White self-hatred.... it's impact on mixed race people and families?

[CorporalCaptain]

If you take out a loan to purchase something and then die without making any repayment on it, can you bequeath it clearly and legally to your children with no obligation on their part?

If you think that the answer to that is or ought to be "Yes, of course," then your position on reparations is logically defensible.

Orherwise, you're wrong.

(Actually, you're just wrong...but in the event you believed nonsense like the above, at least your error concerning reparations for slavery would not be so ridiculous)

The culture that has given you the wealth you enjoy was not in fact founded upon the labor of free people. It was founded upon the labor of free people as well as the theft, by those people, of the life's labors of enslaved people for hundreds of years.

And that is probably the most circumspect and understated way to describe slavery.

This isn't a metaphoric or moral "debt owed" - it's an absolutely real and literal debt. You're the direct beneficiary of stolen wealth, and you're simply doubly fortunate in that your creditors have no means to enforce payment.

Bravo.

Given what he just got done saying about reparations for slavery, what makes you think he would be opposed to reparations for Native Americans as well, though obviously on a federal scale and not in the one person directly repaying another manner you proposed to try and make the whole idea seem ludicrous?

Now, he might not feel the same about Native American reparations as he does about slavery reparations; I don't know, and I can't speak on his behalf. But the way you said it is as if you think that would be some kind of dealbreaker for him that would make him have to reconsider his whole argument, when the two positions on reparations seem perfectly compatible with each other.

How did you feel about the US government paying reparations to Japanese-Americans held in internment camps during WW2? That didn't start paying out until 1990, 45 years after the war ended.

And before you say that's different because they were actual survivors of the internment themselves, bear in mind that were not actually that far removed from slavery: the last known surviving former slave who was old enough to remember details about being one died in 1971 —though others have claimed they were the last too. And the last former slave kidnapped for the Atlantic slave trade died in 1935. There are still living children of former slaves and slave-owners. And that doesn't even begin to get into continuations or evolutions of slavery-era practices and policy like indentured servitude, Jim Crow laws, segregation, prison labor built on unjust arrests and sentencing of black people, and human trafficking which constitute a de facto continuation of the subjugation of black people in another form. This is not ancient history, it's something that there are still living victims of and that still affects the livelihood and outlook of their direct descendents.

The same as the above apply to Native Americans, in terms of the tragedies being within living memory and the oppression continuing in other forms.

As a side note to the above, one of the things rarely remarked upon in the Trail of Tears story is that the Cherokee were prolific African slave traders and owners who forced their black slaves to endure the marches with them and die right alongside them. And that as recently as a few years ago the Cherokee Nation chose to expel from their ranks the descendents of African Freedmen who had been given citizenship in the tribes after slavery was abolished. I don't say this to diminish the share of responsibility faced by European descendents (or to take away from the suffering the Cherokee endured on the Trail of Tears), because in a perverse way the Cherokee were trying to prove they were "civilized" to the white power structure by enslaving Africans as they had.

I mention the above because trying to specifically divide it up into who owes whom what reparations is a futile gesture and one guaranteed to provoke defensiveness and resentment. Which is why you deal with it purely on a national level. We as a nation, young and old, rich and poor, of all colors and ethnic backgrounds, owe the people who have been most wronged in the establishment of this nation we all benefit from to varying degrees to pay back a small portion of those debts, and to pay forward to make life easier for their descendents who are still experiencing difficulties as a result of those injustices today.

It doesn't have to be a lump sum monetary payment, though that would be helpful too. It can be the afforementioned free college education, it can be giving first priority and economic assistance in the establishment of legalized marijuana dsipensaries to African-American small business owners to make up for traditionally biased drug laws and sentencing against black people, much like legalized gambling has benefited (some) Native Americans. It can be greater property acquisition and financing assistance (a lesser but more literal take on the promised but unfulfilled "40 acres and a mule") or tax breaks. There are any number of ways to make amends.

It's not about quantifying blame against specific individuals or groups, or making it a competition in the Olympics of Suffering, it's about all of us living in this society sharing a responsibility to correct institutional injustice that has benefited us all to varying degrees, even those who were and are simultaneously victims of said injustice (because they pay the taxes that will contribute to this too). It's about building a better society by giving a helping hand to those whose labor or lands were stolen from them without compensation in order to first build that society.

Bravo.

 

[Mudd]

Given what he just got done saying about reparations for slavery, what makes you think he would be opposed to reparations for Native Americans as well, though obviously on a federal scale and not in the one person directly repaying another manner you proposed to try and make the whole idea seem ludicrous?

Now, he might not feel the same about Native American reparations as he does about slavery reparations; I don't know, and I can't speak on his behalf. But the way you said it is as if you think that would be some kind of dealbreaker for him that would make him have to reconsider his whole argument, when the two positions on reparations seem perfectly compatible with each other.

How did you feel about the US government paying reparations to Japanese-Americans held in internment camps during WW2? That didn't start paying out until 1990, 45 years after the war ended.

And before you say that's different because they were actual survivors of the internment themselves, bear in mind that we're not actually that far removed from slavery: the last known surviving former slave who was old enough to remember details about being one died in 1971 —though others have claimed they were the last too. And the last former slave kidnapped for the Atlantic slave trade died in 1935. There are still living children of former slaves and slave-owners. And that doesn't even begin to get into continuations or evolutions of slavery-era practices and policy like indentured servitude, Jim Crow laws, segregation, prison labor built on unjust arrests and sentencing of black people, and human trafficking which constitute a de facto continuation of the subjugation of black people in another form. This is not ancient history, it's something that there are still living victims of and that still affects the livelihood and outlook of their direct descendents.

The same as the above apply to Native Americans, in terms of the tragedies being within living memory and the oppression continuing in other forms.

As a side note to the above, one of the things rarely remarked upon in the Trail of Tears story is that the Cherokee were prolific African slave traders and owners who forced their black slaves to endure the marches with them and die right alongside them. And that as recently as a few years ago the Cherokee Nation chose to expel from their ranks the descendents of African Freedmen who had been given citizenship in the tribes after slavery was abolished. I don't say this to diminish the share of responsibility faced by European descendents (or to take away from the suffering the Cherokee endured on the Trail of Tears), because in a perverse way the Cherokee were trying to prove they were "civilized" to the white power structure by enslaving Africans as they had.

I mention the above because trying to specifically divide it up into who owes whom what reparations is a futile gesture and one guaranteed to provoke defensiveness and resentment. Which is why you deal with it purely on a national level. We as a nation, young and old, rich and poor, of all colors and ethnic backgrounds, owe the people who have been most wronged in the establishment of this nation we all benefit from to varying degrees to pay back a small portion of those debts, and to pay forward to make life easier for their descendents who are still experiencing difficulties as a result of those injustices today.

It doesn't have to be a lump sum monetary payment, though that would be helpful too. It can be the afforementioned free college education, it can be giving first priority and economic assistance in the establishment of legalized marijuana dsipensaries to African-American small business owners to make up for traditionally biased drug laws and sentencing against black people, much like legalized gambling has benefited (some) Native Americans. It can be greater property acquisition and financing assistance (a lesser but more literal take on the promised but unfulfilled "40 acres and a mule") or tax breaks. There are any number of ways to make amends.

It's not about quantifying blame against specific individuals or groups, or making it a competition in the Olympics of Suffering, it's about all of us living in this society sharing a responsibility to correct institutional injustice that has benefited us all to varying degrees, even those who were and are simultaneously victims of said injustice (because they pay the taxes that will contribute to this too). It's about building a better society by giving a helping hand to those whose labor or lands were stolen from them without compensation in order to first build that society.

All of this.

 

[T'Bonz]

Reparations should be paid to the actual victims by the actual aggressors, not the descendants of either. No one is still alive who either owned slaves or who was a slave. It's the same for First Immigrants. They were wronged basically in the 1700 and 1800s (perhaps a bit after that). It's even the same for women, who were basically chattel. No one who didn't do this kind of thing should have to pay for some past wrongs.

What we DO owe people is the chance to succeed today. What the poor blacks need is equal schools and perhaps free daycare so that those who need to work can do so without a huge hassle. What ALL blacks need is security - knowing they can drive a friggin' car without a cop busting their head for no good reason.

Everyone should be treated fairly and that's all anyone owes to humanity.

 

[Timewalker]

Similar conversation going on at another forum I belong to. I've just been told by someone from Scotland that I should feel guilty and admit to being a "colonizer" because my Swedish great-grandparents homesteaded in Alberta before World War I.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Oh dear, you're posting a very touch subject? When you're aware of concepts of privilege, you'll know there's no such thing as racism against white people, just like there's no such thing as sexism against males. You have to have oppression by a ruling class, always pressing downward to keep people beneath you, it's institutionalized, right? I really do hope a discussion here about such a sensitive topic will be able to remain civil? My feeling though is I recommend you probably really need to do a lot of research about privilege?

Oh white guilt (and male guilt) is so absolutely necessary right now, because of historical oppression of minorities and women, and it's still going on today, so your dominant class totally needs to realize what it's done and figure out how to even things out, and you know there's still such a very long way to go, right? Oh it's totally not at all about self hate, it's about recognizing how white (males) are still dominating in so very many ways.

I don't feel at all comparing sins of other cultures is in any way relevant? I mean, you've got to work on your own problems, right? I feel it's like saying "My neighbor killed his wife, but I'm okay because I'm only beating mine", if I'm making sense?

As a person of colour, i just want to express how much I disagree with pretty much everything you have said here.

The fact that people like yourself say that there cannot be racism towards white people is in itself a form of insidious dehumanisation based on race. By saying that there cannot be racism against white people, you're basically saying that white people can be excluded, denied jobs (google I'm looking at you) and services and be targeted for abuse based on their skin colour and it's ok. That is racism. It's no better than the bigoted, racist attitudes that still exist against people of colour.

Modern Men have a slew of problems, Male suicide is at epidemic proportions, Male on male violence is also at epidemic proportions, Males tend to do more poorly during education than females, domestic violence against males often goes unreported, we're at greater risk of homelessness and staying homeless because of less access to services, Men generally lose custody battles, Male rape victims rarely report being raped and so on. Sexism may not be rampant towards men as it can be against women but the notion that all men are walking around carefree and with no worries and never suffer because they are automatically privileged is a really simplistic and echo-chambered way to view the world.

 

[Mudd]

Once again: in our real world, debts are not resolved in favor of the debtor's heirs simply because the heirs did not themselves incur the debts.

It's real convenient, for white people, to believe that their obligations aren't just clear common sense.

I mean, white folks bitch about affirmative action, for Christ's sake. By and large, we can't handle the truth.

 

[Nyotarules]

Once again: in our real world, debts are not resolved in favor of the debtor's heirs simply because the heirs did not themselves incur the debts.

It's real convenient, for white people, to believe that their obligations aren't just clear common sense.

I mean, white folks bitch about affirmative action, for Christ's sake. By and large, we can't handle the truth.

The irony is the system (North America and Western Europe) promoted affirmative action for white folks for 400 years. Non white people are asking for a share of the same cake that the system allowed white males to gorge on since the 17th century. And folks still want to keep the whole damn cake for themselves or feel generous when a crumb drops on the floor.

 

[Jedi_Master]

As a person of colour, i just want to express how much I disagree with pretty much everything you have said here.

The fact that people like yourself say that there cannot be racism towards white people is in itself a form of insidious dehumanisation based on race. By saying that there cannot be racism against white people, you're basically saying that white people can be excluded, denied jobs (google I'm looking at you) and services and be targeted for abuse based on their skin colour and it's ok. That is racism. It's no better than the bigoted, racist attitudes that still exist against people of colour.

Modern Men have a slew of problems, Male suicide is at epidemic proportions, Male on male violence is also at epidemic proportions, Males tend to do more poorly during education than females, domestic violence against males often goes unreported, we're at greater risk of homelessness and staying homeless because of less access to services, Men generally lose custody battles, Male rape victims rarely report being raped and so on. Sexism may not be rampant towards men as it can be against women but the notion that all men are walking around carefree and with no worries and never suffer because they are automatically privileged is a really simplistic and echo-chambered way to view the world.

Yep, the world is full of inequality and injustice. It's so very nice of you to point that out.

So now that mysterious truth is fully exposed and we all know that men sometimes suffer from injustice, what's next?

 

[cultcross]

As a person of colour, i just want to express how much I disagree with pretty much everything you have said here.

The fact that people like yourself say that there cannot be racism towards white people is in itself a form of insidious dehumanisation based on race. By saying that there cannot be racism against white people, you're basically saying that white people can be excluded, denied jobs (google I'm looking at you) and services and be targeted for abuse based on their skin colour and it's ok. That is racism. It's no better than the bigoted, racist attitudes that still exist against people of colour.

Modern Men have a slew of problems, Male suicide is at epidemic proportions, Male on male violence is also at epidemic proportions, Males tend to do more poorly during education than females, domestic violence against males often goes unreported, we're at greater risk of homelessness and staying homeless because of less access to services, Men generally lose custody battles, Male rape victims rarely report being raped and so on. Sexism may not be rampant towards men as it can be against women but the notion that all men are walking around carefree and with no worries and never suffer because they are automatically privileged is a really simplistic and echo-chambered way to view the world.

Men and white people are subject to crappy circumstances too - nobody here would deny that. But to equate 'sexism' against men or 'racism' against white people with the sheer systemic power of the opposite is just, frankly, nonsensical.

 

[Stoo]

What the poor blacks need is equal schools and perhaps free daycare so that those who need to work can do so without a huge hassle. .

That would fall under the definition of "reparations" that Locutus proposed.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Men and white people are subject to crappy circumstances too - nobody here would deny that. But to equate 'sexism' against men or 'racism' against white people with the sheer systemic power of the opposite is just, frankly, nonsensical.

Maybe you should take the time to actually read what I wrote, considering I clearly said that sexism towards men is nowhere near as rampant as it is towards women. My argument was against the posters assertion of males as an 'oppressor class' whilst completely ignoring there are issues that men are facing which get routinely ignored by society. The poster claiming that racism cannot exist against a particular group of people is dangerous thinking and dehumanising. I'm not trying to compare or equate racism towards white people with systemic racism, i'm just arguing that racism towards white people can and does exist and saying that it cannot sets a terrible precedent.

 

[Spot261]

Maybe you should take the time to actually read what I wrote, considering I clearly said that sexism towards men is nowhere near as rampant as it is towards women. My argument was against the posters assertion of males as an 'oppressor class' whilst completely ignoring there are issues that men are facing which get routinely ignored by society. The poster claiming that racism cannot exist against a particular group of people is dangerous thinking and dehumanising. I'm not trying to compare or equate racism towards white people with systemic racism, i'm just arguing that racism towards white people can and does exist and saying that it cannot sets a terrible precedent.

I think there's a lot of mileage between three separate propositions here;
1) Racism against white people is inherently impossible
2) Racism against white people currently does not exist
3) Racism against white people can and does exist but does not represent the prevailing systemic trend.

I'm inclined to go with the third option and by and large take an analogous position with sexism. On an individual basis pretty much any form of bigotry is possible and scaled up to a societal level that becomes the norm. However at the moment at least white people do not statistically represent an underclass, we do not commonly face institutional or systemic prejudice or discrimination.

There will always be exceptions to any rule, any statistical construct, but that rule is in play and does have historical causes. We have, historically, oppressed you on a societal level and to ignore that is to walk blindly into a situation where old habits inherent to the very fabric of our society will never be challenged. The reverse is not true, at least not at the moment. Our society is not structured around anti white bias, nor does it show (to my mind) any imminent danger of that situation coming about.

However I do agree with you, human nature is universal and our tribal nature is very much a part of that. The pendulum could easily swing, with the worst aspects of our nature accentuated by the best of intentions. If the old adage about learning from history really needs to mean something it needs to be more than lip service.

 

[cultcross]

My argument was against the posters assertion of males as an 'oppressor class' whilst completely ignoring there are issues that men are facing which get routinely ignored by society.

I don't disagree that there are, but most of those are side products of the very system we are talking about.
"Men usually lose in family court" - because of the deepset ideal that a mother is the 'natural' caregiver and the default parent. Women care for children.
"Men's mental health and suicide rate" is hardly surprising when we are taught from birth the only emotion that we are permitted to express is anger (theres the male on male violence too), that crying or seeking help are girly and weak, and we should just 'man up'.
"domestic violence against males often goes unreported" for the same reason. How could a man, with his muscly manliness ever admit being at risk from a little girl? He needs to grow a pair and stop acting like a woman. And as for male rape victims? Please. Men love sex. If you don't, there's something wrong with you. And if a man raped you, well he made you his bitch, so there's some grade A shame in reporting that. People might think you're... you know.

And so on and so on. The patriarchy affects everyone, that's what the HeForShe movement is all about, men's roles are shaped by it too. But I disagree that it's 'reverse sexism', just regular sexism, but men are caught out in the crossfire. Hoisted by their own petard, you might say.

 

[T'Bonz]

That would fall under the definition of "reparations" that Locutus proposed.

Our schools seem to me to be very unfair. If you live in a wealthier neighborhood then you're golden. If you live in a poor neighborhood, they can be ghastly (not the teachers but the lack of essentials - nevermind extras). I know some may disagree with me, but if we make school compulsory, then they should be equal. Meaning those in better neighborhoods will have to give up a bit to help poorer neighbors.

It's common sense. A good education for everyone helps society and it's the right thing to do. If you're poor - any color - one of the only ways out of poverty is a good education.

I can get behind that kind of reparations 100%.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

Hundreds of thousands of white males died between 1861 - 1865 in the USA so that coloured folks would not be treated as property. Isn't that payment enough?

 

[Jedi_Master]

Hundreds of thousands of white males died between 1861 - 1865 in the USA so that coloured folks would not be treated as property. Isn't that payment enough?

A few issues:
1) The use of the word "coloured" is considered anachronistic at best, and is offensive to some.
2) While many historians and modern-day experts consider the question of slavery to be the defining argument of the Civil War, it is highly unlikely that the majority of the young white men who were killed during the war felt they were dying to preserve the practice of slavery or conversely, to end the practice.
3) Thousands of African - Americans, both free and "unfree" were killed during the course of the war.
4) Considering the fact that no one is advocating a "life for a life" your premise is flawed because it is based on the wrong unit of exchange.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

A few issues:
1) The use of the word "coloured" is considered anachronistic at best, and is offensive to some.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone. I saw earlier in the thread, someone used the acronym POC to mean "People of Colour," which lead to a bit of confusion and certainly nobody took offence. I guess I don't really see much difference between "POC" and "coloured folks," but again, I apologise if anyone was offended.

2) While many historians and modern-day experts consider the question of slavery to be the defining argument of the Civil War, it is highly unlikely that the majority of the young white men who were killed during the war felt they were dying to preserve the practice of slavery or conversely, to end the practice.

Ah, didn't realize you were an expert on the mindset of the soldiers over 100 yrs ago.

3) Thousands of African - Americans, both free and "unfree" were killed during the course of the war.

This is a valid point, but seems like it is contradicted by your point #4.

4) Considering the fact that no one is advocating a "life for a life" your premise is flawed because it is based on the wrong unit of exchange.

All I'm saying is that when discussing this issue, people tend to forget or gloss over the fact that many, many people already made the ultimate sacrifice to right this wrong, paid for in blood.

I tend to think of myself as a positive person. Instead of the negativity of "white guilt," there should be a sense of pride that America fought itself (in its bloodiest war since its existence) to begin to correct the errors of the past. There are still pockets of racism, and I've been aghast at some of the videos of police brutality I've seen towards minorities, but the fact that the vast majority of people condemn those attitudes means that things are only ever moving in the right direction overall. USA has equality under the law, but nobody can control the opinions of another person, so there will unfortunately always be some racism at the individual level. But as a society, the USA is a great land of opportunity for all peoples.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I would hesitate to declare myself an expert on anything, but there are voluminous records of the thoughts and feelings of the young men sent to their deaths in the Civil War, and few discussed the noble cause of ending slavery.
In any case, few facts are "glossed over" in a serious examination of race relations in the United States.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

I would hesitate to declare myself an expert on anything, but there are voluminous records of the thoughts and feelings of the young men sent to their deaths in the Civil War, and few discussed the noble cause of ending slavery.
In any case, few facts are "glossed over" in a serious examination of race relations in the United States.

Fair enough. I respect your arguments, but regardless of what the mindset of the soldiers was, they did still lay down their lives for the cause. And in 11+ pages of this "white guilt" topic, I don't recall anyone bringing up the American Civil War, which is why I mentioned that it shouldn't be "glossed over." I don't mean to come off as a jerk, and would like this to remain "civil" (pun intended). The past is the past, and what's done is done. Live and learn. Anyway, cheers!

 

[BillJ]

Hundreds of thousands of white males died between 1861 - 1865 in the USA so that coloured folks would not be treated as property. Isn't that payment enough?

Two words: Jim Crow.

Black codes were strict laws detailing when, where and how freed slaves could work, and for how much compensation. The codes appeared throughout the South as a legal way to put black citizens into indentured servitude, to take voting rights away, to control where they lived and how they traveled and to seize children for labor purposes.

The legal system was stacked against black citizens, with ex-Confederate soldiers working as police and judges, making it difficult for African Americans to win court cases and ensuring they became victim to the black codes.

These codes worked in conjunction with labor camps for the incarcerated, where prisoners were treated as slaves. Black offenders typically received longer sentences than their white equals, and because of the grueling work, often did not live out their entire sentence.

https://www.history.com/topics/jim-crow-laws