It might depend on what you mean by reparations. Do you mean the monitary equivalent of 40 acres and a mule guaranteed to freed people that had been enslaved? Do you mean recognition that there is a pattern of discrimination and that opportunities aren't arrived at equally for all races? There are a wide range of what people mean when they talk about reparations. How does someone teach reparations? Do you have an issue with presenting the idea that there are movements which seek reparations in a college curriculum?
You just said earlier that you want disadvantaged people to get help to lift them out of poverty. You realize that's reparations?
that strikes me as a wildly non-standard use of the term "reparations." Job assistance and job training is "help" to life people out of poverty. Job assistance and job training are not what we ordinarily consider "reparations."
Honestly property is the most common sense thing here for reparations. Given the history of of the promised farm land being systemically stolen from them for decades after Reconstruction and then combine that with redlining, The national history has caused a lot fewer black families owning property than what would occur naturally if there was no racism.
You were asked how you define reparations. Even different groups who advocate reparations talk about different forms of it. You mentioned that acknowledging reparations are sought in a college course was something with which you took issue. You are pushing a policy of ignorance.
Not at all. There is no standard for what constitutes reparations - which really is just compensation of some kind for damages inflicted in the past. All sorts of things have been thrown under the umbrella of reparations.
on edit: I disagree with the idea that there isn't at least a broadly or generally accepted conception of what's meant by the term "reparations." Your use of the term "compensation" here is somewhat more precise than how you originally framed the concept. on a second edit. I'm guessing I may be one of the few people here who has taught courses that include the subject of reparations. I have used Janna Thompson's Taking Responsibility for the Past as a textbook. Here is what she says on the question of defining and/or stipulating what is meant by the term. I think this is as good an account as any.
Not anything that I confirmed and I don't understand how you derived that from what I typed, except that you wished that it were so. All I did was ask you questions, and replied to what you answered. I have never once stated the goal of CRT. It has more than one goal. It is college level material and isn't taught in general k-12 education. All you've said is that you believe college students shouldn't learn about groups that are seeking reparations.
Certainly you can disagree of course. But from what I remember from a pew survey most people who support reparations see educational scholarships as the most helpful way to deliver them and cash was least. So I don't think there is any kind of "general acceptance" of what form reparations take shape as but their may be a lot in terms of perceptions based on various groups. I'd imagine conservatives see reparations as most like cash compensation given their tilt. Regardless, I don't see any issue with saying reparations should be in the form of educational support for groups disadvantaged by slavery or other forms of exploitation.
that's fine--but that was not what you originally were saying. You are now making/describing a normative argument ("should be in the form of") whereas your previous statement was broadly--and inaccurately--descriptive:
I don't see the conflict there. Certainly educational support is one (and perhaps the primary way) to lift people out of poverty.
to the extent we have public schools and publicly funded education, EVERYONE gets educational support to rise in life. That does not make EVERYONE the recipient of REPARATIONS.
