NationStates Jolt Archive

A few simple questions:

Do you support reparations for slavery? Why or why not?

Do you think reparations will ever be paid? Why or why not?

A few simple questions:

Do you support reparations for slavery? Why or why not?

No!

Do you think reparations will ever be paid? Why or why not?

I hope the hell not.

Who is there to pay?

it would have been appropriate if some reparations had been made immediately after the civil war so that former slaves could have had a bit of something to start their new free lives with.

now its too late. the grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren and great great great grandchildren of slaves do not deserve reparations.

Reparations can only be payed to the wronged party. Victimhood for a crime and responsibility for a wrong are not inheritable. Since no one alive is responsible for slavery in the US, and no one alive is a victim of it, talk of reparations is a sick joke.

finding out who to pay would be the hardest part. What rules would apply as to who ggets the money and how much.

Maybe they could make a pain-o-meter to determine who is the most damaged.

From a legal standpoint, the government owes reparations that were promised and never paid.

From a legal standpoint, the government owes reparations that were promised and never paid.

But a promise isn't a bill, and I don't see a promise as being inheritable. Governments renege on promises all the time - and can't be called on it.

But a promise isn't a bill, and I don't see a promise as being inheritable. Governments renege on promises all the time - and can't be called on it.

And I have not seen anything on a promise either.

And I have not seen anything on a promise either.

So you are completely unaware of how the federal government stated that every single slave was to be given thirty acres and a mule?

My great-grandfather was taken as a slave by the Cherokee and had to enlist in the US Army during WWI to escape the condition-do you really think the same people arguing for reparations will argue for me to get a cut of casino money?
This whole reparations argument is just an attempt to villify America and revitalize a civil rights argument settled long ago.

A few simple questions:

Do you support reparations for slavery? Why or why not?

Do you think reparations will ever be paid? Why or why not?

No, because there is nobody from that era (slave or owner) that is still alive.

So you are completely unaware of how the federal government stated that every single slave was to be given thirty acres and a mule?

The Federal Government says a lot of things-since they can't be sued to hold to their agreements without their permission, it's a moot point.

What kind of moron government pays reparations to dead people?

I swear last time we had this question asked, almost everyone supported it and called me an evil bigot for questioning it.

I think indirect reparations should be paid by helping the descendants of slaves in bad economic situations find ways to lift themselves out of poverty or their low-income.

I thought the dems have been trying to do this for years?

I think indirect reparations should be paid by helping the descendants of slaves in bad economic situations find ways to lift themselves out of poverty or their low-income.

So you are completely unaware of how the federal government stated that every single slave was to be given thirty acres and a mule?

ive heard that many times but i dont think its true.

who in the fed govt promised it? when? was a bill every introduced into congress on it?

I think indirect reparations should be paid by helping the descendants of slaves in bad economic situations find ways to lift themselves out of poverty or their low-income.

I am in full agreement. Reparations don't necessarily mean monetary handouts.

However, I really don't think that we should help people out based only upon the color of their skin. I believe that anyone in poverty should have equal access to government welfare and aid, and that the welfare/aid provided be linked to employment opportunities.

I think that sounds like the best and most fair solution.

Do you support reparations for slavery? Why or why not?

Yes, because it is part of the United States coming to terms with its history of racism and repairing the effects that history has had on the Black community.

Do you think reparations will ever be paid? Why or why not?

No, because the idea is unpopular in the extreme.

I think indirect reparations should be paid by helping the descendants of slaves in bad economic situations find ways to lift themselves out of poverty or their low-income.

This is pretty close to my feelings.

There are corporations, private citizens and even the government whose financial standings today are owed at least in part to slavery then. There are also people whose lives now are still affected by what was due their ancestors and never given. I don't think I'd call that 'reparations' though. Nevertheless, I'm always stunned by how greedy the richest 1% can be. Why should we need to tax the rich to help the poor? Maybe if they weren't so souldead, we wouldn't have to ask that question.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-01-mega-mansion_N.htm

Lawyers looking for easy money would love to turn this 'nothing' into something, much like native land claims in Canada. It's money in the bank, since there is no way to ensure that everyone that was indeed wronged is reimbursed, (or their offspring in this case).

From a simple standpoint, if an entity commits a wrong, and that wrong causes some harm to somebody, the entity that committed that wrong owes compensation to the harmed party, I think we can all agree to that.

Now as a matter of law, the fact that someone dies before compensation can be paid does not stop the obligation for compensation. If you negligently cause a car accident and kill me, you can be sued by my estate on my behalf. The compensation would pass through my estate and to my decendants.

Yes, slavery harmed the slaves. Yes, the slaves are dead, but they have decendants. For any other wrong, a claim can be brought even after death and that compensation be passed to decendants. Why should this be ANY different?

That's point one. Point two is the question of whether the legacy of slavery continues to harm people TODAY. Frankly speaking I think it naive to the point of willful ignorance to believe that the ramifications of slavery do not continue to have an impact on our society today.

ive heard that many times but i dont think its true.

who in the fed govt promised it? when? was a bill every introduced into congress on it?

40 acres, not 30. And as to your question:

40 acres and a mule is a term for compensation that was to be awarded to freed African American slaves after the Civil War— 40 acres (16 ha) of land to farm, and a mule with which to drag a plow so the land could be cultivated.

The award—a land grant of a quarter of a quarter section (a common homestead size of the time) deeded to heads of households presumably formerly owned by land-holding whites—was the product of Special Field Orders, No. 15, issued January 16, 1865 by Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman, which applied to black families who lived near the coasts of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

ive heard that many times but i dont think its true.

who in the fed govt promised it? when? was a bill every introduced into congress on it?

Special Field Order #15. Turns out it was revoked by Johnson.

40 acres, not 30. And as to your question:

Ah so it was Sherman and not anyone in the administration?

From a simple standpoint, if an entity commits a wrong, and that wrong causes some harm to somebody, the entity that committed that wrong owes compensation to the harmed party, I think we can all agree to that.

Now as a matter of law, the fact that someone dies before compensation can be paid does not stop the obligation for compensation. If you negligently cause a car accident and kill me, you can be sued by my estate on my behalf. The compensation would pass through my estate and to my decendants.

Yes, slavery harmed the slaves. Yes, the slaves are dead, but they have decendants. For any other wrong, a claim can be brought even after death and that compensation be passed to decendants. Why should this be ANY different?

That's point one. Point two is the question of whether the legacy of slavery continues to harm people TODAY. Frankly speaking I think it naive to the point of willful ignorance to believe that the ramifications of slavery do not continue to have an impact on our society today.


The thing is, the people in the wrong are also long dead. You can't sue me for something my great great grandfather did before my grandfather was a twinkle in my great grandfather's eye.

You can't sue me for something my great great grandfather did before my grandfather was a twinkle in my great grandfather's eye.

technically, my estate can sue you for something you did to me, yes. Even after I am long since dead, my estate can sue you. Now, yes. The slave OWNERS are dead.

But nobody's getting reperations from THEM. Reperations should come from the government of the United States of America and the various states such as south carolina, virginia, etc which legalized and condoned slavery.

Nobody is talking about getting reperations from PEOPLE. They're talking about getting reperations from THE GOVERNMENT. And last time I looked outside my window, the government of the United States of America is still here.

technically, my estate can sue you for something you did to me, yes. Even after I am long since dead, my estate can sue you.

But you can't sue me for something my ancestors did. You can't even attack their estate once it has been probated.

But you can't sue me for something my ancestors did. You can't even attack their estate once it has been probated.

quite right, but we're not talking about getting reperations from PEOPLE. We're talking about getting reperations from the GOVERNMENT, the government that legalized, condoned, and institutionalized slavery.

The government that is still here.

quite right, but we're not talking about getting reperations from PEOPLE. We're talking about getting reperations from the GOVERNMENT, the government that legalized, condoned, and institutionalized slavery.

The government that is still here.

Actually...no it isn't.

technically, my estate can sue you for something you did to me, yes. Even after I am long since dead, my estate can sue you. Now, yes. The slave OWNERS are dead.

But nobody's getting reperations from THEM. Reperations should come from the government of the United States of America and the various states such as south carolina, virginia, etc which legalized and condoned slavery.

Nobody is talking about getting reperations from PEOPLE. They're talking about getting reperations from THE GOVERNMENT. And last time I looked outside my window, the government of the United States of America is still here.

3 problems:

1: At the time of slavery, it was not a legal wrong.

2: The government itself did not hold slaves, and therefore is not a direct actor.

3: Given we are a Democracy, you ARE technically taking money from all of us if you take it from the government.

40 acres, not 30. And as to your question:

Special Field Order #15. Turns out it was revoked by Johnson.

very interesting.

so it only applied to a specific group of people as ordered by a union general who may not have had authority to divide up land belonging to other people.

well at least it has some factual basis.

so could descendants of those slaves sue on the basis of not getting their land? hmmmm its kinda swampy/marshy there but 40 acres today would surely be worth $10,000 acre.

From a simple standpoint, if an entity commits a wrong, and that wrong causes some harm to somebody, the entity that committed that wrong owes compensation to the harmed party, I think we can all agree to that.

Now as a matter of law, the fact that someone dies before compensation can be paid does not stop the obligation for compensation. If you negligently cause a car accident and kill me, you can be sued by my estate on my behalf. The compensation would pass through my estate and to my decendants.

Yes, slavery harmed the slaves. Yes, the slaves are dead, but they have decendants. For any other wrong, a claim can be brought even after death and that compensation be passed to decendants. Why should this be ANY different?

That's point one. Point two is the question of whether the legacy of slavery continues to harm people TODAY. Frankly speaking I think it naive to the point of willful ignorance to believe that the ramifications of slavery do not continue to have an impact on our society today.

Thankyou for making my case for me, I knew there was a reason reparations never go away, it will never be enough!!!

Actually...no it isn't.

really? What country are we talking about then?

technically, my estate can sue you for something you did to me, yes. Even after I am long since dead, my estate can sue you. Now, yes. The slave OWNERS are dead.

But nobody's getting reperations from THEM. Reperations should come from the government of the United States of America and the various states such as south carolina, virginia, etc which legalized and condoned slavery.

Nobody is talking about getting reperations from PEOPLE. They're talking about getting reperations from THE GOVERNMENT. And last time I looked outside my window, the government of the United States of America is still here.

If I were to wrong you, then I do understand that your estate can sue me. However, your estate can't sue me for something one of my ancestors did to you or your family, as guilt is not something that can be inherited. And yes, the government still exists, but the people that were in the government during that time are long dead as well.

really? What country are we talking about then?

The Confederate States of America has been gone since 1865.

And yes, the government still exists, but the people that were in the government during that time are long dead as well.

Which doesn't matter. Henry Ford founded the Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford has been dead for many, many years. Since his death the Ford Motor Company has had different owners, different managers, different CEOs, different employees.

Yet, it has remained, the whole time, the same Ford Motor Company. Corporations and government have a degree of personhood that survive their operators. That's a simple matter of law.

It is the same United States of America. it is the same Commonwealth of Virginia. It is the same legal entity. Even if the managers are dead, it's still the same legal entity.

The Confederate States of America has been gone since 1865.

To be fair, there were two slave states that stayed in the Union. Maryland, and damned if I can recall the other one.

But can you IMAGINE the outcry if only the descendents of slaves from those two states got any money?

To be fair, there were two slave states that stayed in the Union. Maryland, and damned if I can recall the other one.

But can you IMAGINE the outcry if only the descendents of slaves from those two states got any money?

Its either MO, Kentucky, West Virginia, or Delware.

The Confederate States of America has been gone since 1865.

Yes, this is true. Tell me, was slavery legal, or illegal in the states that became the Confederate States prior to the formation of the Confederate States?

That's question #1. Question #2 is the following. Has the united states of america ever, at any time in its history, recognized the valid legal existance of the confederate states of america? I think you will find that the United States of America has always maintained that the so called "rebel states" were, even at the time of rebellion, still legally part of the Union.

Which is to say that, according to the government of the united states, the confederacy didn't legally exist, and, even during the time of the civil war, those confederate states were still part of the United States of America.

The government of the United States has always maintained, then and now, that the rebel states were always, at all times, still part of the United States. It never recognized the existance of the confederacy.

Its either MO, Kentucky, West Virginia, or Delware.

Well, West Virginia's a special case, since it seceded from a secessionist state - I think it might have been Delaware.

Hang on a tick, I'll Wiki it.

To be fair, there were two slave states that stayed in the Union. Maryland, and damned if I can recall the other one.

But can you IMAGINE the outcry if only the descendents of slaves from those two states got any money?

As I said, doesn't matter. The United States always maintained that the rebellion was illegal. As it was illegal, those rebel states, as a matter of law, never left the union. For instance, the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln declared slavery illegal, in the rebel states. He couldn't do that if the confederacy was its own legal entity.

As a matter of legal history, the government of the united states always maintained that the rebel states were still american states, and that they never legally left the union.

I thought the Confederacy folded after the War-of course there were two slave states in the Union that didn't secede, but that's neither here nor there. The argument that it's THE GOVERNMENT and no individuals is fallacious. WE are THE GOVERNMENT-it gets it's money from US, and WE would all have to foot the bill for this-including the recipients of such reparation.
Given the Feds spend .83 to get .17 to the recipients, this looks more and more like a governmental scam to take more of our money, aided by the Holy Democrats of the Church of State.

More than I thought!

Wikiquote:

"Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri did not leave the Union. West Virginia joined the Union as a slave state in 1863 after seceding from Virginia."

As I said, doesn't matter. The United States always maintained that the rebellion was illegal. As it was illegal, those rebel states, as a matter of law, never left the union. For instance, the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln declared slavery illegal, in the rebel states. He couldn't do that if the confederacy was its own legal entity.

As a matter of legal history, the government of the united states always maintained that the rebel states were still american states, and that they never legally left the union.

No, you are correct. But there is still the problem that slavery was not a legal wrong, and that there are neither wrong nor wronged left to compensate.

US recognition of the Confederates is irrelevent. In truth, from my understanding, the CSA was indeed a nation. It had a defined border, currency, military, and political structure. Heck, they even had their own constitution as well.

So the answer to question #2 is irrelevent. Question #1 was that it was legal but once they left the Union, they forfeited everything the constitution at the time afforded them and thus whatever actions were taken, is not the responsibility of the United States of the time period. Ergo, as nearly all the slave states left, reparations from the Federal Government of the United States should not be done.

Now we can discuss Maryland and Missouri but even there, they were split. As was the State of Kentucky and Delaware. We have not even gotten into West Virginia yet (which I believe was actually a free state). This is not so clear cut an issue Neo Art.

More than I thought!

Wikiquote:

"Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri did not leave the Union. West Virginia joined the Union as a slave state in 1863 after seceding from Virginia."

I thought it was a free state. Alwell...

But there is still the problem that slavery was not a legal wrong, and that there are neither wrong nor wronged left to compensate.

"nor wronged left to compensate" is not a problem, since, as I said, one can receive compensation on behalf of someone who was actually killed. If "no wronged left to compensate" mattered, then a negligent act that killed someone would be permissible.

The fact that slavery was, in fact, legal, is perhaps the strongest argument against reperations since, as you said, technically nothing was legally wrong.

There are two other large problems with approaching this from a legal perspective, which are sovereign immunity and statute of limitations problems.

Which renders the argument for or against reperations fundamentally a moral one. I was merely providing comparable legal examples.

US recognition of the Confederates is irrelevent. In truth, from my understanding, the CSA was indeed a nation. It had a defined border, currency, military, and political structure. Heck, they even had their own constitution as well.

So the answer to question #2 is irrelevent. Question #1 was that it was legal but once they left the Union, they forfeited everything the constitution at the time afforded them and thus whatever actions were taken, is not the responsibility of the United States of the time period. Ergo, as nearly all the slave states left, reparations from the Federal Government of the United States should not be done.

Now we can discuss Maryland and Missouri but even there, they were split. As was the State of Kentucky and Delaware. We have not even gotten into West Virginia yet (which I believe was actually a free state). This is not so clear cut an issue Neo Art.

Wiki says it was a slave state, and frankly it's position is just weird anyway. Oh, and slavery was legal in the DC, apparently.

There are a couple of technical points that any reparations will run afoul of.

The first is that slavery was, until it was outlawed, legal and thus there was no harm done in being held a slave. Legally speaking of course - moral and ethical harm are different questions. Which also doesn't deal with the treatment slaves received; that could very well have been illegal although you'd have to look at the laws in effect at each location to determine that.

The second is whether or not any claims have legal standing due to statutes of limitations. Most likely any claims have to be filed within so many years of the incident, and I'm going to guess that most of them haven't been.

The third is who is allowed to sue whom for reparations. Can the estate of the estate sue? Or does it need to be the estate?

Meh: people need to stop playing the victim and accept their own personal responsibility for their part of things in how their life has turned out. Not always easy to do, but it can most definitely be done. It just takes a lot of work, self-honesty, and courage.

Which doesn't matter. Henry Ford founded the Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford has been dead for many, many years. Since his death the Ford Motor Company has had different owners, different managers, different CEOs, different employees.

Yet, it has remained, the whole time, the same Ford Motor Company. Corporations and government have a degree of personhood that survive their operators. That's a simple matter of law.

It is the same United States of America. it is the same Commonwealth of Virginia. It is the same legal entity. Even if the managers are dead, it's still the same legal entity.

It isn't the same. The government of today cannot be held accountable for what the government that existed then considered legal. That's the thing. Slavery was legal then (even if it was wrong morally). Just as someone can't sue Ford Motor Company today because a relative was killed in a '32 Coupe that didn't meet current crash test standards.

US recognition of the Confederates is irrelevent.

Actually, it's extremely relevant. If the US never recognized the confederation, then the US claimed, as a matter of its own law, that all confederate states were legally part of the US.

Now other nations may have recognized the confederacy, but that's neither here nor there. We're not talking about getting reperations from, say, France. We're talking about getting reperations from the United States. And if the United States believes that all rebel territories were still part of the United States, then the United States believes that all acts committed by rebel territories, were acts committed by member states of the United States.

So if the US believes that all rebel territories remained part of the United States, then it believes that all acts committed by those rebel territories were, by extention, acts committed by parts of the United States.

So the United States believes that slavery was legalized by its own states, as, according to the US, those states never left

I am in full agreement. Reparations don't necessarily mean monetary handouts.

However, I really don't think that we should help people out based only upon the color of their skin. I believe that anyone in poverty should have equal access to government welfare and aid, and that the welfare/aid provided be linked to employment opportunities.

I think that sounds like the best and most fair solution.I second this point. Reparations would be irrelevant if everyone had an equal chance to be the best you can be. As it stands a lot of that chance depends upon the monetary situation of your parents. And much wealth in the US lies in various hands because of the and lingering effects of yesteryear sexism and racism and remaining current effects as well.

That is, a redistributive system should be in place whereby all kids receive excellent healthcare and an excellent eduction. Furthermore that all kids grow and learn in an atmosphere of equal opportunity.

It isn't the same. The government of today cannot be held accountable for what the government that existed then considered legal.

As a matter of law, correct. That's where the legal analysis ends. What is left is a moral one. Does the United States morally owe an obligation to those harmed in slavery.

If yes, then we recognize through basic principles that a debt owed to a deceased person can be paid to that person's decendants. So that's not a concern.

The only question is, does the government have a moral obligation to attempt to right the wrongs it committed. You are free to say no, but I think that says a lot about you as a person.

Actually, it's extremely relevant. If the US never recognized the confederation, then the US claimed, as a matter of its own law, that all confederate states were legally part of the US.

Be that as it may, the fact that the Confederates had everything has befitted a nation, makes it a nation. Do you agree?

it would have been appropriate if some reparations had been made immediately after the civil war so that former slaves could have had a bit of something to start their new free lives with.

now its too late. the grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren and great great great grandchildren of slaves do not deserve reparations.

QFT.

Be that as it may, the fact that the Confederates had everything has befitted a nation, makes it a nation. Do you agree?

The city of Ithaca, New York has a defined border, a population, a police force, a political structure, and its own currency (http://www.ithacahours.org/).

Does that make it an independant nation?

To answer your question, no, I do not agree. Why not? Because the country that legally owned the land never gave it up, nor was it ever permanently taken by force. Since the land was never legally given nor taken, it can not be said to have ever left the legal jurisdiction of the parent nation.

To answer your question, no, I do not agree. Why not? Because the country that legally owned the land never gave it up, nor was it ever permanently taken by force. Since the land was never legally given nor taken, it can not be said to have ever left the legal jurisdiction of the parent nation.

Except for the fact that the Confederate States measures up to the test that sees if it is a nation or not, you would be right. The problem is, the CSA was indeed a nation even if it was never recognized as such. Therefor, when the split off, the majority of the slaves cannot receive reparations from the federal government as we were not incharge of the states that seperated itself from us.

if one went for reparations to individuals it would be so complicated that i cant imagine how it would be done.

what percent slave blood would you have to have? what about slaves that were freed in their lifetimes, would those descendants still get reparations? what about those white people who descend from former slaves who passed as white, do we have to pay them even if they have prospered in the years since slavery? do all slave claims get the same monetary consideration or do the descendants of those who were badly mistreated get more than the descendants of those who were treated very well? does the number of generations of servititude make a difference, do 5 generations of slave ancestors get you more than one generation? what if you are equally the descendant of a slave owner who directly benefitted from slavery, should that knock down your claim to some extent? what if your family lore says you are descended from slaves but there are no good records proving that, are you out of luck?

Frankly speaking, that is a massive problem with it. The best use for reperations, rather than individual payments, would be to put that money itno a comprehensive social welfare system.

Sure it would benefit people NOT decendants of slaves, and it wouldn't benefit ALL decendants of slaves, but it would provide a benefit to a great many, and go a long way to helping fix the lingering problems that plague our society today as a result of slavery.

if one went for reparations to individuals it would be so complicated that i cant imagine how it would be done.

what percent slave blood would you have to have? what about slaves that were freed in their lifetimes, would those descendants still get reparations? what about those white people who descend from former slaves who passed as white, do we have to pay them even if they have prospered in the years since slavery? do all slave claims get the same monetary consideration or do the descendants of those who were badly mistreated get more than the descendants of those who were treated very well? does the number of generations of servititude make a difference, do 5 generations of slave ancestors get you more than one generation? what if you are equally the descendant of a slave owner who directly benefitted from slavery, should that knock down your claim to some extent? what if your family lore says you are descended from slaves but there are no good records proving that, are you out of luck?

As a matter of law, correct. That's where the legal analysis ends. What is left is a moral one. Does the United States morally owe an obligation to those harmed in slavery.

If yes, then we recognize through basic principles that a debt owed to a deceased person can be paid to that person's decendants. So that's not a concern.

The only question is, does the government have a moral obligation to attempt to right the wrongs it committed. You are free to say no, but I think that says a lot about you as a person.

Perhaps. But morality is not an absolute, and in righting one wrong it is eminently possible to commit another.

I see a minefield here. How much? To whom? And how, after 140 years, do we tell? Birth records were hardly perfect in 1865, and even those that were made, many will no longer be extant.

Further, do we compensate those who had already freed themselves? Do we go to Liberia and Canada and give the slave descendents there money?

Worse, are we simply contributing to a culture of victimhood?

Or, are we actually just trying to assuage a nagging guilt that has no real connection to the modern world?

If it's the latter, then take that money and send it to Mali. They'd get a better use out of it.

Except for the fact that the Confederate States measures up to the test that sees if it is a nation or not, you would be right. The problem is, the CSA was indeed a nation even if it was never recognized as such.

As I said, so does Ithaca, New York (it doesn't have its own constitution but that's hardly a standard for national identity).

The city of Ithaca has its own population, its own local government, its own police force, its own utilities, its own defined borders and its own currency. is it a nation, yes or no?

In addition, Ecuador, El Salvador, East Timor, Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands all use the American dollar as their official currency. Most of the nations of the Caribbean use the Eastern Caribbiean dollar as their standard currency, they do not each have their own currency. Many european nations have totally gotten rid of their national currency and use the Euro. Are they NOT independant nations?

As I said, so does Ithaca, New York (it doesn't have its own constitution but that's hardly a standard for national identity).

The city of Ithaca has its own population, its own local government, its own police force, its own utilities, its own defined borders and its own currency. is it a nation, yes or no?

Did they split off from the United States? No they didn't. Did the Southern States split off? Yes they did. Did they form their own government? Yes they did! Did they have their own currency? yes they did. Did they have their own military? yes they did. Did they have their own Constitution? Yes they did. Do they measure up to being a nation? Yes they did.

Did the Southern States split off? Yes they did.

Since when has civil war been recognized as legal?

Did they form their own government? Yes they did!

Does Ithaca, NY have a government? yes it does.

Did they have their own currency? yes they did.

So does Ithaca, NY.

Did they have their own military? yes they did.

Oh, you need a military to be a nation now. Shit, someone should inform Monaco, Vatican City, most of the Caribbean, Lichtenstein, Panama, Iceland, and several others I'm probably forgetting.

Did they have their own Constitution? Yes they did.

Oh, so a constitution is required for being a nation?

Do they measure up to being a nation? Yes they did.

Not hardly. Some of the things you mention are not necessary for the existance of a nation. There are lots of countries out there without militaries, there are lots of countries without constitutions.

The other qualities are shared with Ithaca, NY.

The only thing that's left is your first point. Which basically boils down to "they're a nation because they said they were." Well, I'm afraid international law is a tad more complicated than that, and you don't get to be a country just because you say you are.

Otherwise, my apartment is now sovereign territory of Neo Artistan, and just to fulfill our obligations, my military now consists of my cat as supreme commander, and our national currency is the grapes I have in my fridge. I don't have a constitution yet, but the newest edition of Harry Potter shall suffice for now. By the way, my first act of president of Neo Artistan is to annex your house, and draft you into the military.

So, corny, prepared to recognize me as el presidente? My cat will expect you in the morning. You better hurry though, I'm getting a tad hungry so I sense a recession comming on.

*snip*

We are not talking about Ithaca or any other nation so those points are 100% irrelevent.

Sorry but the CSA was a nation wether you want to believe so or not. You are right that International law is complicated but...I contend that the south was a nation. As such, when they formed their union, they forfeited everything and thus, the Federal Government has zero responsibility for reparations of Southern Slaves.

Feel free to disagree but I will stand by my point.

As a matter of law, correct. That's where the legal analysis ends. What is left is a moral one. Does the United States morally owe an obligation to those harmed in slavery.

If yes, then we recognize through basic principles that a debt owed to a deceased person can be paid to that person's decendants. So that's not a concern.

The only question is, does the government have a moral obligation to attempt to right the wrongs it committed. You are free to say no, but I think that says a lot about you as a person.

The government of today does not have a moral obligation to people they never governed, as they did not commit the moral wrong against the people that were enslaved. The government of that time is the one that's responsible, and those people are long dead.

it would have been appropriate if some reparations had been made immediately after the civil war so that former slaves could have had a bit of something to start their new free lives with.

now its too late. the grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren and great great great grandchildren of slaves do not deserve reparations.

Exactly the reason why they should not be paid today. Reparations should always be paid to the ones that are directly involved. Today's descendants do not deserve any reparations for past atrocities that occurred many generations back. Today I think one would be hard pressed to find anyone that even knew a former slave in person.

if one went for reparations to individuals it would be so complicated that i cant imagine how it would be done.

what percent slave blood would you have to have? what about slaves that were freed in their lifetimes, would those descendants still get reparations? what about those white people who descend from former slaves who passed as white, do we have to pay them even if they have prospered in the years since slavery? do all slave claims get the same monetary consideration or do the descendants of those who were badly mistreated get more than the descendants of those who were treated very well? does the number of generations of servititude make a difference, do 5 generations of slave ancestors get you more than one generation? what if you are equally the descendant of a slave owner who directly benefitted from slavery, should that knock down your claim to some extent? what if your family lore says you are descended from slaves but there are no good records proving that, are you out of luck?What about the descendants of indentured servants? Many were treated appallingly and their treatment only fared for the better when States minimally increased the rights of indentured servants as part of a divide and conquer policy aimed at splitting slaves and indentured servants apart. Up until that point their had been much comradeship between the two groups - sometimes leading to mixed couples eloping, and mixed groups revolting. The New York Insurrection of 1741 is supposed to be a good example of this.

Sorry but the CSA was a nation wether you want to believe so or not. You are right that International law is complicated but...I contend that the south was a nation.

Fine. My apartment is now sovereign territory. I, as president and supreme lord of my apartment formally state that we seperate from the United States. My cat is our military commander (cats have equal rights here in Neo Artistan). Our national currency is grapes, because I say it is, and it's my nation.

Have I attempted to seperate from the United States? Yes.
Do I have a military? Yes
Do I have defined borders? Yes
Do I have a population? Yes, of 1 for now (but come on by folks, liquor gambling and hookers are legal! But, um, could you bring the liquor cards and hookers?)
Do I have a military? Yes.
Do I have a constitution? Well, give me 5 minutes.

Is my apartment now a nation? Yes or no?

*snip*

Feel free to disagree with me. I will stand by my points. Good Day Neo Art.

We are not talking about Ithaca or any other nation so those points are 100% irrelevent.

Sorry but the CSA was a nation wether you want to believe so or not. You are right that International law is complicated but...I contend that the south was a nation. As such, when they formed their union, they forfeited everything and thus, the Federal Government has zero responsibility for reparations of Southern Slaves.

Feel free to disagree but I will stand by my point.

Your point is a good one, Corneliu, but Neo Art is correct. While the CSA was a separate and independent nation by any reasonable standard, it was not so by US law. The Lincoln government never acknowledged the CSA as a legitimate government or nation, and even the 14th Amendment, in denying any compensation for debts to the CSA government, refers to them only as areas in rebellion.

Feel free to disagree but I will stand by my point.
That's par for the course.

How you managed to lose this one too is beyond me.

Your point is a good one, Corneliu, but Neo Art is correct. While the CSA was a separate and independent nation by any reasonable standard, it was not so by US law. The Lincoln government never acknowledged the CSA as a legitimate government or nation, and even the 14th Amendment, in denying any compensation for debts to the CSA government, refers to them only as areas in rebellion.

Since when does a combatent waging a civil war recognize that nation's laws as their own?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_theory_of_statehood

this should help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_theory_of_statehood

this should help

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Confederate States of America

a)yes
b)yes
c)yes
d)yes

Game set match

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_theory_of_statehood

this should help

The problem with the declarative theory of statehood is as I have pointed out, I could, in theory, declare my apartment a nation, and as long as I have a population, a border, a government (of ANY kind, including a one man absolute dictatorship), and the capacity to enter relations with other nations (which doesn't mean any nations have to be WILLING to enter relations with me, only that I am able) I am a nation.

Well, my apartment has borders, it has a population two (including my cat), I am the absolute ruler who governs by my whims, and I can act as a diplomat.

Under this theory, my apartment is a nation. Which means the whole theory becomes useless at defining national identity.

Which is why I have always favored constitutive theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutive_theory_of_statehood)

And now let the battle of political theories begin :D

ON a note, The US signed the Montevideo Convention. OUCH!! :D

Confederate States of America

a)yes
b)yes
c)yes
d)yes

Game set match

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

My apartment

a)yes
b)yes
c)yes
d)yes

So, you recognize my apartment as a nation?

Since when does a combatent waging a civil war recognize that nation's laws as their own?

Almost never. But it is not entirely unheard of to acknowledge the losing side as part of a magnanimous gesture; this did not occur post US Civil War. As a result, the argument that the CSA's collapse brought with it the end of the government responsible (or primarily responsible) for slavery isn't supportable under US law. Thus, the US Government would still be considered the corporate entity involved, both then, and now.

It really doesn't matter whether or not the CSA was a state.

The fact remains that the US government never recognized it as such... which means that it cannot use the CSA as an excuse to escape its potential legal obligations to the descendants of slaves.

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

My apartment

a)yes
b)yes
c)yes
d)yes

So, you recognize my apartment as a nation?

I offically reconize your apartment as a nation. So when do you want to exchange diplomats? I have a 50 acre empire in N. CA

Which is why I have always favored constitutive theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutive_theory_of_statehood)

The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. It is the opposing point of view to the declarative theory of statehood, which defines statehood in terms of several de facto characteristics of a region. The constitutive theory is merely a theoretical construct as it has neither been codified by treaty nor widely recognized in international law.

OMG! It is not widely recognized in I.L.?

Reparations ? *dies laughing*

This will never happen. Its been over 100 years.If it hasn't happened by now it never will.

I offically reconize your apartment as a nation. So when do you want to exchange diplomats?

sweet, I say we annex vegas.

By the way, the first 10 people to join the free republic of Neo Artisan get to be ambassadors! Free sovereign immunity!

OMG! It is not widely recognized in I.L.?

Yes and no. Frankly, it looks like a lot of states take a look at the two theories, and waffle uncontrollably.

OMG! It is not widely recognized in I.L.?

oooh, you mean...something has to be recognized to be valid? Well that kinda fucks your whole "the confederacy was a nation" argument straight to hell, doesn't it?

sweet, I say we annex vegas.

By the way, the first 10 people to join the free republic of Neo Artisan get to be ambassadors! Free sovereign immunity!

sounds good to me. so do we want to do it coverly or just invade?

It's stunning how many people seem to think this is just a Black Liberal Conspiracy To Rob Good White Americans Of Their Hard-Won Dollars. It smacks of racism, just the fact that many people seem to deny (vehemently) the whole idea. People who often wind up arguing against government in some issues can be found here fervently declaring that because members of the government from one time are now dead, the government is innocent and owes nobody anything.

oooh, you mean...something has to be recognized to be valid? Well that kinda fucks your whole "the confederacy was a nation" argument straight to hell, doesn't it?

It falls under the Declarative Theory of Statehood so yes it does. I do not recognize the Constitutive Theory of Statehood. Why? the constitutive was never codified whereas the Declarative has. International Law my friend.

Yes and no. Frankly, it looks like a lot of states take a look at the two theories, and waffle uncontrollably.

The problem with the first theory is that it is really birthed from neo liberalism in efforts to recognize aborigial claims (among other things). In other words, it has been used in modern eras to justify claims for aboriginal nationhood by saying that even if larger nations didn't recognize them, they still existed.

The problem with it is, as I said, it allows some yahoo to claim his apartment is a sovereign nation, and there's nothing that proponents of this theory can do to discount it. It therefore becomes worthless.

What exists in compromise in most of the international community is that your nation exists, regardless of recognition, except that it doesn't really, because it doesn't have authority without recognition.

It's a way of saying you odn't need our recognition, but without recognition you have no authority, and thus no legitimate government, and thus no national identity.

How much compensation should each descendant of the slaves receive? I mean think about this rationally. If it was any sum of money worth giving a shit about, it would cost the government billions.

It falls under the Declarative Theory of Statehood so yes it does. I do not recognize the Constitutive Theory of Statehood. Why? the constitutive was never codified whereas the Declarative has. International Law my friend.

first off it's cute you pretending this is not the first time you've heard of this.

Secondly I ask, codified...by whom?

Meanwhile the statement that you don't recognize a theory that requires a nation to be recognized before being considered a nation, because it hasn't been recognized as hillarious.

Also entirely false.

But really really fucking hillarious.

first off it's cute you pretending this is not the first time you've heard of this.

That's because it isn't. I heard of this convention and theory in my Intro to Global politics class. A class I got an A in I might add.

Secondly I ask, codified...by whom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention

Meanwhile the statement that you don't recognize a theory that requires a nation to be recognized before being considered a nation, because it hasn't been recognized as hillarious.

Also entirely false.

Not under the Montevideo Convention it isn't.

But really really fucking hillarious.

I'm glad you find this funny because I sure as hell now question your ability as a lawyer.

Who's going to pay reparations to me?

1. My many times great grandfather and the other elders of his church bought slaves and freed them, and then gave them jobs.

2. As a woman, using this logic, I would expect reparations from men for the generations of servitude and oppression we lived under as their unpaid servants and sex objects.

The whole notion of reparations is silly.

How much compensation should each descendant of the slaves receive? I mean think about this rationally. If it was any sum of money worth giving a shit about, it would cost the government billions.

Yeah, and the poor government just doesn't have that much money to spend. Except on "defending" the nation, in Iraq, for years on end. Apparently we have money for that.

Yeah, and the poor government just doesn't have that much money to spend. Except on "defending" the nation, in Iraq, for years on end. Apparently we have money for that.

let's at least pretend to stay on topic.

Yeah, and the poor government just doesn't have that much money to spend. Except on "defending" the nation, in Iraq, for years on end. Apparently we have money for that.

Well you can't just throw billions of dollars at the black community, it may cause a huge increase in inflation for one thing.

But ignoring this, there are about 38 million black people in the USA. Only giving them all $1000 dollars each will cost 38 billion! And a $1000 isn't going to do a lot. But I doubt anyone is considering giving money to all of the black people. So who gets the money, and why should some black people get it and not others?

Feel free to disagree with me. I will stand by my points. Good Day Neo Art.

Better stated as "I'm picking up my marbles and leaving".

Better stated as "I'm picking up my marbles and leaving".

:rolleyes:

Until every other action now deemed wrong by modernity is similarly dealt with, I'll not see anything done to recompense the descendants of slaves. For that matter, I see little reason to apologise for it until every state placed under Roman yoke receives an apology from Italy. Ludicrous notion upon an idelogical plane, and utterly impractical.

:rolleyes:
Yeah, that's how I felt about you going, 'I'm not playing anymore!' as you stomped off.

Yeah, that's how I felt about you going, 'I'm not playing anymore!' as you stomped off.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Precisely. Glad you've got it now.

Until every other action now deemed wrong by modernity is similarly dealt with, I'll not see anything done to recompense the descendants of slaves.

What an idiotic stance. All or nothing? I mean that's like saying, "until they make lascivious lip-licking illegal, I refuse to accept the illegality of rape!"

For that matter, I see little reason to apologise for it until every state placed under Roman yoke receives an apology from Italy.

Repubblica Italiana =/= Roman Empire.

USA = USA

If you need help comprehending the concept of a "state" you shouldn't be posting except for others to laugh at you.

Ludicrous notion upon an idelogical plane, and utterly impractical.

Oh, it's spelled "ideological." I truly wish you'd quit butchering the English language. It's so very improper, and indeed, 'tis indicative of a substandard education.

I don't support reparations for slavery because the slaves that actually suffered are long dead. To take money from a white guy and give it to a black guy because the white guy is white and the black guy is black is just as racist as if the positions of the two were reversed. If it's going to be racially based then what about people of mixed heritage? If it's going to be based on descendants of slaves getting paid by descendants of slave owners then what happens if two families mixed at some point? What happens if the descendants of slave owners no longer have money enough to support themselves?

I do support giving reparations to the Japanese-Americans that were unjustly arrested and sent away to suffer in the prison camps that the US government set up during WW2 because there are still some alive today. That actually happened and makes perfect sense because some of the people that actually suffered are still alive.

I guess what I'm saying is 'is it ok to punish the son for the sins of the father?' I don't think so.

I do support giving reparations to the Japanese-Americans that were unjustly arrested and sent away to suffer in the prison camps that the US government set up during WW2 because there are still some alive today. That actually happened and makes perfect sense because some of the people that actually suffered are still alive.

I believe that has been done actually.

Not that it helps but we the US did set up a state for blacks to return to in Africa..Liberia. Maybe that was the promised reparations. Not sure if they got the mule though. Talking about reparations why not make African countries pay it some of the slave trade was done by the tribes that are still there. I mean if it needs to get paid.

Not that it helps but we the US did set up a state for blacks to return to in Africa..Liberia. Maybe that was the promised reparations. Not sure if they got the mule though. Talking about reparations why not make African countries pay it some of the slave trade was done by the tribes that are still there. I mean if it needs to get paid.European slavery was by no means the same as the form of slavery practised in Africa. Your average slave in the colonies couldn't really own his own property, marry, or be adopted in his master's family and become an heir.

European slavery was by no means the same as the form of slavery practised in Africa. Your average slave in the colonies couldn't really own his own property, marry, or be adopted in his master's family and become an heir.

Not arguing the type of slavery. Merely that the modern African's ancestors sold their fellow man into slavery. Essentially it could be said that the west just purchased the commodity, not fanatically sought it out.

Not arguing the type of slavery. Merely that the modern African's ancestors sold their fellow man into slavery. Essentially it could be said that the west just purchased the commodity, not fanatically sought it out.Yes, but that would be wilful ignorance of the economic conditions in the British colonies.

Not that it helps but we the US did set up a state for blacks to return to in Africa..Liberia. Maybe that was the promised reparations. Not sure if they got the mule though. Talking about reparations why not make African countries pay it some of the slave trade was done by the tribes that are still there. I mean if it needs to get paid.

Yeah, however most of the slaves were not from Africa at the time. Most were infact born in the US, and would fit in in Africa, culturally, about as well as if you shipped them off to China.

Only if I get reparations for what the Germans and Soviets did to my ancestors (and distant living relatives) in Poland, East Germany, and Russian...if I have to pay for something no one in my family's history ever participated in, then others should have to pay a similar cost for the damage done to my ancestors and relatives.

I believe that has been done actually.

I have Japanese-American neighbors that were both in camps during WWII. They said they were given some compensation however they were children at the time and they did not specify what the compensation was.

I have Japanese-American neighbors that were both in camps during WWII. They said they were given some compensation however they were children at the time and they did not specify what the compensation was.

Tacos. *nod*

I don't think it matters if the confederacy was a legal state or whatever, slavery was legal in America before the civil war and we have benefited much from it, and many of our founding fathers and early presidents had slaves.

At the least the government should do something that recognizes how much it's the U.S. has benefited from slavery *shrug*

30 acres and a mule referred to land a general was going to dole out to freed slaves while the war was going on. he had a crap load of freed slaves following his army about with no where to go and the general had no way to support them. so he issued a militar order stating that all freed slaves would be given 30 acres and a mule from confiscated confederate land. it was never fully emplement (if at all) and military orders become null and void once a war is over. so there goes your reparations or land and a mule

the argument for not paying it is too overwhelming. you're talking about paying decendants of a group of people that we read about in history books.

A few simple questions:

Do you support reparations for slavery? Why or why not?

Do you think reparations will ever be paid? Why or why not?I support reparations on moral grounds.
I believe that they will be paid based on consistency.

US recognition of the Confederates is irrelevent.The Confederacy itself is irrelevant. The Federal Government allowed slavery to be legal. The Federal Government passed things such as the Fugitive Slave Act. The Federal Government is responsible.

It isn't the same. The government of today cannot be held accountable for what the government that existed then considered legal.The government of today is the same government that existed then.
Simply because the politicians have changed doesn't mean the government has.

What kind of moron government pays reparations to dead people?

Germany?

I support reparations on moral grounds.
I believe that they will be paid based on consistency.

.


It is not moral to pay out reparations to people that did not suffer from people that did not commit the acts in the first place. The point is that no one from that time period is still alive to either pay or receive reparations. Paid on consistency? Reparations will never be paid now or in the future in the US for this. The time has come and gone.

A few simple questions:

Do you support reparations for slavery? Why or why not?

Do you think reparations will ever be paid? Why or why not?

Reparations for slavery are totally senseless - after more than a century, at least in the US...

Following the same rule, Italy should get reparations for the loss of the Roman Empire and its citizens being enslaved by the barbarians, Tunisia should get reparations from Italy because of the destruction of Carthage at the hands of the Roman Republic, etcaetera.

Reparations for the victims of US apartheid and racial segregation in post-WW2 period might have sense, because some of the victims thereof are still alive.

Following the same rule, Italy should get reparations for the loss of the Roman Empire and its citizens being enslaved by the barbarians, Tunisia should get reparations from Italy because of the destruction of Carthage at the hands of the Roman Republic, etcaetera.

There is a limit.

But it doesn't apply when the legacy of slavery and racist oppression remains very real in this country.

Should have been done when there were former slaves still living.

As it is, nobody from that time is still alive. There are descendants of slaves, but they were never slaves themselves.

There is a limit.

But it doesn't apply when the legacy of slavery and racist oppression remains very real in this country.

The legacy of celtic oppression remains very real in the UK; do we seek reperations from Rome and the Saxon homelands?

The legacy of celtic oppression remains very real in the UK; do we seek reperations from Rome and the Saxon homelands?

Yes please :D

The legacy of celtic oppression remains very real in the UK; do we seek reperations from Rome and the Saxon homelands?

I'd be giving myself compensation for the hardships my ancestors put my ancestors through :D

Reparations for slavery is and has been necessary. Now I have a question for all of you. Would this nation have been the nation it is if it were not for the many slaves forced to leave their homeland and taken to the U.S.? Well the answer is no. The US government owes African -Americans so much it is no telling how many billions of dollars have been taken away from them. I hope reparations are paid to the families of the slaves. Now will it happen in our lifetime probably not. Sadly the many European countries and their decedents have stepped on so many to get where they are without apologizing. Hey, and if that is the kind of message we want to send to our children and the world that it is O.K. to step on people well frankly I do not want to be part of that image. So when your child comes home from his/her first day of school to tell you he/she has been mocked and stepped on don’t come crying to anyone. Finally if it you, and you had this type of oppression for over 400 years would not you want some reparations. And to all you people out there against it and those encouraging racism and those type of people may God have mercy on your soul.

So when your child comes home from his/her first day of school to tell you he/she has been mocked and stepped on don’t come crying to anyone.

My child would have been directly affected. Your example doesn't work

Following the same rule, Italy should get reparations for the loss of the Roman Empire and its citizens being enslaved by the barbarians, Tunisia should get reparations from Italy because of the destruction of Carthage at the hands of the Roman Republic, etcaetera.

Sigh.

Roman Empire =/= Italian Republic

Carthage =/= Tunisian Republic

Do you people just honestly not understand the concept of a state? I keep seeing this argument that seems to imply, you and TBC and others believe a government only exists in its individual politicians. The Fuhrer principle perhaps.

I don’t see how monetary reparations can compensate for something like slavery.

“We’re sorry your ancestors were taken from their homes, transported half-way across the world, forced to do menial labour, then subjected to racist policies and abuse for a couple of hundred years.... here’s twenty quid.”

Seems a bit pointless.

I don’t see how monetary reparations can compensate for something like slavery.

“We’re sorry your ancestors were taken from their homes, transported half-way across the world, forced to do menial labour, then subjected to racist policies and abuse for a couple of hundred years.... here’s twenty quid.”

Seems a bit pointless.

It's the thought that counts.

Speaking of which, it's the same people with the same arguments on this topic about even making an apology for slavery. "Why should the government of today apologize for something the government of yesterday did? Today and yesterday are two completely different daaaays! This is unfair!"

It’s the thought that counts.
And not the money.

I fully support a meaningful apology by certain governments towards those whose ancestors were enslaved, but I feel the money could be better spent on, for example, combating the remnants of slavery; unequal social conditions and/or rights, racism, etc.

Speaking of which, it’s the same people with the same arguments on this topic about even making an apology for slavery.
The two arguments are quite different. A meaningful apology is wholly different to a meaningless and, in all likelihood, pitiful amount of money.

The problem with the 'us poor slave descendants deserve money from the perpetrators' argument is that this is now 2007. By suing the American and/or British governments, you are taking tax money away from people that didn't make any money from slavery and possibly even their ancestors didn't either.

You could say that they are indirectly benefiting from slavery because they live in a country that proffited from slavery, but the more the years go by, the more vague and untraceable it gets. So now in modern-day, it isn't a 'disenfranchised black people VS greedy slave-profiteering white people' situation, it's more like 'very distant relatives of disenfranchised black people VS a general populace that has little or nothing to do with slavery' situation. It seems like some pro-reparation people would have you believe it's the former.

I'm against reparations, but I also believe that they'll happen because no faith whatsoever in the American people. Eventually, some panderer will catch the US at a moment when it is feeling particularly white and guilty, and that will be that.

No. No no no no. No. No. No no no. No, no no, no no no; and no.

Does the average descendant of US slaves living in the USA have a better or worse quality of life than the equivalent African?

If the answer is better then surely reparations should be offered to the Africans for not being enslaved.

Maybe a better use of people's time and effort might be to try to persuade the US Government to consider helping reduce the sickening rates of third world debt, rather than indulge in farcical hand wringing over a despicable but ancient peice of the world's history.

It's the thought that counts.

Speaking of which, it's the same people with the same arguments on this topic about even making an apology for slavery. "Why should the government of today apologize for something the government of yesterday did? Today and yesterday are two completely different daaaays! This is unfair!"

There are significiant differences in policy for one thing. The US government allowed slavery in the States until the US Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment to the Constitution specifically got rid of it.

The 40 acres and a mule statement was made by part of the Republican Party and was never passed by Congress. Therefore it has no standing in law either at the time or now.

So yes an apology could be said to be owed by the US government to former slaves for allowing it. On the other hand, over 600,000 military personnel (including those on both sides) died during that war, plus an unknown (but estimates are has high as 400,000) of civilians died so a case could be made that the apology was given in blood and treasure.

Another point could also be made as why the people of the US, who in the end make up the governed, owe reparations. Nearly half of the people of the United States come from families who moved to the United States after the Civil War, particularly in the great waves of immigration in late 19th Century, and the waves of Hispanic immigration in the late 20th and early 21st Century.

It could easily be argued that they don't owe a thing, as they weren't even here yet. So why should their taxes go to paying for something like reparations for slavery?

If the answer is yes then surely reparations should be offered to the Africans for not being enslaved.




The answer yes would be a poor one considering the question was a choice between better or worse.

Sorry couldn't resist being an ass :p

The answer yes would be a poor one considering the question was a choice between better or worse.

Sorry couldn't resist being an ass :p

podontic point well made.

See edit :p

There are significiant differences in policy for one thing. The US government allowed slavery in the States until the US Civil War, Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment to the Constitution specifically got rid of it.

Actually, to be pedantic, the US government didn't have the authority to prohibit slavery in the States prior to the 13th Amendment. So they didn't really allow it, they couldn't disallow it.

Actually, to be pedantic, the US government didn't have the authority to prohibit slavery in the States prior to the 13th Amendment. So they didn't really allow it, they couldn't disallow it.


Partially true, the Fugitive Slave Law however was a Federal Law and applied to all of the states, even those that had gotten rid of slavery for the most part. So its an act of commission as well as omission.

Partially true, the Fugitive Slave Law however was a Federal Law and applied to all of the states, even those that had gotten rid of slavery for the most part. So its an act of commission as well as omission.

You are quite correct that the Federal government was itself, due to laws such as the Fugitive Slave Law, involved in slavery, but my point stands that the Federal government didn't have the authority to prohibit slavery in the states.

I think it should be noted, when talking about the Fugitive Slave Law that several states passed laws forbidding their court systems from enforcing it.

I would argue my generational debt was paid during 1861-1865.

"But we stopped!" is not an argument against compensation.

I don't support reparations for slavery, and I don't think reparations will ever be paid.

If we're going to admit that there is the existence of generational debt and generational responsibility, then we must also admit that said debt can be paid off, and I would argue my generational debt was paid during 1861-1865. We even still have the discharge papers.

"But we stopped!" is not an argument against compensation.

It's more than just not doing the crime anymore, it's actively fighting to prevent others suffering from it.

"But we stopped!" is not an argument against compensation.

No, the argument is the blood shed by my ancestors. As I said my ancestry has over a dozen soldiers who served in blue, seven of them were wounded on the line, one never returned to his children.

If there is a generational debt, mine is paid.

More than that, the northern states paid their debt to the tune of 360,000 dead during the war.

Did we owe a debt? Yeah, we did, but that debt was paid for in its entirety across five Aprils.

It's more than just not doing the crime anymore, it's actively fighting to prevent others suffering from it.

You mean enforcing its own laws?

For a rough analogy... imagine that I abuse someone for decades. Then, I decide to stop, but this decision causes me suffering for some reason--perhaps I have grown dependent on having someone to beat and abuse.

Is my suffering somehow just compensation for what I have done? Hardly. Not only did I ultimately bring it upon myself by beginning the abuse in the first place, but this suffering is simply part of my obligation not to abuse people (for government/society to not tolerate slavery, in the analogy). I also have another obligation--to repair the damage I am responsible for--and merely being willing (finally) to suffer the necessary pain involved in ceasing to abuse someone is not enough.

The damage wreaked by slavery was never repaired. Justice was not done.

Reparations for slavery is and has been necessary. Now I have a question for all of you. Would this nation have been the nation it is if it were not for the many slaves forced to leave their homeland and taken to the U.S.? Well the answer is no. The US government owes African -Americans so much it is no telling how many billions of dollars have been taken away from them. I hope reparations are paid to the families of the slaves. Now will it happen in our lifetime probably not. Sadly the many European countries and their decedents have stepped on so many to get where they are without apologizing. Hey, and if that is the kind of message we want to send to our children and the world that it is O.K. to step on people well frankly I do not want to be part of that image. So when your child comes home from his/her first day of school to tell you he/she has been mocked and stepped on don’t come crying to anyone. Finally if it you, and you had this type of oppression for over 400 years would not you want some reparations. And to all you people out there against it and those encouraging racism and those type of people may God have mercy on your soul.


One of the reasons we shipped in Africans is due to the belief that they were more available than the original slave of choice. The Native American. If we hadn't used Africans then we would have found substitutes. Irish, Indians, Chinese or Mexicans. The only thing that marks the Africans as different is the fact that they appear so different from the race that ruled them. Makes it easier to point fingers.

"But we stopped!" is not an argument against compensation.

Whom do you pay? The slaves are dead. The children of the slaves are dead. The grandchildren of the slaves are dead and the great grandchildren are more or less dead.

I had relatives that fought on both sides. How much would I owe?

I had a relative that was a slave owner and had one that was an abolitionist. How much do I owe?

Sorry I will not support it.

There is no debt. The many casualties in the War of Southern Betrayal and activly fighting the Slave Trade more then make up for it.

More than that, the northern states paid their debt to the tune of 360,000 dead during the war.

Society has a duty not to tolerate slavery independent of any "debt."

Repayment of a debt requires something exceptional.

Whom do you pay?

No one, directly.

But you invest funds in repairing the damage slavery and historic racism broadly has done.

Society has a duty not to tolerate slavery independent of any "debt."

Repayment of a debt requires something exceptional.
Then such a horrific toll of lives would rather seem to be something exceptional.

Then such a horrific toll of lives would rather seem to be something exceptional.

Every state invests efforts in enforcing its laws. The law prohibits slavery... and this applies to everyone.

The point of reparations is to repair the damage of a past wrong directed against a specific population, and "now we will defend your rights!" does not constitute paying the debt as long as those "rights" are the rightful share of any citizen, rights that should not have been denied in the first place.

Again: ceasing to do wrong (prohibiting slavery and all that entails) is not the same as righting past wrongs.

as part of a process by which to right the wrongs

But this is the problem... the wrongs were not "righted."

The wrongs were stopped. There is a difference.

You mean enforcing its own laws?

For a rough analogy... imagine that I abuse someone for decades. Then, I decide to stop, but this decision causes me suffering for some reason--perhaps I have grown dependent on having someone to beat and abuse.

Is my suffering somehow just compensation for what I have done? Hardly. Not only did I ultimately bring it upon myself by beginning the abuse in the first place, but this suffering is simply part of my obligation not to abuse people (for government/society to not tolerate slavery, in the analogy). I also have another obligation--to repair the damage I am responsible for--and merely being willing (finally) to suffer the necessary pain involved in ceasing to abuse someone is not enough.

The damage wreaked by slavery was never repaired. Justice was not done.

If the suffering is externally inflicted, such as a prison sentence, then no.

But if the suffering is internally inflicted, as part of a process by which to right the wrongs that were carried out, then it is.

No one, directly.

But you invest funds in repairing the damage slavery and historic racism broadly has done.

Invest? Invest in what?

Racism will not be repaired by money. Humanity has to make that change on it's own.

How do you quantify the damage caused by slavery? What is your measurement?

After 150 years, poverty is caused by slavery?

Every state invests efforts in enforcing its laws. The law prohibits slavery... and this applies to everyone.

The point of reparations is to repair the damage of a past wrong directed against a specific population, and "now we will defend your rights!" does not constitute paying the debt as long as those "rights" are the rightful share of any citizen, rights that should not have been denied in the first place.

Again: ceasing to do wrong (prohibiting slavery and all that entails) is not the same as righting past wrongs.
Steps were taken to repair the damages that were caused by slavery, first in the form of the southern treason and secession, and then in the form of reconstruction.

Racism will not be repaired by money.

No, but its effects can be... and ideally the kind of consciousness shift that brought about monetary reparations would be accompanied by the kinds of shifts in culture that might erode racism more broadly conceived.

How do you quantify the damage caused by slavery? What is your measurement?

Quantifications have been made... honestly I find them rather pointless.

Better to conceive reparations roughly, and somewhat symbolically, as part of a program to achieve genuine racial equality.

After 150 years, poverty is caused by slavery?

Not directly, but the system of racism that accompanied slavery certainly carried forth its legacy for much longer than the system existed... and has prevented the economic damage it (and continued racist policies and discrimination) caused from ever being repaired.

Steps were taken to repair the damages that were caused by slavery, first in the form of the southern treason and secession, and then in the form of reconstruction.

And later by the norths betrayal of the blacks after reconstruction

first in the form of the southern treason and secession,

How did this repair the damage done by slavery?

and then in the form of reconstruction.

A failed policy that was abandoned when it became too politically inconvenient?

Furthermore... Reconstruction, as regards Black Americans, was primarily focused on guaranteeing them the civil rights everyone else already enjoyed. It did not constitute "reparations" because it did not repair anything. It just stopped causing more harm.

No, but its effects can be... and ideally the kind of consciousness shift that brought about monetary reparations would be accompanied by the kinds of shifts in culture that might erode racism more broadly conceived.
That's a major problem with monetary reparations, though. They tend to divide and highlight differences, place blame and alienate groups. They don't even take the first step down the road to changing hearts and minds, they just piss the losers off.



Quantifications have been made... honestly I find them rather pointless.

Better to conceive reparations roughly, and somewhat symbolically, as part of a program to achieve genuine racial equality.

In other words: Throw a sop to the blacks to make them feel better...

That's a major problem with monetary reparations, though. They tend to divide and highlight differences, place blame and alienate groups. They don't even take the first step down the road to changing hearts and minds, they just piss the losers off.

Yeah, the same is true of basically any other substantive effort to achieve racial (or sexual, or class, or whatever) equality. Privileged people get angry.

Strangely enough... it often ends up working anyway.

In other words: Throw a sop to the blacks to make them feel better...

Not at all.

After 150 years, poverty is caused by slavery?

Slavery both fed on and reinforced a feeling of black inferiority that became deeply rooted in our society, and still remains.

Nobody alive has ever been a slave, but the societal impact of slavery continues to have ramifications today.

Do you support reparations for slavery? Why or why not?
No, because everyone involved is dead and buried.
Do you think reparations will ever be paid? Why or why not?
Quite possible, white man's guilt.

How did this repair the damage done by slavery?

First by emancipating the slaves from their masters, and then by generally allowing emancipated slaves access to their former masters estates.



A failed policy that was abandoned when it became too politically inconvenient?

A failure on the part of politicians with short memories.

Furthermore... Reconstruction, as regards Black Americans, was primarily focused on guaranteeing them the civil rights everyone else already enjoyed. It did not constitute "reparations" because it did not repair anything. It just stopped causing more harm.

Guaranteeing them civil rights and access to the resources necessary to rebuild their lives in a free environment certainly constitutes reparations. No one can argue that the emancipated slaves were worse off following reconstruction than they were before.

First by emancipating the slaves from their masters,

We've already been over this. "Stopping slavery" and "repairing the harm of slavery" are two different things.

and then by generally allowing emancipated slaves access to their former masters estates.

Not to the extent or degree that would be required, as the long-term economic situation of Southern Blacks ended up showing.

A failure on the part of politicians with short memories.

So?

Guaranteeing them civil rights and access to the resources necessary to rebuild their lives in a free environment certainly constitutes reparations.

No, it constitutes the basic guarantees afforded to every citizen.

No one can argue that the emancipated slaves were worse off following reconstruction than they were before.

And my point is precisely that "stopping them from being worse off" is not enough.

No, but its effects can be... and ideally the kind of consciousness shift that brought about monetary reparations would be accompanied by the kinds of shifts in culture that might erode racism more broadly conceived.


Not at all. The Japanese in the camps received a minor reparations and yet the racism that existed in California was never handled(ie it was illegal for a Japanese man to own land before the war).

What of the Chinese?

What of the Mexicans and what they face today?

Taking money from one group and giving it to another will not solve racism. In fact it will probably increase it.


Better to conceive reparations roughly, and somewhat symbolically, as part of a program to achieve genuine racial equality.

Not directly, but the system of racism that accompanied slavery certainly carried forth its legacy for much longer than the system existed... and has prevented the economic damage it (and continued racist policies and discrimination) caused from ever being repaired.

Slavery is a byproduct of Racism. It didn't accompany it. Economics carried slavery longer then racism.

Finally Racism is not something that simply is legislated away or have money thrown at. It takes generations and it is happening. When I was a kid I remember people staring and whispering about a black white couple. Nobody even looks twice now.

Does that mean it's the same everywhere? Of course not. There will probably be racists till there aren't anymore people......

Slavery is a byproduct of Racism. It didn't accompany it. Economics carried slavery longer then racism.

It is far too simplistic to say that slavery was caused by racism. Rather, it did a very good job of socially instilling racism.

When your livelihood is dependant on your ability to treat your workers as less than human, it becomes very easy to convince yourself that they are less than human.

Taking money from one group and giving it to another will not solve racism. In fact it will probably increase it.

You are confusing cause and effect.

I conceive of reparations as a part of a genuine national effort to solve the problem of racism. As such, I don't think it will happen independently of a shift in consciousness.

The only case where I could see that happening is if the courts decide to force it, and I don't think that's particularly likely--maybe against particular companies, but not against the government.

Slavery is a byproduct of Racism. It didn't accompany it.

Slavery was systematically justified by racism. It could not have been maintained in a nation priding itself on liberty without an ideological foundation in the alleged inferiority of Blacks.

Economics carried slavery longer then racism.

Except racism still exists, and slavery does not... so that would suggest that nothing carried slavery longer than racism.

Finally Racism is not something that simply is legislated away or have money thrown at.

I didn't say it was. But its effects can be countered.

It takes generations and it is happening. When I was a kid I remember people staring and whispering about a black white couple. Nobody even looks twice now.

I have anecdotal evidence indicating otherwise (in a fairly liberal area), but that is beside the broader point.

It is far too simplistic to say that slavery was caused by racism. Rather, it did a very good job of socially instilling racism.

When your livelihood is dependant on your ability to treat your workers as less than human, it becomes very easy to convince yourself that they are less than human.

Ahh but would you have considered slavery if you already didn't think they were subhuman?

It is not moral to pay out reparations to people that did not suffer from people that did not commit the acts in the first place. The point is that no one from that time period is still alive to either pay or receive reparations. Paid on consistency? Reparations will never be paid now or in the future in the US for this. The time has come and gone.The U.S. government is still alive today. The U.S. government committed the act of legalizing slavery and enforcing slavery laws. Since the U.S. government committed the acts, the U.S. government should pay.

I fully support a meaningful apology by certain governments towards those whose ancestors were enslaved, but I feel the money could be better spent on, for example, combating the remnants of slavery; unequal social conditions and/or rights, racism, etc. Which is what the vast majority (if not all) of the people who argue for reparations want.

Another point could also be made as why the people of the US, who in the end make up the governed, owe reparations.Because they are governed by the same entity that allowed and encouraged slavery and are therefore associated with said entity.

It's more than just not doing the crime anymore, it's actively fighting to prevent others suffering from it.Except, of course, for the fact that the Union wasn't actively fighting to prevent others from suffering from slavery. Ending slavery wasn't the reason the Union fought the war.

If there's anything that I find this debate consistently demonstrates, it's that I'm not the only one out there with a serious empathy-impediment. "Hell no, they don't deserve a penny because what was done to their ancestors doesn't entitle them to anything." I suspect they'd sing a very different tune, though, if they-- and their parents, and their grandparents, and their great grandparents, and so on-- had grown up stuck, generation after generation, in sub-standard neighbourhoods receiving sub-standard education and therefore relegated to sub-standard jobs, because they were "emancipated" into poverty, without education and with only menial labour qualifications. But they simply can't (and frankly, don't care to try to) imagine what it would be like, or how they'd feel about it issue of-- by a reversal of history-- whites had been enslaved for generations by black colonizers of 'the new world,' so they care nothing for "the other's" condition, and refuse to give it legitimacy. "That could *never* have happened to me/us" forms an impenetrable mental wall where "those people's" living history isn't real, so doesn't count.

Worse than that, though, are the instances where you hear "well it's been too long, they can't expect to still be owed anything" or "well that promise was rescinded later on." Those amount, essentially, to "hah! we got away with it!" It sounds like a criminal who hides the spoils of their robberies away hoping to wait out the statute of limitations on prosecution.

Ironic that it's such a contentious, vitriolic debate in such a proudly "Christian" nation, when Christian dogma says that *thousands* of years later every last human on Earth is paying (with our 'immortal souls') for the gross crime of disobediently eating an apple. Yet so many people can't imagine owing a bunch of 'n*****s' back-pay for generations of having their families broken apart, being sold like cattle, whipped, and worked to death.

The U.S. government is still alive today. The U.S. government committed the act of legalizing slavery and enforcing slavery laws. Since the U.S. government committed the acts, the U.S. government should pay.

But who are the US government? They are people living in 2007, many of them that are desendants of people that weren't even in America while slaves were being used.

Because they are governed by the same entity that allowed and encouraged slavery and are therefore associated with said entity.

Except that being "associated", in this context, means paying taxes and being a citizen of America. Would immigrants coming to live in the US have to pay a kind of 'Reparations for Slavery' tax?

But who are the US government?

The federal government of the United States is the United States governmental body that carries out the roles assigned to the federation of individual states established by the Constitution. The federal government has three branches: the executive, legislative, and judicial. Through a system of separation of powers or "checks and balances," each of these branches has some authority to act on its own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, and has some of its own authority, in turn, regulated by the other branches. In addition, the powers of the federal government as a whole are limited by the Constitution, which leaves a great deal of authority to the individual states.

Any other questions?

They are people living in 2007, many of them that are desendants of people that weren't even in America while slaves were being used.

So like, if a country (for example, Germany) has a government, (for example, the Greater German Reich), whose leader (for example, Adolf Hitler) commits some act (for example, crimes against humanity), but that leader happens to no longer be alive later on (because for example he killed himself), no one is to blame?

Governments don't just disappear and escape accountability and responsibility simply because the individual members come and go. Governments endure, as do their accountability and responsibility.

So like, if a country (for example, Germany) has a government, (for example, the Greater German Reich), whose leader (for example, Adolf Hitler) commits some act (for example, crimes against humanity), but that leader happens to no longer be alive later on (because for example he killed himself), no one is to blame?

Governments don't just disappear and escape accountability and responsibility simply because the individual members come and go. Governments endure, as do their accountability and responsibility.

The Nazis were to blame.

Porsche produced the chassis of the Tiger tank. Do they/should they give you a large dicount when buying their sports cars if one of their tanks killed your ancestor(s) 60 years ago?

Yes, because it is part of the United States coming to terms with its history of racism and repairing the effects that history has had on the Black community.

No, because the idea is unpopular in the extreme.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Worse than that, though, are the instances where you hear "well it's been too long, they can't expect to still be owed anything" or "well that promise was rescinded later on." Those amount, essentially, to "hah! we got away with it!" It sounds like a criminal who hides the spoils of their robberies away hoping to wait out the statute of limitations on prosecution.

Ironic that it's such a contentious, vitriolic debate in such a proudly "Christian" nation, when Christian dogma says that *thousands* of years later every last human on Earth is paying (with our 'immortal souls') for the gross crime of disobediently eating an apple. Yet so many people can't imagine owing a bunch of 'n*****s' back-pay for generations of having their families broken apart, being sold like cattle, whipped, and worked to death.

So how is the Mohawk question going up there?

The Germans and Russians did some pretty crappy things to my ancestors (Polish on one side). My granddad could never return home and lost everything.

The English did some pretty crappy things to my ancestors as they killed people, broke up families, and sent them away(Highland Scots).

Don't I deserve reparations?

Taking money from one group and giving it to another will not solve racism. In fact it will probably increase it.
I lived for a little while in the most remote parts of the west Australian desert. In these places racism is as burning hot as the red rocks that make up the landscape. It was a mining village, so there were lots of wealthy white families who were living there for the exorbidant pay. The parents were fine, most often not racist at all. The children who had moved there were also most often not racist. The banner of racism was carried by the white children who were born in that town. Why? Was it because the aboriginas there are repulsive, delinquent, rude, arseholes? In part, yes, but there was something more unconditional about the racism. I had it explained to me.

What pissed off every white kid in that town was that the delinquent aboriginals would receive a brand new mountain bike if they attended class for 3 months without missing a day. It put a rift between them that couldn't be bridged. SO, in the case of an aboriginal kid who 'wasn't so bad' he would find it impossible to make friends at school due simply to all of the affirmative action he received by being there. Better for him to give up and sniff petrol with abos who liked him, then try and be friends with kids who saw him as a symbol of injustice.

So how is the Mohawk question going up there?

The Germans and Russians did some pretty crappy things to my ancestors (Polish on one side). My granddad could never return home and lost everything.

The English did some pretty crappy things to my ancestors as they killed people, broke up families, and sent them away(Highland Scots).

Don't I deserve reparations?
Actually, Most of the Christians in America should seriously consider demanding reparations from Italy for all of the persecution they received in their very capital 2 thousand years ago. Actually, better to keep it domestic, why doesn't the government slap a reparations tax on all Italian Americans and redistribute it to the Christians.

Every state invests efforts in enforcing its laws. The law prohibits slavery... and this applies to everyone.

The point of reparations is to repair the damage of a past wrong directed against a specific population, and "now we will defend your rights!" does not constitute paying the debt as long as those "rights" are the rightful share of any citizen, rights that should not have been denied in the first place.

Again: ceasing to do wrong (prohibiting slavery and all that entails) is not the same as righting past wrongs.


The United States paid in blood for righting the current and future wrongs of slavery in the 1860s, and the South paid a far more heavy toll in economic damage, poverty, self destructive racism and allowed itself to be ruled for nearly another century by the same aristocracy that got it in the Civil War to begin with.

So you can definitely say that the region that was the most guilty paid the heaviest toll in blood (higher percentage of Southerners died by far then Northerners), destruction, poverty and economic backwardness.

Sadly only Lincoln had the authority both moral and political to have done something to improve things and a stupid fanatic killed him (from the South, alas).

Speaking as a former Southerner whose family has lived in the South since the 1650s (on both sides), whose ancestors on one side owned a lot of slaves (that family went from aristocracy to poverty in a single generation) and whose family did not reach even Middle Class status again until the 1950s, I think we paid the price of our ancestors sins.

If anyone might owe a debt of some kind, its the families like mine. Sorry, we paid already.

I have nothing to atone for.

You are confusing cause and effect.

I conceive of reparations as a part of a genuine national effort to solve the problem of racism. As such, I don't think it will happen independently of a shift in consciousness.


I would think you would want to reduce poverty as a whole. Too much effort is being spent trying to place blame rather then a solution.

The only case where I could see that happening is if the courts decide to force it, and I don't think that's particularly likely--maybe against particular companies, but not against the government.

Sounds like a witch hunt to me. If we are going to punish companies for slaves then we should probable expunge the history books of anybody who owned a slave. After all they are bad people.

I bet if we look through your family history; I bet we could find some bad people and should you not pay reparations for their past actions?

Slavery was systematically justified by racism. It could not have been maintained in a nation priding itself on liberty without an ideological foundation in the alleged inferiority of Blacks.

Why are you see you are singling out blacks. Poles, Italians, Irish, Germans etc dealt with racism. What about the aboriginals? The US tried to exterminate them.

Except racism still exists, and slavery does not... so that would suggest that nothing carried slavery longer than racism.

Slavery did not create racism. Show me a non-racist people that owned slaves.

Economics was the major reason the South kept it going. They system of business was centered on it. If they didn't need the slaves, it would have helped them get recognition from England if the practice has ended before the war.

I didn't say it was. But its effects can be countered.
Yes. We have laws about hiring or not hiring based on race or gender. We have the same about housing, etc.

I have anecdotal evidence indicating otherwise (in a fairly liberal area), but that is beside the broader point.

Which is why i said:
Does that mean it's the same everywhere? Of course not. There will probably be racists till there aren't anymore people......

Point remains things have improved and yet there will probably always be racism.

I would think you would want to reduce poverty as a whole.

I would.

But to ignore the specific racial dimension of poverty is counterproductive to that effort.

Why are you see you are singling out blacks. Poles, Italians, Irish, Germans etc dealt with racism.

But not to the same degree, and not over the same extended period of time.

What about the aboriginals?

They deserve reparations, too.

Slavery did not create racism.

No, but it helped reinforce and institutionalize it.

Economics was the major reason the South kept it going.

Maybe, but they couldn't say "Look, we know that it's a disgusting abomination to keep other human beings as slaves, but it makes us richer, so...."

They thus had to justify their slavery with racism.

Yes. We have laws about hiring or not hiring based on race or gender. We have the same about housing, etc.

Good. But these laws still do not counter the effects of historic racism (including slavery). At best they reduce the effects of present racism, and even that they do not do completely.

The Nazis were to blame.

Porsche produced the chassis of the Tiger tank. Do they/should they give you a large dicount when buying their sports cars if one of their tanks killed your ancestor(s) 60 years ago?

You're deliberately confusing the issue. You claimed that a government couldn't be held responsible for it's own actions if the members of that government were dead. I gave a specific example which rebuts that.

The topic at hand is government accountability, not business liability. I could answer this new question, but it would be irrelevant for a number of reasons, not least of which is that producing a *component* which is not defective or dangerous, but which is used to harm someone, is not culpability. (You would not be able to sue Porsche even if that Tiger tank ran you over TODAY.) Another is simply that it's not analogous. Porsche wasn't and doesn't remain responsible for anything done with a Tiger tank. The Nazi Germany government does however, by definition, contain responsibility for actions taken by that government.

You say "the Nazis" were to blame, and I agree if you mean the Greater German Reich, a sovereign state and federal government organization. Just like "the United States" is to blame in the slavery issue.

[QUOTE=Jello Biafra;13022859]The U.S. government is still alive today. The U.S. government committed the act of legalizing slavery and enforcing slavery laws. Since the U.S. government committed the acts, the U.S. government should pay. QUOTE]


The point is though that the US government is spending billions of dollars each year to combat the effects of racism. The 1960s legislation that is the direct creation of the Food Stamp and Welfare system, as well as Medicare, WIC, Head Start and a host of other programs was a direct result of the urban riots of the 1960s, as well as the more peaceful social revolution led by Martin Luther King, as well a continuation of the New Deal (remember that LBJ was in Congress during the 1940s and 50s, and saw electricity reach his house as part of the New Deal).

So you could easily say the US Government has indeed for nearly 2 generations and entering a third been paying for efforts to make up for the centuries of economic and social oppression caused by Racism and Slavery.

In addition, holding nearly half the population of the US (those descended from those who reached here 1865 and later) responsible for the sins of a portion of the country and the government of that time is simply unacceptable by most people and unlikely to change.

Yes, the US government allowed slavery to exist, and because of political necessity, enforced it in areas where it was unpopular.

Yes, slavery died out for economic reasons in much of the US (even in much of the South) prior to the Civil War. Although you might want to look at the fact that the largest urban slave population in the United States for much of the period leading to the Civil War was in New York City.

Yes, the United States was a racist country for most of its existance, and still has a lot of racism around (on both sides of the color line). But the United States has made a greater effort then any other nation to end it, combat it, and bring all together as one people. Name another nation who fought a civil war for purely selfless motives to end the bondage of one people from another people?

The Federal government spent a huge amount of money fighting and winning the Civil War. It didn't win the peace for another century, but eventually it did. It continues to gain ground to this day.

Reparations would only make that a more difficult process.

for purely selfless motives

:rolleyes:

I would.

But to ignore the specific racial dimension of poverty is counterproductive to that effort.

Lets talk about that. So what percentage of each ethnic group is below the poverty line as of today.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10007085.shtml

yes, Black America has a the highest percentage of poverty. It also has the highest percentage of single parent families and highest percentage of its population in prison. Would reparations help that? Depends who you ask.

Probably not though, as since most people in this country below the poverty line are able to get welfare and food stamps and other services (only non citizens can't) you could make the point that they are already recieving direct Federal assistance more then any other ethnic group.

So are you going to increase the amount of Welfare a Black family can get over a White, Hispanic, Asian or Native American family?

Of course not.

Black America is working to change its culture and is still debating a great deal over what to do. Its all too frequent for someone who is Black and Middle Class to face charges of their less affluent fellows that they have gone "White".

So you can't just blame White Racism for this.

I would.
But to ignore the specific racial dimension of poverty is counterproductive to that effort.


Trying to lay blame for actions and attitudes of 150 years ago is counterproductive to the effort.

But not to the same degree, and not over the same extended period of time.

How is that different? They had to deal with (for example) "no polish allowed" It's still racism.

They deserve reparations, too.

No, but it helped reinforce and institutionalize it.

Nope sorry. Racism allowed slavery to exist simple because they were subhuman anyway. The economics of the South depended on Slavery and again it would have helped them if it was abolished before the war started.


Maybe, but they couldn't say "Look, we know that it's a disgusting abomination to keep other human beings as slaves, but it makes us richer, so...."

They thus had to justify their slavery with racism.


It was economics pure and simple. My cousin(generations ago) has a diary that is still being printed today. She wrote that her husband and friends were excited by the possibility of getting the slave trade going again.

Good. But these laws still do not counter the effects of historic racism (including slavery). At best they reduce the effects of present racism, and even that they do not do completely.

Deal with now. Nothing will be obtained by trying to blame people for the actions of 150 years ago. It's a different people now. I doubt you can even find a proponent for slavery among Southern white racists of today.

We have improved. Everybody thinks slavery was bad. Reparations will not solve the issues of today. Reparations will not solve poverty. Money only helps if there is a mindset to improve. You can't force people to improve.

An extreme example is Vick. He had a truck load of money and he pissed it away.

The father of a friend of mine once said "If the niggers want me to repay them for slavery and discrimination, I'll buy each and every one of them a one way ticket back to Africa and we'll call it even." Granted he was quite the old and ornery fella, not to mention racist but to a certain extent I agree with him. Slavery was several generations ago and no one that was a slave is still alive today. Slavery is now illegal and they just need to accept it and get over it. If they are really indignant about it, fine. They can dig up the corpses of those personally responsible and beat them to death for it.

So how is the Mohawk question going up there?

The Germans and Russians did some pretty crappy things to my ancestors (Polish on one side). My granddad could never return home and lost everything.

The English did some pretty crappy things to my ancestors as they killed people, broke up families, and sent them away(Highland Scots).

Don't I deserve reparations?Are the same governments in existence now that did those things then?
If not, then your argument is a strawman.

But who are the US government?An entity separate from the people who run it.

Except that being "associated", in this context, means paying taxes and being a citizen of America. Would immigrants coming to live in the US have to pay a kind of 'Reparations for Slavery' tax?Why do you assume that reparations necessitates taxation?

The point is though that the US government is spending billions of dollars each year to combat the effects of racism. The 1960s legislation that is the direct creation of the Food Stamp and Welfare system, as well as Medicare, WIC, Head Start and a host of other programs was a direct result of the urban riots of the 1960s, as well as the more peaceful social revolution led by Martin Luther King, as well a continuation of the New Deal (remember that LBJ was in Congress during the 1940s and 50s, and saw electricity reach his house as part of the New Deal).

So you could easily say the US Government has indeed for nearly 2 generations and entering a third been paying for efforts to make up for the centuries of economic and social oppression caused by Racism and Slavery.Those programs are done to combat the effects of poverty, not the effects of racism.

In addition, holding nearly half the population of the US (those descended from those who reached here 1865 and later) responsible for the sins of a portion of the country and the government of that time is simply unacceptable by most people and unlikely to change. The population isn't responsible, the government is.

Yes, the US government allowed slavery to exist, and because of political necessity, enforced it in areas where it was unpopular.

Yes, slavery died out for economic reasons in much of the US (even in much of the South) prior to the Civil War. Which is why the US government should be held responsible for slavery.

Although you might want to look at the fact that the largest urban slave population in the United States for much of the period leading to the Civil War was in New York City.Which shows that it's the Federal government, and not merely the state governments who were a part of the Confederacy who should be held responsible.

Yes, the United States was a racist country for most of its existance, and still has a lot of racism around (on both sides of the color line). But the United States has made a greater effort then any other nation to end it, combat it, and bring all together as one people. Name another nation who fought a civil war for purely selfless motives to end the bondage of one people from another people?

The Federal government spent a huge amount of money fighting and winning the Civil War. It didn't win the peace for another century, but eventually it did. It continues to gain ground to this day.Once again, it must be pointed out that the Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery.
Slavery was the reason that the South seceded, but it was pratically a nonissue to the North.

Nope sorry. Racism allowed slavery to exist simple because they were subhuman anyway. .

Mh. For centuries, europeans have been enslaved by fellow europeans because of conquest, raiding, slave trade or even debts.

Racism isn't necessary for slavery.

Once again, it must be pointed out that the Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery.
Slavery was the reason that the South seceded, but it was pratically a nonissue to the North.

Southern feelings concerning perceved likely Federal actions to end slavery are the reason they seceded in the first place after Lincoln was elected.

No slavery, no Civil War. Abolitionist sentiment was very strong in the North as well, which of course is why the South was worried and why the entire 1850s saw a terminal breakdown in the consensus between the North and South that led to the war.... read your Bruce Catton or the more recent Civil War historians such as James McPherson or Shelby Foote

Mh. For centuries, europeans have been enslaved by fellow europeans because of conquest, raiding, slave trade or even debts.

Racism isn't necessary for slavery.

Racism was necessary for the American slavery system, because unlike European and many other slave cultures, slavery was permanent for life unless your Master freed you. You couldn't just buy your way out like in most other slave cultures.

On the other hand, North American slavery was relatively benign compared to its practice in the Caribbean or Brazil, where the death rate was absolutely horrific (also note that most African slaves got sent to those areas, not North America because of the death rates creating greater demand)

An entity separate from the people who run it.


The population isn't responsible, the government is.

Which is why the US government should be held responsible for slavery.

.


Not in the United States, where the Constitution specifically starts with "We the People"

A few simple questions:

Do you support reparations for slavery? Why or why not?

Do you think reparations will ever be paid? Why or why not?

They won't, because most black people are so out of touch with their family tree, they wouldn't be able to even prove that they descended from slaves.

because most black people are so out of touch with their family tree

Really?

Support that, please.

No I don't.

I see no reason why x should pay y for something that x didn't do, and wasn't done to y.

No I don't.

I see no reason why x should pay y for something that x didn't do, and wasn't done to y.

X is the United States Government and thus certainly is responsible, in part, for slavery in the US.

Y is the Black Community, if you will. That's a bit iffier. But X is X.

by the way, we are forgetting the English in all of this.

After all, it was an English ship that brought the first slaves to Virginia in 1620and English governors who approved and allowed the practice to continue up until 1775.

So actually, the English (later British after the Act of Union in 1704) government is responsible for the creation of the "institution" and for allowing it to continue and expand for 150 years of the total period of 240 years that slavery existed in English Speaking America

Shall we hit them up for reparations as well?

Hi,

This is a good Idea if its was at the time of the Slavery, but if we did this we would have to do the same to every Person who at sometime in history had been a slave, we would have to find every person who could be in that list.
I feel if we did that we would end up only to get the money right back, thats because where would we stop and who would owe who? To forgive is great then to make profit.

Mark.A.Pendergraft
The Kingdom of Pendergraft

Depends. What's the interest rate at which I will eventually get reparations for paying reparations?

Really?

Support that, please.

How many people can trace their roots back to slavery, or even respect what their ancestors went through? Not many, we can't even get our people to respect the civil rights movement. And if you want sources, ( and I definately don't think you need them ) just think of what our civil rights leaders fought and died for, and then look at our youth...then tell me with a straight face, that they match.

Reparations can only be payed to the wronged party. Victimhood for a crime and responsibility for a wrong are not inheritable. Since no one alive is responsible for slavery in the US, and no one alive is a victim of it, talk of reparations is a sick joke.

Right, now on the other hand, reparations for oppression, that's different.

by the way, we are forgetting the English in all of this.

After all, it was an English ship that brought the first slaves to Virginia in 1620and English governors who approved and allowed the practice to continue up until 1775.

So actually, the English (later British after the Act of Union in 1704) government is responsible for the creation of the "institution" and for allowing it to continue and expand for 150 years of the total period of 240 years that slavery existed in English Speaking America

Shall we hit them up for reparations as well?

Well, the British made slavery illegal long before the Americas did.

Which, really, only made things worse as after that the slavers would toss their 'cargo' overboard rather than get caught transporting slaves by the British navy.

So... how about those africans who sold their countrymen into slavery, what reparations do they pay?

Hi,

This is a good Idea if its was at the time of the Slavery, but if we did this we would have to do the same to every Person who at sometime in history had been a slave, we would have to find every person who could be in that list.
I feel if we did that we would end up only to get the money right back, thats because where would we stop and who would owe who? To forgive is great then to make profit.

Mark.A.Pendergraft
The Kingdom of Pendergraft

You are so obviously not black.:rolleyes:

X is the United States Government and thus certainly is responsible, in part, for slavery in the US.

Y is the Black Community, if you will. That's a bit iffier. But X is X.

Not so clear-cut, given that the government gets its money from the citizens of the country it governs.

Of course, if x means the citizens of the USA, then x also comes to include y, complicating the issue.

The United States paid in blood for righting the current and future wrongs of slavery in the 1860s, and the South paid a far more heavy toll in economic damage, poverty, self destructive racism and allowed itself to be ruled for nearly another century by the same aristocracy that got it in the Civil War to begin with.

So you can definitely say that the region that was the most guilty paid the heaviest toll in blood (higher percentage of Southerners died by far then Northerners), destruction, poverty and economic backwardness.

Sadly only Lincoln had the authority both moral and political to have done something to improve things and a stupid fanatic killed him (from the South, alas).

Speaking as a former Southerner whose family has lived in the South since the 1650s (on both sides), whose ancestors on one side owned a lot of slaves (that family went from aristocracy to poverty in a single generation) and whose family did not reach even Middle Class status again until the 1950s, I think we paid the price of our ancestors sins.

If anyone might owe a debt of some kind, its the families like mine. Sorry, we paid already.

I have nothing to atone for.

No I don't think you did, the only way that you could possibly even come close, would be if in fact your ancestors had become slaves themselves, where your family could be split up, or the women raped, or you get beaten to death because you didn't bring in your quota of cotton, or how about standing naked on an auction block, in the middle of winter, and when you shiver you are made to run in circles to warm up, even though you don't have on any shoes. and being from tropical temps. you are not equipped to deal with cold. When you can claim to have dealt with that in your family, for four hundred years then come talk to me, until then, don't EVER bring the arrogance that you in the slightest iota have paid your debt. :mad:

You are so obviously not black.:rolleyes:

Your right I'm not Black, but there are many more people in the World that have been Slaves. It would not be fair to just pay back only one group, that would be wrong. I hear about land being given to Slaves, but what about the Native American who we would have to give it all back to. and the many lives that where lost in taking that land away. We can go back as far as the First Day on Earth and someone was a slave somewhere, its not right but to say that one should get paid then every person who somewhere in history was a Slave should be paid. By the time you tracked every person you would have no money left to pay. This Forum is about making our own Nation and it lets us show what we would do, if you look back in history you would think it would be every clear that it is wrong to have slaves. But America like other Nations do bad stuff that later get changed with time, In America our History is made up based on what (we) do. No matter what race you are you can change it for the better. It is better to change the world for the good then worry about the past wrongs.

The father of a friend of mine once said "If the niggers want me to repay them for slavery and discrimination, I'll buy each and every one of them a one way ticket back to Africa and we'll call it even." Granted he was quite the old and ornery fella, not to mention racist but to a certain extent I agree with him. Slavery was several generations ago and no one that was a slave is still alive today. Slavery is now illegal and they just need to accept it and get over it. If they are really indignant about it, fine. They can dig up the corpses of those personally responsible and beat them to death for it.

Spoken like a true asshole :upyours:

There is no debt. The many casualties in the War of Southern Betrayal and activly fighting the Slave Trade more then make up for it.

Only someone white would say that. Do you really think Lincoln freed the slaves because it was the right thing to do? Or has it ocourred to you that, as slaves they were considered private property and could not be used in time of war? and did you also know that slavery wasn't truly abolished, just modified? Ever heard of indentured servents? and what about the white mans promise of forty acres and a mule? My family is still waiting for theirs. :gundge:

I think that we as nations should get workers or jus rule them as kings then that way the people are under our control if nations want slaves so bad.

If there's anything that I find this debate consistently demonstrates, it's that I'm not the only one out there with a serious empathy-impediment. "Hell no, they don't deserve a penny because what was done to their ancestors doesn't entitle them to anything." I suspect they'd sing a very different tune, though, if they-- and their parents, and their grandparents, and their great grandparents, and so on-- had grown up stuck, generation after generation, in sub-standard neighbourhoods receiving sub-standard education and therefore relegated to sub-standard jobs, because they were "emancipated" into poverty, without education and with only menial labour qualifications. But they simply can't (and frankly, don't care to try to) imagine what it would be like, or how they'd feel about it issue of-- by a reversal of history-- whites had been enslaved for generations by black colonizers of 'the new world,' so they care nothing for "the other's" condition, and refuse to give it legitimacy. "That could *never* have happened to me/us" forms an impenetrable mental wall where "those people's" living history isn't real, so doesn't count.

Worse than that, though, are the instances where you hear "well it's been too long, they can't expect to still be owed anything" or "well that promise was rescinded later on." Those amount, essentially, to "hah! we got away with it!" It sounds like a criminal who hides the spoils of their robberies away hoping to wait out the statute of limitations on prosecution.

Ironic that it's such a contentious, vitriolic debate in such a proudly "Christian" nation, when Christian dogma says that *thousands* of years later every last human on Earth is paying (with our 'immortal souls') for the gross crime of disobediently eating an apple. Yet so many people can't imagine owing a bunch of 'n*****s' back-pay for generations of having their families broken apart, being sold like cattle, whipped, and worked to death.

Exactly

Only someone white would say that. Do you really think Lincoln freed the slaves because it was the right thing to do? Or has it ocourred to you that, as slaves they were considered private property and could not be used in time of war? and did you also know that slavery wasn't truly abolished, just modified? Ever heard of indentured servents? and what about the white mans promise of forty acres and a mule? My family is still waiting for theirs. :gundge:

Even if Lincoln did not do it to set Slaves free, he did because of it. Sometimes things happen and it had nothing to do with the (why) it happen, But because he did what he did he set forth a path so Slavery would one day be no more.
We have thanksgiven day to give thanks to Native American then right after that we still all their land and kill any of them who got in our way. I'm part Native American and I do not feel thankful of that day, but I don't think giving it back would do any good. Thats so far back what good would it bring, not much. Out of that New Nation we now have a Great Country, its not perfect but we are still growing and learning and it take all of us to do that.

Well, the British made slavery illegal long before the Americas did.

Which, really, only made things worse as after that the slavers would toss their 'cargo' overboard rather than get caught transporting slaves by the British navy.

So... how about those africans who sold their countrymen into slavery, what reparations do they pay?

Look at whats happening in Africa. Clearly what goes around comes around. :D

Your right I'm not Black, but there are many more people in the World that have been Slaves. It would not be fair to just pay back only one group, that would be wrong. I hear about land being given to Slaves, but what about the Native American who we would have to give it all back to. and the many lives that where lost in taking that land away. We can go back as far as the First Day on Earth and someone was a slave somewhere, its not right but to say that one should get paid then every person who somewhere in history was a Slave should be paid. By the time you tracked every person you would have no money left to pay. This Forum is about making our own Nation and it lets us show what we would do, if you look back in history you would think it would be every clear that it is wrong to have slaves. But America like other Nations do bad stuff that later get changed with time, In America our History is made up based on what (we) do. No matter what race you are you can change it for the better. It is better to change the world for the good then worry about the past wrongs.

Tell that to the jews, and don't bother bringing up indians, my grandmother is a blackfoot. they have casinos, do blacks? On their reservations they answer to no law but their own, do black people have that luxury? Oh sure we can get grants for college, but the problem is, for most inner city schools the books are so outdated, that even a straight a student may struggle in college. Oh wait, maybe we could jump on top of the business grants uncle sam gives out. Oh that's right, they give those to the dot heads, and the dot heads start a business and the only jobs created go to their relatives. Oh well,that won't work. Hey I know, how about wetake advantage of affirmative action there's a way to get reparations....for about ten of us at a time. Yeah right :mad: don't send me crap about what the government can't do, because they seem to be doing a bang up job helping out everyone else, even people they haven't screwed in the past. You have to think a little more before you come out with mess you're talking, my family grew up with nothing, and it's not for a lack of trying. My life IS better now, but you can believe the government's good graces had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!

Tell that to the jews, and don't bother bringing up indians, my grandmother is a blackfoot. they have casinos, do blacks? On their reservations they answer to no law but their own, do black people have that luxury? Oh sure we can get grants for college, but the problem is, for most inner city schools the books are so outdated, that even a straight a student may struggle in college. Oh wait, maybe we could jump on top of the business grants uncle sam gives out. Oh that's right, they give those to the dot heads, and the dot heads start a business and the only jobs created go to their relatives. Oh well,that won't work. Hey I know, how about wetake advantage of affirmative action there's a way to get reparations....for about ten of us at a time. Yeah right :mad: don't send me crap about what the government can't do, because they seem to be doing a bang up job helping out everyone else, even people they haven't screwed in the past. You have to think a little more before you come out with mess you're talking, my family grew up with nothing, and it's not for a lack of trying. My life IS better now, but you can believe the government's good graces had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!

Well I still say if we give to one will should give to all.
And I grow up very very poor and went without, I used to live in La Vernia, Tx
we traded a car for our trailer house we lived in. I did not know my father till I was 18, I was made fun of because I was so poor. My Mom wanted to give me up because here new Man did not like me. When I was 5 I hit my head and it toke years to be able to remember stuff and yes I was made fun of that as well. I know what it is like to be hated and poor, I was beat almost every day by my bother and because I was scared of the dark I was forced outside with the door locked and was called a retard but many of my Family. The only person who cared died when I was 10, my Nanny was in her 50's and died.

But this is not about out doing some one or who was hurt more, its about if we give we should give to every one who has been wronged. That means there is no America and no Texas because thats part of Mexico, so none of us would be here. But if there must be something said then I'm sorry that Blacks where Slaves and I'm sorry that every Nation on Earth has had Slaves and that many have been killed because they where in the way of other Bigger Nations. But you can change the path and thats what really counts in the end.

Well I still say if we give to one will should give to all.
And I grow up very very poor and went without, I used to live in La Vernia, Tx
we traded a car for our trailer house we lived in. I did not know my father till I was 18, I was made fun of because I was so poor. My Mom wanted to give me up because here new Man did not like me. When I was 5 I hit my head and it toke years to be able to remember stuff and yes I was made fun of that as well. I know what it is like to be hated and poor, I was beat almost every day by my bother and because I was scared of the dark I was forced outside with the door locked and was called a retard but many of my Family. The only person who cared died when I was 10, my Nanny was in her 50's and died.

But this is not about out doing some one or who was hurt more, its about if we give we should give to every one who has been wronged. That means there is no America and no Texas because thats part of Mexico, so none of us would be here. But if there must be something said then I'm sorry that Blacks where Slaves and I'm sorry that every Nation on Earth has had Slaves and that many have been killed because they where in the way of other Bigger Nations. But you can change the path and thats what really counts in the end.

As I said, this country does give to all comers in abundance, EXCEPT BLACKS. Not to mention that blacks are the only people of all americans that were brought here forcibly. And yet we are the low man on the totem pole. For example my wife's family had no objection to her sister marrying a mexican, but refused to speak to her for seven, count em seven years because I'm black. They've never met me, and had already passed judgement on me, and as a result she was cast out. Now they did eventually start speaking to her again, and informed her that they would let it slide this time, but if she ever brought me around, she'd be out on her ear with no chance of redemption. From what I don't know.

I just think it's funny how we were massacred, raped, beaten, and then left to our own devices, with no resources to speak of, and to this very day we are as dubya would say " hated for our freedom" and yet, everyone has been compensated, to one degree or another except us, and no one can seem to understand our point of view. can you explain that to me? If you could, as a white person give me some perspective, I'd really appreciate it. :confused:

The point is though that the US government is spending billions of dollars each year to combat the effects of racism. The 1960s legislation that is the direct creation of the Food Stamp and Welfare system, as well as Medicare, WIC, Head Start and a host of other programs was a direct result of the urban riots of the 1960s, as well as the more peaceful social revolution led by Martin Luther King, as well a continuation of the New Deal (remember that LBJ was in Congress during the 1940s and 50s, and saw electricity reach his house as part of the New Deal).

Welfare was originally designed for whites, so don't try to make it seem like the U.S. was so hell bent on ending the plight of the black race.

Southern feelings concerning perceved likely Federal actions to end slavery are the reason they seceded in the first place after Lincoln was elected.

No slavery, no Civil War.Yes, but that means that the Civil War was fought to maintain slavery, not end it.
In order to argue that the War was fought to end it, you kind of need to have a side who had that as a major goal. You didn't.

Abolitionist sentiment was very strong in the North as well, which of course is why the South was worried and why the entire 1850s saw a terminal breakdown in the consensus between the North and South that led to the war.... read your Bruce Catton or the more recent Civil War historians such as James McPherson or Shelby FooteCertainly, there were individuals in the North who were abolitionists. You also had individuals who were anti-abolition, given the occasional mass lynching of blacks that occurred in the North.

Not in the United States, where the Constitution specifically starts with "We the People"Yes, even in the United States.

From the wiki; emphasis mine:

"The language "We, the People of the United States", is of singular importance in that it provides that the power and authority of the federal government of the United States of America does not come from the several states, or even the people of the several states, but from an entity identified as the People of the United States of America, with the Constitution serving as a compact or contract between the People of the United State of America, the several States, and a newly created entity: the federal government of United States of America."

by the way, we are forgetting the English in all of this.No we aren't. They don't matter.

Hi,

This is a good Idea if its was at the time of the Slavery, but if we did this we would have to do the same to every Person who at sometime in history had been a slaveNo, we wouldn't, as most states that enslaved people don't exist anymore.

Reparations for slavery would simply be attacking a symptom of the greater disease of social injustice.

US recognition of the Confederates is irrelevent. In truth, from my understanding, the CSA was indeed a nation. It had a defined border, currency, military, and political structure. Heck, they even had their own constitution as well.
So, in your way of thinking, if anyone within the USA declared that their home was a sovereign nation, with a clearly defined border and, in addition, printed their own currency formulated a set of laws applicable within that domain and set up their own parliament the US govt would have to recognise them as a nation and even if they didn't it would be irrelevant.
Because, y'know, I've set myself up as a nation. Therefore I am one.
yep. that sounds really correct.

So, in your way of thinking, if anyone within the USA declared that their home was a sovereign nation, with a clearly defined border and, in addition, printed their own currency formulated a set of laws applicable within that domain and set up their own parliament the US govt would have to recognise them as a nation and even if they didn't it would be irrelevant.
Because, y'know, I've set myself up as a nation. Therefore I am one.
yep. that sounds really correct.
Only in America I am afraid.

I just think it's funny how we were massacred, raped, beaten, and then left to our own devices, with no resources to speak of, and to this very day we are as dubya would say " hated for our freedom" and yet, everyone has been compensated, to one degree or another except us, and no one can seem to understand our point of view. can you explain that to me? If you could, as a white person give me some perspective, I'd really appreciate it. :confused:

Well I know how it feels to have people hate you because of who you date, as I stated I'm from Texas and now live in California. But my first Girlfriend was Black and I was hated because I did so, I am very opened minded but will stand for what I feel. So when I was told by my Family they would disown me I said, Kiss my but I can date whoever I want this happened later in life as my first Girl Friend was when I was 5. I sometime think will America ever get pass its own history, lets say Americas past leaves a bad image in ones head. But there are so many today that are glad we did away with having Slaves.

I think the sadness thing about what happened to Blacks was they where robbed from their history forced to work off farms and used as less then human even tro they knew it was wrong, it even states that all Men all are created equal. Whats even sadder is that Slavery is still going on in Africa and other places in the World, but I hope one day it will end. There are Companies who are fighting to stop this but its an on going fight.

Now why is it so hard to get ahead in the poor areas then other areas?
Its because you are so worried about living you can't think about anything but that, I lived in fear because Glenn my Ex-Step Dad was a Drunk and did drugs and tried to kill my Mom many times when he was drunk. Onetime he put a gun to my Moms Head and only by the grace of God is She still alive. We should help repair families who need help.

How I feel: I have respect for each and every race and gender I think every person has the same rights and freedoms.

Feel free to disagree with me. I will stand by my points. Good Day Neo Art.
go on. Tell us that real life calls and you have something really important to do.
That's what you always say when you suddenly realise you've been talking shite and called out on it.
It's so cute when you do it.

You know my ancestors were virtual slaves under feudalism...where is my reparations?!? Fact of the matter most people can trace their lineage back to someone who was a slave at one point or another. Doesn't mean that anybody owes them anything...maybe their ancestor was owed...but the debtor is long dead as well as the person who deserved it.

It seems to me, that there isn't a man alive, ( that isn't black ) that will ever " get it". they try to compare being poor in the lilly white world, to that of the black people. Now if that's true then tell me this, there is a term whites use, called "****** rich". what do you call the white version? Define black balled, and then give the white equivalent. In westerns, why do bad guys always wear black? See, it's so ingrained into the american mentality, that we don't even recognize it, when it sits before us as plain as day. Every thing we see if you look closely enough, is designed to let us as a country know, that we as blacks are less, we don't belong, yeah we brought you here,but since we can no longer molest your humanity, go the fuck back to africa.

But see, that's the gag, because the average black persons bloodline is so infused with white blood, slave master/ bed wench etc. we aren't accepted there either. So you see, you fucked us, in every way one can be fucked. I guess that's o.k. though, cause if it's all white, it's all right. You people don't really give a rats ass about who we are, how we feel, what we know what we need, or why we need. At the end of the daywhen you do chip in with your half hearted, so called effort, it's merely you easing your subconsious guilt, by doing what? giving some porch monkeys kid a stuffed doll? Whatever. I believe that people are a product of the environment, so the next time you ride down the street of some ghetto, or through the projects, look and realize, that this is what it looked like 50, 60, 70 years ago it's still the same. what we have now, is all we ever had, at least in the way of white assistance. If you boiled it down to gravy, it wouldn't be enough to cover a chicken fried steak. And that's the way it is.:(

Racism was necessary for the American slavery system, because unlike European and many other slave cultures, slavery was permanent for life unless your Master freed you. You couldn't just buy your way out like in most other slave cultures.


Two things:
1.Slavery in North America was in the origin a sort of debt slavery, and it applied to white people mostly - it happened that new immigrants were forced to become slaves for one or two decades.
2.It is usually impossible for a slave to "buy" his way out of slavery. Take Rome for example - a civil law system, with clearly stated rules about propriety, trade, slavery and citizenship. A slave had the legal status of "res cogitans" (thinking item) - and, as such, he couldn't have personal propriety, nor own money. He was a slave for life unless his master gave him the "libertus" status, thus creating a new person (although not a citizen).
The same went for medieval slavery in Europe - although with the superimposition of germanic traditions.

As I see it the new slavery is much more subtle, so subtle that we all take it for granted, this is the slavery of finance capital. Their is an old saying, 'in need, freedom is latent', meaning that if you are in need, saying for wages, products or whatnot to survive, you are immediately beholden to the person who has that good or service, and them in a position over you, so we need to pay money to them. Slavery in it's clearest definition is total dependence, as opposed to independence and autonomy.

Now if that's true then tell me this, there is a term whites use, called "****** rich". what do you call the white version?

There is a term racists use.

Define black balled, and then give the white equivalent.

Look up the etymology of the term.

In westerns, why do bad guys always wear black? See, it's so ingrained into the american mentality, that we don't even recognize it, when it sits before us as plain as day. Every thing we see if you look closely enough, is designed to let us as a country know, that we as blacks are less, we don't belong, yeah we brought you here,but since we can no longer molest your humanity, go the fuck back to africa.

So because some settings the colour black is used as a negative there are no positive uses?

You know my ancestors were virtual slaves under feudalism...where is my reparations?!? Fact of the matter most people can trace their lineage back to someone who was a slave at one point or another. Doesn't mean that anybody owes them anything...maybe their ancestor was owed...but the debtor is long dead as well as the person who deserved it.

once again white opinion strikes back. You people just don't get it. Iguess you should be thankful for your ignorance, because it truly must be bliss. When will you people realize while you're pumping all this bullshit, American society was designed for whites to prosper,"BUT ONLY WHITES" so you having supposed slaves in your bloodline is irrelevant. The difference that you geniuses seem to keep forgetting, is that unlike you,we are still in the country where we were enslaved, and because ef all of the gene splicing, that Mr. charlie did to us, we can't go back to africa even if we wanted to, cause we'd be treated worse that we get treated over here. DO YOU GET IT NOW??? Jesus Christ, realize slaves your people may have been at one point in your history, but it's kind of ironic that you would escape that tyranny, only to come here and do it to me. Escape persecution, and inflict it on others, that's one hell of a game of pass it down, if I do say so myself.:rolleyes:

There is a term racists use.

everyone is a racist to some degree, so I guess you use it too.

Look up the etymology of the term.

I know what it is, I was wondering if you knew it's history

So because some settings the colour black is used as a negative there are no positive uses?

some my ass.

It seems to me, that there isn't a man alive, ( that isn't black ) that will ever " get it". they try to compare being poor in the lilly white world, to that of the black people. Now if that's true then tell me this, there is a term whites use, called "****** rich". what do you call the white version? Define black balled, and then give the white equivalent. In westerns, why do bad guys always wear black? See, it's so ingrained into the american mentality, that we don't even recognize it, when it sits before us as plain as day. Every thing we see if you look closely enough, is designed to let us as a country know, that we as blacks are less, we don't belong, yeah we brought you here,but since we can no longer molest your humanity, go the fuck back to africa.

But see, that's the gag, because the average black persons bloodline is so infused with white blood, slave master/ bed wench etc. we aren't accepted there either. So you see, you fucked us, in every way one can be fucked. I guess that's o.k. though, cause if it's all white, it's all right. You people don't really give a rats ass about who we are, how we feel, what we know what we need, or why we need. At the end of the daywhen you do chip in with your half hearted, so called effort, it's merely you easing your subconsious guilt, by doing what? giving some porch monkeys kid a stuffed doll? Whatever. I believe that people are a product of the environment, so the next time you ride down the street of some ghetto, or through the projects, look and realize, that this is what it looked like 50, 60, 70 years ago it's still the same. what we have now, is all we ever had, at least in the way of white assistance. If you boiled it down to gravy, it wouldn't be enough to cover a chicken fried steak. And that's the way it is.:(

Well my last post was not added but, I wanted to say I grow up in Texas but Now I live in California. I know how it feels to be hated because who you date, my first Girl Friend was Black and I was told I would be disowned and if I ever had Kids they would never be able to see my Bothers and Sisters Kids.
None of my Girl Friends have ever meet my Family because they are so racist, It makes me sick to hear the N word. What I think needs to be done is find away to repair the over all area, When I was young my (Step Dad) tried to Kill my Mom many times so I was so scared I could not focus in school. But I respect all races and genders.

everyone is a racist to some degree, so I guess you use it too.

Interesting logic

I know what it is, I was wondering if you knew it's history

Perhaps i'm missing something about it's history because I can't think of any connection to this

It seems to me, that there isn't a man alive, ( that isn't black ) that will ever " get it". they try to compare being poor in the lilly white world, to that of the black people.(

That's the only line in that speech that really irked me. There are white people in the exact same circumstances as black people, but in that situation, they're the minority so are often ignored. That's the catch-22 of capitalism. "you need money to make money." Everything else you've said in there is true as far as I can see, but you know as well as I do that unless there is a flood of organized protest (not likely) that the government isn't going to do anything about it. So it's your job as a race to get yourselves out of the mess that white people have put you in. Is it right? probably not. But it is reality. White people aren't going to just turn around and say. "Hey, we raped their culture and basically screwed them as much as possible. Let's work on getting them out of it." We hold this wonderful illusion that we earned what we have. Some of them did, sure. But for the most part money's made by screwing over somebody else. Blacks were just the most recently screwed. The question of morality is moot, as even if it is wrong the white race will not acknowledge it. The issue is how the black race can get itself out.

once again white opinion strikes back. You people just don't get it. Iguess you should be thankful for your ignorance, because it truly must be bliss. When will you people realize while you're pumping all this bullshit, American society was designed for whites to prosper,"BUT ONLY WHITES" so you having supposed slaves in your bloodline is irrelevant. The difference that you geniuses seem to keep forgetting, is that unlike you,we are still in the country where we were enslaved, and because ef all of the gene splicing, that Mr. charlie did to us, we can't go back to africa even if we wanted to, cause we'd be treated worse that we get treated over here. DO YOU GET IT NOW??? Jesus Christ, realize slaves your people may have been at one point in your history, but it's kind of ironic that you would escape that tyranny, only to come here and do it to me. Escape persecution, and inflict it on others, that's one hell of a game of pass it down, if I do say so myself.:rolleyes:

:D

I woke up feeling a little melancholy today; such stupidity does cheer me up.

If you boiled it down to gravy, it wouldn't be enough to cover a chicken fried steak. And that's the way it is.:([/QUOTE]

Wow!!! that's so black! i got a southern black voice ringing in my ear!

its cool being black, its like being irish in the UK...or a condition known as M.O.P.E. (Most Oppressed People on Earth) they should run a contest and the winners can decide who, by default,;) are the most oppressive people on earth

Wow!!! that's so black! i got a southern black voice ringing in my ear!

its cool being black, its like being irish in the UK...or a condition known as M.O.P.E. (Most Oppressed People on Earth) they should run a contest and the winners can decide who, by default,;) are the most oppressive people on earth

Don't you mean "The most oppressed people" rather than "The most oppressive people"

once again white opinion strikes back. You people just don't get it.
Once again, people are branded because of their ethnicity or opinions. "White opinion" and "you ('white' I think) people just don't get it", isn't that a bit of a racist thing to say?

The difference that you geniuses seem to keep forgetting, is that unlike you,we are still in the country where we were enslaved, and because ef all of the gene splicing, that Mr. charlie did to us, we can't go back to africa even if we wanted to, cause we'd be treated worse that we get treated over here.

So, basically you are stating that the "black opinion" (as opposed to what you called the "white opinion") is that if US black people would go to Africa they would be victims of racism because they aren't "pure-blood" blacks?

1.I wonder if this is the opinion of ALL the US black people.
2.I wonder if the "white opinion" is shared by ALL the US white people, too.
3.Wouldn't the US black people better qualify themselves as "grey people" then, since they feel (or at least you maintain so) that they aren't pure-bloods? Grey hasn't the same negative connotation than black, usually, at least as a colour.
4.Basically, you're saying "All white americans hate us! All africans hate us!". It's very similar to "All commies hate us! All jews hate us!". Beware.

Anyway, out of jokes, it is utterly stupid AND racist to claim that "ALL <insert skin colour here> people think this", "ALL <insert skin colour here> would do that". Each individual is different, and don't you go insulting people you never knew because their skin colour is different of yours, or because some of their ancestors owned some of your ancestors as slaves.

This may have been posted before, but I don't care, I haven't read the thread, so I'll make this short and to the point:

Bullshit's episode on reparations.

Good day.

Reparations will absolutely one day be paid.

Because there will come a time when some politician really needs to buy the black vote.

Reparations will absolutely one day be paid.

Because there will come a time when some politician really needs to buy the black vote.

And in doing so, he will lose the white vote, and not get elected, and no reparations will be paid.

And in doing so, he will lose the white vote, and not get elected, and no reparations will be paid.
I think you overestimate voters.

I think you overestimate voters.

There's only two things you can count on in life: death, and taxes. If reparations have a possibility of getting passed, and electing an official will up that chance, people will get up off their couches and run their asses to the voting booths to keep their taxes from skyrocketing.

People love their money.

There's only two things you can count on in life: death, and taxes. If reparations have a possibility of getting passed, and electing an official will up that chance, people will get up off their couches and run their asses to the voting booths to keep their taxes from skyrocketing.

People love their money.
There's tremendous excess in government. That money's already available somewhere; the trick is finding the right (small enough) group of people to offend by reallocating it.

There's tremendous excess in government. That money's already available somewhere; the trick is finding the right (small enough) group of people to offend by reallocating it.

Until you can find evidence of us needlessly spending a trillion or so dollars that we can refunnel into paying everyone that says they're black a given amount, I don't see it happening.

Even if it does happen, I still think it's a dumb idea.

Until you can find evidence of us needlessly spending a trillion or so dollars that we can refunnel into paying everyone that says they're black a given amount, I don't see it happening.
Being black is a far broader category than being descended from slaves. Especially if you limit them to American-owned slaves. Or those who are demonstrably descended from American-owned slaves.
Even if it does happen, I still think it's a dumb idea.
No disagreement, there.

Being black is a far broader category than being descended from slaves. Especially if you limit them to American-owned slaves. Or those who are demonstrably descended from American-owned slaves.

Well how would we go about doing that? Would we pay full reps to descendants of male and female slaves? Pay half to those who were descendant of only one slave parentage? Only a quartered amount to those who are half black with dilluted slave lineage? Try to estimate how much to give based on how long the ancestors were enslaved, or how hard they worked, or how rich the plantation that owned them were?

Why stop at slave descendants? Why not give the Native Americans a chunk as well? Maybe toss a few bucks to the descendants of the Chinese that worked on the railroad who were killed afterward? Why not pay reps to the Jews that suffered in concentration camps for a certain amount of time before we intervened in the war? Maybe give reps to every LBGT that's been the victim of a hate crime or otherwise "kept down" based on who they are?

It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't work.

No disagreement, there.

Well at least we've got that.

How many people can trace their roots back to slavery,

I haven't seen a poll, but I would guess that it might be more than you suggest.

For what it's worth: I can.

And if you want sources, ( and I definately don't think you need them ) just think of what our civil rights leaders fought and died for, and then look at our youth...then tell me with a straight face, that they match.

The constant bemoaning of the "new generation" seems to be a near-universal element in human society, which makes me question its justification.

Nobody's a slave now.

None of my forebears owned anyone.

Black popular culture is widely recognized as dominant in the US, especially among younger generations.

What positive effects, on the whole, would arise from giving away billions of taxpayer dollars with either no strings attached or with some form of "proof of slave ancestry" that would be sketchy at best and abused at worst?

No reparations now, no reparations forever.