Well, now that I'm sufficiently "inspired" to write, might as well continue and bring this full circle to one of my earlier blog posts where I contemplated out loud the idea that I may not live to see another year (spoilers: I'm still here)
Here I am, whiny 20-something cis, straight, white male, spending half of my time an insufferably opinionated politics wang, spending the other half being insufferably depressed. Is it any wonder I don't make new friends and I can't keep prospective romances from fleeing after a month with my simultaneously infuriating, frustrating, and neurotic mess of a mind?
It's been about two weeks on the dot since my last depressive meltdown. Hardly enough time to get used to not constantly feeling broken. Every time, I wonder if it'll be the last. I wonder if I'll magically get better this time, or alternatively if I'll finally feel so broken that I'll do something stupid and either life changing or life ruining.
The first thing I did when the depressive wave hit full force today was give heavy consideration to finishing my work for the day, telling my boss I quit, going home early, packing up a pillow, my cat, and a few necessities, leaving a check for several months' worth of rent, and just leaving with absolutely no plan or idea what I was going to do. Shit, I'd be lying if I said it wasn't still turning in my mind as I write this. Or maybe I'll finally write down a date and plan a trip to somewhere where assisted suicide is legal (turns out the four US states that have it require the patient to have a terminal disease, and somehow I doubt the rhetorical argument that depression is terminal would work on them. That and you have to be a resident).
I worry about becoming a statistic- a note on a page and a stain on the ground. But I worry more about having these feelings for the rest of my life. Feeling trapped in this body- in this mind- in this life.
The real thing I'm worried about? I'm worried I won't have someone who can support me through that decision. And I'm worried about how terrible it would be to ask someone to do that- to be there with me through the decision to kill myself. How on earth could I possibly ask someone who's presumably a close friend to travel with me- to help me find closure in life and in death and hold my hand before I take that step of finality. How could I do that to someone I care about? But how can I continue to do this to myself? To keep going when it hurts so much so often? To persist even when I've built my life so poorly on a foundation of dust and cobwebs; structurally nonexistent. I'm a runaway train that just hasn't crashed yet, but is destiny-bound for disaster.
I go through this song and dance every month- through therapy, psychiatry, drugs, coping techniques, hobbies, friendships, extra sunlight, extra sleep, and all I do is get more resigned, more neurotic, and more miserable. Even as much as I would have wanted companionship, I don't want to put anyone through that, knowing how bad I've been in relationships past and how much worse I appear to have gotten since.
So maybe it's about time I throw in the towel and embrace the stoic inevitability of death (who says I can't be cliche, even in times of despair?).
Who am I kidding? This'll end up like all the others- a plea for attention and recognition because my sense of self-worth is wrapped up entirely in what others think of me, despite going so far out of my way to alienate people and tread my own path. I'm too paralyzed by self-doubt and fear to make any decisions on the finality of death.
Here's hoping I figure it out someday so I can finally get off Mr. Bones' Wild Ride~
Monday, May 2, 2016
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Voting Third Party for the General Election
Preface: This only applies to states that have the potential to matter in the general. If you live in California, I don't care if you vote third party, the democrat will still win. I'm also about to yell at progressives despite being a staunch progressive who supports things as far left as universal basic income.
So, I was scrolling through my feed today, when I happened upon a friend of a friend admonishing people who advocate for voting for Hillary if she's the eventual nominee. This person chided those of the position as "a thinly veiled attempt by cis straight white people to tell marginalized people to sit down and shut up and vote Democrat."
Well, color me pissed. Mostly unrelated, but the poster was a straight, cis, white male (I'll address this more later). Second, I get the exact opposite impression (though I try to be mindful of such concerns). Incremental benefits for marginalized demographics as opposed to direct detriments for marginalized demographics seems like a pretty obvious pick, but more germane, the argument that not voting against Trump represents a huge amount of privilege was never aimed at marginalized groups. It was aimed at white, middle class college students who would rather watch the world burn than see the status quo perpetuated (I'll hit this in a bit).
Lastly, it advocates instead for something unhelpful and impractical: voting third party.
Sorry, the green party isn't viable. Libertarian party isn't viable. None of the third parties are viable. And they won't be until our fundamental election rules change.
I want it to be- I really do. I like a lot of what they have to say (although surprise, they're kind of anti-science with their stances on GMOs, holistic/alternative medicine, and nuclear power)!
But they're not viable. Progressivism is getting more popular, but the country is still mostly moderate. Even if it wasn't, convincing almost literally everyone in a political party to abandon ship basically isn't going to happen for a dozen different reasons.
The thing that a massive movement to a third party would do is spoil the election. Enjoy President Trump.
Acknowledging this isn't some sort of DINO conspiracy to get minorities to keep establishment dems in power (okay, I bet there are some dems who feel this way, but don't generalize everyone who believes in the "lesser of two evils" phenomenon), it's an effort to literally get the best outcome we can out of a shitty situation.
I get that you want to burn it down to remake it. "Watch the world burn." The DNC "deserves" it. To a large extent, I agree with all of that. But this isn't about me. This probably isn't about you either, given that most of the people on my friends list (and most of their friends) are white and closer to middle class than anything else.
This is about Muslims losing rights, potentially being monitored, counted, labeled, and possibly being shoved into camps depending on how the general public runs with Trump's message.
This is about immigrants being able to seek the American dream (whether it's a bit of an unattainable lie or not) without being literally walled out.
This is about refugees being able to flee a wartorn country to the safety of our arms.
This is about choosing between a status quo warhawk or an egomaniac who cavalierly announced he would employ worse than waterboarding to get what he wanted- announced he would kill the innocent families of suspected terrorists.
This is about making sure that women's rights start climbing back up finally. Safeguarding the right to safe and accessible abortions and birth control.
This is about making sure that impoverished people have some hope with SOME kind of minimum wage hike, even if it's not as much as we want.
Seriously, I get it- I've been a Bernie fan since long before he announced his candidacy. I've wanted him to run for president for the last two elections, and I think he's got the right idea to push for a sweep of new, progressive congressmen. That's how you change a party; change it from the ground-up. You're never going to get the party to change by wasting 5% of the vote on a third party candidate. Do you remember Ralph Nader? He didn't change anything. No one in power saw that 2.5% of the vote he got and thought "we're losing the people! Quick, veer the party left!"
Bernie supplanting the democratic establishment by operating within it is the closest you'll get to a party coup on the left in this generation.
But you, white, straight, educated, cis male- you voting third party is the fucking height of privilege because you'd rather see the world burn down out of ideological purity (hoping naively that it would swerve hard left upon being rebuilt) than to make incrementally beneficial changes for marginalized demographics.
There's a common rebuttal that Hillary and the DNC are holding supreme court seats hostage- they're acknowledging that they're the lesser of two evils, but that they're still evil. And it's absolutely correct, and you're right to be pissed about it.
And you know what you should do?
Participate in politics. Get Debbie Schulz kicked out of the DNC chair position. Participate in local politics and get progressives into whatever positions they can. Once the party has been taken over at the ground level (or even a little before that), progressive presidential candidates will be seen as more viable by the establishment- they'll be a part of the establishment. Does playing the game suck? Absolutely. Should you have to? Nope.
But we have a lot of obligations that we shouldn't have. And the best way to solve them as long-term problems is to change policy and the people who push policy. Our democracy is set up to be slow, deliberate, and with high inertia. You can't just change that by pissing your vote away. Even if, Jill Stein (Green party candidate) got 5% of the vote and we managed to get through 4-8 years of Trump without any catastrophes, she would get to participate in debates and be able to get ignored by the media like other outsider candidates do (remember Ron Paul?). And what then? She'll continue spoiling the vote? How many lost elections do you expect to have to go through before something "clicks" and the DNC "fixes" the party? And what happens during that time? Are you okay with abortion becoming totally illegal during that time? What about South American immigrants being totally banned? Or Muslims being put in registries?
What are you willing to allow in the name of ideological purity?
Hillary sucks, no question. I actually hate her. But if you held a gun to my head and asked me to pick between her or Trump, the idea of picking Trump baffles me. If you legit think his social policies are acceptable, then this post isn't for you and we shouldn't know each other anyway. But if you think Hillary and Trump are the same, I have no idea what world you've been paying attention to. They're both wealthy corporatists with a penchant for war. And those are big things; but that's not even close to the sum total of their positions or the expected consequences of voting for them. One of them will be neutral or potentially good for marginalized groups. The other will definitely be actively detrimental. It shouldn't even be a discussion if your focus is on marginalized groups.
Hillary sucks, but she's popular, and there's no way in hell she'll lose by enough of a margin to make the DNC rethink everything they represent, even if that was how political parties tended to work (they don't usually).
Change the ground landscape. Bring a progressive age to local politics and the people around you. The rest will come naturally. And with a country of 300 million people, you're not going to get much better than that.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Reparations
Here we go. We're gonna' discuss something difficult and divisive. Something that is automatically muddied because I'm a white male. But I want to address this because it's come out of the woodwork with Ta-Nehisi Coates admonishing Bernie on his no-reparations stance.
In particular, the disagreement arose from Paul Krugman's take on Medicare for all, the Bernie Sanders version of universal healthcare. Krugman argued that we don't have the political force necessary to get anything like that through congress- which is a fair argument. Many people, in response to this, have said that Bernie at least has the courage to try something impossible because it's the right thing to do. He's fighting the good fight, even if he'll lose.
Ta-Nehisi Coates saw that and remarked that this position seems at odds with Bernie's thoughts on reparations, which is that it's impossible, among other things. He criticizes Bernie as inconsistently wanting to do one impossible thing for the good of all, but refusing to even try another.
That's where we stand after the last two and a half weeks.
And I'm frustrated about it. Not least of which because this kind of rhetorical demand isn't placed on anyone but Bernie. But also because Ta-Nehisi is calling Bernie out on a discussion of reparations that does not meet his definition of reparations, which means he's calling Bernie out about a discussion he didn't have. The question, when asked of Bernie and when discussed in common parlance today is about money. Payment. Compensation.
With all due respect (and I assure you, there's a lot of it), reparations has an entirely different set of challenges facing it than universal healthcare. Namely, there are a lot more challenges facing reparations.
Both problems share one roadblock in common: neither venture would likely see the light at the end of the tunnel that is the legislative process. If the similarities continued beyond that, I would be able to stomach Mr. Coates' derision for Bernie's position, but that's just not the case. Not only are there other problems, but they're far greater, far more germane problems than simple congressional gridlock.
First, reparations, as a concept, relies on harms done, which presents a legal roadblock. Each individual, to be entitled to reparations, would need to prove that their ancestors were slaves themselves. That alone isn't a huge hurdle, since the majority of black persons in America are descended from slaves in some capacity, but because we're talking about tangible, non-equal moneyed compensation, each individual would need to prove exactly what their ancestor went through in order to fairly determine how much compensation should be awarded. This means proving how long they were a slave, proving what kind of treatment they may have endured, and proving the link between that and the injustice the claimant has suffered to this day (this final item likely being a proof necessary from a legal representative in a supreme court case over the matter, since it would assuredly come to that). So, aside from the political barricade, you have a cumbersome legal one. Accounting for every black person, vetting their claims, proving more likely than not that their claims are sufficient to warrant moneyed compensation and determining how much compensation-- for every black person in America? We're talking decades of work, which might be worth it if not for...
The problem with solving systemic issues of inequality by cutting a check to each sufferer. It doesn't work. Take lottery winners, pro sports athletes, and other rich-quick examples from history. Most of these people end up bankrupt within a short period of time. This is because people who haven't received sufficient education or experience in personal finances who suddenly come into a huge windfall of money have no idea how to manage it. They go overboard, enjoying the luxuries that they were deprived of their whole life to that point. They live an unsustainable lifestyle because they don't know any better in many cases (mind you, this applies in general to under-educated individuals). Cutting every black person in America a check to make the problem "go away," will result in a lot of people, many of whom are under-educated thanks to systemic racism and inequality, getting a windfall that they often will be unable to or unwilling to manage before it disappears completely. Handing people a lump sum of money is a terrible way to undo systemic injustice that they've faced their entire lives. It's a terrible way to correct a problem, since it's limited in scope, and it fails to address the problems that led to the inequality in the first place, but more on that later as we move onto...
The excuse that America then has to dismiss racism as a problem. By giving reparations to whomever is deemed deserving, the justice and political systems of America will be able to say "look, we paid for racism." They can throw their hands up and say that any problems that come after that day are not their fault; not society's fault. They'd be wrong, but they would have an argument to stand on. When future generations complain about inner city schools, police stops, incarceration rates, conviction rates, employment rates- all they would need to say is "we already gave you money. What did you do with it?" And no matter what the response is, it will be black people that look like the irresponsible party in this instance. I don't think that's acceptable behavior for legislators. I don't think that's fair or moral, but it's what they'll do, and it won't be easy to argue against. It'll be even harder to get the support of average Americans after something like that happens. So, now not only do we have a political barrier, a legal barrier, and a pragmatic barrier, but we have a second political barrier to further progress in racism discourse. But as if that's not enough, there's also...
Money. There's a limited amount going around, which poses two distinct problems for reparations: 1. The money will have to come from somewhere. Namely, it will be argued that it needs to come from social services, since those are, it will be argued, already subsidizing the sufferers of systemic racism. If we give them money, they shouldn't need it from the safety net, which can then shrink as a result. They may go as far as to take from related areas, like education, healthcare, food programs, etc. All bad things. The second, potentially more relevant problem, is that there are currently roughly 42 million black people in America. 42 million. Let's be generous and say that for whatever reason, only half of them manage to make a case for reparations. That's 21 million individuals who will be paid. How much could they reasonably get? $1,000 for all of them would cost $21 billion. A mere thousand bucks. And that's nowhere near enough to make a substantial difference in the fight against systemic inequality, poverty, and injustice. But how much would actually be due in a reasonably world? Between 6 and 14 trillion dollars. An amount that is functionally impossible to grant any cause, no matter how righteous, even if all other obstacles were eliminated outright. An amount that would destroy the economy of the US were they to give it out to 42 million individuals. But ultimately- above all of this, there's one problem that cannot be overlooked and cannot be understated...
Money doesn't make the problem go away. Racism is an attitude, a cultural zeitgeist, a set of values and expectations we've cultivated over generations. Throwing money at it won't make it go away; it won't solve the problem. A thousand dollars for every black person would be swell for a year, but probably wouldn't last beyond that. For some, that might even make a great difference, but it would come at the cost of having a leg to stand on in the debate for systemic change. Change for who gets educated, how well they're educated, what kind of things they learn, what kinds of heroes and heroines star in our shows and our movies, what kinds of politicians lead our nation, what kinds of jobs we can expect to be turned away from based on nothing more than the color of our skin, what kinds of interest rates we get, what kinds of businesses exist solely to exploit us and our dependencies, and what kind of justice system we have. These are things that need broken down and reformed from their base. That's the only thing that can start to cure this human ailment called racism.
If we lined up every black person and told them they could choose between better schools, better healthcare, and criminal justice reform or a lump sum payment, how many do you think would take the money? How many would feel like they have no choice? How many of them really know what the difference would be? Giving them hope of reparations is giving them the easiest way out imaginable. The one that would solve the fewest problems. It's a bribe. "Here. You didn't see nothin'."
We owe them more. We owe them so much more. And more importantly, we owe their kids more. We owe their grandkids so much more. We owe them a better system that doesn't make them talk about this problem. A system that lets them focus on growing up, getting an education, working, being happy and healthy. Reparations wouldn't do that. It might help for a few, but it would be the ultimate in prototypical American "I got mine, so I don't care anymore" philosophy. Everyone else from whom the problems continued will have been left behind in the empty crater of the hopes and dreams reparations promised them, but couldn't deliver as more than a hollow shell.
We don't have the money, Mr. Coates. And even if we did, would that solve the problem? Or would it be a band-aid, worn to cover the infection that racism is- spreading slowly across the body- hiding the ugly truth from us temporarily?
Why not spend that money on sustainable programs that reverse the systemic nature of our inequality gaps? Why not work to reduce the qualitative difference between black and white lives through housing, education, food subsidies, community enhancements, and environmental panaceas?
Universal healthcare has some roadblocks, it's true. But they're superficial roadblocks. Problems we can solve, but choose not to. Reparations is plagued by problems we can't solve. Problems that would undermine the very efforts that reparations would attempt to further. Comparing them is not only intellectually dishonest, but short-sighted and actively dangerous. Reparations should come in the form of solutions built upon existing structures to strengthen, enhance, and protect black lives against the system that has wronged them; not giving them a moment of fleeting financial comfort within the system that robbed them of that wealth once before.
And as a final note, I should say that I'm not suggesting these things- universal healthcare, better schools, more structural protections for black people, etc.- will cure racism. They won't. But they'll go a lot further than throwing money at black people and dusting off our hands, I'd bet $14 trillion on that.
EDIT:
Upon further reflection, I have another thought or two. Ta-Nehisi Coates doesn't advocate for direct payment reparations, so it's worth noting that several of my criticisms are not applicable to his plan, but ultimately, his plan is borne from a definition of "reparations" created solely for the sake of his personal philosophy. And while that's as good a reason as any, he neglects to take that into account when talking about reparations publicly. When he talks about reparations and how they should be on the table, millions of black people everywhere are hearing what I describe above. Coates' position is actually much closer to Bernie's than he makes it out to be. He wants the system fixed, but he wants it fixed in such a way that it's framed as a reparations project specifically for slavery and the suffering after slavery, which I don't disagree with. I think it's a good idea for congress to openly admit that the wrongs and injustices black people have endured was directly caused by white supremacy and that even to this day, the white power system ruins lives, bankrupts black people, and even kills them regularly. I think it should be a message sent in good faith by our representatives to attempt to heal wounds.
But I think framing it as "reparations" without being explicitly clear that we're not talking about money is dangerous, and that many (I would even argue most) of the people arguing for reparations are suggesting that money (or land/other commodities) is the way to solve the problem. And for the reasons listed above, I think that's wrong and an unhealthy way to view the discussion.
In particular, the disagreement arose from Paul Krugman's take on Medicare for all, the Bernie Sanders version of universal healthcare. Krugman argued that we don't have the political force necessary to get anything like that through congress- which is a fair argument. Many people, in response to this, have said that Bernie at least has the courage to try something impossible because it's the right thing to do. He's fighting the good fight, even if he'll lose.
Ta-Nehisi Coates saw that and remarked that this position seems at odds with Bernie's thoughts on reparations, which is that it's impossible, among other things. He criticizes Bernie as inconsistently wanting to do one impossible thing for the good of all, but refusing to even try another.
That's where we stand after the last two and a half weeks.
And I'm frustrated about it. Not least of which because this kind of rhetorical demand isn't placed on anyone but Bernie. But also because Ta-Nehisi is calling Bernie out on a discussion of reparations that does not meet his definition of reparations, which means he's calling Bernie out about a discussion he didn't have. The question, when asked of Bernie and when discussed in common parlance today is about money. Payment. Compensation.
With all due respect (and I assure you, there's a lot of it), reparations has an entirely different set of challenges facing it than universal healthcare. Namely, there are a lot more challenges facing reparations.
Both problems share one roadblock in common: neither venture would likely see the light at the end of the tunnel that is the legislative process. If the similarities continued beyond that, I would be able to stomach Mr. Coates' derision for Bernie's position, but that's just not the case. Not only are there other problems, but they're far greater, far more germane problems than simple congressional gridlock.
First, reparations, as a concept, relies on harms done, which presents a legal roadblock. Each individual, to be entitled to reparations, would need to prove that their ancestors were slaves themselves. That alone isn't a huge hurdle, since the majority of black persons in America are descended from slaves in some capacity, but because we're talking about tangible, non-equal moneyed compensation, each individual would need to prove exactly what their ancestor went through in order to fairly determine how much compensation should be awarded. This means proving how long they were a slave, proving what kind of treatment they may have endured, and proving the link between that and the injustice the claimant has suffered to this day (this final item likely being a proof necessary from a legal representative in a supreme court case over the matter, since it would assuredly come to that). So, aside from the political barricade, you have a cumbersome legal one. Accounting for every black person, vetting their claims, proving more likely than not that their claims are sufficient to warrant moneyed compensation and determining how much compensation-- for every black person in America? We're talking decades of work, which might be worth it if not for...
The problem with solving systemic issues of inequality by cutting a check to each sufferer. It doesn't work. Take lottery winners, pro sports athletes, and other rich-quick examples from history. Most of these people end up bankrupt within a short period of time. This is because people who haven't received sufficient education or experience in personal finances who suddenly come into a huge windfall of money have no idea how to manage it. They go overboard, enjoying the luxuries that they were deprived of their whole life to that point. They live an unsustainable lifestyle because they don't know any better in many cases (mind you, this applies in general to under-educated individuals). Cutting every black person in America a check to make the problem "go away," will result in a lot of people, many of whom are under-educated thanks to systemic racism and inequality, getting a windfall that they often will be unable to or unwilling to manage before it disappears completely. Handing people a lump sum of money is a terrible way to undo systemic injustice that they've faced their entire lives. It's a terrible way to correct a problem, since it's limited in scope, and it fails to address the problems that led to the inequality in the first place, but more on that later as we move onto...
The excuse that America then has to dismiss racism as a problem. By giving reparations to whomever is deemed deserving, the justice and political systems of America will be able to say "look, we paid for racism." They can throw their hands up and say that any problems that come after that day are not their fault; not society's fault. They'd be wrong, but they would have an argument to stand on. When future generations complain about inner city schools, police stops, incarceration rates, conviction rates, employment rates- all they would need to say is "we already gave you money. What did you do with it?" And no matter what the response is, it will be black people that look like the irresponsible party in this instance. I don't think that's acceptable behavior for legislators. I don't think that's fair or moral, but it's what they'll do, and it won't be easy to argue against. It'll be even harder to get the support of average Americans after something like that happens. So, now not only do we have a political barrier, a legal barrier, and a pragmatic barrier, but we have a second political barrier to further progress in racism discourse. But as if that's not enough, there's also...
Money. There's a limited amount going around, which poses two distinct problems for reparations: 1. The money will have to come from somewhere. Namely, it will be argued that it needs to come from social services, since those are, it will be argued, already subsidizing the sufferers of systemic racism. If we give them money, they shouldn't need it from the safety net, which can then shrink as a result. They may go as far as to take from related areas, like education, healthcare, food programs, etc. All bad things. The second, potentially more relevant problem, is that there are currently roughly 42 million black people in America. 42 million. Let's be generous and say that for whatever reason, only half of them manage to make a case for reparations. That's 21 million individuals who will be paid. How much could they reasonably get? $1,000 for all of them would cost $21 billion. A mere thousand bucks. And that's nowhere near enough to make a substantial difference in the fight against systemic inequality, poverty, and injustice. But how much would actually be due in a reasonably world? Between 6 and 14 trillion dollars. An amount that is functionally impossible to grant any cause, no matter how righteous, even if all other obstacles were eliminated outright. An amount that would destroy the economy of the US were they to give it out to 42 million individuals. But ultimately- above all of this, there's one problem that cannot be overlooked and cannot be understated...
Money doesn't make the problem go away. Racism is an attitude, a cultural zeitgeist, a set of values and expectations we've cultivated over generations. Throwing money at it won't make it go away; it won't solve the problem. A thousand dollars for every black person would be swell for a year, but probably wouldn't last beyond that. For some, that might even make a great difference, but it would come at the cost of having a leg to stand on in the debate for systemic change. Change for who gets educated, how well they're educated, what kind of things they learn, what kinds of heroes and heroines star in our shows and our movies, what kinds of politicians lead our nation, what kinds of jobs we can expect to be turned away from based on nothing more than the color of our skin, what kinds of interest rates we get, what kinds of businesses exist solely to exploit us and our dependencies, and what kind of justice system we have. These are things that need broken down and reformed from their base. That's the only thing that can start to cure this human ailment called racism.
If we lined up every black person and told them they could choose between better schools, better healthcare, and criminal justice reform or a lump sum payment, how many do you think would take the money? How many would feel like they have no choice? How many of them really know what the difference would be? Giving them hope of reparations is giving them the easiest way out imaginable. The one that would solve the fewest problems. It's a bribe. "Here. You didn't see nothin'."
We owe them more. We owe them so much more. And more importantly, we owe their kids more. We owe their grandkids so much more. We owe them a better system that doesn't make them talk about this problem. A system that lets them focus on growing up, getting an education, working, being happy and healthy. Reparations wouldn't do that. It might help for a few, but it would be the ultimate in prototypical American "I got mine, so I don't care anymore" philosophy. Everyone else from whom the problems continued will have been left behind in the empty crater of the hopes and dreams reparations promised them, but couldn't deliver as more than a hollow shell.
We don't have the money, Mr. Coates. And even if we did, would that solve the problem? Or would it be a band-aid, worn to cover the infection that racism is- spreading slowly across the body- hiding the ugly truth from us temporarily?
Why not spend that money on sustainable programs that reverse the systemic nature of our inequality gaps? Why not work to reduce the qualitative difference between black and white lives through housing, education, food subsidies, community enhancements, and environmental panaceas?
Universal healthcare has some roadblocks, it's true. But they're superficial roadblocks. Problems we can solve, but choose not to. Reparations is plagued by problems we can't solve. Problems that would undermine the very efforts that reparations would attempt to further. Comparing them is not only intellectually dishonest, but short-sighted and actively dangerous. Reparations should come in the form of solutions built upon existing structures to strengthen, enhance, and protect black lives against the system that has wronged them; not giving them a moment of fleeting financial comfort within the system that robbed them of that wealth once before.
And as a final note, I should say that I'm not suggesting these things- universal healthcare, better schools, more structural protections for black people, etc.- will cure racism. They won't. But they'll go a lot further than throwing money at black people and dusting off our hands, I'd bet $14 trillion on that.
EDIT:
Upon further reflection, I have another thought or two. Ta-Nehisi Coates doesn't advocate for direct payment reparations, so it's worth noting that several of my criticisms are not applicable to his plan, but ultimately, his plan is borne from a definition of "reparations" created solely for the sake of his personal philosophy. And while that's as good a reason as any, he neglects to take that into account when talking about reparations publicly. When he talks about reparations and how they should be on the table, millions of black people everywhere are hearing what I describe above. Coates' position is actually much closer to Bernie's than he makes it out to be. He wants the system fixed, but he wants it fixed in such a way that it's framed as a reparations project specifically for slavery and the suffering after slavery, which I don't disagree with. I think it's a good idea for congress to openly admit that the wrongs and injustices black people have endured was directly caused by white supremacy and that even to this day, the white power system ruins lives, bankrupts black people, and even kills them regularly. I think it should be a message sent in good faith by our representatives to attempt to heal wounds.
But I think framing it as "reparations" without being explicitly clear that we're not talking about money is dangerous, and that many (I would even argue most) of the people arguing for reparations are suggesting that money (or land/other commodities) is the way to solve the problem. And for the reasons listed above, I think that's wrong and an unhealthy way to view the discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)