Reparations?

[prolesurge]

AA is ineffective, but not because it's a poor form of reparations.  AA is ineffeective because it is a band-aid solution instead of solving the problem in general.

Agreed. Unfortunately, I'm one of the pessimists who believes that the solution to "the problem in general" is considered repugnant by the majority of Americans.

Equitable and fair distribution of resources (both monetary and otherwise) for all school districts, along with a move to address and rectify economic policies and ideologies that have lead to the creation of segregated communities (what most people derisively address as "ghettoes", etc) and some sort of magic wand to get rid of racist ideas would do the trick. Alas, all one has to do is look at the northern response to desegregation (Detroit, Boston),  the frustrating existence of the East Palo Alto School District , and the general distaste for any policies that threaten the imaginary cloud of laissez-faire that this country clings to so adamantly and yet so selectively.

[mugatu]

AA is ineffective, but not because it's a poor form of reparations.  AA is ineffeective because it is a band-aid solution instead of solving the problem in general.

Agreed. Unfortunately, I'm one of the pessimists who believes that the solution to "the problem in general" is considered repugnant by the majority of Americans.

Equitable and fair distribution of resources (both monetary and otherwise) for all school districts, along with a move to address and rectify economic policies and ideologies that have lead to the creation of segregated communities (what most people derisively address as "ghettoes", etc) and some sort of magic wand to get rid of racist ideas would do the trick. Alas, all one has to do is look at the northern response to desegregation (Detroit, Boston),  the frustrating existence of the East Palo Alto School District , and the general distaste for any policies that threaten the imaginary cloud of laissez-faire that this country clings to so adamantly and yet so selectively.

Yes, that is what needs to be done.

[redemption]

To me politics is not a tool  to achieve ends, but its a fact of human existence.  Just like we need to feed ourselves and clothe ourselves, in the end, we have to work through politics to achieve economic, social, and political goals. 

As always, phili, you manage to confuse me like no other poster can. Welcome back. 

[philibusters]

AA is ineffective, but not because it's a poor form of reparations.  AA is ineffeective because it is a band-aid solution instead of solving the problem in general.

Agreed. Unfortunately, I'm one of the pessimists who believes that the solution to "the problem in general" is considered repugnant by the majority of Americans.

Equitable and fair distribution of resources (both monetary and otherwise) for all school districts, along with a move to address and rectify economic policies and ideologies that have lead to the creation of segregated communities (what most people derisively address as "ghettoes", etc) and some sort of magic wand to get rid of racist ideas would do the trick. Alas, all one has to do is look at the northern response to desegregation (Detroit, Boston),  the frustrating existence of the East Palo Alto School District , and the general distaste for any policies that threaten the imaginary cloud of laissez-faire that this country clings to so adamantly and yet so selectively.

But you need to think beyond that.  That sounds great.  But how and what are you willing to give.  How do you reallocate resources (through taxes, progressive taxes maybe, but that only deals with economic resources, so thats not a sufficient solution along).  I think you will find its very very very hard to come up with a system that redistributes resources in a way that furthers social justice.

 Furthermore, you want to distribute resources efficiently, how do you redistribute them in a way that is efficent, yet fair.  It seems like you would have to have a thourgh investigation of every person to decide what amount of resource they deserve, but clearly the costs of such investigations would wipe out all in the first plac leaving nothing to be distributed.  For example, if you said every person was entitled to a certain amount of resources, would that encourage efficient behavior, for example a mother who wanted to keep having children could feel assured each child would be looked after, and so men could also rationalize that they could father as many children and they wanted with as many women as they wanted and each child would be look after, however, using resources, however exemplary from a humanity perspective, on those children is not good a good investment, they are being raised in single parent home, with a lot of brothers and sisters and thus are not being given much parental resources of time and love, merely giving them food and clothes on their back and a decent school to go to realistically isn't a good investment (as evidenced by most children of middle class families that are dysfunctional do poorly in school, don't go to college, et cetera), with investments like those, resources dry up and soon there is less for everybody.  So not only do you need first accomplish the impossible task of coming up with a system to collect the resources, not you must balance efficient and humanitarian uses of them. 

To make it that much more complex how about weighing the values of such a redistribution against the so called traditional values (I use the term tradtional values somewhat generally, really it is a term that can be used to justify anything).  Traditional values say those that are smart and work hard deserve the fruits of the labor, basic John Locke.  Its not only an economic right, but Locke thought it was a moral right.  Thus according to that value it would be morally repugant to take from smart hardworking people what they have collected with the sweat of their brows.  To make this point strongest, imagine a  poor black kid, raised in poor conditions, who through hard work and ingenunity became successful, got married and two nice children, he is now economically secure, possibly even wealthy, according to Locke it would be morally repugnant to take the resources he earned through merit and hard work and redistribute it to others.  There are other traditonal values that conflict with such a redistribution.

I agree with your principal, my point is that principals are easy to agree on, details are hard to work out, basically a lot of compromise is necessarily.

[mugatu]

i've yet to be convinced this is anything than an economic problem.  what makes it otherwise?

[philibusters]

To me politics is not a tool  to achieve ends, but its a fact of human existence.  Just like we need to feed ourselves and clothe ourselves, in the end, we have to work through politics to achieve economic, social, and political goals.

As always, phili, you manage to confuse me like no other poster can. Welcome back. 

I meant to say, if you want to achieve social, economic, or political change you have to either use politics or go to war.  Thus, while politics may not always result in fair results, and annoy idealists, its important to remember the alternative-violence.  Since, most people would like to avoid violence at all costs, thats usually not a viable option, so far the most part, we have to accept politics and its give and take, as imperfect as it. 

[((A))P]

[/quote]

I meant to say, if you want to achieve social, economic, or political change you have to either use politics or go to war.  Thus, while politics may not always result in fair results, and annoy idealists, its important to remember the alternative-violence.  Since, most people would like to avoid violence at all costs, thats usually not a viable option, so far the most part, we have to accept politics and its give and take, as imperfect as it. 
[/quote]


i have a problem with this because it seems to elide the reality of violence in everyday life faced by communities of color, the internally colonized peoples of north america, as well as the external violence which emanates from the metropoles of global capitalism. so violence may be seen as an alternative to "legitimate" politics only if you ignore the massive violence inherent in the existing political system. we cannot be expected to put faith in the politicians and the political system which is killing our communities. through this lens our violent revolt can only be construed as self defense, and is an integral component of the liberation struggle.

[redemption]

lol

[philibusters]

I meant to say, if you want to achieve social, economic, or political change you have to either use politics or go to war.  Thus, while politics may not always result in fair results, and annoy idealists, its important to remember the alternative-violence.  Since, most people would like to avoid violence at all costs, thats usually not a viable option, so far the most part, we have to accept politics and its give and take, as imperfect as it. 
i have a problem with this because it seems to elide the reality of violence in everyday life faced by communities of color, the internally colonized peoples of north america, as well as the external violence which emanates from the metropoles of global capitalism. so violence may be seen as an alternative to "legitimate" politics only if you ignore the massive violence inherent in the existing political system. we cannot be expected to put faith in the politicians and the political system which is killing our communities. through this lens our violent revolt can only be construed as self defense, and is an integral component of the liberation struggle.

Well, for those who cannot take part of the political processes, there may be no alternatives but violence. That would not be immoral. However, for a society like ours (United States), I would say use of violence is immoral in general for the use of politics.

By my standards, the American Revolution was immoral for example though where the colonies were part of a political system and could take part in the political processes.

I understand sometimes though, that some groups do feel alienated and disfranchised even the United States.  The feel their goals and aspirations are after-thoughts at best to those in power and they do not have the power to push the goals onto the agendas of those in power.  But I think that confuses with being at a political disadvantage with not being able to participate in political processes. 

[prolesurge]

This is all sorts of confusing.