April 27, 2023 at 11:16 a.m.
Fundamentals of the reparations debate
As reparations pertain to black Americans in the U.S. today, the basis for it is primarily born of the following historical aspects:
• Slavery
• The Confederacy
• The KKK
• Segregation
• Jim Crow Laws
From the late 1820s forward, according to New York Times best-selling author M. R. Levin, there was essentially one party, one "political institution behind it all." They unsuccessfully fought a civil war to preserve the first two aspects, then assembled and weaponized the next three to compensate for the loss.
At the various points in history in which these features and conditions were common, the adjoining sentiment was blatant, open and obvious, with little or no attempt at coverup, projection or denial. Now, in order to sanitize and absolve themselves, the same party, purportedly rejects such historical sins (as do most people) but then illogically and deceptively projects them onto its philosophical adversaries; and, loudly asserts the virtue of its comparatively new political posture. The threat to validity however, emerges here when comparing the characteristic similarities between the environment of slavery in particular, and that of large black poverty stricken urban enclaves, the conditions of which are the administrative output of the brokers responsible; primarily cities of one-party authority. If the virtue signal is valid, the outcome suggests massive incompetence. If not, it appears it's the product of exploitation, deliberate indifference, corruption and a thirst for power, deceptively sold to the recipients by "feeding the public the same old food" but with a new and artificial flavor. The physical and psychological bondage of chains is exchanged for the shackles of deception, manipulation and promotion of a victim mentality, serving to kindle crime, complacency and to extinguish the will for achievement. Through an often loud and emotional parade of rhetoric, the blame is irrationally thrust upon the political opposition and toward broad, obscure "systemic" societal conditions, as well as the vague and unseen administrative apparatus, to or for which the accusers mysteriously remain somehow, unattached and unaccountable. Those in power assume a purported sympathetic but seemingly phony stance of ready engagement, with a tireless pledge to "make things right," which never truly comes to pass in a "rinse and repeat" civic routine. Sadly, the covert political principle that perpetuates this status quo is, "You can no longer exploit the problem you solve."
Assess for yourselves the trappings of slavery, irrespective of the other aspects on the aforementioned list of racist political weaponry of the 19th & 20th century. Compare those trappings to the inner-city conditions overseen for decades, by the most prevalent one-party political machine extant, in multiple large urban areas of color today. When at first unexamined, the similarities are obscure, subtle or unnoticed. Under just modest audit, they elevate to appalling, alarming and obvious:
1. Poverty and pessimism as a common condition.
2. Lack of sound education, promoting emotion over intellect and division over unity.
3. Broad-based functional illiteracy.
4. Unavoidable reliance upon governing overlords and powerbrokers for subsistence and human service provisions.
5. Geographical & psychological entrapment.
6. Substandard security, danger and conditioned violence.
7. Domestic disruption and fractured family structure.
8. Despair and absence of hope for the future.
The real dynamic here is mass exploitation, primarily by one political party with resident victims frequently sold-out by greedy members of their own kind. This ruling class enrich themselves while granting occasional but hollow pledges of ultimate physical and economic freedom; the new "promised land," while projecting blame for the failures that are the perpetual and inevitable outcome, when in the hands of race-baiting charlatans. How does this political wreckage serve to demonstrate the virtue of any person or party? The default defense of course, is the baneful claim that it's a racist act to point it all out in the first place.
Reparations is a vastly complex concept; essentially, much more simple in theory than practice. While this relatively brief opinion piece is not the venue for full analysis of those complexities, it serves to offer some essentials of the debate. Those in favor of reparations point to the fallout from the ancestral connection to chattel slavery itself, to generic assumptions on individual economic failure and anecdotal evidence of contemporary "systemic racism", coupled with the subtleties of alleged long term "reputational harm" and the pseudo-scientific concept of negative "genetic impact".
The intended source of the massive compensation is considered not especially germane to the conversation and characterized as a virtually irrelevant political diversion.
Those opposed to reparations see the source of funding as highly relevant, complicated and essential to the likelihood of the success or failure of the concept. Even upon elementary assessment, opposition rationale typically includes the questionable wisdom of reparations compensation bestowed upon those who were never enslaved, with the cost imposed upon those who have never been slave owners; many of whose traceable ancestral line has resided outside the U.S. or in a non-slave state their entire lives. Further complicating the matter is determining with at least some precision, who qualifies as a recipient and who does not. How do descendants of former black slaveowners and African slave traders figure into the equation, in contrast to the families of former white abolitionists and descendants of the 360,000 Union soldiers who gave their lives in the Civil War, fighting to destroy the blight of the "original sin"? Some assert that those lost lives serve to satisfy any and all purported debt.
Recently, in the historically non-slave state of California, authorities in the one-party City of San Francisco, have, according to the Associated Press, established an advisory committee promoting "payments of $5 million to every eligible black adult, the elimination of personal debt and tax burdens, guaranteed annual incomes of at least $97,000 for 250 years and homes in San Francisco [converted from public housing to condos] for just $1 [per] family." Also proposed for compensation are black residents who had been arrested in connection with the "War on Drugs" as well as all their descendants. These components of the project are in conjunction with a myriad of other more peripheral compensatory measures. A 2022 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center indicates that 68% of U.S. respondents oppose reparations, while 80% of black respondents are in favor. Notably, this was before any substantive effort was made to estimate the massive price tag in the Golden Gate city alone.
It is estimated by the Hoover Institution that the San Francisco project would cost the taxpayers a minimum of $600,000 per non-recipient household. The specific means of the funding goes undetermined; and, committee members assert that determining the source is "not [their] job". Their stated and singular goal is to figure out "what should be done", not (the more difficult task) how to pay for it all. Apparently, that too falls upon the nebulous "those who should pay."
Likely not constitutionally sound, financially achievable or reasonably sustainable, the matter is presently unresolved. It is most certain to be exploited for purposes of virtue signaling and a political exchange strategy for future votes, minority and otherwise.
As for those who are determined proponents of reparations based upon the destructive effects of slavery, the Confederacy, the KKK, segregation and Jim Crow laws merging with decades of black urban blight in major one-party cities, perhaps they should look no farther for compensation than the primary one-party "political institution behind it all" for nearly the past 200 years. If sins of the distant past are compensable and present harm potentially stipendiary, why would these well funded historical masters of subjugation, slavery and inner city decay not bear the entire cost for having inflicted such prolonged destruction, similarly crafted past and present, according to their own immoral design? Going unresolved, the presumptive and logical question may well be better than the ultimate political answer.
Bud Corbett
Rhinelander
Comments:
You must login to comment.