San Fran proposes $5 million in black reperations

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The question is what happens when they mismanage their windfall, end up worse off tomorrow rather than better off, and start talking about how the last round of reparations clearly wasn't enough and there needs to be more.

I have absolutely no problem with paying reparations in principle. I'd just like to avoid spending money in perpetuity without actually resolving the issue to anyone's satisfaction. Government does a lot of that already. And I think it's pretty obvious that San Francisco's payments, if they actually happen, will be more of the same.

Give me a non-icky reason why we should assume black people will be bad with money and we'll go down this road, until then we will not.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

If you hit someone with your car and are found legally liable, you can't argue that you shouldn't have to pay because the person you hit isn't good with money.

And if some random hit someone else's car 200 years ago, you can certainly argue that you don't owe someone else money now.

Quote:

People don't have to prove they will use the money "wisely" before being awarded damages owed, so this is all a red herring.

They should prove that they are owed damages. Look at COVID money. For many on the forum, it was a pure windfall, as they were not otherwise (significantly) impacted. For self employed people, all the checks total didn't offset the losses from the first month of lockdown. One-size fits all payoffs don't work by nature. It could be argued that they perpetuate "you're all the same" thinking. Bit off-message.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Thermal

And if some random hit someone else's car 200 years ago, you can certainly argue that you don't owe someone else money now.



They should prove that they are owed damages. Look at COVID money. For many on the forum, it was a pure windfall, as they were not otherwise (significantly) impacted. For self employed people, all the checks total didn't offset the losses from the first month of lockdown. One-size fits all payoffs don't work by nature. It could be argued that they perpetuate "you're all the same" thinking. Bit off-message.

Yes the topic is "Are they owed damages" not "will they spend the damages owed responsibility."

That's what I said. Where did I lose you?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Give me a non-icky reason why we should assume black people will be bad with money and we'll go down this road, until then we will not.

I prefer to remain entirely agnostic about how the money is spent. As long as we agree that the payment pays the debt, I couldn't care less about what the payee does after they get paid. We can let future sociologists worry about the outcomes after they come out.

[Brainster]

Here's a link to the panel's recommendations. I see some obvious problems; although some of the qualifications are based on San Francisco residency, it is effectively open to any descendant of slaves who is either themselves or a direct descendant of any person who was incarcerated in the "failed war on drugs."

Also $5 million per person is absurd. Let's start with the basic math. Even if we assume that only the current roughly 40,000 Blacks living in SF qualify, that's $200 billion. In a city where the annual budget is roughly $14 billion.

It's also silly to claim that it's justified on financial grounds. Does the median White San Franciscan have a net worth $5 million higher than the median Black SF resident? And in a city with a heavy Asian population, what about the reparations due them?

I support the general concept, but this is insane.

[Thermal]

$5mil is the equivalent of pulling a quarter mil a year for 20 years. Really, really a long shot to even propose that kind of loss for a current Frisco resident. Even if you factor loss of generational wealth, who the hell inherits millions nowadays? Just existing millionaires.

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by ahhell

And of course the best judges of what people should spend their money on are other humans who don't suffer the consequences of the misspent money.

The best judges are studies of what works and what doesn't, which already exist.

[mgidm86]

It seems foolish to me for any city to pay reparations.

If this isn't about slavery but about financial issues then let's make the banks who refused to loan them money or ripped them off in other ways pay them.

But whatever it will come out of all our pockets one way or another. Even though I'm poor, I'm sure I profited from slavery somehow right? So......

ThePrestige is right. Pay once and it's over. If that is not possible then no money is paid. One national movement and that's it.

But what exactly is "it"? What does it solve? No more complaining? Does this end "something"?

What do we all get for our money? That is a fair question to ask. The problem that it solves should be clear.

[theprestige]

Okay. To be fair, I don't think SF government is trying to solve the problem. They're trying to normalize throwing money at the problem. Whether they believe that the problem will be solved by enough people throwing enough money at it, or are just complicit in some next-level white guilt grift, or both, is left as an exercise bla bla bla.

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I don't believe the city of San Francisco ever profited off slave labor or off the slave trade... hell it would make more sense for London to pay reperations.

Actually San Francisco did benefit from slavery. Aside from temporary Black slave labour used in mines before the Civil War there was the Indian Slave trade and system. There was fairly widespread use of Indian slave labour in California, despite the State ban on slavery from 1850, some of it even survived into the post Civil War period.

The use of Indians has slave labour is a not very well studied aspect of American Social History.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Pacal

Actually San Francisco did benefit from slavery. Aside from temporary Black slave labour used in mines before the Civil War there was the Indian Slave trade and system. There was fairly widespread use of Indian slave labour in California, despite the State ban on slavery from 1850, some of it even survived into the post Civil War period.

The use of Indians has slave labour is a not very well studied aspect of American Social History.

San Francisco: "We're gonna pay reparations for slavery!"

Chinese-Americans: "So where do we go to collect our payments?"

San Francisco: "Sphincter says what?"

Native Americans: "So where do we go to collect our payments?"

San Francisco: "Ask Father Serra LMAO get rekt noob."

BLM: "It's a good start, but catch us outside anyway."

San Francisco: "Whatever you say, boss."

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Thermal

$5mil is the equivalent of pulling a quarter mil a year for 20 years. Really, really a long shot to even propose that kind of loss for a current Frisco resident. Even if you factor loss of generational wealth, who the hell inherits millions nowadays? Just existing millionaires.

Mary Ellen Pleasant

Quote:

Mary Ellen Pleasant (August 19, 1815[a] – January 11, 1904[b]) was a 19th-century entrepreneur, financier, real estate magnate and abolitionist. She was arguably the first self-made millionaire of African-American heritage... With her fortune and the exorbitant money she made as a cook, ten times what she could have made in the east, she invested in a number of businesses in California that served the miners, like laundries, lodging, and Wells Fargo. She developed a long-lasting partnership with Thomas Bell, a white banker and investor in the east. Her investments and businesses, made her and Thomas Bell $30 million (equivalent to $740 million in 2021) by 1875.

You may say that achieving that kind of success was a 'long shot', but it was a lot more of a long shot for blacks - due to discrimination specifically designed to prevent them from being successful. If only 1% of blacks living in San Francisco could have become as rich as Mary Ellen Pleasant without that discrimination, it would justify $5 million per person just to recompense for potential lost earnings.

But the damage caused was far more than just financial. Denied proper education and housing, forced to work in menial jobs for low pay and treated as less than human for generations - that takes its toll on individuals and the community. To turn around now and say "Oh all right then, here's what we owe you for the missed opportunities, better late than never!" with no other compensation is obscene.

I read that draft proposal and was shocked. I had no idea that such institutionalized racism and worse was so pervasive for so long in such a purportedly 'progressive' area as San Fransisco. IMO $5 million per person is not nearly enough to redress all the harm done.

But of course that isn't all that is being offered. Dozens of other actions are proposed to address areas such as financial services, education, health, business ownership etc. Nobody should comment on this topic until they have read the full proposal.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Okay. To be fair, I don't think SF government is trying to solve the problem. They're trying to normalize throwing money at the problem.

Evidence that they are just 'throwing money at the problem'?

Or it this just a knee-jerk reaction to some headline, with no attempt to ascertain the facts behind it?

[mgidm86]

So now 5 mil per person is not enough, and we should be open to further negotiations indefinitely for some reason rather than work it all out now once and for all. And let's do it city by city too. What's obscene again?

Hey let's just give them casinos!

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

IMO $5 million per person is not nearly enough to redress all the harm done.[/hilite]

Apply that $5 million per person to all the Blacks living in the US today, and do you know how much you would be spending? Somewhere around $200 trilllion. That's more than the US government would spend even at the current reckless levels in 32 years on everything.

I get that the idea is to ask for the sun and the moon and the stars and hope to get the moon, but this is so far out of the realm of the possible that it's not a valid starting point for discussions.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

So you believe that EBT cards that can only be used for certain types of foods, Section 8 vouchers, Medicaid benefits, are part of the master/slave dynamic since they make sure that benefits to the poor are only spent on certain items and not simply a cash entitlement?

EBT cards and the like are inescapably paternalistic, but they're needs-based, so you might succeed in defending such paternalism on consequentialist grounds. Reparation is meant, as the name implies, to serve as restorative justice--to compensate for opportunities lost due to discrimination (and worse). It makes no more sense to attach conditions of use to such a payment than it would compensatory damages in a lawsuit. If someone is deprived of something, we don't get to tell them how to use it if they get what they are owed.

If you think funding would be better spent elsewhere, well, maybe, but you're then surrendering any claim to be addressing the underlying injustice.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Evidence that they are just 'throwing money at the problem'?

Evidence that they're not idiots who actually believe this paltry sum pays off the generational debt our society owes to African-Americans?

No, I guess I don't have evidence they're not idiots.

[mikegriffith1]

We have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the years to help blacks, and rightfully so. Reparations are not justified and are a very bad idea. Slavery ended in April 1865. Even the oldest blacks alive today were not born to parents who were slaves.

A 102-year-old black person alive today was born in 1921, which means their parents were most likely born between 1881 and 1907, at least 16 years after slavery was abolished.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Pacal

Actually San Francisco did benefit from slavery. Aside from temporary Black slave labour used in mines before the Civil War there was the Indian Slave trade and system. There was fairly widespread use of Indian slave labour in California, despite the State ban on slavery from 1850, some of it even survived into the post Civil War period.

The use of Indians has slave labour is a not very well studied aspect of American Social History.

At first I was a bit astonished by your claims... Indian slave labor in California??? But I was thinking of the country India, not Native Americans. Yeah, its pretty well known that at various points in America that Native Americans were used as slave labor, and suffered all kinds of indignities, bigotry, segregation etc.

Also, as I said earlier they used Chinese labor, who were treated not just a whole lot better than slaves... like whipped if they didn't work hard enough, occasionally even executed. So... where are their reparations?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

We have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the years to help blacks, and rightfully so. Reparations are not justified and are a very bad idea. Slavery ended in April 1865. Even the oldest blacks alive today were not born to parents who were slaves.

A 102-year-old black person alive today was born in 1921, which means their parents were most likely born between 1881 and 1907, at least 16 years after slavery was abolished.

Segregation in the USA ended when?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Darat

Segregation in the USA ended when?

Hush now. Every Republican knows racism ended when slavery did.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Give me a non-icky reason why we should assume black people will be bad with money and we'll go down this road, until then we will not.

Almost everyone with no experience with money is bad with money.

For something like 80% of the population just handing them $5 mil is a borderline hostile act and essentially a subsidy to grifters. It ironically gets worse the poorer a person is.

This can of course be addressed by offering financial literacy education. Or offering, suggesting and arranging for structured payouts, etc.

It's not nearly impossible to fix, but it's an issue.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

Segregation in the USA ended when?

Why is that relevant? This is San Francisco specific.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why is that relevant? This is San Francisco specific.

I see Bob won't be missed.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Almost everyone with no experience with money is bad with money.

For something like 80% of the population just handing them $5 mil is a borderline hostile act and essentially a subsidy to grifters. It ironically gets worse the poorer a person is.

This can of course be addressed by offering financial literacy education. Or offering, suggesting and arranging for structured payouts, etc.

It's not nearly impossible to fix, but it's an issue.

I dunno, I've seen poor folks do amazing things with a dollar. I've also seen people born into a comfortable life burn through all their money.

I also find it amusing that one of the objections is "what about all the other groups the US has screwed over and benefitted from throughout its history" .

I mean...ya. What about them? What do we do for those communities? I wonder if that plays into a lot of the opposition to reparations. It means asking a lot of hard questions about our past and present.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Donal

I dunno, I've seen poor folks do amazing things with a dollar. I've also seen people born into a comfortable life burn through all their money.

I also find it amusing that one of the objections is "what about all the other groups the US has screwed over and benefitted from throughout its history" .

I mean...ya. What about them? What do we do for those communities? I wonder if that plays into a lot of the opposition to reparations. It means asking a lot of hard questions about our past and present.

That a lot of people were legally ****** over in the USA in the past...

What about coal miners in Appalachia dying in their 40's from black lung... what about my Great granduncle who died in a Texas jail for the crime of being German in 1917... Japanese-Americans imprisoned in the 1940's for the crime of being of Japanese decent... lobotomy was legal into the 1970's... figuring out who was morally wronged legally in the USA by what proportion and who owes whom and by how much is probably impossible to do in any kind of fair way, and singling out only those who are over a certain threshold of skin melatonin seems quite unfair.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

That a lot of people were legally ****** over in the USA in the past...

What about coal miners in Appalachia dying in their 40's from black lung... what about my Great granduncle who died in a Texas jail for the crime of being German in 1917... Japanese-Americans imprisoned in the 1940's for the crime of being of Japanese decent... lobotomy was legal into the 1970's... figuring out who was morally wronged legally in the USA by what proportion and who owes whom and by how much is probably impossible to do in any kind of fair way, and singling out only those who are over a certain threshold of skin melatonin seems quite unfair.

Now you're starting to understand.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

That a lot of people were legally ****** over in the USA in the past...

What about coal miners in Appalachia dying in their 40's from black lung... what about my Great granduncle who died in a Texas jail for the crime of being German in 1917... Japanese-Americans imprisoned in the 1940's for the crime of being of Japanese decent... lobotomy was legal into the 1970's... figuring out who was morally wronged legally in the USA by what proportion and who owes whom and by how much is probably impossible to do in any kind of fair way, and singling out only those who are over a certain threshold of skin melatonin seems quite unfair.

Curious about that - have none of those been addressed in the USA? In the UK for instance miners (or their surviving family, often the widow) who were subjected to conditions that caused them harm have been recompensed by way of cash settlements over several decades.

I'd have thought he idea of "reparations" to be an established principle in the USA as is it is in the UK.

It does seem to be the same in the USA as it is in the UK, for example: "The Syphilis Study at Tuskegee" https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm .

ETA: Black lung disease in Appalachia: When I read it in your post I thought you was referring to the past, like a hundred years ago, I am actually shocked, I cannot believe that is still allowed to happen: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-lung-epidemic

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

That a lot of people were legally ****** over in the USA in the past...

What about coal miners in Appalachia dying in their 40's from black lung... what about my Great granduncle who died in a Texas jail for the crime of being German in 1917... Japanese-Americans imprisoned in the 1940's for the crime of being of Japanese decent... lobotomy was legal into the 1970's... figuring out who was morally wronged legally in the USA by what proportion and who owes whom and by how much is probably impossible to do in any kind of fair way, and singling out only those who are over a certain threshold of skin melatonin seems quite unfair.

These things at their worst had maybe 0.1% of the lasting effect of the slave trade.

I'm not shy about advocating for various Appalachian interests, but even comparing the problems we face based on historical wrongs to the legacy of the middle passage is absurd and borderline offensive.

I don't think reparations would work in the US for a bunch of reasons, the biggest of which being that way too many powerful people will want their cut. Way too many white trolls will gum it up with frivolous claims. We can't even get student loan forgiveness based on public interest work done right and we are going to pull this off?

Maybe once we figure out a way to not have a system that systematically strips wealth from the most vulnerable we can think about paying people.

Right now it has the same feel as if you and I were walking down an alley and a mugger jumps out demanding our wallets and that's when I pay you the $100 I owe you.

[Puppycow]

It appears to be the proposal of an advisory committee with no actual power other than the power to make a recommendation to the people who actually have power.

It looks like they didn't take their job very seriously. Did the proposal identify how this would be funded? "Well if we wave a magic wand, maybe $200 billion will appear."

It really should be done on a national level using realistic numbers, not on a city-by-city basis. There are roughly 41 million African Americans. I don't know exactly how many of those are descendants of slaves (i.e., not recent immigrants). If it's most of them, say 40 million, it would amount to $200 trillion with T to give them all $5 million.


By the way, Japanese-Americans imprisoned in the 1940's for the crime of being of Japanese decent did get reparations eventually. $20,000 each. Probably not adequate, but it is a precedent. (Their descendants however, did not. It was only for survivors, and those who didn't live long enough lost out.)

Quote:

provided financial redress of $20,000 for each former detainee who was still alive when the act was passed, totaling $1.2 billion. The question of to whom reparations should be given, how much, and even whether monetary reparations were appropriate were subjects of sometimes contentious debate within the Japanese American community and Congress.[238]

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

It appears to be the proposal of an advisory committee with no actual power other than the power to make a recommendation to the people who actually have power.

It looks like they didn't take their job very seriously. Did the proposal identify how this would be funded? "Well if we wave a magic wand, maybe $200 billion will appear."

It really should be done on a national level using realistic numbers, not on a city-by-city basis. There are roughly 41 million African Americans. I don't know exactly how many of those are descendants of slaves (i.e., not recent immigrants). If it's most of them, say 40 million, it would amount to $200 trillion with T to give them all $5 million.


By the way, Japanese-Americans imprisoned in the 1940's for the crime of being of Japanese decent did get reparations eventually. $20,000 each. Probably not adequate, but it is a precedent. (Their descendants however, did not. It was only for survivors, and those who didn't live long enough lost out.)

Someone should do some research to figure out if there's any measurable difference between Japanese Americans who's ancestors got reperations and those who's ancestors died to early.

[mgidm86]

I must have missed this part before:

Quote:

The committee also recommended that the city supplement the income of lower-income households to match the area’s median income for at least 250 years as a way to address the racial wealth cap in San Francisco. The area’s median income was $97,000 last year, according to the draft plan.

Now I see, this whole thing is meant as a joke.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

It appears to be the proposal of an advisory committee with no actual power other than the power to make a recommendation to the people who actually have power.

The proposal made it to the city council, which was reportedly "open" to the ideas.

Quote:

These were some of the more than 100 recommendations made by a city-appointed reparations committee tasked with the thorny question of how to atone for centuries of slavery and systemic racism. And the San Francisco Board of Supervisors hearing the report for the first time Tuesday voiced enthusiastic support for the ideas listed, with some saying money should not stop the city from doing the right thing.

Certainly I agree that money should not stop them from doing the right thing; however, lack of money just might.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why is that relevant?

Polices like Redlining caused significant economic harm to many living African Americans.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I don't believe the city of San Francisco ever profited off slave labor or off the slave trade... hell it would make more sense for London to pay reperations.

My problem is I have real issues with the idea of collective guilt .Should people today be hled responsb;le for what their ancestors did. I have real prolblems with that.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Polices like Redlining caused significant economic harm to many living African Americans.

That may be. But redlining isn't segregation (which is what Darat asked about). More importantly, his question wasn't about San Francisco, but about the USA as a whole. The government of San Francisco has no conceivable liability for actions taken outside of San Francisco that it had nothing to do with. So redlining elsewhere isn't relevant. Only redlining within San Francisco would be potentially relevant, and the report only mentions redlining within San Francisco. And even then, you still run into basic questions of why taxpayers today, many of whom weren't even alive for much of the relevant time period, should have to pay for policies they had nothing to do with, in order to pay residents who may never even have experienced any discrimination.

And read through the report's recommendations for who should be eligible for payments. It would reward people for drug arrests and incarceration. If you've got a criminal drug history, you don't actually need to have any history in San Francisco at all to qualify under the proposal. That's just insane.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by dudalb

My problem is I have real issues with the idea of collective guilt .Should people today be hled responsb;le for what their ancestors did. I have real prolblems with that.

Framing this as collective guilt is extremely toxic to these sorts of issues. If I am given a car that I have no idea was stolen I have to give the car back. It's not about my guilt.

Especially when the polity is the one making reparations. Recognizing past harm does not require blaming present day people.

A general theme of conservative discourse is framing any governmental policy that does not benefit them as punishment. They've done a pretty good job using this to derail reform in things ranging from tax policy to affirmative action.

I don't think cash reparations are the way to go for several reasons, but none of them are because I make it about me personally being punished somehow.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Framing this as collective guilt is extremely toxic to these sorts of issues.

It makes the ideas extremely unpopular, but it's pretty accurate.

Quote:

If I am given a car that I have no idea was stolen I have to give the car back. It's not about my guilt.

Actually, it is. Possession of stolen property is a crime, even if you're not the one who stole it. And it's only punishable or even recoverable if the specific car can be traced. It doesn't suffice to say a bunch of Kia's were stolen, you got a Kia of unknown origin, therefore yours is stolen and you have to give it back to someone whos car was stolen.

Quote:

Especially when the polity is the one making reparations. Recognizing past harm does not require blaming present day people.

But it does involve harming them. That money doesn't come from nowhere.

Quote:

A general theme of conservative discourse is framing any governmental policy that does not benefit them as punishment.

Because the effects are sometimes indistinguishable, as in this case. Quibbling about the intent is little consolation to those harmed.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Actually, it is. Possession of stolen property is a crime, even if you're not the one who stole it. .

What I described is in no way a crime.

The rest of the response seems based on this misunderstanding and otherwise circular and not worth comment.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

What I described is in no way a crime.

Based solely on a state of knowledge that can be hard to establish. But even in the absence of criminal intent, again, it's only recoverable if the specific vehicle can be traced to a specific theft victim, and it's given to the specific owner that it was stolen from, not just someone who had their car stolen. The government doesn't seize cars because that kind of car was stolen in the past, and then distribute seized cars from a pool to people who have had their cars stolen in the past. That would be absurd. But if you want to draw a car theft/recovery analogy, that's what's being proposed here, not the scenario you described.