Talk:Reparations for slavery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] But the matter is
I just came here looking to find out about reparations. I didn't google it first. This article is necessary. -- frecklefaerie 03:11, 1 December 2005 (EST)
[edit] Bias..
- A very well written article but about as biased a peice of writing as I have come across on Wikipedia -- kellster
I tend to agree. However there is a need for such an article as this whole issue is very much a live one. What we need is a BETTER ARTICLE. Not sure I'm qualified to write one. The writer appears knowledgeable about the subject but has presented the arguments in such a way it is obvious that "right-minded people" should all accept that reparations are justified - in other words, it would make a good entry on the pro-reparations side in an online debate, not a neutral assessment of the arguments as it should be to be in wikipedia.
Exile 15:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
i've attempted to de-pov-ify the former parts of the article, mainly by rewriting the intro (to tell what the proposal is rather than why it is), deleting the entire first section (which was largely vague apologetica for reparation), and rewriting the first contra arguement to be a bit more clear and representative. that reparationists (?) want reparations directly from the state rather than individuals i hope is sufficiently represented in the intro. obviously, more work needs to be done. Bob A 17:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
i just did some more pruning. most of the links had little to do reparation, or were just news articles, so i removed them and left the two main ones which are websites about reparation. since none of them had listed any specific programs, i deleted the first section about what most programs supposedly have in common, which are mostly obvious anyway. also, most of the criticisms seem to be relics of the first version, in which they were basically a reparation faq, so i deleted those and left the two criticisms that seem like they would actually be made seriously (and have been; i can't verify any of the others because all the links were pro-reparation) and fixed up the first "counter" to look more professional. with that, i think the remainder of the article has a good tone, so i removed the tone tag. also, what does liberia have to do with this? Bob A 22:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bias no longer present
This article now contains as many arguments against reparations as supporting them. I would call it NPOV and the tag should be removed. Tyronen 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Come on now
This is in no way encyclopedic. This is pure advocacy. ChiTwnG
[edit] The details matter...
I'd be a lot more inclined to take seriously these claims of violating the NPOV if the claims included some detail or argument, rather than sheer assertion. It's obviously easy to object to an article that one doesn't like by claiming that it violates NPOV. What's harder, and actually useful, is to argue for that claim.
The article reviews arguments for reparations, from several perspectives. It reviews a representative reparations program. It points to other resources for those interested in learning more.
It also considers, at length, the objections to reparations.
Kendallgclark 21:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The details do matter...
Of course they do, but presenting the argument purely from one perspective isn't encyclopedic. The article does point to several other links for those interested in learning more. These are in full:
- NCOBRA - a pro-reparations organisation.
- NPR - an artcile advocating reperation, with several links to pro-reparations sites.
- Carnegie Council - a pro-reparations website.
- CNN - a story about a reparations lawsuit.
- John Conyers, Jr - a member of the House of Representatives who introduced a reparations bill.
- Human Rights Watch - a pro-reparation organisation.
- Tulsa Reparations Coalition - another pro-reparations organisation.
That is 6 pro-reparations websites and articles and one neutral. Is this any sort of balance?
For an example of bias, I refer to the heading Objections to Reparations.
- The descendants of slaves in the US weren't harmed by slavery: Both the anti-reparation arguments are referenced to David Horowitz and Thomas Sowell. The pro-reparation argument is referenced to "Some have suggested". Who are these Some? The response is basically a rebuff to the two previous argument.
- It's too late for reparations: Again the reference of "Some" is used again. The final sentence states that "...by this argument, the quantity of time passing should not be held as in anyway a consequence of inaction on the part of the aggrieved parties." This is pure argument on the part of the author and not in any way factual.
- I didn't have anything to do with slavery: The final paragraph is again a rebuff to the first paragraph stating that people are routinely responsible for past actions.
This pattern follows in all the other objections with the anti-reparations argument being set up as a straw man and the pro-repration argument following.
Other areas that are just advocacy include the The Moral Perspective including the Logic of Apologies. It is unclear what this has to do with reparations per-se. Surely this would be best left as a link to a philosophical article instead of being included wholesale as an argument for reperations.
Encyclopedic articles are meant to inform the reader of the facts, be neutral in content, and not envoke emotive language. Statement like "worst crimes in human history", "unimaginable proportions", and "enduring legacy in the United States of formal and substantive oppression of the descendants of African slaves" are in no way neutral, unemotive, and in some case may be open to argument.
If one would like an example of a very well written article on slavery then they could do worse than looking at the excellent article on the transatlantic slave trade. It is neutral, interesting, and manages to inform the reader of the facts without using emotive language. It even manages to put a figure of "12 million individuals" on the "diaspora of unimaginable proportions".
Finally, it is rather unhelpful, Kendallgclark, to delete other people's comments.
Kellster71 00:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
+++++++++++++ 100% biased. I can't write an article that says "The US Government owes me money, here's why- here's why people might argue with me- but here's why they're wrong." Fucking ridiculous, not encyclopedia material.
Indeed biased and not worthy for Wiki. Should be removed entirely or mostly. An article as biased in favor for racism would be removed immediately. What is keeping this article from being removed anyway?
I41
I feel that the phrase "logic fails to prevail" and the rest of the sentence that preceeds it should not be a part of this article. This is a biased and ugly insult to the opposing view and adds nothing to this article which is exceedingly biased.
[edit] Tax fraud regarding reparations
I came here expecting to find information about the tax fraud regarding the faked tax reparations I've heard in news reports. Is there another article that discusses it? - Tεxτurε 17:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
CAN YOU ARGURE THAT IT WAS NOT ONE OF THE WORST CRIMES IN HUMAN HISTORY? DO SOME LONG-VERSION RESEARCH AND IT WILL BE CLEAR THAT THOUGH THE LANGUAGE IS EMOTIVE, IT IT NOT INACCURATE. (some people get very upset about tax fraud)
[edit] Further Counter-arguments
While it will take a major overhaul before they could get a fair treatment in this article, has any opponent of reparations ever raised what I would imagine to be one of the biggest difficulties of reparations - who would you pay? Would you simply pay people who happen to be black? What about voluntary immigrants from Africa whose ancestors were never slaves? Would you pay them? What about Caribbean Americans whose ancestors were never slaves in the United States? Would you pay them? What about white people today whose ancestors were black slaves but whose children passed for white? Would you pay them too? And how would any individual prove any of this of their ancestors? Being black and being the descendant of slaves are NOT necessarily the same thing, and I would imagine any discussion of reparations for slavery would have to address this.
While I'm sure there are good counter-arguments to this, and such counter-arguments would certainly be worthy of treatment in an NPOV revision of this article, I'm not trying to start a debate on this question here. I'm just wondering if this historical argument has at any point found its way into the public discourse on this matter, as it's not listed in the article as it stands. Rhesusman 01:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
++++++++++++++++++
hello, i am responding to these weak counter arguments. please be advised that black folks in america are not the only ones now asking for reparations, a growing number of people in Africa and the Caribbean and the South Americas are starting to demand it, so recent black immigrants to this country would get their share of reparations from home countries. and folks who claim whiteness also claim the responsibilities as well as the priviliges of white supremacy, hence its a non issue. shelley c in Michigan
^^^ The Africans were the ones capturing blacks and selling them to whites and other Africans. Your attempt at a rebuttal fails.
- Whoever you are, shelley c (you're expected to identify yourself and date your response by typing four ~ symbols after your text), you obviously did not read what I wrote carefully. I was not trying to start a debate on this. I was simply bringing up a possible argument that I felt should be treated in an NPOV version of this article. That said, it looks like you completely misunderstood my argument anyway. You are confusing the concepts of Slavery and white privilege. While they are related, they are NOT identical. Before this article was edited (I suspect it was edited by you), it dealt with reparations for slavery as slavery in the American context. I was responding to that. I was simply pointing out that there are a lot of black people in America who are not descendants of American slaves or any slaves, while there are white people who are descendants of slaves. To make the United States government pay the former group because it is black but not the latter group because it is white would constitute some form of reparations for racial discrimination and white privilege, but it would not be reparations for slavery. I'm not saying that some form of reparations for racial discrimination in America is necessarily wrong, but I am saying that it's not the same as reparations for slavery. You're conflating the concepts. Furthermore, my argument contained an element of administrability. Given the difficulty of tracking down who actually was or was not the descendant of an American slave, a reparations regime that would actually pay descendants of slaves could present a bureaucratic nightmare. Your dismissal of this concern with the simple assertion that Caribbean and African countries could simply pay for the share of blacks in America who are descendants of those countries does not even begin to address this issue. If you feel compelled to challenge my position on this issue, at least respond to the arguments I made; don't turn them into a straw-man that's easier for you to attack. (By the way, I am not the author of the comment about Africans capturing blacks. I disagree with the mentality underlying that comment as much as I disagree with shelley c's comment). Rhesusman 19:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blacks should pay reparations to other races?
Where is this information from? Please source this, first time I ever heard this claim. Gorgeousp 05:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This article is biased
This article is terribly biased from an anti-reparations point of view. --Revolución hablar ver 01:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a rather transparent ploy to claim that an article heavily biased in one was is actually heavily biased in an opposing way, so that some ally can then claim that the oppositions prove that the article is actually unbiased. Gamahucheur 12:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] English?
Ackh! Ackh, I say! Gamahucheur 14:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zero times a trillion
The chances that negroes will receive any compensation or "reparations" stemming from their ancestors' servitude as slaves is no better than zero multiplied by a trillion. If the colored men keep on talking about "reparations," they will be paying white men money in the same way that "affirmative action" produced "reverse discrimination" here in the United States and in South Africa. An ubiquitous "white backlash" led to the election of "Ron" Reagan to the presidency followed by "Bill" Clinton. Those two "nigger-haters" manipulated the Federal Government for 16 years. Modern negroes live in terrible conditions. They are a hell of a lot worse off now than they had been fifty years ago. They are impoverished trouble-makers who have been (some people say) "pampered" by the Federal Government and the multitudinous civil rights laws which flow out of Washington, D. C. as unending torrents of requirements. Negroes need their own country so that they can escape from the whimsical treatments that the American landowners and bankers employ against them. The negroes will not be free until the next ice age destroys the United States and South Africa.
[edit] ^Please Do Not Feed This Anonymous Troll!^
—Gamahucheur 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Rush Limbaugh is an extraordinarily beloved white man who speaks to his admirers in the United States on his own radio show. He is paid many, many millions of dollars by his employers. Yesterday, he described some female descendants of slaves, calling them "hoes" (a slang term for prostitutes). Rush Limbaugh has been a beloved spokesperson for the "white backlash" citizens of the United States more than 20 years, therefore, an entire generation of caucasians have listened to his voice. Rush Limbaugh is an indicator of what the colored people can expect to be awarded. They will be called "hoes." Hell will freeze over before "reparations" are paid to the descendants of slaves.
- Superslum 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
rrrright...
