ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (02/12/85)
{A 2nd try - hope you didn't already get this}
>Please explain to me why *I* should be penalized for something my *ancestors*
>did? Yes, whites in America did something most people consider wrong, years
>ago. {...several arguments against affirmative action plans...}
>
There are many problems with America's programs to help disadvantaged
people. Intelligent debate is precisely what we need to create fair
and effective solutions to the social and economic problems facing
this country.
But this will never happen as long as our white population refuses
to face a very basic fact, namely:
White people are enjoying an inheritance that was STOLEN by
300 years of slavery and 100 years of legal and social prejudice.
Until white people recognize that they are simply being asked to
share their ill-gotten gains, there will be little room for intelligent
debate about anything.
-michaeljay@cadre.UUCP (02/14/85)
> There are many problems with America's programs to help disadvantaged > people. Intelligent debate is precisely what we need to create fair > and effective solutions to the social and economic problems facing > this country. > > But this will never happen as long as our white population refuses > to face a very basic fact, namely: > > White people are enjoying an inheritance that was STOLEN by > 300 years of slavery and 100 years of legal and social prejudice. > > Until white people recognize that they are simply being asked to > share their ill-gotten gains, there will be little room for intelligent > debate about anything. [MICHAEL ELLIS, <80@spar.UUCP>] In this connexion, I would like to focus attention on the injustice that is being meted out by whites in South Africa, and the inability (or lack of interest?) of any country to stop the cruelty that is going on there. Also, till recently, Australia had a very active apartheid policy, officially named "White Australia" policy. Not to mention the centuries-long dominion European countries like England, France, Portugal, Spain, Holland, etc. have had over countries in Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Why am talking about all this? Because I feel that: (1) Injustice by man against man is not just local to one country. It is going on (and had gone on) *across* countries too. (2) The so-called "developed" countries owe their position in world today - at least to a significant extent - to those poor, underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa. (3) Hence, it is not just charity that should be the driving force behind the "rich guys'" helping the "poor guys". It is moral responsibility. (You say, "But that's my ancestors who did all that!", and I say to you, "How would you like to be born in a poverty-stricken family in, say, Bangladesh?") I'm sure the reader might, by this time, be feeling that my article is out of context. Lemme explain why I wrote it. I felt it was a good opportunity for me to point out that, as we are trying to remove injustice in our own society, maybe it's time we looked out of this man-made creation called "nation" and did something to root out the global level injustice that's going on. Jay Ramanathan jay@cadre.ARPA X: "Let's go to some far away country" Y: "How about Wyoming?" -- Scene in movie "Dog Day Afternoon"
marsh@enmasse.UUCP (Marshall Glassner) (02/14/85)
In article <80@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: >>Please explain to me why *I* should be penalized for something my *ancestors* >>did? Yes, whites in America did something most people consider wrong, years >>ago. {...several arguments against affirmative action plans...} >> > White people are enjoying an inheritance that was STOLEN by > 300 years of slavery and 100 years of legal and social prejudice. > > Until white people recognize that they are simply being asked to > share their ill-gotten gains, there will be little room for intelligent > debate about anything. > >-michael The gains of my family are far from ill-gotten. My Jewish great-grandparents emigrated from Germany where they were treated like shit, and my grandfather's life as an plumber and electrician could hardly be compared with Simon Legree's. I reject your attempt to include me in some all-encompassing White Man category. The Cabots and Lodges and the slaveholders of pre-20th century America and the bigots of Selma have **nothing** in common with me. I don't discriminate, and I expect the same from others. Marshall Glassner
daly@nybcb.UUCP (daly) (02/14/85)
>>Please explain to me why *I* should be penalized for something my *ancestors* >>did? Yes, whites in America did something most people consider wrong, years >>ago. {...several arguments against affirmative action plans...} >> > There are many problems with America's programs to help disadvantaged > people. Intelligent debate is precisely what we need to create fair > and effective solutions to the social and economic problems facing > this country. > > But this will never happen as long as our white population refuses > to face a very basic fact, namely: > > White people are enjoying an inheritance that was STOLEN by > 300 years of slavery and 100 years of legal and social prejudice. > > Until white people recognize that they are simply being asked to > share their ill-gotten gains, there will be little room for intelligent > debate about anything. > >-michael WRONG!!!!! Not all white Americans have benefited from slavery. I haven't received any inheritance from anyone, nor do I see how I have benefited from slavery. My ancestors came from Ireland in the early 1900's. They did not benefit from slavery either. So much for your simple fact & your "inteligent debate". seismo!cmcl2!nybcb!daly
geb@cadre.UUCP (02/14/85)
> > White people are enjoying an inheritance that was STOLEN by > 300 years of slavery and 100 years of legal and social prejudice. > > Until white people recognize that they are simply being asked to > share their ill-gotten gains, there will be little room for intelligent > debate about anything. > This is a racist argument on its face: all people with a certain skin color have inherited guilt for what some people with the same color skin did hundreds of years ago. Many of our ancestors came long after slavery was abolished with only their shirts on their backs and built what they have by their own work. Many came to regions (like the West) with no slavery, owned no slaves. The standard of living of Canada, which had no slaves, is about the same as the U.S.; if the slaves added so much, this wouldn't be so. One could easily argue that slavery held the economy back so that if there were no slaves the country would be far wealthier. All of the facts seem to point to slavery and the subsequent black poverty as a drain on national resources. If you want to flagellate yourself, be my guest, but I recognize no obligation to discriminate in favor of blacks. If any group has a claim to reparations from the general populace of the U.S., the Indians' claim is far more substantial, since almost everyone owns land here. It is too late to rectify the injustice of slavery, since those wronged are dead.
geb@cadre.UUCP (02/14/85)
>(2) The so-called "developed" countries owe their position in > world today - at least to a significant extent - to those > poor, underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa. Actually, the converse is true. Many of the poor underdeveloped countries owe THEIR position to the developed countries: the legacy of Spanish despotism in Latin America, British, in India and Africa, etc. To make things worse, an new "worm" has been exported to the underdeveloped world by the west: Marxism. Rather than build their economies, they can now be devoured by military dictators under the guise of "serving the people." The underdeveloped countries have been exploited, but the position of the developed countries is more due to culture and technology to any raw materials bought a little less cheaply (maybe!) than otherwise.
jay@cadre.UUCP (02/15/85)
>> White people are enjoying an inheritance that was STOLEN by >> 300 years of slavery and 100 years of legal and social prejudice. >> >> Until white people recognize that they are simply being asked to >> share their ill-gotten gains, there will be little room for intelligent >> debate about anything. > >This is a racist argument on its face:............ >.....One could easily argue that slavery held the economy back >so that if there were no slaves the country would be far wealthier. >All of the facts seem to point to slavery and the subsequent >black poverty as a drain on national resources. Interesting line of thinking. The "master" gets every last measure out of his "slave", and then decides the "slave" should be paid ridiculously low wages. The "slave" thru generations is driven to poverty, and then is blamed for being a "burden on the (master's?) national resources"! There are still places where they starve donkeys (beasts of burden) until one day they (the donkeys) collapse; then they (the donkeys) become a burden on the master and are promptly disposed of. Convenient, what? Jay Ramanathan "We are all equal" "Well, some are *more* equal!" --- Farm, Animal. (By Orwell, George) (Adapted *without* his permission)
jay@cadre.UUCP (02/15/85)
>>(2) The so-called "developed" countries owe their position in >> world today - at least to a significant extent - to those >> poor, underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa. > >Actually, the converse is true. Many of the poor >underdeveloped countries owe THEIR position to the developed >countries: the legacy of Spanish despotism in Latin America, >British, in India and Africa, etc. To make things worse, an >new "worm" has been exported to the underdeveloped world >by the west: Marxism. Rather than build their economies, they >can now be devoured by military dictators under the guise >of "serving the people." Of course, one shouldn't forget the military dictatorships being supported by "Capitalist" countries too: Pakistan, countries in Latin America, etc. One of the major "underdeveloped" countries happens to be a democracy: India (in fact, the largest democracy in the world) >The underdeveloped countries have >been exploited, but the position of the developed countries >is more due to culture and technology to any raw materials >bought a little less cheaply (maybe!) than otherwise. Development is a self-supporting process. The developed countries that have gained mileage have done it at the initial expense of those less developed ones. "Culture" and "technology" exist in those countries too, but they simply can't penetrate into the competitive economies of developed countries and their cartels.
geb@cadre.UUCP (02/15/85)
>Interesting line of thinking. The "master" gets every last measure out >of his "slave", and then decides the "slave" should be paid ridiculously >low wages. The "slave" thru generations is driven to poverty, and then >is blamed for being a "burden on the (master's?) national resources"! You impute to my comments things that aren't there. How can slaves be blamed for their condition? The blame lies with the slavers. However you seem to be implying that all "white" people are the slavers. Many fought long and hard against slavery, most never had any slaves. Throughout history there have been slavers and I am sure if we go back far enough, we ALL have some ancestors who were slavers and some who were slaves. So finger pointing won't help anything. We can't rectify past injustice by introducing more injustice in the form of discrimination. Injustice occurs only to individuals not to groups. Racism is the doctrine that people can be judged and dealt with according to what racial group they belong to, rather than as individuals. Thus affirmative action is racist. Your theory that all white people share the guilt for slavery is racist. If the shoe fits wear it. >Of course, one shouldn't forget the military dictatorships being >supported by "Capitalist" countries too: Pakistan, countries in >Latin America, etc. One of the major "underdeveloped" countries >happens to be a democracy: India (in fact, the largest democracy in >the world) I haven't forgotten. Support of dictatorships is not a function of economic systems, but of great powers politics. I don't support any of it. Reagan is as bad as the Russians in this regard. At least the dictators the US supports are honest about self interest and don't hide behind some phoney theory of dictatorship of the proletariat. They also seem to be a hell of a lot easier to overthrow. >Development is a self-supporting process. The developed >countries that have gained mileage have done it at the initial expense >of those less developed ones. "Culture" and "technology" exist >in those countries too, but they simply can't penetrate into the >competitive economies of developed countries and their cartels. > Certainly they have gained mileage, but if all the underdeveloped countries were on another planet, I don't think it would make all that much difference to the developed ones. They would have to scale down some, but they have alternative means of manufacturing almost everything through technology. Sure there have been injustices, and they will continue. I hope the third world countries will soon realize the utter futility of crying about "moral responsibility" and how the developed countries should give them a lot of aid. Charity has never in been very popular in the "community" (jungle) of nations, and things aren't about to change now. Such anomalies as the Marshall Plan are quite unlikely to recur in our lifetime. The best policy for the third world is to distance themselves from the great powers..."when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled." Cozying up to the U.S. or USSR will only give them a bloody nose in the end, or worse. "Do not ask for pity, Build yourself a city." -Eric Hoffer
gary@rochester.UUCP (Gary Cottrell) (02/16/85)
In article <170@nybcb.UUCP> daly@nybcb.UUCP (daly) writes: > >>>Please explain to me why *I* should be penalized for something my *ancestors* >>>did? Yes, whites in America did something most people consider wrong, years >>>ago. {...several arguments against affirmative action plans...} >>> > >> There are many problems with America's programs to help disadvantaged >> people. Intelligent debate is precisely what we need to create fair >> and effective solutions to the social and economic problems facing >> this country. ...Blacks had their rights, etc. stolen... >> Until white people recognize that they are simply being asked to >> share their ill-gotten gains, there will be little room for intelligent >> debate about anything. >> >>-michael > > WRONG!!!!! > Not all white Americans have benefited from slavery. > I haven't received any inheritance from anyone, nor do I see how I have > benefited from slavery. My ancestors came from Ireland in the early 1900's. > They did not benefit from slavery either. So much for your simple fact & > your "inteligent debate". > seismo!cmcl2!nybcb!daly Come on, man! Use your head. Such anecdotal information ("well, my brother Ferd hasn't benefited...") doesn't prove anything. What michael is talking about can be proven *statistically*: Black people are still feeling the effects of 300 years of discrimination. Try looking at the unemployment rates for Black teenagers sometime. This is a *societal* problem, that needs broad- based solutions before it can be corrected. "If you want to judge a society, look in its prisons." gary cottrell (allegra or seismo)!rochester!gary (UUCP) gary@rochester (ARPA)
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/17/85)
In article <80@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > > White people are enjoying an inheritance that was STOLEN by > 300 years of slavery and 100 years of legal and social prejudice. > > Until white people recognize that they are simply being asked to > share their ill-gotten gains, there will be little room for intelligent > debate about anything. The majority of whites have acquired what they own by working for it. If their employer payed them with stolen wealth, who is guilty of living off of the proceeds of theft? The employee or the employer? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the employee is to be considered guilty of sharing in stolen goods. In that case, the requests from blacks for special advantages in employment, is a request for a share of what has been stolen from other blacks. I can see that this is a highly moral position. David Canzi, greedy white boy
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (02/17/85)
Several people have tried to lay the blame for the South's poor economic condition (until recently) on the institution of slavery. This is simply not true. The major reason for the poor economy of the South after the Civil War was, not unsurprisingly, the Civil War. Most specifically, Sherman's "march to the sea," which had as a primary objective destroying the economic base of the Confederacy. Sherman did a good job, and the march makes for an interesting study in military science. As a side note, see the recent net.jokes posting "are you Southern", where the "correct" answer to "What was General Sherman?" is: B) an arsonist. <mike
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (02/17/85)
> From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) > My mother, on the other hand, never got a chance to go to college. Good point. My mother did, so did my father. However, there was a time when no blacks could go to college (let alone any type of school), not because they couldn't pay for it or couldn't qualify, but because it was illegal to teach them how to read and write, because if they were able to read and write they would have been able to communicate with each other, exchange with each other how bad conditions were on the plantation, plot escapes and free those still in captivity. > Sure, there are rich white folk. There are also working class and even poor > white folk too. This 'inheritance' you speak of simply doesn't exist the way > you seem to be claiming. Those rich gentleman farmers in Virginia don't care > about the white poor any more than they care about the black poor; neither do > those corporate executives. I'll agree here. Historically, poor whites were the lowest on the totem pole before blacks were introduced into America. The first indentures were poor whites, most of whom came to America to serve under masters instead of serving time in prison. When slavery began in America, the indentures became the overseers of slaves, and generally speaking were the cruellest to the slaves (although some received their orders directly from the masters, others inter- preted their orders to mean that slaves needed to be beaten into submission). > Is a white street person any better off than his black counterpart? I would say yes, considering that due to the prevailing prejudice in our nation, blacks are generally more feared, less respected, less trusted and thereby more mistreated than their white counterparts. > Mr. Ellis, it is YOU, the fortunate, who has an obligation, not only to your > black brothers, but to your white brothers as well. I have the same > responsibility. I send money to a number of groups, most of which are > spending the money in (for instance) southeast DC, where need is great. I > don't care whether the people it eventually goes to are black, white, or > purple. I agree, in fact it is the responsibility of all of us to work for the improvement of socioeconomic conditions for all our brothers. (I have been flamed about making such a statement before, look out for an outbreak in net.politics about liberals vs. conservatives!) > ... Charley Wingate points out ways in which poor whites bear the brunt > of all affirmative action plans ... I agree, see above. > In this country, justice is not supposed to be based upon who a person's > ancestors were. Nothing I do now can change the facts of the past, and I > find it monstrous to suggest otherwise. This is true. It has been said by many (on and off the net) that *they* were not the slaveowners, neither did they condone the actions of those who owned slaves, and that they should not have to pay for the deeds of those that have gone before them. However, more needs to be done than has already been done to repair the evils done to blacks, native Americans, and anyone else who has paid for enabling our nation to be where it is today. -- ... hey, we've gotta get out of this place, there's got to be something better than this ... Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
sm@cadre.UUCP (02/18/85)
In article <6545@rochester.UUCP> gary@rochester.UUCP (Gary Cottrell) writes (in response to an assertion that all white Americans living, today, enjoy the benefits of slavery): >...Blacks had their rights, etc. stolen... >> Not all white Americans have benefited from slavery. >> I haven't received any inheritance from anyone, nor do I see how I have >> benefited from slavery. My ancestors came from Ireland in the early 1900's. >> They did not benefit from slavery either. So much for your simple fact & >> your "inteligent debate". >> seismo!cmcl2!nybcb!daly >Come on, man! Use your head. Such anecdotal information ("well, my brother >Ferd hasn't benefited...") doesn't prove anything. What michael is talking >about can be proven *statistically*: Black people are still feeling the >effects of 300 years of discrimination. ... >gary cottrell (allegra or seismo)!rochester!gary (UUCP) > gary@rochester (ARPA) There is no doubt that black Americans are not treated as equals to white Americans in many aspects of our society (although sexual and racial discrimination is not a trait seen only in white males). But it makes little sense to attempt to counter these attitudes with unsubstantiated statements. In particular, the unemployment data to which you are referring can hardly be used to *prove* that a certain societal attitude is at fault. (You might be able to show a statistical *correlation* if you could survey employers as to their attitudes and compare that to their employment records.) The original assertion was that all white Americans should share in some sort of racial guilt for the attitudes of certain (possibly even most) Americans who supported slavery in the past because they, themselves, are enjoying the benefits of this. You may or may not be able to offer evidence for this (there have been points made for both sides of this issue). But statictics, powerful as they are, are only useful when properly applied. Statements, such as the one above, demonstrate ignorance of this at the expense of a worthwhile cause. Sean McLinden
geb@cadre.UUCP (02/18/85)
In article <6545@rochester.UUCP> gary@rochester.UUCP (Gary Cottrell) writes: >Come on, man! Use your head. Such anecdotal information ("well, my brother >Ferd hasn't benefited...") doesn't prove anything. What michael is talking >about can be proven *statistically*: Black people are still feeling the >effects of 300 years of discrimination. Try looking at the unemployment rates >for Black teenagers sometime. This is a *societal* problem, that needs broad- >based solutions before it can be corrected. > Prove it then! How does the fact that black teenagers are unemployed prove that all or even most whites are benefitting from that! Who is paying their welfare. I agree some whites (and some blacks) who are usually union members benefit from the minimun wage being what it is. That is probably the major contributor to black teenage unemployment. Before there was a minimum wage, this disparity was very slight, but when you tell someone he can't hire a person for less than $3.50/hr and the person can't do $3.50's worth of work, then he isn't going to hire that person. A lot of white teenagers get their jobs through personal connections, since they aren't worth it either. No one has answered my argument that Canada is doing about as well as we are but had no slaves, and few blacks. Who's back did they achieve their success on (please don't say the Quebequois)? Slavery has damaged this country economically and morally. It was used by a small minority in order to prolong an archaic agriculturally-based culture which had long outgrown its usefulness. The present state of so many blacks is the result not only of slavery and jim crow, but of misguided social welfare policies since the 1930s which have encouraged the breaking up of black families and mass migration to the cities. I am here referring to economic policies, not civil rights policies. I believe that for them to be truly recognized as equals, not only by society, but in their own minds, they must compete for jobs, etc. on the same basis as everyone else, not on the basis with handicapped, etc., i.e. affirmative action quotas.
elf@utcsri.UUCP (Eugene Fiume) (02/18/85)
Will the people interested in discussing this irresolvable argument please discuss it outside of net.music? Thanks Eugene Fiume.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/18/85)
In article <311@cadre.ARPA> geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) writes: > > > > White people are enjoying an inheritance that was STOLEN by > > 300 years of slavery and 100 years of legal and social prejudice. > > > > Until white people recognize that they are simply being asked to > > share their ill-gotten gains, there will be little room for intelligent > > debate about anything. > > > This is a racist argument on its face: all people with a certain > skin color have inherited guilt for what some people with the same > color skin did hundreds of years ago. Gordon, if you read carefully, you will see that you are misinterpreting the citation. He did not say whites inherit guilt, he said whites inherit material benefits. Nor does he say that every white individual has inherited these benefits. You're putting the words of a fallacy of argument into his mouth. However, it is extremely likely that each of us has so benefited. I've benefitted: I went to a good school district. Compare the average quality of public school educations available to blacks with that available to whites. That is an example of persisting social injustice. There is a large Catch-22 category of social injustice that I say becomes the fault of each succeeding generation that refuses to work to abolish it. Much like the slaveholder that says "why should I take the loss incurred by freeing my slaves when it was my father who bought them?" It's easy to blame other and previous generations to try to hide your own selfish interests. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (02/19/85)
> Gordon, if you read carefully, you will see that you are misinterpreting > the citation. He did not say whites inherit guilt, he said whites inherit > material benefits. > > Nor does he say that every white individual has inherited these benefits. > You're putting the words of a fallacy of argument into his mouth. > > However, it is extremely likely that each of us has so benefited. I've > benefitted: I went to a good school district. Compare the average quality > of public school educations available to blacks with that available to whites. > That is an example of persisting social injustice. There is a large Catch-22 > category of social injustice that I say becomes the fault of each succeeding > generation that refuses to work to abolish it. Much like the slaveholder > that says "why should I take the loss incurred by freeing my slaves when it > was my father who bought them?" It's easy to blame other and previous > generations to try to hide your own selfish interests. > -- > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Oh, yeah, well I went to the SAME school district as the blacks in my town; there is only one school district in my town. And I sat in front of the same blackboards at the same time as did my black friends, and while I paid attention, many of them did not. And while I made a reasonable attempt at doing homework, many of them did not. And while I made a reasonable grade, many of them did not. However, concerned that there should be a disproportionate number blacks in the lower grades, the board of education let them go on to the next grade with a minimum of real education. Good vs. bad schools is not the problem in my town. Now the question remains, am I benefitting from this? No. My education was not in the least improved by my irresponsible classmates. It's not my fault that they have messed-up values and goals. It's because their parents are poor, which is in turn due to discriminatory laws that were around before I came to this country. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was: an Arctic wasteland, covered with ice." -Steve Martin
geb@cadre.UUCP (02/19/85)
In article <360@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >Gordon, if you read carefully, you will see that you are misinterpreting >the citation. He did not say whites inherit guilt, he said whites inherit >material benefits. > >Nor does he say that every white individual has inherited these benefits. >You're putting the words of a fallacy of argument into his mouth. > >However, it is extremely likely that each of us has so benefited. I've >benefitted: I went to a good school district. Compare the average quality >of public school educations available to blacks with that available to whites. It seems to me to be faulty logic to say that because you have it good, and someone else has it bad, that your benefits result from their misfortune. Where is the causal link? Where did the money come from that supported your school district? Did it come from taxes on blacks? If so, I agree it shouldn't have. Sure, Marxist theory holds that wealth is produced by exploitation of labor and of the laboring class, but do we have to swallow it without proof? How are so many people who are unproductive welfare-clients being exploited? Only by the politicians who need their votes, and thus want to keep them in an role of economic dependence on governmental largess, in my view. The problem with ghetto education is not a matter of money. In Chicago, the public schools in 1980 spent 5 times as much per pupil as the private (largely Catholic) schools, but the quality of education there was abysmal. The worst problem is the shattered family structure in the ghetto, lack of role models, no father at home, etc., in my view. Few of these children receive encouragement at home in academic endevors. Can you imagine what the US would be like if there had never been any slavery, and the black population was almost nil? Certainly, it would be less rich culturally, but economically, do you think it would be worse off? If so, why? I never argued that there isn't and hasn't been injustice, but that injustice occurs to individuals, not groups, and cannot be rectified by further discrimination against other groups.
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (02/20/85)
> > WRONG!!!!! > > Not all white Americans have benefited from slavery. > > I haven't received any inheritance from anyone, nor do I see how I have > > benefited from slavery. My ancestors came from Ireland in the early 1900's. > > They did not benefit from slavery either. So much for your simple fact & > > your "inteligent debate". I think the problem here lies in the attempt to attribute individual guilt to what is a societal problem. It does no good to say that any one individual didn't benefit from slavery and therefore need not assist those other individuals whose ancestors suffered under it; the same goes for other redress issues, i.e. the question of redress for Japanese-American who were interned during WWII. Although it may be true on an individual basis that one is not responsible nor descended from those responsible, it is also true on a general basis that, *generally* speaking, the present, *generally* higher, income/class/position/opportunities of the white majority in America is a result of the *general* oppression of minority groups in the past. The next question is, do we take a Libertarian approach and say no individual should redress the wrongs of a group he happens to belong to, or a more universalistic attitude that wrongs should be righted as soon as possible even if some individual rights are abrogated in the process, as long as the intent is to restore the balance quickly. I'm sorry if this is getting bombastic, but I felt I had to set the problem out. I would like to hope that most Americans in this land of opportunity are willing to see an across-the-board attempt to equalize the situation. I may be wrong. Ellen
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/20/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / rochester!gary / 6:34 pm Feb 17, 1985 >Come on, man! Use your head. Such anecdotal information ("well, my brother >Ferd hasn't benefited...") doesn't prove anything. What michael is talking >about can be proven *statistically*: Black people are still feeling the >effects of 300 years of discrimination. Try looking at the unemployment rates >for Black teenagers sometime. This is a *societal* problem, that needs broad- >based solutions before it can be corrected. Perhaps this can be shown statistically, but not the way you seem to think. It's worth noting again: before the imposition of minimum wage laws, black and white teenage unemployment were essentially the same (I think the difference was less than half a percentage point). Unions have historically been for minimum-wage laws, in some cases (in South Africa) blatantly saying that it was to "protect the white man's job" (the quote is from memory and is approximate). For details see "The State Against Blacks" by Walter Williams. As for why unions are for minimum wage laws, the general idea is that a unionized worker can often be replaced by some number of un-unionized workers. The classic example is the union backhoe operator who can be replaced by 10 ditchdiggers. If the initial scenario is that backhoe operators (with their equipment) charge $25/hr, and 10 un-unionized men charge $2.49/hr each, the 10 men will be hired and the union worker will be unemployed. On the other hand, if minimum wage forces the 10 men to charge $3.50/hr each, then the backhoe operator can charge $34.99/hr and still compete successfully with the 10 men. Because of the counter-intuitive way in which minimum wage works, ("No Virginia, it doesn't mean you get $3.50/hr for selling matches -- it means you're fired") it tends to be a very hard thing to attack politically.
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/21/85)
You mentioned Canada as doing as well as the States, without doing
it on the backs of anybody. As a history major, let me set some
facts straight about Canada.
Until only 30 years ago, Canada was a racist country when it cames
to immigration policy. We let in any group which could "help"
our economy in farming or building railroads. But if those groups
took manufacturing jobs away from the Anglo-Saxon peoples, did they
ever get some bad print!
Also, for you of the Irish descent; people, because of the famine,
were kicked out of Ireland, brought over on disease-infested ships,
and dumped into Canada, with no land available and no jobs.
The Irish were left to build the canals, with abysmal wages and
high prices, plus an often large family to feed.
Sincerely yours,
DAVE BROWN
================================================================================
WHO SAID HISTORY IS IRRELEVANT?
================================================================================mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (02/21/85)
> > As for why unions are for minimum wage laws, the general idea is that > a unionized worker can often be replaced by some number of un-unionized > workers. The classic example is the union backhoe operator who can be replaced > by 10 ditchdiggers. If the initial scenario is that backhoe operators > (with their equipment) charge $25/hr, and 10 un-unionized men charge > $2.49/hr each, the 10 men will be hired and the union worker will > be unemployed. On the other hand, if minimum wage forces the > 10 men to charge $3.50/hr each, then the backhoe operator can charge > $34.99/hr and still compete successfully with the 10 men. > > Because of the counter-intuitive way in which minimum wage works, > ("No Virginia, it doesn't mean you get $3.50/hr for selling matches -- > it means you're fired") it tends to be a very hard thing to attack > politically. What does the minimum wage law have to do with Affirmative Action?? Minimum wage laws were urged by mostly white unions who *tended* to resist integration efforts. Please explain Marcel Simon
knight@nmtvax.UUCP (02/22/85)
>> White people are enjoying an inheritance that was STOLEN by >> 300 years of slavery and 100 years of legal and social prejudice.... >The majority of whites have acquired what they own by working for it. If... What, if ANYTHING, does this have to do with MUSIC, in the current context? Please move this discussion to a more appropriate newsgroup, and keep flame out of a (normally) decent newsgroup. Flames to /dev/null. Bob
sm@cadre.UUCP (02/22/85)
In article <959@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP writes: >... Although it may be true on an >individual basis that one is not responsible nor descended from >those responsible, it is also true on a general basis that, >*generally* speaking, the present, *generally* higher, >income/class/position/opportunities of the white majority in >America is a result of the *general* oppression of minority >groups in the past. I'm not sure that all of those qualifications doesn't make the sentence meaningless but for the sak of argument, suppose it isn't. Then PROVE IT. I'm not saying that the point is not valid, it may be. But if we are going to base a social and societal policy on the premise you are suggesting, I want something besides opinion. Personally, I would feel better if we could rely on a universal desire to do good for others. But, of course, that probably doesn't exist, either. Sean McLinden
geb@cadre.UUCP (02/22/85)
In article <959@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP writes: > The next question is, do we take a >Libertarian approach and say no individual should redress the >wrongs of a group he happens to belong to, or a more >universalistic attitude that wrongs should be righted as soon as >possible even if some individual rights are abrogated in the >process, as long as the intent is to restore the balance >quickly. I'm sorry if this is getting bombastic, but I felt I >had to set the problem out. I would like to hope that most >Americans in this land of opportunity are willing to see an >across-the-board attempt to equalize the situation. I may be >wrong. > A better statement of the Libertarian views is that injustices came about because some individuals wrongfully applied force against innocents (e.g. the slaves). They believe that the problem of injustice can not be solved as long as we are willing to look at solutions that try to rectify past injustices by applying more force to a different set of innocents. She is probably right that the "universalistic" attitude is that wrongs (to my group) should be righted immediately, even if it someone else has to suffer for it (mi raza primera).
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (03/04/85)
> >Of course, one shouldn't forget the military dictatorships being > >supported by "Capitalist" countries too: Pakistan, countries in > >Latin America, etc. One of the major "underdeveloped" countries > >happens to be a democracy: India (in fact, the largest democracy in > >the world) > > I haven't forgotten. Support of dictatorships is not a function > of economic systems, but of great powers politics. I don't > support any of it. Reagan is as bad as the Russians in this regard. > At least the dictators the US supports are honest about self > interest and don't hide behind some phoney theory of > dictatorship of the proletariat. They also seem to be a > hell of a lot easier to overthrow. Reagan is *not* as bad as the Russians. El Salvador, Grenada, and all the rest are utterly incomparable to Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Vietnam (remember Vietnam? The one with the boat people? I know you don't hear about it in the news anymore, but it's still there...) > >Development is a self-supporting process. The developed > >countries that have gained mileage have done it at the initial expense > >of those less developed ones. "Culture" and "technology" exist > >in those countries too, but they simply can't penetrate into the > >competitive economies of developed countries and their cartels. > > Certainly they have gained mileage, but if all the underdeveloped > countries were on another planet, I don't think it would make > all that much difference to the developed ones. They would have > to scale down some, but they have alternative means of manufacturing > almost everything through technology. I agree entirely. The leading developed countries are the U.S., Japan, the USSR, and West Germany. The USSR is a somewhat different story, but the prosperity of Japan and West Germany has little to do with "exploiting" the less-developed countries. And in the U.S., the same is true of the some of the wealthiest parts of the nation: Alaska, Northern California, and Texas. In fact, the U.S.'s imports are pretty small compared to its domestic economy; it would be hard to show that the imports are the driving force of the economy. > Sure there have been injustices, and they will continue. I hope > the third world countries will soon realize the utter futility > of crying about "moral responsibility" and how the developed > countries should give them a lot of aid. Charity has never in > been very popular in the "community" (jungle) of nations, and things aren't > about to change now. Such anomalies as the Marshall Plan are quite > unlikely to recur in our lifetime. The best policy for the third > world is to distance themselves from the great powers..."when > elephants fight, the grass gets trampled." Cozying up to the > U.S. or USSR will only give them a bloody nose in the end, or worse. I disagree. Almost by definition, the Third World countries are poor. This is usually due to crummy internal economic policies, which gave the economies of these countries a slow exponential growth, as opposed to the West, whose economies have risen like a bat out of hell, up until the last few decades. These countries, now much poorer than the Western countries, would very much like to have some of the wealth/happiness/power of the West, so they beg us for loans, charity, etc. Sometimes they are most interested in power, in which case they beg for weapons instead, or they might go to the Eastern bloc, which, although is not known for causing the sort of prosperity that the West is, does have a comparable amount of weapons. Some Third World countries, like Libya, are stupid enough to sever their ties with the West; that is, they want independence so much that they cut off their umbilical cord. Libya, which as a result of this had a ruined economy, subsequently joined OPEC so they could screw us in the ass and get rich that way. This is not to say that the superpowers always give the trade/capital/charity that they were asked for. Of course, they have their own power struggles and economic worries. Nevertheless, not to cozy up to the West is to be an economic island (except for members of a certain cartel), and not to cozy up to either the East or the West puts one at a great military disadvantage. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "2*x^5-10*x+5=0 is not solvable by radicals." -Evariste Galois.
chu@lasspvax.UUCP (Clare Chu) (03/05/85)
In article <> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > > But this will never happen as long as our white population refuses > to face a very basic fact, namely: > > White people are enjoying an inheritance that was STOLEN by > 300 years of slavery and 100 years of legal and social prejudice. > > Until white people recognize that they are simply being asked to > share their ill-gotten gains, there will be little room for intelligent > debate about anything. > >-michael Michael, I think it is unfair to put all "white" people into one category that they are all villians. As I recall from history, many whites in this country came over as indentured servants, outcasts, and poor immigrants starved out of their homelands or persecuted religiously or otherwise (i.e. Jews, etc.). Thus to classify all whites as those who STOLE by 300 years of slavery is a bit prejudiced. I'd wager that perhaps only a small % of whites in this country are descended from slave-owners. --Clare
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (03/06/85)
> > I disagree. Almost by definition, the Third World countries are poor. > This is usually due to crummy internal economic policies, which gave the > economies of these countries a slow exponential growth, as opposed to the > West, whose economies have risen like a bat out of hell, up until the last > few decades. These countries, now much poorer than the Western countries, > would very much like to have some of the wealth/happiness/power of the > West, so they beg us for loans, charity, etc. > > Greg Kuperberg > harvard!talcott!gjk Like most apologists of economic imperialism, Greg states that we are doing these countries a favor by investing in them. Let's take a look at some figures about US foreign investment. Are we doing these countries a favor? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1979 24.8 4.2 29.0 38.6 +9.6 1978 18.0 3.8 21.8 26.9 +5.1 1977 13.0 3.3 16.3 21.5 +5.2 1976 12.8 3.2 16.0 20.2 +4.2 1975 13.9 3.1 17.0 18.1 +1.1 Billions of US $$. Columns (1) & (4) from the US Dept. of Commerce *Survey of Current Business*, August, 1980. Column (2) from the 1983 *Economic Report of the President*. (1) Change in the book value of direct foreign investment held by US corporations. I.e., private capital flow US -> foreign nations. (2) US Federal Govt transfer payments to foreigners. I.e., capital "gifts" to foreign countries. (3) Total of (1) and (2). (4) 90% of the profit from direct foreign investment. I.e., capital flow foreign nations -> US, adjusted downward 10% for the hell of it. (5) (4) - (3). I.e., net capital flow into the US, US "profits". Unfortunately, these figures do not divide third world from developed countries, but my expectation would be that capital outflow from third world countries would be occuring at at least as fast a rate as indicated by the aggregate figures, because although foreign aid to these countries might be higher, the cost of labor is quite lower. It is clear from the above that the US gains in economic terms from our economic relationships with foreign countries. Now, you may ask, "Wouldn't we make MORE money simply by moving our investments back into the US itself?". If the answer to this was yes, one would expect to see profits from foreign investment becoming less and less important over the years. As you've probably already guessed, this is not the case. The proportion of profits from foreign investments to total profits for US corporations has risen from 12.2% in 1960 to 23.0% in 1979, though the trend stabilized in the middle seventies. Criticism of the validity of these figures, or extensions for the 1980's are welcome. -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.arpa uucp: ..!{ucbvax,allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (03/07/85)
> > I disagree. Almost by definition, the Third World countries are poor. > > This is usually due to crummy internal economic policies, which gave the > > economies of these countries a slow exponential growth, as opposed to the > > West, whose economies have risen like a bat out of hell, up until the last > > few decades. These countries, now much poorer than the Western countries, > > would very much like to have some of the wealth/happiness/power of the > > West, so they beg us for loans, charity, etc. > > > > Greg Kuperberg > > harvard!talcott!gjk > > Like most apologists of economic imperialism, Greg states that we are doing > these countries a favor by investing in them. Let's take a look at some > figures about US foreign investment. Are we doing these countries a favor? [Statistics omitted] > It is clear from the above that the US gains in economic terms from > our economic relationships with foreign countries. ... > Jeff Myers The views above may or may not Of course the US gains. So do the foreign countries. What makes you think that these statements are mutually exclusive? I'll give you a painfully obvious example of mutual profit: The auto company no doubt made a profit off of the car they sold you. Do you regret that they sold you a car? Would you rather go without a car because the auto company made a profit? --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "2*x^5-10*x+5=0 is not solvable by radicals." -Evariste Galois.