If you include acts of governments in this discussion, then we have many more cans of worms.
I'm not sure that's a good reason to exclude them from this discussion. Also, governments are, by degrees, representative of the people who support them.
@Bullfrog I wanted to come back to social networking and the point you made but needed more time to think about it. One difficulty that autistic/neurodivergent colleagues have mentioned has to do with 'reading the room' in the workplace. They mention having trouble with both verbal and non-verbal cues, atypical gaze behaviour and what is called 'ensemble perception' or reading group interactions. It's hard to initiate or end interactions, sustain eye contact or respect personal space, not get into intensely focused interests as conversational topics. (It's more complex I know so please excuse this limited overview.)
What happens though when somebody with awkward social skills encounters those struggling with severe PTSD or survivors of trauma who also find groups threatening or uncomfortable ? In a church function or in the corporate workplace in urban South Africa, many of those present will have had long intergenerational histories of verbal abuse from white people, their parents may have worked as domestic cleaners in white households, they have been patronised or ignored by white employers or lecturers. So they come into a gathering feeling anxious or defensive. In many Nguni traditions it is a sign of respect to keep eyes lowered and to nod rather than speak until the traditional formalities and introductions have been gone through. Because of the prevalence of sexual violence, women and queer people may experience flirtatiousness as predatory and unwanted attention, inappropriate. In terms of, say, isiXhosa kinship, the most important people in the rooms are those with kinship seniority and they must be greeted first before speakers or those in charge of the function. For those from the white minority in South Africa, a key issue relates to whether or not they can speak vernacular languages or have at least made an effort to speak the languages used by most of those present. There are cultural taboos relating to avoidance speech around death, mourning and exile that need to be respected. And then there is shyness, cultural differences around touching or hugging, speaking loudly or softly, which name or title to use because many people have differing names depending on context. Layers and layers of discomfort and misreading.
The South African conceptual artist Willem Boschoff held an exhibition called Blind Alphabet some years ago. He made small sculptural objects intended to be held or played with and a number of small boxes holding other concealed objects. All the signage and captioning was in Braille and 'seeing' visitors would need blind guides to help them move through the exhibition. Only one sign was in English on the wall and read "No Touching". Because the blind people present could not see this sign, they ignored it and began touching and holding the objects designed for tactile knowing. They could read the captions and then explain to sighted visitors what the boxes held and what was the meaning. For many sighted visitors this was an uncomfortable immersion into the reality for people with sight disabilities for whom art galleries are unwelcoming places. It was uncomfortable and baffling to walk around that exhibition and find myself (partially sighted) dependent on a blind guide as expert, unlearning things we take for granted.
That's all a lot, yeah. I think I've sometimes preferred a more formal social sphere because I find it easier to grok socialization as a game with rules than a haphazard chaos of everyone just throwing their thoughts and feelings around. It's probably one reason I came to appreciate ship of fools. And I think American culture in particular has this avoidance taboo (if I'm using the term correctly) around restrictions in general. We don't like saying either we aren't allowed to act certain ways or that others should be restricted without a seriously pressing reason. But it makes it hard to figure out what's appropriate when people are scared to talk about what's inappropriate, or even acknowledge that things are inappropriate.
I feel like this might be a post 1960s thing, I sometimes get the impression that the world was more formalized when my dad was the age that my kids are outgrowing now.
More structured and formal interactions can work better for polylingual or multicultural debates, I agree, @Bullfrog. Often out here we work through interpreters or translated texts, which slows everything down but makes the atmosphere less volatile or rushed.
And moderated blog comments, online forums and bulletin boards have been as influential and often more positive than social media when it comes to people understanding each other across continents or war-torn places.
What @Ruth describes as 'the shit that is still happening' is one reason why the Africa-based campaigns for colonial reparations are ongoing and intensifying rather than falling away.
These campaigns take many forms related to the kinds of human-rights violations and/or slavery involved. It isn't just about about money.
It's unfortunate that money grabs so much attention when there are many other things at stake as well. The state of California's Reparations Task Force issued a 1000-page report this past summer with over 100 recommended policy changes to right the wrongs done to the descendants of people enslaved in the US, and all most people can talk about is the proposed cash payments. From the LA Times:
The remedies in the report go far beyond cash payments and include policies to end the death penalty, pay fair market value for jail and prison labor, restore voting rights to all formerly and currently incarcerated people, apply rent caps to historically redlined ZIP Codes that disadvantaged Black residents and offer free college tuition to people who are eligible for reparations, among dozens of other suggestions.
In the United States, there are recurring calls for reparations to the descendants of slaves. One problem with this is who to mulct for the money, and another problem is to identify the descendants of slaves. If someone is a first-generation immigrant from, for instance, Norway, then that person presumably has no inherited guilt for North American slavery and should not have to pay.
"Mulct" is a loaded word. Reparations payments would come from the state (or the US government, if we ever get that far). In California the bulk of our budget comes from income taxes, including taxes on investment gains, so reparations payments would redistribute wealth from the richest people to those harmed by racist laws and practices. It's not a matter of who's guilty, it's a matter of who has benefited.
As for eligibility, the proposed California plan would require people to trace their lineage to a person enslaved in the US or to African Americans living in the US prior to 1900. The task force expects that people will have to hire genealogists, given that records may be messy and/or lost. Eligible people wouldn't all get the same amount; there would be tiers of eligibility.
But even if the legislature says no to the cash payments and enacts the other measures called for in the report, remediating the effects of red-lining alone would do enormous good. Ta-Nehisi Coates' excellent Atlantic article, "The Case for Reparations," is unfortunately paywalled, but the Wikipedia discussion of it is good.
If you include acts of governments in this discussion, then we have many more cans of worms.
I'm not sure that's a good reason to exclude them from this discussion. Also, governments are, by degrees, representative of the people who support them.
That's ostensibly the case for democratic governments. Less so for other forms of government.
Another form of reparations that might get traction in a reluctant electorate would be reparations for Black veterans who never received their GI Bill benefits. Something like 90 percent of Black veterans of WWII were denied their housing and education benefits because the program was administered by local banks and universities, not the federal government - and at that time it was perfectly legal for banks and universities to refuse service based on race.
For non-American shipmates, this was and is an incredibly significant financial loss to Black veterans and their descendants, because the GI Bill basically built the American middle class. Millions of white servicemen were lifted out of poverty (homeownership is a major financial benefit under American tax law) and Black veterans were left behind. There are plenty of living people who could be recompensed.
I'm sure a lot of Vietnam veterans probably never got their benefits either, in spite of some progress on outlawing discriminatory policies since the late 40s.
If you include acts of governments in this discussion, then we have many more cans of worms.
I'm not sure that's a good reason to exclude them from this discussion. Also, governments are, by degrees, representative of the people who support them.
That's ostensibly the case for democratic governments. Less so for other forms of government.
Another form of reparations that might get traction in a reluctant electorate would be reparations for Black veterans who never received their GI Bill benefits. Something like 90 percent of Black veterans of WWII were denied their housing and education benefits because the program was administered by local banks and universities, not the federal government - and at that time it was perfectly legal for banks and universities to refuse service based on race.
For non-American shipmates, this was and is an incredibly significant financial loss to Black veterans and their descendants, because the GI Bill basically built the American middle class. Millions of white servicemen were lifted out of poverty (homeownership is a major financial benefit under American tax law) and Black veterans were left behind. There are plenty of living people who could be recompensed.
Given that the federal government invented 20th century redlining I'm not sure we can completely exclude them from the problem. For those unfamiliar with the practice the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) classified neighborhoods on a scale from "best" to "hazardous" as a guide for underwriting home mortgages. As you can guess, "hazardous" was a euphemism for "anywhere black people live". So while one federal program (the G.I. Bill) said veterans were entitled to home loans on favorable terms, the FHA would not underwrite loans in "hazardous" neighborhoods. Essentially any place where a black veteran could buy a home made that loan impossible by the reason that a black veteran could buy a home there. While banks weren't exactly objecting to this policy, we shouldn't overlook the government component, especially given how heavily the federal government was involved in post-New Deal banking regulation.
Democrats have several times introduced legislation in Congress to extend to Black WWII veterans' survivors and descendants the housing and educational benefits of the GI Bill - the last three years, I think, always around Veterans Day.
Democrats have several times introduced legislation in Congress to extend to Black WWII veterans' survivors and descendants the housing and educational benefits of the GI Bill - the last three years, I think, always around Veterans Day.
Can't fault us for trying, if I may identify as one. I don't think there's any amount of cash that could pay off the debt that we owe former slaves, Native Americans, etc. But it'd be progress. And sometimes that's all you get.
@Ruth, Ta-Nehisi Coates has been a big influence on thinking through reparations for many of us. His exchange with Mitch McConnell in congressional hearings on reparations in 2019 (good Washington Post link I now can't find) was very much on point: McConnell said that none of us (Americans) now alive are responsible for something that happened 150 years ago. Coates replied that the US govt is still paying pensions to white descendants of Civil War soldiers (as late as 2012). Americans still honour treaties that date back some 200 years, despite no one being alive who signed those treaties. "Our lineage is a generational trust, as inheritance, and the real dilemma posed by reparations is just that: a dilemma of inheritance."
Black American writer Claudia Rankine poses the question in another way: "What's the emotional cost of not doing the work? What will your grand-children have to live with if reparations are not made or even attempted?" The positive aspect of making reparations is not economic but a settling of old wrongs, making amends and being free to move on. "What is needed is a healing of the American psyche and the banishment of white guilt. Reparations would mean a revolution of the American consciousness, a reconciling of our self-image as the great democratizer with the facts of our history."
What price are any of us willing to pay for peace of mind? It's poignant because in South Africa we live with what is called 'nostalgia for the future', the lost dream of what might have happened, the peacefulness and equity of a divided society. But the economic hand-over never happened. Land and valuable property was acquired by multinational developers and mining companies. The inherited wealth moved abroad. That historic moment of goodwill and desired transformation won't come again for most of us.
@Bullfrog I wanted to come back to social networking and the point you made but needed more time to think about it. One difficulty that autistic/neurodivergent colleagues have mentioned has to do with 'reading the room' in the workplace. They mention having trouble with both verbal and non-verbal cues, atypical gaze behaviour and what is called 'ensemble perception' or reading group interactions. It's hard to initiate or end interactions, sustain eye contact or respect personal space, not get into intensely focused interests as conversational topics. (It's more complex I know so please excuse this limited overview.)
What happens though when somebody with awkward social skills encounters those struggling with severe PTSD or survivors of trauma who also find groups threatening or uncomfortable ? In a church function or in the corporate workplace in urban South Africa, many of those present will have had long intergenerational histories of verbal abuse from white people, their parents may have worked as domestic cleaners in white households, they have been patronised or ignored by white employers or lecturers. So they come into a gathering feeling anxious or defensive. In many Nguni traditions it is a sign of respect to keep eyes lowered and to nod rather than speak until the traditional formalities and introductions have been gone through. Because of the prevalence of sexual violence, women and queer people may experience flirtatiousness as predatory and unwanted attention, inappropriate. In terms of, say, isiXhosa kinship, the most important people in the rooms are those with kinship seniority and they must be greeted first before speakers or those in charge of the function. For those from the white minority in South Africa, a key issue relates to whether or not they can speak vernacular languages or have at least made an effort to speak the languages used by most of those present. There are cultural taboos relating to avoidance speech around death, mourning and exile that need to be respected. And then there is shyness, cultural differences around touching or hugging, speaking loudly or softly, which name or title to use because many people have differing names depending on context. Layers and layers of discomfort and misreading.
The South African conceptual artist Willem Boschoff held an exhibition called Blind Alphabet some years ago. He made small sculptural objects intended to be held or played with and a number of small boxes holding other concealed objects. All the signage and captioning was in Braille and 'seeing' visitors would need blind guides to help them move through the exhibition. Only one sign was in English on the wall and read "No Touching". Because the blind people present could not see this sign, they ignored it and began touching and holding the objects designed for tactile knowing. They could read the captions and then explain to sighted visitors what the boxes held and what was the meaning. For many sighted visitors this was an uncomfortable immersion into the reality for people with sight disabilities for whom art galleries are unwelcoming places. It was uncomfortable and baffling to walk around that exhibition and find myself (partially sighted) dependent on a blind guide as expert, unlearning things we take for granted.
If you include acts of governments in this discussion, then we have many more cans of worms.
Actually, it simplifies things wonderfully. As you noted, assessing individuals on the basis of their ancestors' culpability is unmanageable, and it punishes individuals for acts they had no part in (except for being the unintentional recipient of stolen property at several generations remove). But governments are responsible for the acts of their predecessors, and virtually all historical traumas are the result of government acts that perpetrated or enabled them. Reparations would necessarily be paid by governments, not individuals. The form reparations should take may require some working out (it wouldn't be the same in every case, I'm sure), but who would pay them is not complex.
If you include acts of governments in this discussion, then we have many more cans of worms.
Actually, it simplifies things wonderfully. As you noted, assessing individuals on the basis of their ancestors' culpability is unmanageable, and it punishes individuals for acts they had no part in (except for being the unintentional recipient of stolen property at several generations remove). But governments are responsible for the acts of their predecessors, and virtually all historical traumas are the result of government acts that perpetrated or enabled them. Reparations would necessarily be paid by governments, not individuals. The form reparations should take may require some working out (it wouldn't be the same in every case, I'm sure), but who would pay them is not complex.
Reminds me of a chat I had with a friend where they defended the practice of cities - as a whole - paying for police abuse cases out of taxpayer money. I was kind of kvetching about it at the time, but on reflection...yeah. Public acts are public responsibility.
I think I agree. It also saves individual members of a state for receiving targeted violence for the behavior of that state. I am not America. I just happen to live here.
Comments
I'm not sure that's a good reason to exclude them from this discussion. Also, governments are, by degrees, representative of the people who support them.
That's all a lot, yeah. I think I've sometimes preferred a more formal social sphere because I find it easier to grok socialization as a game with rules than a haphazard chaos of everyone just throwing their thoughts and feelings around. It's probably one reason I came to appreciate ship of fools. And I think American culture in particular has this avoidance taboo (if I'm using the term correctly) around restrictions in general. We don't like saying either we aren't allowed to act certain ways or that others should be restricted without a seriously pressing reason. But it makes it hard to figure out what's appropriate when people are scared to talk about what's inappropriate, or even acknowledge that things are inappropriate.
I feel like this might be a post 1960s thing, I sometimes get the impression that the world was more formalized when my dad was the age that my kids are outgrowing now.
And moderated blog comments, online forums and bulletin boards have been as influential and often more positive than social media when it comes to people understanding each other across continents or war-torn places.
It's unfortunate that money grabs so much attention when there are many other things at stake as well. The state of California's Reparations Task Force issued a 1000-page report this past summer with over 100 recommended policy changes to right the wrongs done to the descendants of people enslaved in the US, and all most people can talk about is the proposed cash payments. From the LA Times: "Mulct" is a loaded word. Reparations payments would come from the state (or the US government, if we ever get that far). In California the bulk of our budget comes from income taxes, including taxes on investment gains, so reparations payments would redistribute wealth from the richest people to those harmed by racist laws and practices. It's not a matter of who's guilty, it's a matter of who has benefited.
As for eligibility, the proposed California plan would require people to trace their lineage to a person enslaved in the US or to African Americans living in the US prior to 1900. The task force expects that people will have to hire genealogists, given that records may be messy and/or lost. Eligible people wouldn't all get the same amount; there would be tiers of eligibility.
But even if the legislature says no to the cash payments and enacts the other measures called for in the report, remediating the effects of red-lining alone would do enormous good. Ta-Nehisi Coates' excellent Atlantic article, "The Case for Reparations," is unfortunately paywalled, but the Wikipedia discussion of it is good.
That's ostensibly the case for democratic governments. Less so for other forms of government.
For non-American shipmates, this was and is an incredibly significant financial loss to Black veterans and their descendants, because the GI Bill basically built the American middle class. Millions of white servicemen were lifted out of poverty (homeownership is a major financial benefit under American tax law) and Black veterans were left behind. There are plenty of living people who could be recompensed.
I'm sure a lot of Vietnam veterans probably never got their benefits either, in spite of some progress on outlawing discriminatory policies since the late 40s.
Agreed.
Given that the federal government invented 20th century redlining I'm not sure we can completely exclude them from the problem. For those unfamiliar with the practice the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) classified neighborhoods on a scale from "best" to "hazardous" as a guide for underwriting home mortgages. As you can guess, "hazardous" was a euphemism for "anywhere black people live". So while one federal program (the G.I. Bill) said veterans were entitled to home loans on favorable terms, the FHA would not underwrite loans in "hazardous" neighborhoods. Essentially any place where a black veteran could buy a home made that loan impossible by the reason that a black veteran could buy a home there. While banks weren't exactly objecting to this policy, we shouldn't overlook the government component, especially given how heavily the federal government was involved in post-New Deal banking regulation.
Can't fault us for trying, if I may identify as one. I don't think there's any amount of cash that could pay off the debt that we owe former slaves, Native Americans, etc. But it'd be progress. And sometimes that's all you get.
Black American writer Claudia Rankine poses the question in another way: "What's the emotional cost of not doing the work? What will your grand-children have to live with if reparations are not made or even attempted?" The positive aspect of making reparations is not economic but a settling of old wrongs, making amends and being free to move on. "What is needed is a healing of the American psyche and the banishment of white guilt. Reparations would mean a revolution of the American consciousness, a reconciling of our self-image as the great democratizer with the facts of our history."
What price are any of us willing to pay for peace of mind? It's poignant because in South Africa we live with what is called 'nostalgia for the future', the lost dream of what might have happened, the peacefulness and equity of a divided society. But the economic hand-over never happened. Land and valuable property was acquired by multinational developers and mining companies. The inherited wealth moved abroad. That historic moment of goodwill and desired transformation won't come again for most of us.
That exhibition sounds brilliant
Actually, it simplifies things wonderfully. As you noted, assessing individuals on the basis of their ancestors' culpability is unmanageable, and it punishes individuals for acts they had no part in (except for being the unintentional recipient of stolen property at several generations remove). But governments are responsible for the acts of their predecessors, and virtually all historical traumas are the result of government acts that perpetrated or enabled them. Reparations would necessarily be paid by governments, not individuals. The form reparations should take may require some working out (it wouldn't be the same in every case, I'm sure), but who would pay them is not complex.
Reminds me of a chat I had with a friend where they defended the practice of cities - as a whole - paying for police abuse cases out of taxpayer money. I was kind of kvetching about it at the time, but on reflection...yeah. Public acts are public responsibility.
I think I agree. It also saves individual members of a state for receiving targeted violence for the behavior of that state. I am not America. I just happen to live here.