The Case for Reparations

[dsheinem]

I spent an hour or so tonight reading this really fascinating, well-written essay in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... ns/361631/

The article is making some waves online, and I figured it might be interesting to discuss here in the off-topic section.

It is a long read, so set aside some time if you are interested in chiming in. Don't become one of those cases of posting a reaction to the title or a snippet without giving it its full due (e.g. "How To Tell Who Hasn't Read The New 'Atlantic' Cover Story").

My take is that Coates very smartly re-frames the reparations discussion as one that is much more about 20th and 21st Century institutional, fiscal, and legal policies that formally and informally discriminated against blacks than one directly/only about slavery (although he explains the relationship of the present to that past very well also). He also offers some proposals, solutions, and analogies that really piqued my interest and have me thinking about feasible ways of improving some of the worst aspects of our country's present condition. It reminds me a lot of some of the late great Howard Zinn's best work, which everyone should read at some point.

In any case, I am curious if some of you have read it and, if so, what you think.

[TSTR]

I am not confident in my ability to discuss this (so I won't), but I wanted to say thank you for posting it. I don't know if I would have come across this essay otherwise.

[Jmustang1968]

It's a trap!

[Erik_Twice]

That was a very well-written article but I'm not sure it's an argument in favour or against reparations, only a very small portion of the article focuses on it compared to the longer and more interesting historical analysis which I fairly liked.

So I don't quite know what to say

[prfsnl_gmr]

The article does a fine job outlining the history of injustices perpetrated aginst African-Americans. To the extent the author argues that we should consider the effects of these injustices when crafting anti-poverty measures, I think he is correct. He does not, however, make a convincing argument as to why current anti-poverty measures should be based on race, and I do not think that was his intent.

For further reading, I suggest this series of articles that appeared on Slate a few months ago. I found them fascinating and well-reasoned.

[dsheinem]

He does not, however, make a convincing argument as to why current anti-poverty measures should be based on race, and I do not think that was his intent.

I don't know. I think his discussion about the difference between white/black poverty and his critique of the impulse of most contemporary politicians (liberals and conservatives alike) to discuss poverty and its potential cures in ways that deliberately ignore race was pretty damning. I think you are right in that he deliberately stops short of calling for specific forms of payment to specific people, but he does advocate for HR40's passage to investigate the issue and determine what kinds of actions might make sense. I think race-based anti-poverty initiatives have the added impact of directly, formally addressing the history he so meticulously lays out. This is why he uses the German example, I believe.

On a related note, I read a Slate article this morning that was in response to Coatesand talked about the practicalities of payment, various options that might be available, etc. I will try to check out those others Slate pieces you linked to at some point as well.

I also read this interesting follow up that discussed slavery/racism depictions in pop culture and thought it was really compelling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act- ... parations/

[prfsnl_gmr]

He does not, however, make a convincing argument as to why current anti-poverty measures should be based on race, and I do not think that was his intent.

I don't know. I think his discussion about the difference between white/black poverty and his critique of the impulse of most contemporary politicians (liberals and conservatives alike) to discuss poverty and its potential cures in ways that deliberately ignore race was pretty damning.

Personally, I think that "white" povery and "black" poverty are becoming increasingly similar, and - sadly - all forms of poverty in this country are becoming more like "black" povery. (The barriers to socio-economic mobility are becoming more rigid for the poorest members of society; it is increasing difficult for the poorest members of society to obtain higher education or generate wealth; etc.) The policies necessary to reverse these trends implicate race only to the extent that they will impact a larger percentage of the African-American population.

[dsheinem]

Personally, I think that "white" povery and "black" poverty are becoming increasingly similar, and - sadly - all forms of poverty in this country are becoming more like "black" povery. (The barriers to socio-economic mobility are becoming more rigid for the poorest members of society; it is increasing difficult for the poorest members of society to obtain higher education or generate wealth; etc.) The policies necessary to reverse these trends implicate race only to the extent that they will impact a larger percentage of the African-American population.

But Coates suggests statistics don't bear this out, right? For example this bit:

The lives of black Americans are better than they were half a century ago. The humiliation of Whites Only signs are gone. Rates of black poverty have decreased. Black teen-pregnancy rates are at record lows—and the gap between black and white teen-pregnancy rates has shrunk significantly. But such progress rests on a shaky foundation, and fault lines are everywhere. The income gap between black and white households is roughly the same today as it was in 1970. Patrick Sharkey, a sociologist at New York University, studied children born from 1955 through 1970 and found that 4 percent of whites and 62 percent of blacks across America had been raised in poor neighborhoods. A generation later, the same study showed, virtually nothing had changed. And whereas whites born into affluent neighborhoods tended to remain in affluent neighborhoods, blacks tended to fall out of them.

This is not surprising. Black families, regardless of income, are significantly less wealthy than white families. The Pew Research Center estimates that white households are worth roughly 20 times as much as black households, and that whereas only 15 percent of whites have zero or negative wealth, more than a third of blacks do. Effectively, the black family in America is working without a safety net. When financial calamity strikes—a medical emergency, divorce, job loss—the fall is precipitous.

And just as black families of all incomes remain handicapped by a lack of wealth, so too do they remain handicapped by their restricted choice of neighborhood. Black people with upper-middle-class incomes do not generally live in upper-middle-class neighborhoods. Sharkey’s research shows that black families making $100,000 typically live in the kinds of neighborhoods inhabited by white families making $30,000. “Blacks and whites inhabit such different neighborhoods,” Sharkey writes, “that it is not possible to compare the economic outcomes of black and white children.”

^ that suggests that while maybe poverty is bad for everyone, it is statistically worse for blacks due to historical, institutionalized racism. It is harder for blacks to escape than whites in large part because of how black people and/or black communities have been systematically preyed upon for ~400 years.

[Jmustang1968]

Personally, I think that "white" povery and "black" poverty are becoming increasingly similar, and - sadly - all forms of poverty in this country are becoming more like "black" povery. (The barriers to socio-economic mobility are becoming more rigid for the poorest members of society; it is increasing difficult for the poorest members of society to obtain higher education or generate wealth; etc.) The policies necessary to reverse these trends implicate race only to the extent that they will impact a larger percentage of the African-American population.

But Coates suggests statistics don't bear this out, right? For example this bit:

The lives of black Americans are better than they were half a century ago. The humiliation of Whites Only signs are gone. Rates of black poverty have decreased. Black teen-pregnancy rates are at record lows—and the gap between black and white teen-pregnancy rates has shrunk significantly. But such progress rests on a shaky foundation, and fault lines are everywhere. The income gap between black and white households is roughly the same today as it was in 1970. Patrick Sharkey, a sociologist at New York University, studied children born from 1955 through 1970 and found that 4 percent of whites and 62 percent of blacks across America had been raised in poor neighborhoods. A generation later, the same study showed, virtually nothing had changed. And whereas whites born into affluent neighborhoods tended to remain in affluent neighborhoods, blacks tended to fall out of them.

This is not surprising. Black families, regardless of income, are significantly less wealthy than white families. The Pew Research Center estimates that white households are worth roughly 20 times as much as black households, and that whereas only 15 percent of whites have zero or negative wealth, more than a third of blacks do. Effectively, the black family in America is working without a safety net. When financial calamity strikes—a medical emergency, divorce, job loss—the fall is precipitous.

And just as black families of all incomes remain handicapped by a lack of wealth, so too do they remain handicapped by their restricted choice of neighborhood. Black people with upper-middle-class incomes do not generally live in upper-middle-class neighborhoods. Sharkey’s research shows that black families making $100,000 typically live in the kinds of neighborhoods inhabited by white families making $30,000. “Blacks and whites inhabit such different neighborhoods,” Sharkey writes, “that it is not possible to compare the economic outcomes of black and white children.”

^ that suggests that while maybe poverty is bad for everyone, it is statistically worse for blacks due to historical, institutionalized racism. It is harder for blacks to escape than whites in large part because of how black people and/or black communities have been systematically preyed upon for ~400 years.

Lots of conclusions are jumped to in those stats and your statements. I also see a lot of correlation and not necessarily causation. Im not saying some institutionalized racism doesnt exist, but some of those correlations seem tenuous, such as the neighborhood/housing.

Blacks are perhaps choosing to live in the less expensive neighborhoods. Why? And why is the automatic and all encompassing answer or reason racism? I think there are so many factors involved and just saying racism is an easy way out or lazy approach.

[prfsnl_gmr]

^ that suggests that while maybe poverty is bad for everyone, it is statistically worse for blacks due to historical, institutionalized racism. It is harder for blacks to escape than whites in large part because of how black people and/or black communities have been systematically preyed upon for ~400 years.

He fails to make a convincing causal connection between historic discrimination against African-Americans and current statistics regarding poverty in the African-American community. Basically, his argument proceeds:

.....

1. Historically, there has been tremendous discrimination against African-Americans, and some of this discrimination persists today.
2. African-Americans are currently more likely to live in poverty.
3. Accordingly, historical discrimination against African Americans causes more African-Americans to live in poverty today.

.....

The third statement does not necessarily follow from the first two, however, and the author failes to connect how historical discrimination against African Americans causes a large percentage of them to live in poverty today. To be certain, there may be such a connection, and I think that the author advocates - and I would certainly support - studies investigating it since an understanding of any connection might inform current policy decisions.

Regardless, the existence of any connection between historical discrimination and current poverty still does not imply that anti-poverty measures based on race would be more effective than generally applicable policies. They may be; they may not be; but effectively advocating for them would also require the author to demonstrate how anti-poverty measures based on race would benefit African-Americans more than generally applicable anti-poverty measures. The author does not attempt this demonstration, and I do not think it was his intent to do so since the only specific policy decision he actually supports is a study investigating the connection between historical discrimination and current poverty.

Personally, I think that the title, "The Case for Reparations", is a bit misleading since I don't think the author actually advocates for them. (I suspect the title was an editorial decision meant to draw attention to a well-written article. "The Case for Studying the Connections Between Historical Discrimination and How Such a Study Might Impact Current Policy Decisions" does not have the same ring to it. )