comment: >
  
  
  2/3rds of the global Jewish population was sentenced to death and chased off of a content
  
  Israel received, and Holocaust survivors continue to receive, reparations from the German government.
  
  Asian Americas were sent to interment camps
  
  Japanese-Americans were granted reparations in the Reagan era.
  
  Yet there are no corrective measures being proposed for Jewish or Asian people.
  
  We don't have to propose them because they've already been enacted.
context: /u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Poverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.
  A prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades. >
  
  !delta
  You bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution. >
  
  This is, I think, what people often mean when they talk about structural racism.
  It's easy to point at the specific laws and policies and say they're not racist in themselves.
  Sure. But things exist in a context, and are often even written with that in mind.
  It's not automatically racist to penalize one drug far more harshly than other, for example, but it sure might be if the harshly penalized drug was used a lot more by people of one racial background. >
  
  
  This is, I think, what people often mean when they talk about structural racism.
  
  Exactly. It's also what collegiate level critical race theory explores (not the bogeyman panic rhetoric the political right likes to frighten with). Essentially, examine a law with neutral language, compare demographics of groups affected, and determine what factors affect certain groups more sharply than others. >
  
  Who demographics affect shouldnt affect laws though. Opioids typically affect white people but I want a crack down on it. It wouldnt be racist it would be logical and good for poor community's. Same with meth, cocaine etc. >
  
  That all depends on what the law is targeting. Let's look at Marijuana for instance. When crackdowns on Marijuana started under the Nixon administration, we now have quotes from Nixon's counsel stating things to the lines of we know it's not illegal to be poor or black in the US but we also know a common thread between them is they enjoy Marijuana. So we criminalized it against what out own experts said so we could break up their activist groups. 
  Like even though Marijuana law is written neutrally, it was created and enforced in a way specifically because it would be easy to target minorities. So you may want a "crackdown", but if the institutions that are enforcing those laws are inherently racist, it's going to become an issue of race. >
  
  In the case of MJ the law isnt racist so its not a racist law its a racist enforcer. No one is in the streets over planned parenthood or abortions because they were designed to "curve the black population" a literally racist policy.
  The problem with CRT (real one not booggyman one) is it assumes that at some level everything is racist.
  Just because X affects Y more doenst make X anti Y it just is an observation.
  When we have proof, like we have for war on drugs THEN and only then is it worth a discussion otherwise its of no merit or positive value >
  
  I would agree if we had no information apart from "law targets marijuana users", however in this case we have more information about why the law was inacted.
  If a racist creates a law with the purpose of reinforcing said racist view and we can prove it, and prove that it doesn't positively said negative racist affect in some other way, I think it's fair to say the law contributes to racism and is somewhat racist in kind.
  We're basically arguing about the chain of causality and assigning blame. It's the same argument as saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Guns are a tool which enables people to kill other people more easily, therefore they contribute to murders. Isn't that the same here? This law contributes to racism. If the law was erased, the gaps between races would be reduced, and basically nothing else would get worse in society (as has been shown with the myriad of other successful examples of countries legalizing marijuana). Therefore, the law is in some part racist since it contributes to a racist outcome. >
  
  The ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time. >
  
  Where did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.
  There is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance.  The system is broken and needs to overhauled. >
  
  Yeah this entire thought process was flawed from the start by using the term handouts >
  
  Generally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out "by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people. >
  
  
  As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.
  
  That's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness. >
  
  Who is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race? >
  
  Are you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded. >
  
  So there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. 
  Now back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race? >
  
  Would the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race? >
  
  No. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.
  Yes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action. >
  
  I suppose I interpreted "government handout" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. 
  I'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race. >
  
  Because reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.
  Whereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws. >
  
  Because race isn't always the middle man. 
  Guess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?
  James smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. 
  While we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. 
  The answer is 1.2 percent.  How close were you? >
  
  These are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.
  Edit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth. >
  
  How does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?
  If you think "in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do. >
  
  
  How does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?
  
  Those actually are punishable crimes. >
  
  They may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race. >
  
  You don't have to prove intent in racial discrimination.  The law already considers disparate impact. >
  
  Is it still as punishable without intent? >
  
  Very much so.  Look up that term, "disparate impact," to learn more. >
  
  This is true, but it's also costly and time consuming to bring these issues up in court, prove it, and get a good resolution to the problem. Add in the risk that you can't actually convince the court that there was wrongdoing. 
  Now, it's great that its in the law and it does prevent the worst abuses, but it hasn't and can't solve the issue society wide. It's just not enough. I don't have answers for what is enough/what is fair. It's super complex. But I feel like your response kind of brushes aside all that to give the impression that this is a solved issue. >
  
  It's not costly for the plaintiff; many lawyers will take a good case ~~pro bono~~ on contingency.
  
  But I feel like your response kind of brushes aside all that to give the impression that this is a solved issue.
  
  It's not solved, but the solution isn't to reinscribe race into the law at ever more fine-grained levels.  The solution is closing the cracks which people of all skin colors fall through.
  
  Policies of social-democratic redistribution that reduce the effective income differentials between top and bottom, combined with serious anti-discrimination measures and increased public investment that restores and expands the public sector where black and brown workers are disproportionately employed, it turns out, would do more to reduce even the racial wealth gap than genuine pipe-dream proposals like reparations or other Rube Goldberg-like asset-building strategies. Resistance to such an approach throws into relief the extent to which antiracism as a politics is an artifact and engine of neoliberalism. It does a better job legitimizing market-based principles of social justice than increasing racial equality. And a key component of that work of legitimation is deflection of social-democratic alternatives. [...]
  Every time we cast the objectionable inequality in terms of disparity we make the fundamental injustice—the difference between what ... workers make and what their bosses and the shareholders in the corporations their bosses work for make—either invisible, or worse. Because if your idea of social justice is making wages for underpaid black women equal to those of slightly less underpaid white men, you either can’t see the class structure or you have accepted the class structure.
  The extent to which even nominal leftists ignore this reality is an expression of the extent of neoliberalism’s ideological victory over the last four decades. Indeed, if we remember Margaret Thatcher’s dictum, “Economics are the method: the object is to change the soul,” the weaponizing of antiracism to deploy liberal morality as the solution to capitalism’s injustices makes it clear it’s the soul of the left she had in mind. >
  
  
  I propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.
  
  I think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn. >
  
  I'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better. >
  
  Definitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most. >
  
  Another advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women. >
  
  That is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated. >
  
  I think a fair system to resolve that would be to tax all organisations on employee count, and use that money to pay child bearers directly.
  That way there’s no individuals that can be retaliated against, and is funded by those who are benefiting from that (currently unpaid) work, although shifted by a generation or two.
  This is ofc in addition to parental leave.
  If this is coupled with appropriate overtime compensation and have it extend into unemployment of fired workers it also disincentivises the casualisation of work, and incentivises employers fostering healthy careers. >
  
  "The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime."
  These efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely. >
  
  
  These efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs 
  
  If we look at ethic groups that experienced trauma from the mid 20th century or earlier you see that
  
  2/3rds of the global Jewish population was sentenced to death and chased off of a content
  Asian Americas were sent to interment camps and experienced a shitload of racism associated to WW2, Korea, and Vietnam
  
  Yet there are no corrective measures being proposed for Jewish or Asian people.
  This suggests the rationale isn’t actually historical victimization, but instead current outcomes with the built in presupposition that the different outcomes must be heavily attributable racism.
  Mind you it’s not at all unreasonable to say you want make efforts to close gaps in racial outcomes.
  It’s just if we’re not honest and in agreement in the why, then we’ll never agree on the how.
  Compensating historical trauma as opposed to closing current gaps will have different people compensated to different degrees, with different outcomes and success criteria. The distinction is meaningful and not me nit picking.