Blood Guilt/Debt

[Dimmesdale]

Here's the deal with blood guilt/debt. If it's real it cuts both ways.

If whites are morally indebted to blacks because of the gains had by their hard labor, then the current standard of living which blacks enjoy is also due to the scientific and political contributions of Europeans, who also in their own way sacrificed blood, sweat and tears for their genius, the culture that nurtured them being likewise indispensable to the point they arrived at.

Think about it. The United States, as well as the world, would not be in the position it is now without both cultures, and probably a lot more. A question worth raising: is our current society something we desire to live in more than any other? If so, then I think we should be very, very grateful, and overlook our ancestors' wrongs, in turn focusing on the many boons that have given us so great a civilization, and that whether by hook or crook. But maybe we think our civilization isn't so great? Which is a sentiment I too harbor betimes.

[nobspeople]

Here's the deal with blood guilt/debt. If it's real it cuts both ways.

If whites are morally indebted to blacks because of the gains had by their hard labor, then the current standard of living which blacks enjoy is also due to the scientific and political contributions of Europeans, who also in their own way sacrificed blood, sweat and tears for their genius, the culture that nurtured them being likewise indispensable to the point they arrived at.

Think about it. The United States, as well as the world, would not be in the position it is now without both cultures, and probably a lot more. A question worth raising: is our current society something we desire to live in more than any other? If so, then I think we should be very, very grateful, and overlook our ancestors' wrongs, in turn focusing on the many boons that have given us so great a civilization, and that whether by hook or crook. But maybe we think our civilization isn't so great? Which is a sentiment I too harbor betimes.

I'm not morally in debt to anyone - especially when it comes to their race, skin/hair/eye color, gender, gender identity, et al.
It's offensive, to me, to think that way.

When we stop differentiating people simple because of their race, skin/hair/eye color, gender, gender identity, et al, and realize 'good' and 'bad' are attributes of humanity, not only with certain races, we will all be better off. Until then, we will continue to live in a culture that pits 'us vs. them'.

[Mithrae]

If you live in North America and are not Native American then, no matter how you or your family got here, you are living on stolen land.

Unless we plan to give essentially the entire country away, any talk about a historical debt seems hollow.

I do think all the land should be returned. All of it. Every last bit of it. I know it won't be pleasant but I think it would be right.

You don't even have to accept ancestral guilt for this. You're not literally guilty of anything your ancestors did, or punishable for it, but that doesn't mean the land you hold isn't still stolen.

Land might be a bit different from other stuff that can be owned or stolen, I think.
> In contrast to things which are acquired/owned through production, extraction or cultivation, land itself (along with oceans and atmosphere) cannot be earned in any kind of 'sweat of your brow' sense; it's just there, and always has been
> In contrast to almost all other things, land (along with water and air) is absolutely essential for everyone to live, in terms of habitation and food production
> In contrast to various renewable, recyclable, replaceable or inexhaustible resources, land is more or less finite so that one person or group claiming more good land explicitly deprives others

Claiming exclusive, perpetual ownership of land might be a bit like trying to claim ownership of the sun or moon No doubt some people/governments have tried or will try to do even that! But perhaps ideally, land use or land tenure should be merely administered by sovereign bodies, which tends to be the case in modern countries in which 'ownership' of land is still subject to restrictions on use, taxation and potential eminent domain claims.

In that case, violations of treaties or forceful ousting of indigenous sovereign groups might be war crimes etc. themselves, but it wouldn't follow that there's any perpetual right of inheritance for the descendants or nearest relatives of the original 'owners,' since they didn't truly own the land as such. That doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize native title on a case-by-case basis, but I don't think it's as simple as saying that all of this land once 'belonged' to native peoples and was 'stolen' so should all be returned to their heirs. It's a question of which bodies should now have the right to administer use of the land, and under what if any conditions? Arguably a good case could be made for much greater representation of indigenous groups in the land administration aspects of government.

[Purple Knight]

Claiming exclusive, perpetual ownership of land might be a bit like trying to claim ownership of the sun or moon

Perpetual seems a bit extreme, but yes, I own my house, and my yard, and you can't take it from me. If you do, you've violated some pretty basic rights and ideally, that should be made up for. (Sadly I don't actually own my house, since the land was stolen, but I mean, if it hadn't been.)

It's a question of which bodies should now have the right to administer use of the land, and under what if any conditions? Arguably a good case could be made for much greater representation of indigenous groups in the land administration aspects of government.

Well, what would be the result if all the land was returned? They then have the right to oust everyone from their houses but I don't think it would benefit them to do that. They would probably rent the houses to people who currently "own" them and they have every incentive to do that at a price those people can afford. If someone is a vile and open racist, they may oust that person and he ends up living on the street. Good. And essentially you get the result of them governing the land and collecting whatever taxes they feel are reasonable.

If the result is what you want, why would you bother making things more complicated?

It really is simple. Don't steal. If somebody steals, a just government takes it from the thief and returns it. If a day passes or a year passes or three hundred years pass it doesn't change that.

Land exclusionism (the point you bring up about land being limited) is a very serious issue but it's an entirely separate one, and as of now, the world just doesn't recognise that principle, so that's not how the world works for anyone else, and I therefore see no reason to impose that restriction exclusively on Native Americans. If it was how the world worked, and there was a land cap, it would still be pretty simple: Still return all of it and force anybody who goes past the land cap to sell off the excess within a certain grace period.

The only problem is that anyone who has recently sold land is now sitting pretty and anyone who has recently bought land is SOL. Too bad.

[marke]

Here's the deal with blood guilt/debt. If it's real it cuts both ways.

If whites are morally indebted to blacks because of the gains had by their hard labor, then the current standard of living which blacks enjoy is also due to the scientific and political contributions of Europeans, who also in their own way sacrificed blood, sweat and tears for their genius, the culture that nurtured them being likewise indispensable to the point they arrived at.

Think about it. The United States, as well as the world, would not be in the position it is now without both cultures, and probably a lot more. A question worth raising: is our current society something we desire to live in more than any other? If so, then I think we should be very, very grateful, and overlook our ancestors' wrongs, in turn focusing on the many boons that have given us so great a civilization, and that whether by hook or crook. But maybe we think our civilization isn't so great? Which is a sentiment I too harbor betimes.

The modern focus and narratives of the uneducated and the deceivers on slavery is corrupted fact that modern whites and modern blacks were not participants on either side of the ancient slave trade in the US.

[Purple Knight]

One thing I should add to this is from a discussion I had with someone who is on the opposite perspective. And they said something I agree with.

If DEI didn't count, if it did nothing to "pull the knife out" and if it didn't at least put a dent in the reparations white owes to Black, then it was definitely its own injustice.

Let's say Tom steals $10,000 from Ben.

Bob, wearing a sash that says, "I am the government, I alone get to punish!" abducts Tom off the street and beats him within an inch of his life. Tom loses his legs and one of his eyes.

Rightfully, Ben is upset because Ben didn't get his $10,000 back. He wants interest too. In fact, he wants 17% per year, because he was going to invest it in a company that earned that return.

Bob either really had the sole right to punish, or he didn't.

If Bob did have the sole legitimate right to punish, Ben just has to accept the loss. He wasn't made whole but Tom paid for his crime, and it's over.

If Bob did not have the sole right to punish, and Tom still needs to pay his debt to Ben, then Bob needs to be punished himself, because what he did to Tom was itself an original injustice.

DEI had consequences. Some people who worked very hard didn't get the jobs they earned, by the rules of the capitalist system we live in. Some people weren't born because their parents couldn't earn enough money to have that baby, even though they did what they needed to achieve that. If DEI didn't help, if the system that did it is illegitimate, or if it was done for a reason other than justice, then DEI was itself an original injustice.

[Difflugia]

Let's say Tom steals $10,000 from Ben.

Bob, wearing a sash that says, "I am the government, I alone get to punish!" abducts Tom off the street and beats him within an inch of his life. Tom loses his legs and one of his eyes.

Rightfully, Ben is upset because Ben didn't get his $10,000 back. He wants interest too. In fact, he wants 17% per year, because he was going to invest it in a company that earned that return.

Bob either really had the sole right to punish, or he didn't.

If Bob did have the sole legitimate right to punish, Ben just has to accept the loss. He wasn't made whole but Tom paid for his crime, and it's over.

This is literally the difference between criminal and civil laws. By breaking criminal law, Tom is harming society, which is for whom Bob is the advocate and what the punishment addresses. If Ben wants to recover the money or be "made whole" in some other way, he has to sue Tom himself. In practice, these often overlap, but Bob having the sole right to punish doesn't impact Tom's ability to seek restitution.

DEI had consequences. Some people who worked very hard didn't get the jobs they earned, by the rules of the capitalist system we live in.

Yes, and without DEI, that would continue to happen unabated.

Some people weren't born because their parents couldn't earn enough money to have that baby, even though they did what they needed to achieve that.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

If DEI didn't help, if the system that did it is illegitimate, or if it was done for a reason other than justice, then DEI was itself an original injustice.

On what grounds are you questioning whether it helped or was unjust? We've identified classes of people that historically were denied opportunity despite working very hard. They were therefore financially disadvantaged. Since employers will presumably choose the best candidates they can, even if the pool of candidates is artificially narrowed, DEI quotas are a reasonable solution to the problem. On average, employers should still end up with equally-qualified candidates. Since we've already established that class members weren't denied opportunity because they didn't work as hard, then hard-working members of those classes should, again, at least on average, be available to employers. Since the original disparity between opportunity offered to members of different classes is unjust, correcting it, even if the method might be considered arbitrary, can hardly be considered anything other than just.

[Purple Knight]

This is literally the difference between criminal and civil laws. By breaking criminal law, Tom is harming society, which is for whom Bob is the advocate and what the punishment addresses. If Ben wants to recover the money or be "made whole" in some other way, he has to sue Tom himself. In practice, these often overlap, but Bob having the sole right to punish doesn't impact Tom's ability to seek restitution.

Civil law doesn't have a framework for suing people who have died. You might be able to recover property, but you won't be able to get paid because somebody stole from you or harmed you. I don't believe in civil law at all. But fundamental to this question is why reparations should happen specifically within this system.

So yes, I concede that even if the law has punished someone already, their victim may still seek restitution. This is not, however, a principle of right and wrong, but a principle of how our civil law works. It does allow people to double dip. O.J. Simpson got double dipped (when they couldn't convict him in a criminal court, the family of his wife sued him in a civil court, and won) and that wasn't right, IMO.

The main point being, yes, how civil law works is important, even if it's an unfair system. Because it's our system. And it hasn't changed that much since we actually had slavery. However, invoking civil law specifically means that if civil law doesn't let you be made whole after many generations, for the original effect plus the snowball effects thereof, that argument doesn't hold water. If reparations are fair and right, then perhaps the law ought to be changed, but that requires a direct appeal to how morality, debt, and punishment ought to work, not how they do work. (That probably excludes suing people and extracting resources by force when they had no way to know what they were about to do would be punished.)

DEI had consequences. Some people who worked very hard didn't get the jobs they earned, by the rules of the capitalist system we live in.

Yes, and without DEI, that would continue to happen unabated.

Some people weren't born because their parents couldn't earn enough money to have that baby, even though they did what they needed to achieve that.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't agree with this capitalist system. However, it's the system we've had since the beginning. Admittedly it worked better at a smaller scale. According to the rules of that system, you have the right to hire who you want, even if you want the white person because he's white. I think it's an abhorrent system. DEI was not an overhaul of this system. It left the system in place and simply changed who got the job. It took from one - the person who was going to be hired - and gave to another, and this other didn't need to have the same qualifications because the presumption was that he had no opportunity to earn them.

If the most qualified candidate was white, that was a robbery. And in many cases he was. You can say that the other candidates didn't have the same opportunities and you might be right, but instead of providing those opportunities for all and leveling the playing field, the government decided to play Robin Hood.

It was either a robbery or part of a punishment. If the punishment was insufficient, the government has a right to continue it and do more. But if they quit before it's square, and they legitimately had the sole right to punish, we have to accept it the same way we accept that someone might kill our loved ones and get a slap on the wrist. It's horrible, but it's part of living in a society of laws.

I think we can say, "The government ought to do more," and advocate for that, but if they quit, after giving a slight punishment when a great one was deserved, we do have to accept that it's over. You can invoke civil law to do more, to potentially double dip, but then, you are limited by what civil law allows you to ask for.

On what grounds are you questioning whether it helped or was unjust? We've identified classes of people that historically were denied opportunity despite working very hard. They were therefore financially disadvantaged. Since employers will presumably choose the best candidates they can, even if the pool of candidates is artificially narrowed, DEI quotas are a reasonable solution to the problem. On average, employers should still end up with equally-qualified candidates. Since we've already established that class members weren't denied opportunity because they didn't work as hard, then hard-working members of those classes should, again, at least on average, be available to employers. Since the original disparity between opportunity offered to members of different classes is unjust, correcting it, even if the method might be considered arbitrary, can hardly be considered anything other than just.

Grounds that it was unjust:
Correcting disparity in opportunity involves providing opportunities. Putting their finger on the scale only after people paid for an education, robs anyone displaced of:
1) the opportunity to do something else where there is less DEI and train for that instead
2) the job itself, which they deserved if most qualified
3) the effort they spent learning something now useless to them, if they really can't get in
4) the money they spent on that education
5) the years of their life they spent on that education
...and some people were displaced.

Grounds that it didn't help:
This quote by Malcolm X
"If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made."

He wants to be made whole. Anything but that is not progress. Anything but that does not help. I very much agree with him actually. But he's ignoring the compromise made in all other areas of harm, which we make, to live in a society of laws. You do not get your wound healed. If someone was killed, they do not get brought back. Your attacker gets punished, and that's got to be good enough. If it's not, anyone who agrees with him and is Black, is welcome to file a class action lawsuit. And if it fails, they must accept that. The fact that this wrong is very large compared to any other likely to be tried this way, does not negate that this is just how society works: The wound will never be healed, but if the attacker has paid the price, it's over.