Talk:Reparations for slavery in the United States/Archive 1

message: * 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)
thread_title: Bias..

message: 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)
thread_title: Bias no longer present

message: 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)
thread_title:  The details matter... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The details do matter... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tax fraud regarding reparations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Further Counter-arguments 

message: Where is this information from? Please source this, first time I ever heard this claim.
Gorgeousp 05:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw a televised Geraldo Rivera program on which a white man claimed that "blacks" (his word, not mine) owe white people reparations for the "deprivations" (his word, not mine) caused by "affirmative action."  I suppose that a copy of that show still exists in the archives of the television network that featured "The Geraldo Rivera Show" approximately 20 years ago.  The white man who claimed that "blacks" owe "whites" "reparations" had very dark hair.  He was approximately 25 years of age.  Geraldo did not question the man's assertion.HeyYallYo 14:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blacks should pay reparations to other races?

message: This article is terribly biased from an anti-reparations point of view. --Revolución hablar ver 01:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is biased

message: Ackh!  Ackh, I say! Gamahucheur 14:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English? 

message: Though it is only two sentences, it is unsourced and does not seem to have any relevance to the topic.  I removed it.  Replace it if you can find sources and some reason why it belongs in this article instead of any other article on slavery.--spirit 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blacks had slaves too" section 

message: The paragraphs on Paramour Rights and Zora Neale Hurston don't seem to have anything to do with the issue of reparations. The last sentence trails off without making any connections to the issue of reparations.
* I definitely agree.  We should remove that part of the section entirely as it has nothing to do with reparations.  it might make a fine article on its own or a good section in an article about african americans struggling for legal rights, but it doesn't belong here.  Theangryblackwoman 20:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hay guys, I moved it to Talk:Paramour rights. I still think the section needs work, and it ends on a note completely unrelated to reparations for slavery. MisterPhyrePhox 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historical Context" section 

message: I'm unsure about how I would revert vandalism that is currently in the article, so I'll just show you where it is, and you guys can do the old revert and warn thing.
Under Private Payments
  ..requiring insurance companies doing business there to report on their role in that years snow fall 
Under Social Services
  ..She said that increased funding for resturants, movie theaters, and restrooms in the black community could be used as a form of reparations. 
For example, funding could be used to improve the baseball Coradon 09:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Reparations for slavery are 1). wrong, and two, not all slaves were black.  I happen to be of mixed White and American Indian descent, as far as I know my White ancestors, were too poor to own slaves.  On the other hand, my American Indian ancestors WERE slaves.  And as far as I know, not enslaved by my White ancestors either.  The first mixed blood in my family was born a while after slavery was outlawed.  But, sure enough there were still slaves even after it was.  Some Asian, and some Indian.  When will people learn that slavery was not limited to a single race or ethnic group?  Yes, slavery was terrible.  And yes, those of us who had slave ancestors should know, that not even they would have wanted reparations.  When it comes right down to it, are we not being racist?  I mean, after all, we'd be asking the White man now, to give us money for the work our ancestors did.  I know that I'm probably ineligible for reparations, given my lack of Black ancestry.  But remember this, Jews were enslaved by egytians longer than you were slaves in America.  Are they demanding reparations from the Egyptian government?  No.  I'm just saying, have a better argument than "our ancestors were slaves", because so were mine.
69.241.222.13 15:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reparations for slavery 

message: I've removed content challenging the estimates under WP:OR. There's nothing to verify that it is determined to be unrealistic except the editor's opinion. Additionally, given some estimates that there were as many as 500,000 slaves in the United States that's less than $1 (USD) per hour per slave. CJ 18:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slaveowners kept records, YO.  The number of slaves in the United States passed 3,000,000 around 1840.  By 1860, approximately 3,800,000 slaves existed in the USA, YO.  HeyYallYo 07:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Estimates

message: Aren't reparations for slavery discussed outside of the US? Since this article only deals with the US, it should probably be moved to Reparations for slavery in the United States or similar. Savidan 05:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: The following content was added to the precidents section:
While I don't disagree with it, it appears to be really POV, especially in that location. (Not to mention adding onto the mountain of unsourced content in the article.) CJ 21:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't keep it without a source.... futurebird 02:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content added to Precidents