G*rd*n:
> >It's not a guilt trip if it's simply a payment for an
> >outstanding liability. And if so, it's not _supposed_ to
> >revitalize interracial cooperation for justice, and so on,
> >it's supposed to _pay_off_the_debt_, which is what just,
> >right-thinking folks are supposed to do and want to do.
> >Might as well put it up to all those just, right-thinking
> >folks out there in unequivocal terms.
> >
> >If you want to actually revitalize interracial cooperation
> >for justice and address the current racial problems in a clear
> >way, you'll probably have to become a anarcho-communist and
> >destroy Western civilization. I think libcap has been taken
> >about as far as it can go (hence the present rescissions).
Justin Schwartz:
> Well, if there were simple justice, we'd give America back to the Indians.
> But we're not gonna. Likewise with reparations. One raeson it's a guilt trip
> is that it calls in a debt that cannot really be denied or paid, this side
> of capitalism. It makes people uncomfortable because the debt is quite real.
> But it is divisive in part for this very reason; and because it's too big.
> Oh, I suppose you might hypothetically try to settle it for a pittance, a
> few thousand for every descendent of the slaves. But that would be like
> trying to make good on the theft of Manahttan by giving back the $24 in
> beads. --jks
My understanding is that the Indians who sold Manhattan didn't actually own it. In any case, what they sold were hunting rights. Then they moved far away, perhaps to Miami. Thus New York City real estate practices were established firmly at the beginning with enduring principles. Anyway, we can't give the land back to the Indians because most of the Indian nations were completely exterminated or absorbed. This is not the case with the descendants of the Negro slaves. They are here and they're quite identifiable.
I think people _should_ be uncomfortable about the debt (that is, if they want to continue to have liberalism, capitalism, and the worship of private property). It's a primitive form of consciousness which I would like to see encouraged. Consciousness is good. A computing of the bill could lead to a discussion in which the general public, not just we radicals, contemplate the ways in which net worth and wealth are kept from generation to generation within communities as well as families, and how this makes a difference in people's lives. I mean, where did that six trillion, if that's what it is, go, and what did it do on its way there? Aren't those interesting questions, especially if one wants to find it in order to make payment? Because certainly it would not be justice to tax working-class income for it if the main beneficiaries are people who are now sitting on old money. Even a Limbaugh or Horowitz fan could understand that.
All of the above is a reason to stick to reparations for slavery -- slavery has a definite history, _dramatis_personae_, lines of genealogy, clarity, concreteness, and direct continuity of responsibility with the present in the institutional personhood of the Federal government and the states -- unlike discrimination which has been suffered by all kinds of people (including my Irish and Italian ancestors), was generally perpetrated by unreachable and mostly unidentifiable individuals, and has often been unsupported by State power and even illegal.