[ta12121]

If the US government wants to atone for its immoral actions in the past it should pay reparations not institute a system of race based discrimination.

If, on the other hand, the US government wants to help disadvantaged people gain a level economic footing with the rest of the population they should use a much better predictor of disadvantage than skin color.

[giardini]

Well, in that case, we should start first with the American Indians. First off, we'll give reparations for all those who never saw a white man but died of smallpox - I think giving them back California, New York, Florida, Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, and New Hampshire might start to make up for that.

Then we could get to the indians who actually _met_ someone of European descent and were harmed as a result.

By the time we're finished with the indians we can give what's left to other less disadvantaged groups.

[saraid216]

> If the US government wants to atone for its immoral actions in the past it should pay reparations not institute a system of race based discrimination.

How much money do you think a few generations' of slavery is worth?

> If, on the other hand, the US government wants to help disadvantaged people gain a level economic footing with the rest of the population they should use a much better predictor of disadvantage than skin color.

Would you like to suggest one?

[ta12121]

    How much money do you think a few generations' of slavery is worth?

I don't know. How many years of race based discrimination is it worth?

    Would you like to suggest one?

As many others in this thread have suggested: actual economic disadvantages, such as poverty, single parent household, etc...

[rayiner]

So my grandfather on my mom's side was a doctor and a lawyer. My mom's siblings include a couple of doctors, a military officer, a business executive, etc. My mom was herself a journalist, and of her sons I'm a lawyer and my brother is a banker. This is not a coincidence. Privilege is passed down from generation to generation, not just in money, but in social status, connections, values, culture, insight, motivation, outlook, etc.

At the time my grandfather was getting his medical degree and building his law library (in the 1930's and 1940's--he had my mom at a late age), blacks in this country were systematically oppressed. They were prevented from voting, they were prevented from going to school, they were prevented from holding anything more than menial jobs. At the time my grandfather was building a social inheritance to pass down to his children and grandchildren and great grandchildren, blacks were being attacked with firehoses by the government for daring to fight for the barest of equal rights.

My grandfather has been dead for more than 20 years, but his legacy is going to reach out to at least another generation. When my little girl asks why she should do her homework, I will tell her about her great grandfather, her grand uncles and aunts, and how she should study hard so she can be a doctor like them. So too does the legacy of institutional discrimination reach out over the generations.

A poor white person and a poor black person (assuming they can trace their history back to the slaves) are not in the same boat. One is in his plight because of the vagracies of the economy, the luck of the draw, etc. For the other, at least part of his socioeconomic situation, some identifiable component, can be traced back to the systematic discrimination and oppression suffered by his ancestors at the hands of the still-extant state and federal governments.

So no, just basing efforts on socioeconomics generally is not enough. It's not the same.

[grannyg00se]

So you paint this great picture about the history of an affluent white family with success built upon previous generations' success.

But then you talk about a poor white person and compare him to a poor black person saying they're not in the same boat. What does this poor white person have to do with your successful white family? That whole story is not relevant to this person as an individual.

We can see that on a historic scale the entire group of people that can trace back to slavery was more hard done by than others. But that means nothing to this poor white person. In fact, he may have suffered oppression by government in some other form. He may have just shown up during slavery fleeing a war-torn country, or political or religious imprisonment. Or this government may have falsely imprisoned his grandfather years ago. On a large scale it's nothing like the systemic oppression of slavery, but the point is, he doesn't feel responsible for any of the other guy's issues.

It is well known that the government in the past was in the wrong. But when it comes down to individuals, it's going to be difficult for someone to accept that a guy living next door scraping by on food stamps gets a boon from the government every month, and they don't, simply because they are white. I see your point, that the white person's problems are less attributable to the government than the black person's. But I don't think that this is the way to stamp out racism or even make people feel any better about the past. I think this is the wrong way to go about fixing things.

I think it would be better to make a big deal about government racism and punish it going forward in a very serious way. I think people will appreciate ongoing work to punish current and future offenders much more than a handout for wrongs past.

Also, helping those who are economically challenged based on their economic situation makes more sense than trying to correctly and accurately attribute their economic situation to their race and offenses from decades past. The government is going to end up helping some poor white people in this case along with helping some poor black people. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Unfortunately, in this scenario some black people aren't going to be helped. In fact, even some black people who can directly trace their history back to slaves aren't going to get help because they aren't sufficiently poor today. That's not ideal, but hopefully they would appreciate that going forward, racism is being discouraged and at least some attempts are being made to assist the less fortunate.

Obviously there is no silver bullet here, and there will never be complete agreement on how to deal with this. But I absolutely do not think that continuing to make decisions and policy based on race is the way to show that racism is not okay. It's a completely toxic way of thinking that needs to be eliminated - especially from government.

[rayiner]

> But then you talk about a poor white person and compare him to a poor black person saying they're not in the same boat. What does this poor white person have to do with your successful white family? That whole story is not relevant to this person as an individual.

My point is that, but for the actions of our society in the 1930's an 1940's, there would be many more black Americans who could tell the same story as me. But systematic denial of privilege is passed down from generation to generation just as privilege is passed down from generation to generation, and that denial is the inheritance of every black American who can trace his ancestry back to those times.

Your attempt to create equivalencies between poor blacks and poor whites misses one crucial fact: our government did not systematically oppress and deny opportunity to the ancestors of poor whites. If the government burns down my house, then my neighborhood suffers flooding because of a hurricane, I am not made whole by the government addressing the flood damage. I am not satisfied with the government's attempts to "forget the past" and treat my case as no more important than that of every other person affected by the flooding. That makes no sense.

[saraid216]

> I don't know.

Oh, come on. Think a little. Let's say your entire family was enslaved and made to work on a plantation for a few generations. How much money would you want for that? Why offer the alternative if you can't come up with a number?

[ams6110]

Because there is no number. The premise is flawed. This is just such a nonproductive outlook to have. How far back do any of us have to go before we find our ancestors living in tyranny or serfdom or slavery. For many of us, not too many generations I bet. What does it have to do with our lives, today? If you go looking for a reason to be a victim, to find justifications for your problems, you'll never get past them.

Let's say I discovered that my great great grandfather was a slave. Let's say I somehow got paid $250,000 for that. What could I do with that money? If I'm careful, I could live on it for four or five years, maybe a few more, likely a lot less, then it's gone, and where am I? Right where I was to begin with.

[eiwrwoeriu]

>> How far back do any of us have to go before we find our ancestors living in tyranny or serfdom or slavery.

Nice way of trying to distract from the main issue. We are talking about a very specific case. Blacks right now are still suffering from systematic oppression against them for hundreds of year. To ignore that and pretend that it is no big deal because it has happened before doesn't mean that we should not try to fix the problem. Frankly is disgusting the way you are dismissive of the current state of black people which is a direct consequence of hundreds of years of oppression which was not even that long ago.

>>Because there is no number

Sure there is, to claim otherwise is moronic. People are simply unwilling to pay. Affirmative action is a small price and still prcks like you think it is too much. Racist prck.

[rayiner]

The "how for do we have to go back" false equivalency is utterly ridiculous. We're not talking about the oppression of the Britons by the Romans here. We're talking about systematic oppression and viscious discrimination that was committed by the still-existing state and federal governments within the lifetime of people still living. Rosa Parks died in 2005. George H. W. Bush, who is still alive and kicking, is about 5 years older than MLK would have been today. Many TV shows I watched on Nick-at-Nite growing up (Dyk Van Dyke, Get Smart) were contemporaneous with violent school desegregation. The young people that were the subject of the showdown at the University of Alabama between the National Guard and Governor Wallace were just 7 years older than my dad.

[saraid216]

> The premise is flawed.

That was my point, yes.

> then it's gone, and where am I? Right where I was to begin with.

Much better to, say, send you to college and make sure you get employed so that it's easier for you to maintain a life of your own choosing, isn't it?

[rmc]

they should use a much better predictor of disadvantage than skin color

What would you suggest? All methods of trying to measure "disadvantage-ness" will be flawed (including race/ethnicity ones). I mentioned this in this comment http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4758649

[ta12121]

Yes, they will all be flawed, but not all of them will be as flawed as skin color. Just because something is hard, doesn't mean it's OK to do something easy and bad.

[rmc]

What makes you think skin colour is the worst possible method? Surely flipping a coin is much worse? Or requiring that applications are written in joined-up-writing/cursive?

There are plenty of worse methods.

[ta12121]

I never said it was the worst. I just said there are others that are better. Please.