NationStates Jolt Archive

What you people think about it?

I can understand it, but I'm personally very opposed to it. My family came to the US in 1949, so I don't think I owe anyone any reparations for slavery.

my family never owned slaves...

No.

My family owes jack to slavery...dad didn't come till the 80's.

Reparations would be stupid.

A)All the slaves are dead
B.All the slave-owners are dead
C)That was about 150 years ago
D)Many of the slaves were captured and sold to the slave traders by Africans
E)Many Africans themselves owned slaves
F)Slavery still exists in Africa
G)Giving them reparations would do serious damage to the reconciliation between whites and blacks that took so many years to build

Since thel slaves and those who owned them are all long dead, so too should be the issue.

They just want free handouts.

its been too long
it would have made sense even as late as 1904 but now is too far removed from anyone who had to suffer through slavery

plus the country paid with the lives of over 600,000 men.

The Roman Empire enslaved my celtic ancestors to fight in the arenas. I demand reparation from Italy!

I only say that because I have ancestors that fought on both sides of the civil war.

Those who do demand reparations are nothing but racist b******s who want to utterly destroy the relative harmony between whites and blacks that has taken many years and many lives to build.

plus the country paid with the lives of over 600,000 men.

The war didn't have jack to do with slavery, though.

The war didn't have jack to do with slavery, though.
?!?!

The Civil War was all about slavery... although sometimes not in the noble way we would imagine... for example some northern whites wanted to end slavery because white workers could not compete in the labor market with blacks who worked for no pay.

?!?!

The Civil War was all about slavery... although sometimes not in the noble way we would imagine... for example some northern whites wanted to end slavery because white workers could not compete in the labor market with blacks who worked for no pay.

Okay, slavery had something to do with it, but not everything. The North fought to 'save the Union,' and the South fought for states' rights (not just slavery, though).

No the Civil War was abouts states right's but slavery got thrown in to increase public support and recruitment.

I demand reparations for Welfare and Affirmative Action. The last time I checked blacks still have more social benefits than I do, and yes it can be proven. Just becuase some ignorant business owners and managers refuse to be fair in hiring practices does not mean I should get screwed to make up for it. They still don't hire them equally.

I know I sound like a racist, but in reality I have seen businesses that refuse to hire blacks, I was even told to not hire them. I hired them anyway. It still doesn't make sense to give them a "Go to the head of the line" in front of me though. There should be a way of punishing businesses that refuse to hire them proportionally.

As for monetary reparations, go to hell. I would fire bullets first.

1. I never owned a slave.
2. I doubt anyone in my family ever owned a slave.
3. I never met a slave.
4. I doubt any blacks in America ever knew a slave.
5. We gave plenty, including several in my family to free them, be grateful for a change you ungrateful bastards!

it was about a million differences between the North and the South, mmkay?

MMKAY?

It's stupid. Their families who were enslaved died years ago and slavery was abolished nearly 150 years ago. There is no point in paying reparations to people who never even knew what slavery was like, or knew a slave. It's just a stupid excuse for money.

No the Civil War was abouts states right's but slavery got thrown in to increase public support and recruitment.

No, the civil war was about states' rights to allow slavery.

It's stupid. Their families who were enslaved died years ago and slavery was abolished nearly 150 years ago. There is no point in paying reparations to people who never even knew what slavery was like, or knew a slave. It's just a stupid excuse for money.

Agreed.

The war didn't have jack to do with slavery, though.
tell yourself that
it had everything to do with slavery

tell yourself that
it had everything to do with slavery

Bullshit

The american civil war was about tariffs, the north needed tariffs to be able to compete with a more efficent overseas market and the south needed to lose them to remain profitable and agricultural at the same time, States' rights and, even less, slavery, just got tacked onto that to make the common man start sending bullets at friend and family

Then if the south was fighting to keep slavery how come its most prestigous officers wanted to enlist them to be granted their freedom and the vast majority of their soldiers were poor and really did not have enough money to own slaves.

Okay, slavery had something to do with it, but not everything. The North fought to 'save the Union,' and the South fought for states' rights (not just slavery, though).
Virtually every facet of life in the South was defined by slavery, including constitutional constructionism. "States rights" is just a position of political convenience... where did their sacred "states rights" go when the South pushed through the federal Fugitive Slave Act which trampled over Northern states' laws and rights? The fact is, the perpetuation of slavery motivated every single political and social policy of the South... they would in the wink of an eye betray false sacred cows like "states rights" as long as it would help them save slavery. All the causes of the Civil War can be definitively traced to the institution of slavery and answering the question of whether it will continue to exist in the United States.

Bullshit

The american civil war was about tariffs, the north needed tariffs to be able to compete with a more efficent overseas market and the south needed to lose them to remain profitable and agricultural at the same time, States' rights and, even less, slavery, just got tacked onto that to make the common man start sending bullets at friend and family
The reason the south was hurt by tariffs was because the profitability of Southern cash crops and thus the profitability of slavery was threatened by tariffs... so the South rebelled. Slavery was not just a moral issue, but also an economic one for both sides.

do y'all NEVER tire of going through the same arguements over and over?

why not keep to the topic this time instead of going through the causes of the civil war for the 10,000th time.

you all know the arguments on both sides by now, its not gonna come out any differently

Then if the south was fighting to keep slavery how come its most prestigous officers wanted to enlist them to be granted their freedom and the vast majority of their soldiers were poor and really did not have enough money to own slaves.
The South's top generals were driven to war because of their sincere patriotism. However the real architects of the southland - the politicians, landowners, and rich people - all supported slavery. And by making up some bullshit about "states rights" and how the North was the personal freedoms of Southern hillbillies, the Southern leaders motivated millions to fight.

What you people think about it?

They were promised 40 acres and a mule and they should get it.

But, then again, the US is notorious for breaking treaties and promises ...

Amazing the US hasn't been wiped off the planet yet.

do y'all NEVER tire of going through the same arguements over and over?

why not keep to the topic this time instead of going through the causes of the civil war for the 10,000th time.

you all know the arguments on both sides by now, its not gonna come out any differently

Well, as no one has provided a counterpoint and we seem to be in agreement that reparations are a bad idea, we we're left without a conflict.

So we made one

Well, as no one has provided a counterpoint and we seem to be in agreement that reparations are a bad idea, we we're left without a conflict.

So we made one
good point
i withdraw my objection

They were promised 40 acres and a mule and they should get it.
"They" have died centuries ago. Their ancestors though get affirmative action and other preferences. I came to the US in 1990 so no one is getting any acres or mules from me.


But, then again, the US is notorious for breaking treaties and promises ...

Amazing the US hasn't been wiped off the planet yet.
Stupid troll. A lot of nations' treachery is so appalling it would make the USA blush. Every nation in the world, including your own, has a history of ruthlessness in dealing with both its own people and foreign peoples, so why don't you go destroy your own country.

Reparations would be stupid.

A)All the slaves are dead
B.All the slave-owners are dead
C)That was about 150 years ago
D)Many of the slaves were captured and sold to the slave traders by Africans
E)Many Africans themselves owned slaves
F)Slavery still exists in Africa
G)Giving them reparations would do serious damage to the reconciliation between whites and blacks that took so many years to build

a) but the children and grandchildren of murder victims can get compensation in civil courts, so that's neither here nor there.

b) no, they aren't. corporations have been granted the legal status of personhood. some corporations that still exist either owned or substantially profitted off of slaves and the slave trade. which means that some slave owners are still alive. it is from these that reparations are predominantly being sought. the whole argument that 'all the slave owners are dead' or 'my family never owned slaves' misses the point and obscures the actual arguments and legal action against 'living' slave owners.

c) irrelevant as far as i care. as long as there are still currently existing 'individuals' and institutions that are guilty of crimes against humanity and profitting off of the unpaid labor of slaves, they can be held responsible and liable for their crimes. same reason why it's ok to bring former nazis to trial, even today.

d and e) and if you could point out which currently existing 'individuals' or institutions were behind that, i'd be all in favor of making them pay reparations too.

f) yes, and?

g) maybe, maybe not. it depends if crazies like horowitz are able to spin it enough to make your average white person think that black people are coming to their house to take money directly from them.... hmm, it seems they are already ahead on this front. hopefully somebody can get the actual facts of the matter out loudly enough.

I say no, and I think whites and blacks can get along well enough and both agree to enslave Mexicans :P

in a similar
yet of course entirely different
case

various indian tribes have successfully sued the US for breach of the various treaties.

from the passamaquoddy and penobscots of Maine, suing over treaties signed way before the civil war to Sandia pueblo suing for the return of the foothills of the sandia mountians near albuquerque that were granted them by spanish land grants that predate the united states.

We should enslave the passamawhatys and the sand publos too.

I demand reparations for Welfare and Affirmative Action. The last time I checked blacks still have more social benefits than I do, and yes it can be proven. Just becuase some ignorant business owners and managers refuse to be fair in hiring practices does not mean I should get screwed to make up for it. They still don't hire them equally.

I know I sound like a racist, but in reality I have seen businesses that refuse to hire blacks, I was even told to not hire them. I hired them anyway. It still doesn't make sense to give them a "Go to the head of the line" in front of me though. There should be a way of punishing businesses that refuse to hire them proportionally.

As for monetary reparations, go to hell. I would fire bullets first.

1. I never owned a slave.
2. I doubt anyone in my family ever owned a slave.
3. I never met a slave.
4. I doubt any blacks in America ever knew a slave.
5. We gave plenty, including several in my family to free them, be grateful for a change you ungrateful bastards!
Absolutly, my thoughts exactly.

I think if we can find any of those slave owners around full of life then sure go for it!

Reparations would be stupid.

A)All the slaves are dead
B.All the slave-owners are dead
C)That was about 150 years ago
D)Many of the slaves were captured and sold to the slave traders by Africans
E)Many Africans themselves owned slaves
F)Slavery still exists in Africa
G)Giving them reparations would do serious damage to the reconciliation between whites and blacks that took so many years to build


what conciliation?? I dont see much of one.

4. I doubt any blacks in America ever knew a slave.

the last living former slaves died in the 50s and 60s - with a few possibly in the early 70s. somehow, i think that a few of them had friends and relatives running around at the time.

"They" have died centuries ago.

As has already been pointed out, many corporations around today were slave holding interests and profitted off of slave labor. "They" are still very much alive.

Stupid troll. A lot of nations' treachery is so appalling it would make the USA blush. Every nation in the world, including your own, has a history of ruthlessness in dealing with both its own people and foreign peoples, so why don't you go destroy your own country.

Ummmm ... I happen to be an American ... since birth ... I think I have the right to speak out against my own country.

I think reparations would have made a lot more sense about a hundred years ago; they're more trouble than they're worth at this point, IMO (though on the other hand, forcing slave owners to bankrupt themselves in order to 'back pay' their slaves seems like the worst kind of retroactive punishment- at the time they actually owned slaves, legally they were entitled to do so).

(though on the other hand, forcing slave owners to bankrupt themselves in order to 'back pay' their slaves seems like the worst kind of retroactive punishment- at the time they actually owned slaves, legally they were entitled to do so).

in cases of crimes against humanity legality is no defense. otherwise you have to hold that genocide is often perfectly ok.

Ummmm ... I happen to be an American ... since birth ... I think I have the right to speak out against my own country.
Then speak out like a normal person and don't troll.

in cases of crimes against humanity legality is no defense. otherwise you have to hold that genocide is often perfectly ok.

Crimes against humanity is a blanket charge by the winners in a conflict to punish the losers. Nazis were persecuted for crimes against humanity even though the Allied powers also participated in terrible misdeeds against civilians. Law systems are rather arbitrary as you can see... Indians who get land to build their casino would never have gotten their land 100 years ago. Legal arguments about slave reparations or Indian land claims have less to do with timeless legal arguments and more to do with the political climate and whims of the time. Today's collective attitude is against reparations and I sure as hell hope it stays that way.

the last living former slaves died in the 50s and 60s - with a few possibly in the early 70s. somehow, i think that a few of them had friends and relatives running around at the time.

No slaves were alive in the 70's you dope. They would have been over 110 years old, and hardly have had a chance to experience being a slave, maybe they sucked on the teet of a slave, but even that is unlikely, blacks don't live to be 110+ years old due to poor diet and too much fat.

I tell you what, when blacks decide to pay a million dollars for every white person that died trying to free them, then I'll consider paying them for being slaves. For paypment, I'd suggest we offer them a free one way ticket back to Africa. We should be charging them now for all of the civil unrest that they cause in our cities on a daily basis. We are already paying reparations, billions of dollars a year to house them in prison (free room and board). I don't see too many (NONE) lining up to go back to Africa by themselves. When Ali went back, he freaked and said it was the worst place he had ever been.

Like all other areas of our culture, blacks just want MORE for nothing, and even if you gave it to them, it would never be enough! Stop your damn racist backbiting and get your own damn job. I'm trying to make a living and sick and tired of assholes saying I owe them for some past ancient wrongs. Go to hell, I never lived in the past, I've never owned any slaves, and I could give a shit if your whole family tree had to shovel shit for a living for 200 years. I have mouths to feed, bills to pay and no matter what we will all die within the same century regardless, so stop trying to be the poor victim and put down your crack pipe and get a damn job you lazy pieces of shit.

:sniper:

Maybe when you start earning respect people will start to give it. As of now, I'll never respect some thieving, lazy, lieing, cry me a river piles of crap with a bad tan. If you don't like them apples, so what, the biggest racists I have ever heard happened to be black. The funny thing is, they know it, joke about it, and play you dumb white idiots for fools. I just hope they decide to rape you when they go bangin', as they damn sure won't be workin'.

in cases of crimes against humanity legality is no defense. otherwise you have to hold that genocide is often perfectly ok.
Yeah, but at the time slavery wasn't considered a crime against humanity, and was considered perfectly moral (indeed, slavery has been considered moral by virtually every single culture except modern western culture). I don't think genocide is an immoral absolute in certain contexts- what we consider atrocities has usually, historically, simply been considered part of war. Genocide is immoral in our context, but not in every cultural context.

blacks don't live to be 110+ years old due to poor diet and too much fat.

Oh great, another one. :rolleyes:

No Black in the world lives past 110? All Blacks have poor fatty diets? Maybe... one's diet is somehow genetically determined?

Wow you're smart.

Then speak out like a normal person and don't troll.

How about you don't tell me what to do, eh? I didn't troll, I spoke my mind.

Absolutely...pay the slaves. Just bring those in who WERE slaves and pay them for the labor THEY did. Afterall, to pay someone for the labors of someone else would be wrong.

It would be reasonable if somehow those responsible could be made to pay. My anscenstors weren't in this country until after slavery was abolished so I see no reason why I should have to pay anything, but even those people whose families were here and owned slaves cannot really be held accountable for things they didn't do. No one today owns slaves so they shouldn't be made to pay for the misdeeds of their great great grandparents.

Absolutely...pay the slaves. Just bring those in who WERE slaves and pay them for the labor THEY did. Afterall, to pay someone for the labors of someone else would be wrong.

Actually, the argument is that because of inheritence the money belongs to the estate and should be paid to the controllers of the estate as back pay, despite the fact that no living former slave exists.

What you people think about it?


It's like Extremist Israelis quoting the Bible to justify their inhabitation of the West Bank! How far back do you go? Most countries have had types of slavery, economic or physical, so unless it is within living memory I think it should be ignored.

How about you don't tell me what to do, eh?
Go read the forum guidelines and that will tell you what you should and shouldn't do.

Think before you speak. If you want to bring up a point about something there is no reason to make useless rhetoric that would invite flaming.

I didn't troll, I spoke my mind.
Who says trollers and flamers don't speak their minds?

Never owned a slave. I pay nothing.

Never owned a slave. I pay nothing.

^Says it best right there.

The war didn't have jack to do with slavery, though.
Right. Then flying the Confederate flag is not about race either.

Go read the forum guidelines and that will tell you what you should and shouldn't do.

I've read them. I have yet to have trolled. You accuse me of something, I am innocent until proven guilty, hence you must prove I trolled. Otherwise, retract your statement and apologize.

Think before you speak.

I always do, kid. My stated opinion is based on extensive study of the US and its treaties and promises to people it has oppressed or systematically sought to wipe out.

The US does not keep its promises.

That isn't trolling, it's the truth.

I've read them. I have yet to have trolled. You accuse me of something, I am innocent until proven guilty, hence you must prove I trolled. Otherwise, retract your statement and apologize.



I always do, kid. My stated opinion is based on extensive study of the US and its treaties and promises to people it has oppressed or systematically sought to wipe out.

The US does not keep its promises.

That isn't trolling, it's the truth.
Here's a clue: It's the part where you are talking about the US being wiped out from the face of the earth.

No the Civil War was abouts states right's but slavery got thrown in to increase public support and recruitment.
So therefore flying the confederate banner has nothing to do with racsism then.

Okay, slavery had something to do with it, but not everything. The North fought to 'save the Union,' and the South fought for states' rights (not just slavery, though).
So once again, you argue that the confederate flag is notr about race or slavery, but about states rights.

Absolutely...pay the slaves. Just bring those in who WERE slaves and pay them for the labor THEY did. Afterall, to pay someone for the labors of someone else would be wrong.

So if I owed your father a bunch of money for work he had done for me and I had never paid him for, and he was dead, it would be WRONG for you to get the money? Sorry but I just have to disagree.

I don't see it as an important or realistic issue except in certain parts of Africa since slavery is long gone in most of the world and the slaves are all dead. If you insist that is an issue, I question the fundemental fairness of acessing what is effectively a tax on the descendants of slaves to repay the decendants of the owners of their ancestors to make reparation for the loss of their property (slaves) so that the moderns could be free. And how would you resolve it if the descendant of a slave insists on not paying reparations and instead insists upon giving up thier freedom and becoming property?

I don't see it as an important or realistic issue except in certain parts of Africa since slavery is long gone in most of the world and the slaves are all dead. If you insist that is an issue, I question the fundemental fairness of acessing what is effectively a tax on the descendants of slaves to repay the decendants of the owners of their ancestors to make reparation for the loss of their property (slaves) so that the moderns could be free. And how would you resolve it if the descendant of a slave insists on not paying reparations and instead insists upon giving up thier freedom and becoming property?

I would tell him that it's against the law.

Also, you're refering to the descendents of slaves paying the reparations to the descendents of slave owners? Where are you getting that from? Yeah, everyone pays taxes, but U.S. Blacks tend to be poorer on average than U.S. Whites anyway, so they pay less.

No the Civil War was abouts states right's but slavery got thrown in to increase public support and recruitment.

No it was about Slavery and states rights. The South was angered by the ratio of new slave states vs non.

Read the secession documents and you will see slaver mentioned. Some more then others.

I would tell him that it's against the law.

Also, you're refering to the descendents of slaves paying the reparations to the descendents of slave owners? Where are you getting that from? Yeah, everyone pays taxes, but U.S. Blacks tend to be poorer on average than U.S. Whites anyway, so they pay less.Oh talking about having the government make reparations to the slave owners for taking away their slaves, should have been done years ago but lets fact it, if your family hasn't recovered from it by now there's something wrong that money cannot fix. I thought you were talking about tracking down the descendants of slaves and forcing them to pay reparations to the people who owned thier ancestors.

Oh talking about having the government make reparations to the slave owners for taking away their slaves, should have been done years ago but lets fact it, if your family hasn't recovered from it by now there's something wrong that money cannot fix. I thought you were talking about tracking down the descendants of slaves and forcing them to pay reparations to the people who owned thier ancestors.

My apologies. I had thought that you were trying to say something intelligent.

No it was about Slavery and states rights. The South was angered by the ration of new slave states vs non.
Slavery and the intention to preserve it guided all Southern policy and political agenda. The South threw out the principle of state's rights in order to preserve slavery by supporting the Federal Fugitive Slave Act which interfered with northern states' anti-slavecatching laws, and the South's strategy for rationing new states wasn't some timeless political principle but merely to guarantee Southern influence in the Senate and thus prevent Northerners from doing away with slavery.

a) but the children and grandchildren of murder victims can get compensation in civil courts, so that's neither here nor there.

Murder has always been a crime. Slavery has not. It was once legal to hang cattle rustlers. Not it is not. Do the decended of the hanged deserve compenstation?


b) no, they aren't. corporations have been granted the legal status of personhood. some corporations that still exist either owned or substantially profitted off of slaves and the slave trade. which means that some slave owners are still alive. it is from these that reparations are predominantly being sought. the whole argument that 'all the slave owners are dead' or 'my family never owned slaves' misses the point and obscures the actual arguments and legal action against 'living' slave owners.

No they are not. The companies back then are far different then they are now. Many don't even do the businesses that they did. The arguement presented is that the great-grandfater committed the crime and you must pay the punishement.


c) irrelevant as far as i care. as long as there are still currently existing 'individuals' and institutions that are guilty of crimes against humanity and profitting off of the unpaid labor of slaves, they can be held responsible and liable for their crimes. same reason why it's ok to bring former nazis to trial, even today.

Former Nazis are still alive. The slave holders are dead. Big difference.


d and e) and if you could point out which currently existing 'individuals' or institutions were behind that, i'd be all in favor of making them pay reparations too.

That's fine. I am against it. There are some institutions that didn't even know they once did it.


f) yes, and?

And they had a hand in the slave trade. Yet, they are not getting held for their actions. As one history show said "Not all blacks were innocent, not all whites were guilty."


g) maybe, maybe not. it depends if crazies like horowitz are able to spin it enough to make your average white person think that black people are coming to their house to take money directly from them.... hmm, it seems they are already ahead on this front. hopefully somebody can get the actual facts of the matter out loudly enough.

And you think they won't. The workers of a company taking hits for the actions of 150 years ago? You think prejudice will remain the same over this?

They are taking money from them.


Sorry no reperation vote from me. My family fought the civil war. We paid our dues.

Seriously? It used to be a capital offence to wrestle with a cow?

what conciliation?? I dont see much of one.

You obviously are a youngster.

My I was but a lad; if people saw a black white couple, people would litterly stop stare and talk.

Now people don't even look twice.

Things aren't they way they could be but they have definately improved from the past.

Here's a clue: It's the part where you are talking about the US being wiped out from the face of the earth.

I said I was surprised by it. That's not trolling, it's a simple statement of opinion. I am surprised that the US hasn't been wiped out based on its constant arrogance. It's an opinion many people share, but it most certainly is not trolling.

It's like saying I'm surprised Cheney hasn't fallen dead from his multiple heart attacks ...

As has already been pointed out, many corporations around today were slave holding interests and profitted off of slave labor. "They" are still very much alive.


The corporations of today are not the same entities of the past. Some of the articles I have read talk about some companies that didn't even know they had slave trade businesses in the past.

in cases of crimes against humanity legality is no defense. otherwise you have to hold that genocide is often perfectly ok.

Slavery wasn't a crime against humanity back then.

Incidently, has anyone else seen the Dave Chappele sketch on Reparations? Hilarious stuff. :D

No slaves were alive in the 70's you dope. They would have been over 110 years old, and hardly have had a chance to experience being a slave, maybe they sucked on the teet of a slave, but even that is unlikely, blacks don't live to be 110+ years old due to poor diet and too much fat.


Whoops!

Charlie Smith, who died on October 5, 1979 in Barstow, Florida at age
137 years old, was reputed to be the last American slave, having been
born in West Africa.

Smith was born with the name Mitchell Watkins in Liberia, West Africa,
in 1842. He came to America as a child slave, claiming he was lured
aboard a slave ship.

As to the diet comments? :rolleyes:

So if I owed your father a bunch of money for work he had done for me and I had never paid him for, and he was dead, it would be WRONG for you to get the money? Sorry but I just have to disagree.
I am more than a little confused by this statement, given that the slave owners are every bit as dead as the slaves , what does you giving money to the son of someone you owed money have to do with anything? Would you expect your great great great grandchildren to be responsible for your unpaid debts?

Actually, the argument is that because of inheritence the money belongs to the estate and should be paid to the controllers of the estate as back pay, despite the fact that no living former slave exists.

Then there is the problem of proof of slavery.

Example: One of my friends in high school had the angry black thing going. Slavery this and slavery that.....

It finally ended when his old man sat him down and explained that they were never slaves. They were Zulu and his grand-parents immigrated to this country.......

Seriously? It used to be a capital offence to wrestle with a cow?

All right. Give the gimp a break! Rustler!

Smart ass! :p

So if I owed your father a bunch of money for work he had done for me and I had never paid him for, and he was dead, it would be WRONG for you to get the money? Sorry but I just have to disagree.

This is why we do not make decisions in this country that will effect a further generation to where they are bound by the decisions of the past. Hmm maybe that is why nobody takes this seriously.

I could see it now. The ancestors of women that were not treated as an equal and ancestors of child laborers should be compensated now!

Life is not fair. Get over it and get better at leveling the playing field. People of color have, now why cant you?

Also there would of had to of been a agreement on compensation and such for thier labor (like a job). They were slave holders and owners(they owned these people, legally but wrongfully back then) Now ask any person of color if they would rather be justified by becoming equal as a human or keep the status qou but lets have an agreement on wages now? Come on your milking a dead cow that happens to be a male.

This is why we do not make decisions in this country that will effect a further generation to where they are bound by the decisions of the past. Hmm maybe that is why nobody takes this seriously.

I could see it now. The ancestors of women that were not treated as an equal and ancestors of child laborers should be compensated now!

Life is not fair. Get over it and get better at leveling the playing field. People of color have, now why cant you?

Also there would of had to of been a agreement on compensation and such for thier labor. They were slave holders and owners.

First of all, "of" and "have" are not the same. "there would have had to have been..."

Second, you're right that because no one who was alive then is alive now it is nearly impossible to justify forcing people today to pay anything. It makes sense that they should recieve money, but there just isn't anyone to pay it.

Third, non-slaves did the same jobs and it would be easy to figure out how many hours were worked by slaves and multiply that by the wage the non-slaves earned to get an amount they would be owed.

Then there is the problem of proof of slavery.

Example: One of my friends in high school had the angry black thing going. Slavery this and slavery that.....

It finally ended when his old man sat him down and explained that they were never slaves. They were Zulu and his grand-parents immigrated to this country.......

Yes, proof is important, there are very many black people here now who have no relation to slaves at all. There is some existing proof that some blacks today are the descendents of slaves. Also, I don't know when your friends family moved to the U.S. but there was near-slavery in parts of the South for many years after the slaves were freed by proclaimation. The "slavery this and slavery that" rage thing was often a result of other discrimination, and while it is much less common now it still happens.

Second, you're right that because no one who was alive then is alive now it is nearly impossible to justify forcing people today to pay anything. It makes sense that they should recieve money, but there just isn't anyone to pay it.

Third, non-slaves did the same jobs and it would be easy to figure out how many hours were worked by slaves and multiply that by the wage the non-slaves earned to get an amount they would be owed.

Totally there is no way to do this justly without being unjust to the people today. So then you would have to pay reperations to the people that were unjustly asked to pay today later on and so on.

That is the point. They were non slaves they were not slaves. This is like saying because one person volunteers to do the same job as one that is getting payed should be payed the equal amount... obviously this is not the same as in these were not volunteers, but the slave owners that allowed a person of color work for money volunteered to do so in that day. They were right, the slave holders and owners were wrong. Now we know that, then they did not because it was considered normal. Simple as that it sucks to think people were like that at one point but they were.

I have read with keen interest the responses posted to the original question. Beyond the occassional racist rants (e.g., Free Soviets,) most of the discussion has been thoughtful and, while tinged with emotion, logical.

I believe, however, that most of the responses genuinely (and innocently) misunderstand the nature of the institution of slavery. Slavery, as a formal institution, ended in the United States in 1865. This is NOT the same as saying the effects of slavery ended in the 19th century, however.

It is important to recall what slavery did the the American black family. Beyond the clear destruction and destabilization of the African progenitor families, slavery prevented (by and large) the formation of stable black families here in the U.S.. This is certainly less true of the American black families in the "free" states, but is generally true of enslaved blacks.

It is likewise true that slavery dispossessed American blacks of any property owned at the time of enslavement (in the case of those formerly free blacks that were enslaved improperly---yes, there ARE documented cases of this occuring), and even prevented enslaved blacks and their descendants from acquiring property during the period of formal slavery. The consequences of slavery did not end here.

Recall that American blacks continued to be persecuted and disenfrancised following 1865. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution---the "Reconstruction Amendments," as they are called---were designed SPECIFICALLY to provide a legal basis to enforce rights that were provided to freed blacks at the Civil War's end. These amendments were in direct response to the continuing efforts of state governments in both the South and North to disenfranchise and economically isolate free blacks following the War. A large proportion of American blacks were denied participation in the job market, and were duped out of acquired real estate (or given limited access to unvalued real estate) by unscrupulous whites in both the government and private sector. But the efforts to deny American blacks did not end here either.

Terror campaigns---sponsored by state governmental organizations (i.e., White Citizens Councils) and private entitites (KKK, etc.) engaged in wholesale violence against American blacks; violence designed to politically and economically disenfranchise an already burdened sector of the American population. Recall that this campaign continued well into the 1950's, and in many respects continues to this day (although not sponsored by the government.) Recall also that the voting, employment and property rights of American blacks required ongoing 1960's and 1970's-era federal and state legislation (i.e., civil and voting rights acts of the 1960's, fair housing and employment discrimination laws of the 1970's) to protect DESPITE the promise of the Reconstruction Amendments. This all occurred within the lifetime of most of us posting in this forum. But the fight against full participation by American blacks in American economic and political opportunities did not end there.

Can anyone say "Reaganism, Bushism and anti-affirmative action?" You have read much of it in posts to this topic. Those opposing these government programs choose to ignore the social, economic and political dynamics which led to their creation; dynamics which continue EVEN TODAY and which are reflected in the volatility of responses to the question of affirmative action, welfare and voting rights. This mindset is being perpetuated from previous generations of American whites to their descendants---right up to the present generation. It is NOT enough to say, "Yeah, it happened and it was wrong, but I didn't do it and it was a long time ago." It is still happening as we speak.

I respect the responses saying reparations are a bad idea. I simply believe that such responses ignore the oldest proposition that what is past is prologue.

Yes, proof is important, there are very many black people here now who have no relation to slaves at all. There is some existing proof that some blacks today are the descendents of slaves. Also, I don't know when your friends family moved to the U.S. but there was near-slavery in parts of the South for many years after the slaves were freed by proclaimation. The "slavery this and slavery that" rage thing was often a result of other discrimination, and while it is much less common now it still happens.

Wasn't suggesting there wasn't. I have been all over this country and yet you are right.

They probably would have better chances for reperations over the Eugenics crap, seperates entrances, water fountains, seperate seats.

As Obama said, Slavery can become a crutch. My "angry" friend is doing just fine at the moment. I think he even makes more money then me.

I have some prejudice over the subject as I was in the goverment and have seen the race/descrimation card used. You know something is wrong when an old black man punches and knocks out a white woman, is fired by 2 white managers and returns to work because it was an obvious case of age and racial descrimination.

Luckily, most black americans I know just want a fair playing field and are not caught up by scammers like Alan Keyes who push for this......

I said I was surprised by it. That's not trolling, it's a simple statement of opinion. I am surprised that the US hasn't been wiped out based on its constant arrogance. It's an opinion many people share, but it most certainly is not trolling.

It's like saying I'm surprised Cheney hasn't fallen dead from his multiple heart attacks ...
No logical person on this board is surprised that the most militarily powerful nation in the world, the United States, hasn't been wiped out, even if they hope to see the fall of America some day. Your unnecessary comment did not add to your other points and was trolling.
But to be fair, maybe you really don't grasp reality, that nations don't easily get annihilated. Maybe you truly are unaware of the arrogance and evil all around the world and all through history, and therefore I can't be so sure that your unbalanced analysis of the United States is anti-American flamebait and not merely a misunderstanding due to naive ignorance. My apologies.

The civil ware was not about slavery. In old history books(dated 1900) they don't even mention slavery. The united states told a big fat lie. The slaves actualyl lived better than us Europeans stuck in the northren ghettos.

I'm sorry to say it, but your country lied to you.

:headbang:

I know your probably gonig to have to ask your idiot liberial parents about this. And then they're going to give you a typical stupid liberial response.

OH by the way I hate conservatives more.

What you people think about it?
Its ridiculous. That is more than 130 years ago.
How does a person today can have damages from that.
Many countries have - rightly - limits under which you can claim damages. They are maximum of 30 years.
That is really enough.
Therefore I don´t believe that anybody can today damages for World War II as well. 60 years is just much too late.
Otherwise we would end up people demanding damages for the 30-year-war (1618-48) or the Hundred-year war (1337-1451). Or for the occupation of Ireland (till 1921). That is just ridiculous.

So if I owed your father a bunch of money for work he had done for me and I had never paid him for, and he was dead, it would be WRONG for you to get the money? Sorry but I just have to disagree.
There is a thing which is called exclusion period. You can - certainly different from country to country - only claim unpaid wagues within two years after they appear. If you don´t go to court in that period: Forget about it.
The same for other civil damages - in my country after 30 years it is over.
And there are good reasons for that. It would be just ridiculous to come up with things so long ago. That would destroy legal security and undermine justice.

New Evidence that the Human Maximum Age Span is Rising
Narrator: This is Science Today. For more than a century, the oldest age at death in humans has been slowly rising. John Wilmoth, a University of California, Berkeley demographer who based his data on pristine Swedish death records, says their findings dispel previous beliefs that the maximum human life span had a set end-point of 120 years.

Wilmoth: A lot of people have been asking me, "well, does this mean we could all live to be 120"? No, you have to remember these are extremes. We're talking about the world record and how the world record is changing over time.

Narrator: Currently, the world record is 122 years for women and 115 years for men.

Wilmoth: Those records will probably be broken in the future, but what we show with Sweden is that those kinds of records are going up at a rate of about one-year every decade, in recent decades. And before that, they were going up about one year of age for every two decades. So what we're showing is that the human life span is malleable. It's not a fixed biological constant.

Narrator: For Science Today, I'm Larissa Branin.

the Charlie Smith claim was proven to be false in 1979, just six months before his death. His marriage license listed him as 35 on January 8, 1910, making him no older than 105 (and not an ex-slave) when he died in October 1979. Indeed, one should have suspected his tall-tale claims to have rode with Jesse James and other stories to have been made up.


still that is over 100 ! wtg 8)

It's plain stupid as you guys are calling it a crime against humanity here we go.
1. Its like killing me for when my great great grandfather murder your great great grandfather becasue my great great grandfather didn't get discoverd till now.
two my family has gone bank rup along the line some where so you can't charge me for an old debt.

As the word Slave comes from the practice of capturing Slavic people do we go back that far?
How about those damn Normans pinching the land from the Saxons?
And what about those black tribes in Africa that went about supplying slaves? How do we find out who thier decendants are and getting money from the countries they now reside in? It was regretable but it is in the past.

"I am less concerned about who my grandfather was than who my grandson will become."

Beyond the occassional racist rants (e.g., Free Soviets,)

you'd best be backing that shit up. i posted no rants, racist or otherwise.

No logical person on this board is surprised

That's because logic and surprise are mutually exclusive. Also, I said nothing about sudden or easy annihiliation. The US has had 200+ years of breaking treaties and promises to be systematically removed from the world.

That nobody has even started yet is what surprises me.

I'm sure you rest well in your deluded self-belief that you've somehow bested me by making vague attempts at proving me a troll, but I also submit that you continue this obviously silly argument because you do not have the capacity to imagine yourself as wrong. A common childhood problem.

You are correct, Free Soviets; you did not make the racist comments. Those were posted by Perrien, and he was quoting you and seeking to attack your statements. I apologize for the misstatement.

You are correct, Free Soviets; you did not make the racist comments. Those were posted by Perrien, and he was quoting you and seeking to attack your statements. I apologize for the misstatement.

ah, that explains it. all is forgiven.

I will pay for a slave exactly when I have owned one. Not a penny, and not a moment until I get my slave.

Yeah, everyone pays taxes, but U.S. Blacks tend to be poorer on average than U.S. Whites anyway, so they pay less.

Actually, that's not completely true. There is a movement afoot among blacks where they send in their tax forms and a letter saying that they've kept their taxes due as payment of reparations. Thus far, they're being allowed to get away with it, since no politician is gonna put his name on anything that specifically punishes blacks.

Also, Soviet. You cannot punish corporations without punishing the regular people. Corporations will shift the burden out to their workers and the consumers like they always do.
A Corporation pays reparations. This Corporation assesses the loss and rebalances the bottom line by firing workers and increasing prices to the comsumer. Ergo: the little guy pays the reparations & the CEO still gets his benefits package. If you want to be anti-capitalist, that's fine. But stop pretending that it's possible to punish the corporations without punishing the people.
Perhaps it's sadly true, but true nonetheless.

My take on reparations is, no way. Law is a matter of precedent, and once this gate is opened, I'll be wanting mine too. As an Irish-American, I could make note of the "No Irish Need Apply" signs. This and the fact that the Irish were relegated to the same tenements as the blacks, worked together at the low-rated jobs, and banded together in what could well be described as America's first proto-labor unions.
Eventually, it's just a big circle jerk where everyone is owed something and everyone pays everyone else until it's all just pointless.

First, my paternal grandparents were either of Irish desent (born in US), or from Ireland, so no slave ownage on that side. My maternal grandparents resided in Missouri, and were poor, so no slave ownage on that side. I'm not sure how far back citizenship goes for the maternal side, but do know no one in my ancestry owned slaves. Therefore, I don't owe any reparations to anyone. Further, if someone were to decide reparations are owed, then I'd expect them to prove my ancestors owned anybody. Going by the legal premise of "innocent until proven guilty."
Second, with regards to Affirmative Action, how can a program that allows less qualified individuals to get a job over more qualified ones just to meet a quota be good? I'd think people, even minorities, would want to be rewarded for their hard work at gaining qualifications rather than being selected purely by skin tone. It degrades their intelligence.

I say we give reparations to poor people, for their constant exploitation at the hands of the rich.

Actually...I'm kidding, though I would support affirmative action for poor families.

Reparations are stupid, they accomplish nothing and only further serve to pull blacks apart from the rest of america.