Should America Pay Reparations For Slavery? with Katherine Franke (Ep.3)

In this episode, I interview Katherine Franke, one of America's leading scholars on law, racial justice and African American history, about slavery, reparations and what this means for modern America.

FOLLOW COLEMAN

FOLLOW KATHERINE

BOOKS BY KATHERINE

#Slavery #Reparations #Politics

[amitb.e.]

From around 49:00 and onwards, she began explicitly voicing the empirical and moral assumptions, as well as rhetorical sleights of hand, that need to be challenged. Here's a list of them:


1) the moral assumption that past harms (no matter how distant) that have negative effects on people alive today must be repaired through reconciliation
2) the empirical claim that forms of *systemic* racism - not merely racial animus and individual acts of racism - have consistently "reinvented" and "reproduced" themselves since the end of slavery, and almost none of them has been permanently removed from the system (as if there's a "law of conservation of systemic racism")
3) the moral claim that individuals alive today must bear the costs of reparations for fellow citizens who are worse off today than they otherwise would have been had their ancestors not faced social oppression (effectively, something like luck egalitarianism is being assumed here)
4) the empirical assumption that there is systemic racism present in our current society, and even well-off individuals of racial minorities are affected by it (this must be demonstrated)
5) the explanatory empirical assumption that current average inequalities between racial groups are due to the presence of ongoing systemic racism (as opposed to only the downstream consequences of past systemic racism)
6) the methodological (and moral) assumption that analyzing power dynamics is the correct moral and political framework
7) the conceptual framework wherein slavery is a "structure" and not an event
8) the empirical claim that "the structure that makes it possible to enslave people remains (...) the ideology that made slavery possible (racism and white supremacy) continues" --- in other words, the claim here is that the social structure of "slavery" (she may be equating it with "racism" and "white supremacy") is present today as an inherited social structure within American society


None of these assumptions and claims are self-evidently true, and they all must be challenged: the assumptions must be explicitly justified, and the claims must be demonstrated.

[russelld]

She is a perfect example of the flaws of collectivist thinking. She is incredibly intelligent. She is incredibly articulate and compassionate and recognizes the heart wrenching injustice of slavery and the aftermath. But because she is a collectivist she sees black people today as victims of yesterday’s injustice. Because after all they are the same group. Despite living under a different system, with different rights, different opportunities, and totally different lived experiences they are black, their defining characteristic in her mind, and therefore they are victims of that past injustice. Attempting to correct past injustice in a collectivist framework will always lead to more injustice. Because it will always be someone other than those who actually perpetuated the injustice paying the price. We can never correct for past injustice. All we can do is accept it and remain committed to Civil rights for all and equality under the law.

[dustinkdye]

Thank you, Coleman, for showing how reasonable people can disagree. This was a good conversation that could potentially sway someone on either side.

[EvilMonkey]

It's fascinating how new religions like social justice still manage to
copy old religions like Catholicism, with concepts of Original Sin.

[Dash]

45:00 - This is the biggest difference. Coleman frames it as "We as a society giving reparations for past injustice". This makes sense to me, although details matter. She frames it as; "We today are directly benefiting from these past injustices" So we today are guilty and personally owe reparations. The injustices still exist. It's a "wind at our backs" and it's responsible for wealth gaps and inequality. It's constantly changing, nebulous and hard to pin down. And and and...
So it is intentionally not defined, and clearly will not end, ever. At which point I tap out, knowing it wont happen.

[natashaofnarnia]

It’s so refreshing to hear two people with different points of view calmly discuss those differences without someone getting very defensive or disrespectful

[MattHarnettMusic]

Glad you are using your growing platform to (continue) be(ing) thoughtful and respectful to those you both agree and disagree with. More respectful conversations like this between ideological opponents are what we need.

[mattcarman]

I feel like you didn't challenger her at all on so many points... I think I know why because you want a broader audience. You are a wonderful person and I admire what you are doing, I have so much respect for you. I am basically on your page but I feel like she said some things that you know were kinda BS....Come back maybe a bit more, but in the nice, open minded way you do....You're a refreshing voice, please don't stop my friend

[msorsky]

Coleman, hearing you speak and articulate your thoughts has provoked me to reconsider many of mine (as a middle-aged white male professional). It seems to me however, that you sometimes are less willing to pose less politically correct (or progressively politically correct) dialogue with those of which who dispute your line of thinking, as opposed to the more candid dialogue you have with those who share your line of thinking. This appeared as an interview, in which you hesitated to challenger her views; she was basically able to pose her point of view with but little intellectual challenge.

[Kitanaisback]

Katherine Franke brings up too many good points, you can’t ignore it and just call her a cultist 😅

[noeshiffy]

I really loved how you gave so much history that the majority of education systems do not cover. I would love to hear more history lessons like this.

[imagebboy]

This was a great conversation, loved both sides. Keep up the great work!

[sifridbassoon]

the whole "land trust" idea reminds me of the zemstvos in pre-revolution Russia. Actually, the entire discussion reminds me of what happened to serfs in Russia under Alexander II. They were freed, but they had no land of their own.

[stephaniekitchen]

Coleman, thank you so much for your insightful, considered discussion of sensitive issues. I really appreciate your discussion with educated, thoughtful, guests who are very skilled at discussing sensitive issues so deftly.
Really unusual. And so appreciated.

[DkerT]

Sorry, her arguments about b"white supremacy" and "white privilege" are utterly destroyed by Asian Americans. Indian Americans also. There's all kinds of mental gymnastics used to try and disarm this glaring contradiction.

[samuelbelkin]

Coleman — more discussion is needed with this woman. It needs a part 2 sometime in the future. I appreciate the back and forth and the historical information was GREAT - but the more subtle points of her argument need to be challenged which only started in the last 15 minutes or so. If someone had a single great-great-great grand mother that was a slave—are they entitled to reparations? What about someone many generations into the future? It feels like an ephemeral non tangible goal that will continue to be impossible to attain in a concrete way. I’d love to see a discussion with you guest, you, and Dr McWhorter.

[burleybater]

And so the long, long arm of history reaches forward into our present, and in a selective and political way (as is often the case) and groups everywhere struggle to re-set themselves, sorting through 2020 thoughts, ideas, realities, judgments and analyses circumnavigating around the known facts of 1950, 1920, 1890, 1865 and 1776.


I sat up straight when Coleman pointed out that he himself has somehow profited and enjoyed a privilege due to the days of slavery. And I thought to myself, just how do we dissect this thing? How do we take it apart and put it back together again, so that each and every one receives a fair judgement, according to every single aspect of their particular and personal life, and according to their ancestors, a billion billion deeds done, weighed out and ascertained correctly on that monumental sliding scale?
Or does it just bog down and wallow in some symbolic repatriation that ultimately changes either nothing or very little. And the disappointment that comes from that, and then the anger and the retribution, and the sad old merry go round keeps spinning 'round and 'round.
And as it spins, real accomplishments are struck by all that flying debris.


I ponder, how much this dialogue 'opens up' may be equivalent to how much a very necessary and productive truth becomes lost in a maze....and instead of a thousand ways out, only one very narrow little exit.

[robinbeers]

A nuanced civil discussion between two intelligent people who disagree. How refreshing.

[russelld]

Good lives are not “distributed.” They are created individually by the people that live them. It is so disempowering to believe that The quality of our lives come from some power above us.

[Poop]

Coleman is adopting Sam Harris's podcast mannerisms