacht and fancy house drooling by yet another group of enjoyment and luxury seekers. Or is that all of us? But I doubt that the 20000 children per day who die from lack of survival goods... really care about yachts and jets. In fact, they probably couldn't call for anything. They don't need reparations, they just need a system to be plain old repaired... or leveled. I say leveled. Equality is good, even for those who choose not to use economies and ownership. By the way, police guns are the enforcers for the gov, not the IRS. :)
I think I managed to get back on subject a LITTLE bit, anyway. :) Thoughts and comments still welcome on the branch, though. I, personally, will try not to wander off too far here anymore. Start that other thread/article if you can, Rimfrel. There's TONS of crap we could talk about on the "is economy necessary" branchline. We could ponder WHAT IS (HUMAN) NATURE and WHAT IS LEARNED BEHAVIOR. That tends to be where discussions of economies and labor motivations and tendencies... often wander-into. I've been calling for the end of economies for about 15 years now... been down the "commune" trail often... and I still believe communes are the correct way, but they require SOME losses of freedoms... especially the freedom to gouge/profit. The subject here is reparations and how to deal with such callings. (I had to remind myself again, as you can tell.) :)
Wingy -- I have no admin powers, but feel free to create an article. If you are not already a columnist at this site, it costs nothing to become one. There is a "Be A Columnist" link at the top of the page next to "Home".
I think reparations are more about revenge than repairing the relationship between the disadvantaged and the advantaged. Such a concept works best if applied immediately, e.g. if one kid steals and eats a piece of candy in another kid's lunch, and an adult takes something from the thief's lunch (a cookie) and gives it to the other kid. It might not be a trade the victim would have made willingly, and it's more about punishing the thief than repairing their relationship. The victim just feels better that his property rights are defended on his behalf.
People interested in reparations aren't going to move on and feel forgiving just because they got some resources turned over to them. They are exploiting weakness, e.g. feelings of guilt, to get an advantage. Don't think wild animals don't also take advantage of each other. Their currency is their energy and their lives. Animals fight over mates, but also over water and food when times are bad. And some animals are born in areas where there is plenty to eat, while others are born where food is scarce. Either one will defend the territory they have, and most (as far as I know) don't go looking for better territories with more food as long as they get enough where they are.
If a wolf pack chases off some lone wolf from an area where there are lots of deer, the descendants of the lone wolf (if any) are not going to get any reparations. On the other hand, if the area isn't adequately defended by the fat lazy descendants of the original pack, the loner's offspring will re-take it.
People's lives and economies are more complicated because people's minds are capable of grasping subtler nuances. I'm not saying people have more worth -- that's a different topic. But people are better at imagining the future, and trading on that future. A hungry deer or wolf is thinking about today's meal, not what his grandchildren are going to eat.
Reparations serve no purpose, but exercise the capability of the human mind for subtlety. They feed the illusion that we can buy our way out of guilt. I don't feel guilt for what my own grandparents did, much less what someone else's grandparents did. Liu's discussion of reparations in terms of someone giving up something so someone else can have it is of a piece with candidate Obama's allegation to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to see that all the people behind Joe had the same chance for success. It is also consistent with FCC official Mark Lloyd's remarks that someone was going to have to step down so others could have a shot.
Reparations are just another pseudo-justification for redistributing wealth. It takes the fruit of someone's work and gives it away for political reasons. It is intrinsically unfair. And the implementation cannot be made fair, since the people who committed the non-crime of slavery are all dead, as are the victims. As someone mentioned, everyone has benefitted from the growth of the US economy, including the descendants of the slaves. So the whole thing is mind-bogglingly complicated, even if we were all interested in giving up part or all of our resources to benefit the alleged sufferers. And most of us would just like to move on.
