Reparations


clbent04
 Share

Recommended Posts

How have reparations shaped the current status of Native Americans and reservations in America?

Should the prevalence of depression, diabetes, alcoholism and drug abuse on Indian reservations be considered an example of why reparations don't always solve a better path going forward?

Is it racist to only give select ethnic groups college scholarships?

Should we be giving more reparations to the Black and Latino communities?

Edited by clbent04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

”Reparations“ is a way to attempt making amends by giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury.

Repatriate” is to send someone back where they came from.

Ah yes, reparations would be what I was going for. Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reparations should only be for those who were living through the circumstance, not 4 generations or more afterwards who never ever faced, nor do they know what it was like to live in the conditions that are being discussed for reparations. For example, I believe reparations were given to the Japanese in Hawaii for the treatment they received. That is understandable. They were there. They were living through it. They lost things of value, monetary value. The young adult today talking about reparations for slavery is silly and uneducated. Just as it would be silly for a Japanese offspring trying to seek reparations for the Japanese treatment in Hawaii -- who didn't live through it -- didn't lose anything -- and today enjoys the freedoms America offers.

Is it racist to only give select ethnic groups college scholarships?

Yes and no. A citizen has every right to give to any scholarship and set the scholarship conditions. There is a popular scholarship site where you have Scandinavians giving scholarships only to individuals with a Scandinavian heritage. Is this right? Yes. You have scholarships that are only for Black, Latino, Irish, etc... students. I don't see anything wrong with someone handing money over to a private organization. This helps people.

The gray area is our government. If the government identifies one group -- pertaining to race -- over another race in the same social economic status it should have a solid reason for it. Otherwise, it is indeed a racist, which it shouldn't be. I don't think it is wrong either if the government is looking to assist a particular nation/race in school studies in America, as long as it has a solid and good reason.

Should we be giving more reparations to the Black and Latino communities?

No. Should we give reparations to the Asian communities due to the treatment many of them received in the early years of the United States? No.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Reparations should only be for those who were living through the circumstance, not 4 generations or more afterwards who never ever faced, nor do they know what it was like to live in the conditions that are being discussed for reparations. For example, I believe reparations were given to the Japanese in Hawaii for the treatment they received. That is understandable. They were there. They were living through it. They lost things of value, monetary value. The young adult today talking about reparations for slavery is silly and uneducated. Just as it would be silly for a Japanese offspring trying to seek reparations for the Japanese treatment in Hawaii -- who didn't live through it -- didn't lose anything -- and today enjoys the freedoms America offers.

I partially disagree. Mostly with your comparison. 1 generation experiencing racial turmoil for 6ish years is vastly different than 350 years of racial injustice on a group of people. The affects of the the racism toward the Japanese during ww2 is likely gone. But the affects of slavery, Jim Crow Laws, and redlining has a much more deep and lasting affect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figure it's important to understand where the other side is coming from.  Here's the best I've heard it put:

"When two runners run a race, and one of them gets a 20 second head start, it doesn't matter how good the second runner is, it is literally impossible for them to catch up.  The majority leading white culture in the US, has a permanent head start on blacks who were given their freedom 89 years after the whites won theirs.  Therefore, there must be some systemwide meaningful resetting of the playing field, otherwise, black culture can never hope to compete, they'll always be behind."

I can understand the appeal of such a notion - especially to folks who believe it's possible to right such wrongs through legislation or leverage or force or revolution or whatever.   But I'm afraid I just can't hang with the notion.  Actually, I think I side with all the blacks who despise the notion.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

"When two runners run a race, and one of them gets a 20 second head start, it doesn't matter how good the second runner is, it is literally impossible for them to catch up.  The majority leading white culture in the US, has a permanent head start on blacks who were given their freedom 89 years after the whites won theirs.  Therefore, there must be some systemwide meaningful resetting of the playing field, otherwise, black culture can never hope to compete, they'll always be behind."

Although I understand the point, the metaphor easily falls short with one question, "What was the length of the race"? If the length of the race were 100 meters, a 20 second head start would be impossible to catch up. If the length of the race were a mile, 20 second could be gradually caught up and the individual could win. As you have to take into account the strength of the runner. If the runner is a short distance runner, and the other is a long distance runner. A long distance runner can easily make up 20 seconds to a short distance runner, especially if the runner doesn't have any stamina. I mean I remember competing against kids who I could easily outrun in a short distance, but would beat me in a mile by a minute and a half. So giving me a 20 second head start would mean nothing to them as they would still beat me by a minute.

Which is what we are seeing today. With all the assistance some races have, they are given a head start today -- the 20 seconds. And with some races they are actually given a 30 second head start over, and yet the one that has to wait 30 seconds are performing better than those with a 20 second head start. Why is that?

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Fether said:

I partially disagree. Mostly with your comparison. 1 generation experiencing racial turmoil for 6ish years is vastly different than 350 years of racial injustice on a group of people. The affects of the the racism toward the Japanese during ww2 is likely gone. But the affects of slavery, Jim Crow Laws, and redlining has a much more deep and lasting affect.

I understand completely, and I wasn't just referring to Japanese (that was just the obvious example of reparations given). In the late 19th century the Chinese Exclusion Act was given. The first racist law regarding immigration. We know also there were Asian slaves in America. Not just one generation. We have records of Asian children being stolen from their homes, brought to America, and sold into slavery.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25118876?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I figure it's important to understand where the other side is coming from.  Here's the best I've heard it put:

"When two runners run a race, and one of them gets a 20 second head start, it doesn't matter how good the second runner is, it is literally impossible for them to catch up.  The majority leading white culture in the US, has a permanent head start on blacks who were given their freedom 89 years after the whites won theirs.  Therefore, there must be some systemwide meaningful resetting of the playing field, otherwise, black culture can never hope to compete, they'll always be behind."

I can understand the appeal of such a notion - especially to folks who believe it's possible to right such wrongs through legislation or leverage or force or revolution or whatever.   But I'm afraid I just can't hang with the notion.  Actually, I think I side with all the blacks who despise the notion.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), one of the "Big 4" accounting firms, took on an initiative several months ago to have a set percentage of black people on its executive leadership team/partner level.  They are either creating new positions or giving the old ones to black professionals and actively looking for qualified black candidates. And not only on a leadership level. They're making big $ investments (rumored around $1 billion) to expand company headcount by specifically recruiting blacks and latinos at the staff levels. 

This is probably the most extreme example I've seen in the business world of a CEO trying to amend the wrongs of the world especially when flying in the face of the nature of capitalism which made a company like PwC what it is today. 

Edited by clbent04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. And my company is changing traditional colleges where they recruit, to include some HBC‘s (historically black colleges).  And partnering with a few of them, outfitting some technology labs, that sort of thing.

These steps fall quite short of affirmative action nonsense, which I’m not sure anyone really supports anymore, do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/1/2021 at 4:41 PM, Still_Small_Voice said:

The problem with too many colleges presently is they do not want to teach you how to think, they want to teach you what to think.

My daughter is just about to start what we call "Sixth Form" - which is the last two years of school (what you in America call Junior and Senior years). Our kids specialise a lot earlier than American kids - the usual thing is to focus on just three subjects. My daughter originally chose Maths, Psychology and Biology - which I totally approved of. Then she decided she didn't want to do Maths, but Art and Design. Which was disappointing, but OK. But then she found out she couldn't do Biology and Art and Design together (because of timetabling) so she dropped the Biology and chose Philosophy.

Now ordinarily I'd be delighted. She's always liked philosophy. I used to give her kids' philosophy books for Christmas and birthdays, and I was reading bits of Plato's Republic to her when she was about 11. She loved it. I really hope she gets to learn about the great philosophers. (Well - not all of them - there are too many. But a few - and a DIVERSE few.) I hope they get to contrast their ideas and decide for themselves without the insertion of any "four legs good two legs bad". But I fear though what murky wokisms might actually be fed to young people these days under the name of "Philosophy". I'm going to be keeping a close eye...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2021 at 11:43 PM, clbent04 said:

Should the prevalence of depression, diabetes, alcoholism and drug abuse on Indian reservations be considered an example of why reparations don't always solve a better path going forward?

You didn’t mention the casinos.  

Where would we be without the casinos?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reality I believe I have discovered of life is that everyone is different and has different abilities.  In the Book of Mormon (Moroni Chapter 10) we taught about G-d given spiritual gifts and that everyone has some set of spiritual gifts.  But as a retired engineer I have learned that even when you take any two distinct engineers - there is some difference in their engineering abilities and skills which is very different than their pay.  If you take any 10 engineers there are magnitudes of differences between the best of the 10 and the worse.   I also learned that the difference in pay is seldom related only to their engineering skills.  But strangely the one principle I have learned about the differences between people is that the more you try to enforce that we are all equal and the same by giving someone of any perceived disadvantage, an advantage; the more unjust our efforts will become and it the long run the more likely that our efforts will fail to help the disadvantaged.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share