NationStates Jolt Archive

This issue is a bit old, but I didn't see any threads about it when it came out and I wanted to hear some opinions about it...

Do you remember awhile ago when a buch of blacks tried to get 150 year old companies to pay for enslaving their ancestors?

Now is it just me or is the entire concept a blantent violation of ex-post facto laws? Was the atrocity of slavery entirely legal in the time that this was happening?

the blood spilled in the civil war is reparations enough

The way I look at it I did not enslave them my ancestors did so I should not have to pay them. Thats like a dad going and killing someone and aresting the son.

It seems that it is. While I cannot deny the horror slavery had on millions, I can deny that somehow, these people suffered. It'd be a much better case if there were living slaves, but the last one died in the forties.

I don't think there is a case at all if the actual slaves are not alive and the ones sueing.

The way I look at it I did not enslave them my ancestors did so I should not have to pay them. Thats like a dad going and killing someone and aresting the son.

actually, you have that analogy slightly wrong. it is actually more like a guy killing my dad and then me having that guy arrested. because the companies being sued for reparations in these cases have been in continuous existence since the time of their crimes - legally speaking these companies are just really old individuals. it is the same as going after nazi war criminals who have been in hiding for decades - they are still personally guilty of serious crimes, no matter how much time has passed.

as for the issue of ex post facto, i would guess that a court could quite reasonably rule that laws allowing slavery could never be valid, much the same as laws allowing you to legally round up and slaughter some minoirty group could never be valid. essentially, this is one of the times where 'i was just following orders' and 'it was legal at the time' don't cut it as viable excuses.

actually, you have that analogy slightly wrong. it is actually more like a guy killing my dad and then me having that guy arrested. because the companies being sued for reparations in these cases have been in continuous existence since the time of their crimes - legally speaking these companies are just really old individuals. it is the same as going after nazi war criminals who have been in hiding for decades - they are still personally guilty of serious crimes, no matter how much time has passed.

No, all the slaves and the slaves owners have been dead for over 50 years, why should the children be allowed to sue they were not slaves now were they.

No, all the slaves and the slaves owners have been dead for over 50 years, why should the children be allowed to sue they were not slaves now were they.

except for corporations and other legal 'individuals' from the time, some of which are still kicking around. if they owned or used slaves, then some entities that benefited unjustly from slavery are still 'alive'.

and you don't seriously think that children and grandchildren are not entitled to reparations for damages done to their parents or grandparents, do you? for example, if i went and swindled a bunch of money from your grandma and then she died do you honestly believe that you have no claim against me?

as for the issue of ex post facto, i would guess that a court could quite reasonably rule that laws allowing slavery could never be valid, much the same as laws allowing you to legally round up and slaughter some minoirty group could never be valid. essentially, this is one of the times where 'i was just following orders' and 'it was legal at the time' don't cut it as viable excuses.

This is pretty clearly stated in the US constitution: One cannot be tried for a crime he commited before it was illegal. Apparently, in the old monarchies kings would find something someone they didn't like did and made it illegal, then tried them for commiting the crime, even if they stopped after the law was passed, therefore claiming to be inside the rule of law.

This is pretty clearly stated in the US constitution: One cannot be tried for a crime he commited before it was illegal. Apparently, in the old monarchies kings would find something someone they didn't like did and made it illegal, then tried them for commiting the crime, even if they stopped after the law was passed, therefore claiming to be inside the rule of law.

you don't even have to look back that far. it was a favorite tactic of the administration at my high school just a few years ago.

now that i think about it, i bet the legal distinction is that they aren't being tried in a criminal court, but a civil one. they won't be found guilty of owning slaves, but they might be found liable for damages or whatever.

though i think that a case could be made for what i said earlier, that laws upholding slavery cannot be and were not ever legally binding, just like laws in nazi germany allowing the slaughter of jews and other 'undesireables' were never legal.

except for corporations and other legal 'individuals' from the time, some of which are still kicking around. if they owned or used slaves, then some entities that benefited unjustly from slavery are still 'alive'.

and you don't seriously think that children and grandchildren are not entitled to reparations for damages done to their parents or grandparents, do you? for example, if i went and swindled a bunch of money from your grandma and then she died do you honestly believe that you have no claim against me?

But you see slavery was legal at that time so I don't feel that my great great grandfather owning slaves would make me be liable to pay the grandson or grand daughter of slaves.

This is pretty clearly stated in the US constitution: One cannot be tried for a crime he commited before it was illegal. Apparently, in the old monarchies kings would find something someone they didn't like did and made it illegal, then tried them for commiting the crime, even if they stopped after the law was passed, therefore claiming to be inside the rule of law.

Incorrect, we have tried people for crimes that were not illegal at that time, such as the Germans/Japanise for war crimes.

But you see slavery was legal at that time so I don't feel that my great great grandfather owning slaves would make me be liable to pay the grandson or grand daughter of slaves.

right, i'll try this again.

no, you are not liable for your great-great-grandfather's crimes. no one is suing you for his ownership of slaves. no one at all. however, we do have certain entities that are still, legally-speaking, 'alive' that made a great deal of money through the slavery system. these entities are the thngs being tracked down and sued for damages. not you. only those entities that benefitted unjustly from slavery that are still 'alive', such as various insurance companies and shipping companies and banks and such. no great-great-grandchildren of slave owners.

Incorrect, we have tried people for crimes that were not illegal at that time, such as the Germans/Japanise for war crimes.

Firstly, that was on an international stage, and secondly the laws were clearly stated in the Geneva convention.

right, i'll try this again.

no, you are not liable for your great-great-grandfather's crimes. no one is suing you for his ownership of slaves. no one at all. however, we do have certain entities that are still, legally-speaking, 'alive' that made a great deal of money through the slavery system. these entities are the thngs being tracked down and sued for damages. not you. only those entities that benefitted unjustly from slavery that are still 'alive', such as various insurance companies and shipping companies and banks and such. no great-great-grandchildren of slave owners.

Ok, I thought you were talking about sueing indiviuals.

It's an interesting issue because it really cannot be solved in a simply legal way. It could be said that the issue is entirely mute because the law was created after the offense, but the damage was done regardless and the objective of reparations would not be simply to enforce the law, but to right the wrong that was done regardless of the law. The intention would be to rectify the economic disparity caused by slavery and its aftermath. Some would argue that the government has no place forcing reparations on a community that neither broke any laws, created, or intentionally propogated the economic disparity brought on by slavery. On the other hand some would argue that the wealth that would have been held by former slaves and their children is instead held by others and should be trasfered accordingly. It's a complicated issue at best, and one which I cannot claim to have a good solution to.

This issue is a bit old, but I didn't see any threads about it when it came out and I wanted to hear some opinions about it...

Do you remember awhile ago when a buch of blacks tried to get 150 year old companies to pay for enslaving their ancestors?

Now is it just me or is the entire concept a blantent violation of ex-post facto laws? Was the atrocity of slavery entirely legal in the time that this was happening?

Well, I look at it like this.. if said companies made fortunes on the backs of slaves, then the families should be entitled to some thing.

As for enough blood being spilled in the civil war.. the civil war was not about slavery, it just happened to be a result.. not the cause.

I share the opinion of the old man in Barber Shop in regards to reparations.

Only thing giving every black man 10,000 dollars is gonna do is make Cadillac the number one dealership in the country.

I share the opinion of the old man in Barber Shop in regards to reparations.

Wow, racist or what!

:gundge:

Racist because I don't support giving out a pittance that'll be in most cases spent and wasted on something abyssmally unneeded? Oooook.

-.- That movie also happened to be a recipient of that Soul award, bothered if I remember the actual name of it.

Racist because I don't support giving out a pittance that'll be in most cases spent and wasted on something abyssmally unneeded? Oooook.

No, racist because of this comment.. I realize you didn't make it, but you did agree with it.

Only thing giving every black man 10,000 dollars is gonna do is make Cadillac the number one dealership in the country.

Does the truth bother you?

Is $10,000 going to bring every African American out of the projects or ghettos and into the suburbs? No.

Is it going to improve their lives in the long run? Most likely no.

It'll be spent on luxury items they can't afford that make them feel like they're living a better life for a short time.

Know why I say this? Because i'd do the same thing. Give me 10 grand, i'll waste it within a year. New computer, car, cheap couple trips somewhere crazy, that's all. Know why? I'm a normal spender, like all the people, or perhaps just White people, they propose the African portion of America should receive money from.

Don't like the truth? Tough. Don't like it, but don't call me a racist.

Does the truth bother you?

What truth? No, I don't believe $10,000 would buy any one a way out of the "ghetto", but I also don't believe every one would go buy a car either.

It's a metaphor for a random luxury item, such as the ones I listed, get it yet?

I'm not a racist, i'm a cynic, which makes me right at least as often as you, probably more so, since I complain about Liberal and Conservative lies.

Sorry no rep vote from me.

Slavery was an abomination but it was the thing of the time.

Much of the reperation fight is the fact the Japanese got theres. Big difference. Those affected where still alive.

Why should the transgressions of one race be valued over others?

If we have to give money to the slaves, then why not the tribal people?

For that matter, Canada owes the Mohawks something.

Europe owes Africa a everest sized mountain of cash for their transgressions.

Japan for Korea and China....

It sounds nice but reperations will solve very few problems.

If I were President. I would send a Generation to college for free. That would do more then handing out cash.

But then how do your prove slavery?

I had a buddy that went through an angrey black stage. Opressive whites, slaverers, etc. etc.

It only ended when his old man sat him down and said asked him why he was doing this.

Especially since his grandparents were from South Africa and the family was always in South Africa(Zulus). They were never any American Slaves.....

Hmmm maybe I shouldn't suggest the tribal people. My ancestor led the force that "pacified" the Ohio area. ;)