bobbo says:

Ok–I’ve flogged that horse enough and can live with the dissonance.

Onward, HO!

At #65–”So I guess it seems clear to me that our society as a whole is still benefiting from the effects of our slave-owning past./// I suffer from a lack of reading of the economic historians you refer to. There “must be” a few websites that reveal the gist of this? My “common sense” says a real benefit existed during the pre-industrial/agricultural/King Cotton stage of our nation and even that it provided a base of sorts for the follow non-cotton, non-slave industrialization==but each passing years does make the objective fact of this more attenuated? Could this added value still be objectively measured after the Great Depression that wiped out all sorts of value? WW1==WW2? I suppose, but very attenuated?

I also think Gnu stated some of the issues very well (#67).

At #78 and elswhere you say: “Well, I’m not arguing for reparations, much less for a federal approach to them.”

At #87–”I don’t believe that any reparations are due, bobbo.”

hahahahah–ok==I’m an idiot. What are we talking about then? There is currently an economic benefit being experienced by all Americans (black and white, Pilgrim Descendants or just arrived)actually all inhabitants of the USA, that is a direct result of slavery and its continuing Jim Crow and discriminatory activities across the USA.

Ok. Now what? You can’t be that much an academic? ((That would be worse than ME—something I don’t wish to contemplate!!))

bobbo says:

James: “Is that merely academic? I don’t think so, although I’m certainly an academic at heart and wouldn’t shy away from the label.” /// If you aren’t recommending specific action as a result of facts you deemed determined, why yes indeed, you are being entirely academic. Not to be redundant, but on any issue that I “cared” about, I would not want to be seen as a feckless academic. I would engage in the acquisition of knowledge and argument, but take action as thereby warranted—if I cared.

“I think it’s important that we understand who we are and where we come from.” /// Not if you don’t do anything with it. For myself, I think it is VERY BAD POLICY to let the dead hand of history grab us by the throat. Much better in very many areas of human enterprise to “forget about the past” and take advantage of the future. Lots of room for argument there and it should be read with lots of exceptions when the right topic comes up===just “in general” as a sloppy organizing principle. That is who I wish to be and where I wish to go.

“If, as Americans, we believe that the founding fathers and the documents they wrote, for instance, are a part of our heritage, then surely this is, too.” /// From your perusal of that Confederate Flag posting, you might have noticed I really don’t respect the notion of “heritage.” Its backward looking. === I’m gratified to see how consistent I am across several related issues and my own life and my deepest held philosophical outlook. Is this “Heritage” you postulate an all or nothing monolithic beast==or can it be dissected cafeteria style? For myself–I reject all heritage. I CHOOSE the historical documents only as they currently exist under modern interpretation. If that is “heritage,” I’m fine with that but it is NOT the original thing itself. I accept no burden from the heritage of the burden of slavery other than to follow the golden rule==burden enough given the history of man?

“If you believe that these facts cry out for something else to be done, then please feel free to let us know what that would be.” /// Yes the facts tell me something: we all are born with our own history. It makes the family of man different and the same at the same time. It calls for empathy and compassion within resources and interest as the opportunities arise.

James says:

If you aren’t recommending specific action as a result of facts you deemed determined, why yes indeed, you are being entirely academic.

Not at all, bobbo.

First of all, I am recommending specific action. Just not reparations. I said so in the comment you’re quoting from.

Secondly, however, it’s not “entirely academic” to mention facts that are important, relevant, and largely unknown to most Americans, even without choosing specific actions to recommend at the same time.

It’s like saying “Iran has a covert nuclear program,” and giving details. It’s not “merely academic,” because that fact has relevance, even if you aren’t saying what, if anything, ought to be done.

Not to be redundant, but on any issue that I “cared” about, I would not want to be seen as a feckless academic.

There’s nothing “feckless” about being an academic, bobbo. And on any issue that I cared about, I’d first want to educate people about the nature and importance of the issue, and establish myself as credible on the topic, rather than first focusing on telling people what I thought they ought to do about it.

Not if you don’t do anything with it.

Really? You wouldn’t want to understand about, say, the positive aspects of our heritage as Americans, even if you felt nothing ought to be “done” about it?

I think it is VERY BAD POLICY to let the dead hand of history grab us by the throat. Much better in very many areas of human enterprise to “forget about the past” ….

You admit that you’d make many exceptions to this general rule, so what’s your point? Do you believe that in this area, learning and acknowledgment are VERY BAD POLICY? Do you think that we’re letting the dead hand of history grab us by the throat by acknowledging our own history? Doesn’t that, instead, free us to act or not act for the right reasons?

you might have noticed I really don’t respect the notion of “heritage.”

That’s terrific, bobbo. Then you can say, with perfect consistency, that you put no stock in American history, good or bad, as relevant to you. My argument would only apply to those who take pride or similar reaction to our nation’s heritage.

Of course, that would still leave the issue of whether you ought to be aware of how your environment became what it is, but that too is debatable.

I accept no burden from the heritage of the burden of slavery other than to follow the golden rule

That’s great, bobbo. I simply hew to a different philosophy, one which says that if I’m the recipient of benefits for having been born into this society, I can’t simply take those benefits for granted without awareness of where they come from, and why I enjoy those benefits and others don’t.

If you’re not concerned with that issue, that’s perfectly legitimate. My arguments would be addressed, then, to those who make inconsistent claims, like saying that their lives aren’t affected by the past, or that they earned everything they have without benefiting from privilege, or that those who have less are simply less deserving and not in any way less fortunate.

Yes the facts tell me something: we all are born with our own history.

Well, then you don’t believe that these facts cry out for anything to be done, so I’m not sure why you were criticizing me for not calling for something (more) to be done.

In any event, our histories are all interrelated. You and I both realize that, we simply draw different conclusions from it.

Seems to me you have little worry about being accused an academic

That is what I said, bobbo.

Do you mean that I can’t be accused of being an academic, because I hadn’t researched what web sites discuss that issue? That has nothing to do with being an academic. An academic would try to be familiar with the scholarly literature (some of which is online and most of which isn’t), not with web sites which try to report on that literature.

Some real interesting reads there right off the bat

Neither of those quotations sounds plausible as a general description of the role of slavery in the economic development of the U.S. And the first quotation doesn’t come up in a Google search. If you want to provide cites or links to where you’re reading that, I’d be happy to comment on the context.

I’m sure much of what you say the economic historians have reached agreement on is fairly accessable ==maybe not your book sources, but others to the same conclusion?

I’m not sure what you’re asking, bobbo. Are you asking whether I know of economic historians whose published work on the economic development of the U.S. is available for free online?

I suspect “statistical analysis”==we start to believe the conclusion of the conditional premise and forget the conditional premise. Stinking Thinking I call that. Still interesting ==but not really “proven.”

I’m really not sure what you’re talking about here, bobbo. I didn’t mention statistical analysis, so when you put that term in quotes, where are you even getting it from? I’m not arguing from statistical analysis.

James says:

I think to be fair to your blog this conversation should really be taken there hopefully to be of some interest to those who find your resource?

I’d be quite fine with that, bobbo. I certainly didn’t wan to encourage a migration of our conversation from one blog to the other, but you’re welcome to comment there (and it might be more appropriate, I don’t know!).

As you can see over there, I do try to respond to anyone who’s looking to engage in a conversation. So it’s really up to them whether they find it worthwhile to keep at it.

There might be several reasons why I prefer to look only to the future?

This strikes me as reasonable, bobbo, and a common response to this history. That is to say, a lot of people aren’t thrilled to learn that what they’d believed about the history of their country, and their society, wasn’t entirely what they’d thought it was.

Now, you say that doesn’t matter much to you, and I certainly believe you. But for some people, it’s difficult, or even quite threatening, to have their assumptions challenged in areas involving patriotism or their self-identification as Americans.

I am “assuming” having only learned of “economic history” by this thread that most of its conclusions are reached thru statistical assumptions and analysis?

Not at all. There are many methods of analysis at work in economic history.

Now, some economic historians do employ statistical analysis as part of their work. But frequently in an entirely non-controversial way, for instance, using descriptive statistics to lay the groundwork for analysis, rather than regression analysis to try to establish causal links.

For instance, Douglass North uses statistics in part of his classic on this subject, The Economic Growth of the United States 1790-1860, but primarily to establish such basics as what the U.S. economy was producing or trading, and how those flows rose or fell at different times. Establishing most issues, such as what was causing what at various times, he left to other forms of analysis.

I will make a response on your website regarding the ambivalence you evidence about the reparations issue.

I look forward to it, bobbo. I’m posting this response here out of courtesy to anyone reading, but I welcome your comments on my own blog. Including your explanation of how you believe my position on reparations is ambivalent.