NationStates Jolt Archive

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.:(

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[/QUOTE]

If it's based on color I say white.

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

he's not literate, so his thesaurus reads like stereo instructions.

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.

I'm sorry about what you must have gone through, but what you are saying does bolster my point. everyone goes through their rough patches, but some of us ( like you ) go through something that most can't understand fully without experiencing it first hand, or at the very least being a prodigy of the fallout. My father was the same to my mother, fortunately my grandmother got her out of it before I was born, so I didn't have to suffer the direct brunt. Amazingly enough, my mother and grandmother, never nurtured any hatred for him, simply because black men never stood a chance in the work force then, and apparently, he was too weak to figure out better ways to deal with his frustration.

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?

Of course! And the fact that you picked up on it so quickly proves my point.

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?

Hey you catch on fast don't ya?

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.

First, sarcasm is not your forte. you sound relitively stupid, and there are exceptions to every rule. some Irish whites, and many Canadian whites were instrumental in the sucsess of the underground railroad. But of course that doesn't matter because, why would a white man who comes from such pure christian stock, ever want to know about the white heathens, that helped out all those splibs.

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.

NO one said ALL brainiac. learn to read, then to comprehend.

I think you overestimate voters.

And you the non voters

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.



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

Of course it does. Because you are probably a part of that age range, you can't see the forest for the trees, meaning, you probably don't contribute much to society in general, and if we come down on the young negro, your turn can't be far behind.

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.

1. Your confusing indentured servitude for slavery. Under the indenture system, you agreed to work for specific period of time without wages in payment for passage to the British colonies, and sometimes for a bit more for necessities etc. It was possible to get into a debt peonage situation, but generally eventually you were free to make your way.

2. In Roman society, it was normal for many slaves to buy their way out, depending of course if they were state owned or privately owned, and were lucky enough to be a house slave rather then someone involved in working the fields for example.

references to Roman era slavery here
http://www.main-vision.com/richard/Slavery.html

http://home.triad.rr.com/warfford/Roman_Empire/slavery.html

just to give a couple of online sources

In Europe of the Dark and Middle Ages, slavery gradually gave way to Serfdom, as its economically cheaper as you (the owner) don't have to feed your serfs like you do for slaves.

Main point I think we both agree on though is that for the most part, it wasn't based on race necessarily.

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.:(


1. Yes, ****** rich is offensive, but the rest of your arguement is essentially nonsense. I am curious where you came up with your statements on blackballed, bad guys wearing black etc.. care to back them up with some kind of source?

2. My understanding, from wide reading, is that most Africans consider Black Americans to be Americans. Since most of the African countries are sharply divided on tribal and religious lines, a person from America no matter the ethnicity doesn't fit into their guidelines of who is part of their group in any case.

3. Hispanic America has a lot of the same grinding poverty and worse in many cases but is reaching Middle Class status at a higher rate proportionally. Why is that? There are a lot of people who argue that its cultural not racial.

4. Incidently, as bad as things seem now, 70 years ago they were a hell of a lot worse. Incidently, 70 years ago in America things were worse for everyone, seeing as we were having the Great Depression at the time.

5. I have worked in Social Services for 20 years, and most of the African Americans and Black Americans (depending on age depends what they consider themselves) and all of them would be rather unimpressed by your arguements. They generally say that they made it, or their parents or grandparents did, so can others. My own experience is the that grinding generational poverty you are describing is multi racial and is a measure more of individual and family circumstances, character, drug or other substance abuse, having children while under age, and host of other factors that include being disabled. I have worked in the 5th Ward of Houston and in Galveston, worked in the Projects, worked in the Barrio of Houston, worked in Bakersfield, and have seen a lot of what you say. I have met and worked with poor Whites, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and Blacks, and not a one as far as I could tell was poor because of their ethnicity, but because of other factors.

Granted, thats not a scientific measure, but I bet any other social or welfare case workers out there in NS would probably say the same.

I was under the impression that slavery was legal when it was practiced, maybe I'm wrong though...

The only sort of case that I think *might* be just is one where a slave owner pays reparations to his former slave.

Even this though is sketchy, since it would imply the law punishing someone post facto for doing something which was not against the law when he did it.

Since there aren't any living slave owners or former slaves, there is no just case, as I see it, for any sort of reparations.

Symbolic apologies by state legislatures, &c, are more than enough.

They reinforce the cancer on black society, the idea that black people are so pathetically weak and so badly victimized that they are incapable of making things better for themselves, and still live under other men's feet, by other men's good graces.

The race pimps al sharpton and jesse jackson are two of the most despicable individuals in this regard, truly holding back their entire people with their philosophy of victimhood and inferiority.

A superior man doesn't need an apology, he doesn't make a disgraceful show of being hurt by mere words, he goes on with what he wants to do in spite of them, and ignores them.

Since there aren't any living slave owners...

besides a few governments and companies...

besides a few governments and companies...

Which companies and government broke which laws against slavery?

-or-

Which things should we punish with post facto laws next?

Which things should we punish with post facto laws next?

lots of stuff. "it was legal at the time" will never be a defense for participating in genocide, for example.

I was under the impression that slavery was legal when it was practiced,Which is why people are arguing that the U.S. government should pay for reparations.

Since there aren't any living slave owners or former slaves, there is no just case, as I see it, for any sort of reparations.We are arguing that an entity that still exists (the U.S. government) should pay reparations, not entities that don't exist.

So how is the Mohawk question going up there?


Do you assume for some reason that while I'm endorsing some measure of reparations for slavery in America that I oppose a measure of reparations for what was done to the aboriginals in Canada? Are you assuming that I'm a hypocrite who scolds the US for the sake of scolding the US while believing that Canada can do (and has done) no wrong? Because you'd be wrong.

Which companies and government broke which laws against slavery?

-or-

Which things should we punish with post facto laws next?

thats a good point

lots of stuff. "it was legal at the time" will never be a defense for participating in genocide, for example.

true enough, but slavery as practiced in the United States was not genocide, and in all of the states you couldn't just kill a slave without trial legally

Even Nat Turner got a trial

Which is why people are arguing that the U.S. government should pay for reparations.

We are arguing that an entity that still exists (the U.S. government) should pay reparations, not entities that don't exist.

the ex post facto clause in the Constitution would seem to prevent legal action against any entity that exists that could be considered liable it seems

leaving only the US Government, which could easily rightly say that it already paid the cost in lives and treasure to end the practice and put into place laws to prevent recurrance and could also easily say it paid its blood debt as alluded to by John Brown.

The only consideration is whether there is a moral debt, and a lot of people think there is no longer one.

As that is a matter of opinion, you really can't say they are wrong. You can only try to argue your point that there is a moral debt. Good luck with that one.

I for one obviously don't feel that such a moral obligation extends to paying any kind of reparations. The moral debt is to ensure that freedom and basic fairness is available to everyone in the United States.

lots of stuff. "it was legal at the time" will never be a defense for participating in genocide, for example.


Slavery was a very far cry from genocide - and your equation is even weaker on account of the fact that while guilty *people* are punished for breaking the international laws which exist against genocide, the proposal for reparations seeks to punish people who are entirely and completely innocent of any wrongdoing regarding slavery.

The voodoo idea that the "government" is guilty of slavery is depraved because it doesn't punish 'the government,' it punishes innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

This is the equivalent of jailing the people who live in South Carolina today because we have contrived some new law against the civil war, and SC was a confederate state.

A few simple questions:

Do you support reparations for slavery? Why or why not?Yes. It is obvious the genocide on the indigenous peoples and later slavery, have massive after effects to this day. As long as reparations is meant to compensate for current and future consequences of that not-so-glorious past, reparations seems a both good and necessary idea, and not just for the recipients. Do you think reparations will ever be paid? Why or why not?No. Because to those with the power to make reparations, it will always be understood to mean random people who may or may not have had anything to do with genocides and slavery, have to hand over sums of cash to other random people who may or may not have had anything to do with genocides and slavery.

Phear the awful power of upper class spin.

the ex post facto clause in the Constitution would seem to prevent legal action against any entity that exists that could be considered liable it seemsIt's entirely possible to file and win a civil suit against someone who did not commit a criminal act.

leaving only the US Government, which could easily rightly say that it already paid the cost in lives and treasure to end the practiceThe 13th Amendment's passage did not cost lives and treasure.

and put into place laws to prevent recurranceBanning future actions does not make up for past actions.

The only consideration is whether there is a moral debt, and a lot of people think there is no longer one.

As that is a matter of opinion, you really can't say they are wrong. You can only try to argue your point that there is a moral debt. Good luck with that one.

I for one obviously don't feel that such a moral obligation extends to paying any kind of reparations. The moral debt is to ensure that freedom and basic fairness is available to everyone in the United States.And since freedom and basic fairness are not available to everyone in the United States, partly as a result of slavery and its aftermath, it would seem as though you agree that there is a moral debt for reparations.

Is Italy going to pay reparations to the descendant of every single Roman slave as well? Are the African tribes who sold fellow Africans into slavery going to chip in too? No? Hmmm.

I guess the answer is no then.

Is Italy going to pay reparations to the descendant of every single Roman slave as well? Are the African tribes who sold fellow Africans into slavery going to chip in too? No? Hmmm.

I guess the answer is no then.AKA "But Daaad! Stevie did it too!"

Is Italy going to pay reparations to the descendant of every single Roman slave as well? Are the African tribes who sold fellow Africans into slavery going to chip in too? No? Hmmm.Does the Roman Empire still exist? Is Africa still run as a tribal system? No. Hmmm.

I guess the answer is no then.I guess your argument is a strawman then.

Here's a question. Since the government gets its money from the people (of which, black americans are a part), wouldn't the government paying reparations equate to (at least in a small part) black americans paying themselves reparations?

I don't mind paying reparations but I think it needs to be well thought out and not necessarily go to individuals. I'm thinking more along the lines of museums, public property, college funding for black Americans... things of that nature.

Here's a question. Since the government gets its money from the people (of which, black americans are a part), wouldn't the government paying reparations equate to (at least in a small part) black americans paying themselves reparations?

Yes, obviously. (right?)

Here's a question. Since the government gets its money from the people (of which, black americans are a part), wouldn't the government paying reparations equate to (at least in a small part) black americans paying themselves reparations?I'm curious. If your government established some sort of ministry for equal opportunity, would you still be opposed to it?

I'm curious. If your government established some sort of ministry for equal opportunity, would you still be opposed to it?

Well, it wouldn't be a ministry, but as long as it provided for equal opportunity for everyone, why wouldn't I be? Although there are laws in place that should do that already.

Well, it wouldn't be a ministry, but as long as it provided for equal opportunity for everyone, why wouldn't I be? Although there are laws in place that should do that already.If they did, the legacy of past abuses wouldn't still be haunting your society, and there'd be no need for reparations.

The ministry thing was simply to convey the point, I'm not suggesting it's the right solution. I do think you as a society, and thus your government, has a responsibility to investigate what the right solution is, and set aside the resources to accomplish it. And I don't think it should be limited to combating the after effects of slavery.

I don't mind paying reparations but I think it needs to be well thought out and not necessarily go to individuals.I suppose such a person exists, but I'm unaware of anyone who supports reparations who believes that the reparations should go to individuals.

I suppose such a person exists, but I'm unaware of anyone who supports reparations who believes that the reparations should go to individuals.

I thought that was where most of the arguments of those against reparations were about? At least, I can't think of an argument against reparations besides that one but maybe I'm just a nice guy?

Slavery was a very far cry from genocide

but you agree that there are some things for which "it was legal at the time" is not a defense, yes? if so, then what was your point in the post i was responding to?

The voodoo idea that the "government" is guilty of slavery is depraved because it doesn't punish 'the government,' it punishes innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

bullshit. institutions don't get to be absolved of their former wrong-doing merely by replacing the leadership, or even by over time fully replacing all the stakeholders in the institution. especially not when still living stakeholders and leaders actively participated in flat-out refusing to redress those wrongs.

I thought that was where most of the arguments of those against reparations were about? At least, I can't think of an argument against reparations besides that one but maybe I'm just a nice guy?I think most of the arguments against come from people not understanding what reparations are and why they should be paid.

Absolutely not. If you were not directly affected by something, you shouldn't get reparations for it, because it didn't happen to you. While I believe that the slaves should have gotten there 30 acres and mule during the Reconstruction, doing it now would be quite ridiculous.

I think most of the arguments against come from people not understanding what reparations are and why they should be paid.

Yeah... but ignorance isn't a very good argument.

Absolutely not. If you were not directly affected by something, you shouldn't get reparations for it, because it didn't happen to you.

so that's a no on wrongful death lawsuits then?

It doesn't matter whether someone was born into poverty as a consequence of slavery or as a consequence of having shitty parents. Neither kid is less deserving. Help shouldn't be directed at certain groups of poor people that have some kind of percieved "right" to that help. This applies to things like affirmative action, too.

Stupid, badly thought out ways of resolving social conflicts which can create more harm than good and which America invents because the people have been indoctrinated to be opposed to progressive social policies and any kind of redistribution of wealth.

Does the Roman Empire still exist? Is Africa still run as a tribal system? No. Hmmm.

The Roman's? No

Parts of Africa still basically run as a tribal system.

I guess your argument is a strawman then.

Actually it's a valid point. Either you pay all for the misdeeds of the past, you pay those that are still alive, or you pay none.

Much as you like to say the Government still exists; it's different 150 years ago.

Prove the government is the same and then you have an argument.

Much as you like to say the Government still exists; it's different 150 years ago.

Prove the government is the same and then you have an argument.

Federal Government of the United States = Federal Government of the United States.

Now, prove that A does not, in fact, equal A. Then maybe you have an argument. I'm fucking tired of coming back to this thread and seeing the same lame-ass "arguments" about how "OH SHIT! THOSE POLITICIANS ARE DEAD! THEREFORE THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN REBORN ANEW, CLEANSED OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND ITS CONTINUOUS LEGAL ENTITY BROKEN!"

I think most of the arguments against come from people not understanding what reparations are and why they should be paid.

:rolleyes:

Oh do tell. Edumacate we ignat types.

Federal Government of the United States = Federal Government of the United States.

Now, prove that A does not, in fact, equal A. Then maybe you have an argument. I'm fucking tired of coming back to this thread and seeing the same lame-ass "arguments" about how "OH SHIT! THOSE POLITICIANS ARE DEAD! THEREFORE THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN REBORN ANEW, CLEANSED OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND ITS CONTINUOUS LEGAL ENTITY BROKEN!"

Really sucks when people won't buy your argument doesn't it.

Fact remains. The people who committed the crimes are LOOOONG dead. The people affected by the crimes are LOOOONG dead.

So why not explain how this is going to solve anything?


----edit----

Might I add if the government paid such reparations. Where they going to get the money? So we the people will be paying them. That is where you don't get support.

----edit 2----

So what is the statute of limitations in the matter of the victims being dead?

I know that reparations will probably never be paid! It is extremely wrong that they will not be paid. For many years Africans and African-Americans were mistreated by whites! I also know that not all Caucasian people did not take part in this vile and loathsome crime. No matter what some of money the government gives African-Americans can NEVER replace the wrong done. The best thing that we as African-Americans can do is to educate ourselves so that we will never be placed in this situation again. We must do our best to honor and remember our ancestors like Martin Luther King Jr. , Harriet Tubman, and so many others that paved the way for us to be were we are. We must read and go to school get our masters and other high education. This is what we can do to change the world. Also more recently the genocides that are going on in Africa we must prevent these types of things so that they will not happen and we must STOP THEM NOW!!!

From the Wiki an argument of comparative utility

In "Up From Slavery," former slave Booker T. Washington wrote,

I have long since ceased to cherish any spirit of bitterness against the Southern white people on account of the enslavement of my race. No one section of our country was wholly responsible for its introduction... Having once got its tentacles fastened on to the economic and social life of the Republic, it was no easy matter for the country to relieve itself of the institution. Then, when we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe. ...This I say, not to justify slavery -- on the other hand, I condemn it as an institution, as we all know that in America it was established for selfish and financial reasons, and not from a missionary motive -- but to call attention to a fact, and to show how Providence so often uses men and institutions to accomplish a purpose. When persons ask me in these days how, in the midst of what sometimes seem hopelessly discouraging conditions, I can have such faith in the future of my race in this country, I remind them of the wilderness through which and out of which, a good Providence has already led us.

Really sucks when people won't buy your argument doesn't it.

No, it really sucks when people make fallacious and stupid arguments and just repeat them often enough to try and drown out the voice of reason.

Fact remains. The people who committed the crimes are LOOOONG dead. The people affected by the crimes are LOOOONG dead.

So why not explain how this is going to solve anything?

Irrelevant. The State, that is, the Federal Government of the United States (in case you forgot) is not LOOOOOOOOONG dead. It's very much alive. You have said or implied that it isn't. So, make the case. Show just what changes occurred that mean the State is no longer the State.

Prove A =/= A. I'll wait.

No, it really sucks when people make fallacious and stupid arguments and just repeat them often enough to try and drown out the voice of reason.


Ah Ad hominem time.

Irrelevant. The State, that is, the Federal Government of the United States (in case you forgot) is not LOOOOOOOOONG dead. It's very much alive. You have said or implied that it isn't. So, make the case. Show just what changes occurred that mean the State is no longer the State.

Prove A =/= A. I'll wait.

What is the statue of limitations for the victims of slavery?

I know that reparations will probably never be paid! It is extremely wrong that they will not be paid. For many years Africans and African-Americans were mistreated by whites! I also know that not all Caucasian people did not take part in this vile and loathsome crime. No matter what some of money the government gives African-Americans can NEVER replace the wrong done. The best thing that we as African-Americans can do is to educate ourselves so that we will never be placed in this situation again. We must do our best to honor and remember our ancestors like Martin Luther King Jr. , Harriet Tubman, and so many others that paved the way for us to be were we are. We must read and go to school get our masters and other high education. This is what we can do to change the world. Also more recently the genocides that are going on in Africa we must prevent these types of things so that they will not happen and we must STOP THEM NOW!!!


How would you have us pay reparations? Even if one could determine all those whose ancestors were enslaved, such would be their numbers that any individual remuneration would either be ruinious to the economy, or so small so as the render the exercise futile.

Actually it's a valid point. Either you pay all for the misdeeds of the past, you pay those that are still alive, or you pay none.

Much as you like to say the Government still exists; it's different 150 years ago.

Prove the government is the same and then you have an argument.Has the government been overthrown or deposed? No? Then it's the same.

:rolleyes:

Oh do tell. Edumacate we ignat types.That's what we're trying to do, but it's difficult to correct commonly held misconceptions.

Has the government been overthrown or deposed? No? Then it's the same.

That's what we're trying to do, but it's difficult to correct commonly held misconceptions.

All we are hearing is "give us money" for the actions of 150 years ago.

The particulars are not laid out anywhere that I can see. Mind you I only googled for slave reparations.

There is a great deal of money that we would have to pay and we do not see how it will be used.

Nobody will sign up for that.

Here's a question. Since the government gets its money from the people (of which, black americans are a part), wouldn't the government paying reparations equate to (at least in a small part) black americans paying themselves reparations?

A better question: if black people are equal citizens of the US, and not inferior citizens to non-blacks, why should they be assumed to get less benefit from the government as it is, and to therefore be entitled to extra.

As it stands now, Americans are expected to make do with their lot, not to depend on the generosity of others, and to make the most out of their opportunities. Race-based welfare like 'reparation's simply suggests that black Americans are incapable and need extra help to achieve the same thing as a non-black American.

Reparations would annihilate the dignity of black americans, an unmerited handout that instead of correcting some wrong, creates a new wrong on the pretense of something else. Reparations are - and would be seen as - nothing more than a hustle, trying to cash in, more about money in the pocket than anything else.

but you agree that there are some things for which "it was legal at the time" is not a defense, yes? if so, then what was your point in the post i was responding to?



bullshit. institutions don't get to be absolved of their former wrong-doing merely by replacing the leadership, or even by over time fully replacing all the stakeholders in the institution. especially not when still living stakeholders and leaders actively participated in flat-out refusing to redress those wrongs.

"There are some things for which it was legal at the time is not a defense" is only half of the precedent you introduced, and not a sufficient on its own to make it analogous to slavery reparations.

People responsible for genocide can be punished after the fact, but "governments" cannot, nor can people merely related by geography be punished.

Punishing the 21st century American people for slavery is no different from punishing the 21st century south carolinans for their home state's role in the civil war, or punishing the people of Athens for some wrong committed thousands of years ago.

In the real world, "the government" is not an entity that can be 'punished' or fined without the fine actually falling upon the American people themselves, who are not responsible in any way for slavery.

If all citizens share equally in the benefits of the government, then whatever benefit was gained by slavery has already been dispersed to black Americans, by virtue of them being American citizens. I would find it very hard to believe, for instance, that "the government" took in more extra revenue on account of slavery than it spent prosecuting the civil war and the reconstruction of the south.

A case might be made, if say, the wages which otherwise would have been paid to the slaves would have been put into a vault somewhere in washington DC, and allowed to languish there for the intervening years. In that case, the monies could be distributed to the rightful heirs of the unpaid slaves, but this is not how things are in the real world.

All we are hearing is "give us money" for the actions of 150 years ago.

The particulars are not laid out anywhere that I can see. Mind you I only googled for slave reparations.

There is a great deal of money that we would have to pay and we do not see how it will be used.

Nobody will sign up for that.It is true that the particulars haven't been laid out.
The reason for reparations is to repair the legacy of slavery. Different people have differing ideas of how those legacies might be repaired. Some people might believe that an apology from the government would be enough. Others might like to see monuments dedicated to slaves. Perhaps educating people on what racism is and how it manifests itself might help? There are many differing ideas for what proper reparations would be.
However, as far as I'm aware, none of them involve giving money to individuals, though I suppose there are some individuals who might want this.

A better question: if black people are equal citizens of the US, and not inferior citizens to non-blacks, why should they be assumed to get less benefit from the government as it is, and to therefore be entitled to extra.Simply because there aren't laws against blacks does not mean that the laws is enforced equally amongst blacks and whites.

What is the statue of limitations for the victims of slavery?

well, federal law says that there is none for fugitives from justice. but, of course, nobody is suggesting the u.s. government be charged criminally anyways.

Hey Free Soviets! What's going on, buddy? Uh...why don't you capitalize the first letter of the first word of a sentence? Is the shift key on your keyboard broken?

What if the person dies? Does the statute of limitations apply then? 'Cause I thought everyone involved with American slavery was dead.

It is true that the particulars haven't been laid out.
The reason for reparations is to repair the legacy of slavery. Different people have differing ideas of how those legacies might be repaired. Some people might believe that an apology from the government would be enough.

I don't have a problem with that.

Others might like to see monuments dedicated to slaves.

Don't have a problem with that. But I would think a major monument with a historical museum would be better.

Perhaps educating people on what racism is and how it manifests itself might help? There are many differing ideas for what proper reparations would be.


I still have hopes for Kings color blind society. But these days with stuff like political correctness and managing diversity; there seems to be an effort to point out that people are different.


However, as far as I'm aware, none of them involve giving money to individuals, though I suppose there are some individuals who might want this.

I thought there were efforts to "out" companies and demands of renumeration for perceived value of the slaves output.

Ah Ad hominem time.

...calling your arguments "stupid" and pointing out that their main tactic seems to be sheer repetition is not an ad hominem argument. It is not an argument at all, in fact, so it can't be a fallacious argument.

What is the statue of limitations for the victims of slavery?

What is the point of this question? You have to prove A=/=A. I'm still waiting.

...calling your arguments "stupid" and pointing out that their main tactic seems to be sheer repetition is not an ad hominem argument. It is not an argument at all, in fact, so it can't be a fallacious argument.

Suggesting I lack reason is.

What is the point of this question? You have to prove A=/=A. I'm still waiting.

You know the point of the question and you probably know it involves why the courts have not answered on the reparations question.

Since you are a lawyer; why not edumacate us rather then ad hominem us?

What if the person dies? Does the statute of limitations apply then? 'Cause I thought everyone involved with American slavery was dead.

...except several corporate and governmental bodies, which are very much alive and well in the relevant sense.

...except several corporate and governmental bodies, which are very much alive and well in the relevant sense.

Which government bodies and which companies, and how much extra money did they make as a result of slavery, versus the payment of wages for the same work?

Also, where is that money now, and how much of the extra benefit has already filtered down to slaves' descendants?

What dollar value will be given intangible harms, and what dollar value will be given to the measures already taken to correct them?

Specifics, please. Proposing 'reparations' isn't a proposal at all if it is as vague as some of the posters in this thread make it out to be. Will a statue and a blown kiss suffice?

No takers?

Assuming, and only for the sake of argument - not because it is a defensible position - that modern americans owe modern black americans money because of slavery...


What are the specifics?

"
Which government bodies and which companies, and how much extra money did they make as a result of slavery, versus the payment of wages for the same work?

Also, where is that money now, and how much of the extra benefit has already filtered down to slaves' descendants?

What dollar value will be given intangible harms, and what dollar value will be given to the measures already taken to correct them?

Specifics, please. Proposing 'reparations' isn't a proposal at all if it is as vague as some of the posters in this thread make it out to be. Will a statue and a blown kiss suffice?

"

There is something like reparations already, in the form of Affirmative Action. It is designed to aid students who may have a harder time getting into college because of the environment they grew up in, which in turn is determined by years of oppression.

Which government bodiesThe Federal Government.

Also, where is that money now, and how much of the extra benefit has already filtered down to slaves' descendants?Why the focus solely on the slaves' descendants?

Proposing 'reparations' isn't a proposal at all if it is as vague as some of the posters in this thread make it out to be.In order to get any time of reparations done, one must first get the opponent to concede the need for reparations.

Will a statue and a blown kiss suffice?Not likely, but a sincere public apology would go a long way.

There is something like reparations already, in the form of Affirmative Action. It is designed to aid students who may have a harder time getting into college because of the environment they grew up in, which in turn is determined by years of oppression.

Indeed, so it would seem that any calculus of a payoff for slavery would have to take into account affirmative action as a mitigating factor that reduced the sum owed.

The same is true of every other program to assist black people.

Perhaps the entire 'debt' to blacks has already been paid off in this manner?

The Federal Government.

Why the focus solely on the slaves' descendants?

In order to get any time of reparations done, one must first get the opponent to concede the need for reparations.

Not likely, but a sincere public apology would go a long way.

I think you'll find quite a few opponents of 'reparations' more than willing to take you up on that catch 22.

Reparation-con: There can be no meaningful discussion on the justice of reparations unless the proposal is very specifically defined, and I can never agree in good conscience to anything until such time as that

Rep-pro: A proposal for reparations cannot be made specific until there is an agreement on the need for reparations.

Con: OK

Pro: ...

Con: :)

Which government bodies and which companies, and how much extra money did they make as a result of slavery, versus the payment of wages for the same work?

the usian federal government, at the very least, as well as various companies that have been placed on registries created by 'slave era disclosure' acts.

and the second part is irrelevant. reparations would need to be made even if slavery was a complete financial black hole.

Specifics, please. Proposing 'reparations' isn't a proposal at all if it is as vague as some of the posters in this thread make it out to be. Will a statue and a blown kiss suffice?

no, but it'd be a start. the specifics are not something that one person can determine, but must at the very least include concerted efforts to bring about social reconciliation and social equalization. that's the point.

Perhaps the entire 'debt' to blacks has already been paid off in this manner?

no, but a start has been made through them.

I think you'll find quite a few opponents of 'reparations' more than willing to take you up on that catch 22.

Reparation-con: There can be no meaningful discussion on the justice of reparations unless the proposal is very specifically defined, and I can never agree in good conscience to anything until such time as that

Rep-pro: A proposal for reparations cannot be made specific until there is an agreement on the need for reparations.

Con: OK

Pro: ...

Con: :)Not really, as there would still be the discussion on whether or not there was a moral case for or against reparations.

I can't belive there is another thread on this. Gah.

No. No reparations. How about people concentrate on the problems of today instead of shouting about something over a hundred years ago? Todays issues are much more practical after all.

Not really, as there would still be the discussion on whether or not there was a moral case for or against reparations.

What kind of reparations? What is owed beyond what has already been given in the form of reconstruction, civil rights, affirmative action, the civil war, welfare, &c &c. ?

What kind of reparations? What is owed beyond what has already been given in the form of reconstruction, civil rights, affirmative action, the civil war, welfare, &c &c. ?Reparations are generally thought of as broad social programs and policies.
Civil rights are hardly reparations, they are merely what blacks should have had from day one.
The Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery, so it can't be used as an argument that reparations have been paid. (Not to mention that ending a wrong isn't the same as making up for a wrong.)
Welfare wasn't enacted to make up for the institution of slavery, it was enacted to bring people out of poverty.
Reconstruction and affirmative action could be argued to be reparations. Have they gone far enough? Well, do we have approximately equal ratio of blacks compared to other races in all positions in all fields?

No. No reparations. How about people concentrate on the problems of today instead of shouting about something over a hundred years ago? Todays issues are much more practical after all.

and if the problems of today are both caused by and in fact continuations of those of the past?

and if the problems of today are both caused by and in fact continuations of those of the past?

Uh-huh. And how far back exactly are we allowed to go to try and trace every problem someone has? I'm sure everyone can go back to some point in time and say if THIS didn't happen my life would be better then it is now. Doesn't mean we should be compensated for what might have been, caused by people who lived long before we did. Instead of finding blame we should find SOLUTIONS to current problems. But then that would be much more difficult wouldn't it?

Reconstruction and affirmative action could be argued to be reparations. Have they gone far enough? Well, do we have approximately equal ratio of blacks compared to other races in all positions in all fields?

What proportion of black failure is due to the lingering, uncorrected effects of slavery and what proportion is the responsibility of blacks themselves?

What dollar amount, either paid out or spent in 'broad programs' would make blacks behave successfully?

What programs, specifically, would be part of this 'reparation' package?

What danger is there in taking away the dignity of blacks by treating them like children or the mentally retarded by asserting that they are incapable of success on their own, and need to be paid for and propped up by the rest?

and if the problems of today are both caused by and in fact continuations of those of the past?

Whoopdedoo!

Niall Ferguson should be worried; with your stunning contention that the nature of the present is dictated by the past, historians about the world are quaking in fear of your intellect.:rolleyes:

The present is indelibly related to the past, however, one would simplify greatly to suggest that the problems facing afro-carribeans are solely the result of nasty old slavery. Not that such simplifications matter greatly when they suit the blathering, moralistic invective of the left.

Instead of finding blame we should find SOLUTIONS to current problems.

do you know what reparations are?

do you know what reparations are?

I've heard multiple definitions in this particularcase as to what "reparations" should be. Everything from an apology to handing out money to descendents of slaves. Either way though in order for there to be reparations there has to be fault found by someone or in this case the U.S. government.

Which shouldn't be neccessary as no one alive had anything to do with slavery.

I've heard multiple definitions in this particularcase as to what "reparations" should be.

my question was actually more of what the term itself denotes

my question was actually more of what the term itself denotes

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reparation

But I consider this whole issue as finding blame for the situation of African Americans. It is a human response after all so its not surprising that the calls for "reparations" would be so loud. It allows you to finger someone for your circumstances instead of trying to fix it yourself.

What proportion of black failure is due to the lingering, uncorrected effects of slavery and what proportion is the responsibility of blacks themselves?It's impossible to say as there's no control group and no way of creating one. Therefore, to find out for certain, one factor would have to be eliminated.

What dollar amount, either paid out or spent in 'broad programs' would make blacks behave successfully?As much as it costs to properly enact the reparations programs, which would be...

What programs, specifically, would be part of this 'reparation' package?Well, first of all, school districts that are predominantly black need to have their budgets equal to the districts of whites. (I propose that the best way of doing this is to equalize all school budgets on a per student basis across the board.) Next, people need to be educated on what racism is and how to recognize it in themselves. This is important especially with regard to racism in hiring practices. (I imagine a cross between formal classes in schooling and public service announcements will need to be done.) After that, history as it's taught in schools needs to be altered to reflect the history of peoples around the world instead of the predominantly European history that is currently taught. (Black History Month doesn't cut it.) It also wouldn't hurt for the President and Congress to issue formal apologies.
Once this occurs, things should be reexamined in about 10 years to see if progress has been made and what areas still need improvement.

What danger is there in taking away the dignity of blacks by treating them like children or the mentally retarded by asserting that they are incapable of success on their own, and need to be paid for and propped up by the rest?If I cut off your hand, would the courts be treating you like a child or the mentally retarded and asserting that you are incapable of success on your own if they award you civil damages? If not, why should you get them?

The present is indelibly related to the past, however, one would simplify greatly to suggest that the problems facing afro-carribeans are solely the result of nasty old slavery.Not at all. Some of these problem occurred as a result of Jim Crow laws.
Of course, it just so happens that Jim Crow laws are one of the legacies of slavery.

Which shouldn't be neccessary as no one alive had anything to do with slavery.sigh...

The same U.S. Government that propped up slavery is the same one that exists today.

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

I think people just like to call you an evil bigot.;)

No.

sigh...

The same U.S. Government that propped up slavery is the same one that exists today.

Using the same line of reasoning then we should endevour to arrest any USA goverment offical and charge them with high treason for the actions of their forebears in commiting treason against the British Crown?

Reparations would be nice as long as the following chip in:

The Dutch East Indies Trading Company
African Tribal Leaders
Conquistadors
The British Empire
Portugal

That's something you rarely here about. Good ol' Portugal flooding their Brazilian colony with fresh Africans because they wouldn't let them breed for nearly half a century.

Let's remember that some Southern States, Georgia, outlawed slavery right after its foundation. However, to attract immigration and business such laws had to be repealed. Let's also remember that at the time slavery was banned by the federal government Americans were only a few generations separated from their European cousins. So I protest that Europeans really owe the reparations here. ;)

Italy should have to pay reparations to France, England, Spain, and North Africa for Rome's actions too.

Japan and Germany should pay reparations for the millions they exterminated less than a century ago.

America should pay what they owe to France for their help in Revolutionary War...France should pay America for their help in World War II... No wonder we hate each other. :D

I'll spare you a 5 billion character lengthed speech about who owes whom what by simply saying..."Everyone has screwed everyone, hard."

Reparations would be nice as long as the following chip in:

The Dutch East Indies Trading Company
African Tribal Leaders
Conquistadors
The British Empire
Portugal

That's something you rarely here about. Good ol' Portugal flooding their Brazilian colony with fresh Africans because they wouldn't let them breed for nearly half a century.

Let's remember that some Southern States, Georgia, outlawed slavery right after its foundation. However, to attract immigration and business such laws had to be repealed. Let's also remember that at the time slavery was banned by the federal government Americans were only a few generations separated from their European cousins. So I protest that Europeans really owe the reparations here. ;)

Italy should have to pay reparations to France, England, Spain, and North Africa for Rome's actions too.

Japan and Germany should pay reparations for the millions they exterminated less than a century ago.

America should pay what they owe to France for their help in Revolutionary War...France should pay America for their help in World War II... No wonder we hate each other. :D

I'll spare you a 5 billion character lengthed speech about who owes whom what by simply saying..."Everyone has screwed everyone, hard."

And Canada should have to pay for Celen Dion! Or take her back and put her down or summit.

And Canada should have to pay for Celen Dion! Or take her back and put her down or summit.

William Shatner, Jim Carrey. Canada's list of atrocities goes on. :mad:

William Shatner, Jim Carrey. Canada's list of atrocities goes on. :mad:

Yeah Vodka, Boris Yeltsin, and Marxism too!

Yeah Vodka, Boris Yeltsin, and Marxism too!

Yakov Smirnoff as well.

Using the same line of reasoning then we should endevour to arrest any USA goverment offical and charge them with high treason for the actions of their forebears in commiting treason against the British Crown?No, as the British Crown granted Independence to the Colonies.
(Not to mention the victimless crime that is treason.)

Reparations would be nice as long as the following chip in:

The Dutch East Indies Trading Company
African Tribal Leaders
Conquistadors
The British EmpireAll right, four entities that don't exist anymore.
Way to follow the thread, people.

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

...being in the active voice, this would of course require living slaves. The time has passed. Study, learn, repeat.

No, as the British Crown granted Independence to the Colonies.
(Not to mention the victimless crime that is treason.)

All right, four entities that don't exist anymore.
Way to follow the thread, people.

Right on. Let's add another one: those Africans and their descendants who were enslaved and lived in the United States, and its derivations, until 1865.

Right on. Let's add another one: those Africans and their descendants who were enslaved and lived in the United States, and its derivations, until 1865.Certainly. They are further entities that don't exist anymore.
The United States Federal Government, however, is an entity that existed then and exists now.

We have been and still ARE paying reperations.......It's just called welfare. People used to work and NOT get paid, now they don't work and GET paid. :headbang:

We have been and still ARE paying reperations.......It's just called welfare. People used to work and NOT get paid, now they don't work and GET paid. :headbang:Yeah, because only blacks get welfare. :rolleyes:

I thought it said SLAVES not blacks, everyone realizes that not only blacks were slaves right? The native american indians had "slaves" and they were not all black. I didn't think this was a black issue. Sorry.

And Canada should have to pay for Celen Dion and Bryan Adams! Or take them back and put them down or summit.

Fixed! :D

All right, four entities that don't exist anymore.
Way to follow the thread, people.

so demanding

We have been and still ARE paying reperations.......It's just called welfare.

bullshit. welfare is not reparations for anything.

sigh...

The same U.S. Government that propped up slavery is the same one that exists today.

So what? No one running our government today had anything to do with it.

So what? No one running our government today had anything to do with it.

does this theory of yours apply generally to all governmental debts?

I thought it said SLAVES not blacks, everyone realizes that not only blacks were slaves right? The native american indians had "slaves" and they were not all black. I didn't think this was a black issue. Sorry.The Native Americans were not part of the U.S. Federal Government. Since reparations are being demanded from the U.S. Federal Government, the Native Americans aren't germane to the issue.

So what? No one running our government today had anything to do with it.True, but the government itself did, and since the government is a separate entity from the people running it, it can be held accountable.

I had ancestors who gave their lives to free the slaves, so do their ancestors owe me for what my ancestors did ??

And what about someone who had ancestors on both sides of the war (or both slaves and slave owners).

Making someone pay for someone else's mistakes is fundamentally wrong, so, take everything from the slave owners still living and dole it out, assuming you can find any. But don't take from people who aren't directly guilty.

Also, the decendants of slaves are much better off today than most of the decendants of the Africans who weren't enslaved (i.e. the ones living in Congo, Rawanda, etc...).

Making someone pay for someone else's mistakes is fundamentally wrong, so, take everything from the slave owners still living and dole it out, assuming you can find any. But don't take from people who aren't directly guilty.

try reading

Certainly. They are further entities that don't exist anymore.
The United States Federal Government, however, is an entity that existed then and exists now.

And there your reasoning fails...

Without slaves, there can be no reparations.

And there your reasoning fails...

Without slaves, there can be no reparations.

so that's a no on wrongful death lawsuits then?

so that's a no on wrongful death lawsuits then?

Absolutely.

All right, four entities that don't exist anymore.
Way to follow the thread, people.

Actually slavery was around in the United States long before even the Articles of Confederation. Reparations to every black person would be about as useful as setting a giant pile of money on fire. (No offense to black people that would go the same for every race.)

Rather than just giving them money let's put more funding into education, or social welfare programs. Wait, we can't do that because it would help out white people too. Hmmm well we can just enslave all White People.

Absolutely.

really?! bizarre.

well what do you think ought happen when a person is killed in the course of being robbed? does the murderer get to keep the cash?

really?! bizarre.

well what do you think ought happen when a person is killed in the course of being robbed? does the murderer get to keep the cash?

The robber is charged with murder. The cash is irrelevant.

So Free Soviets, should the German government pay reparations for the 6+ million people killed during the Holocaust?

The robber is charged with murder. The cash is irrelevant.

how is it irrelevant? the robber has possession of this cash. the question is, should he? why or why not?

So Free Soviets, should the German government pay reparations for the 6+ million people killed during the Holocaust?

should, and has.

how is it irrelevant? the robber has possession of this cash. the question is, should he? why or why not?

It's irrelevant because it doesn't matter where the cash goes; realistically, one person carries at most $150 in cash. Negligible. Sure, he can keep it. Is it right? No. What's more important? That he murdered someone. So there may be moral justification for returning the money...but if he killed someone, then some chump cash hardly matters.

should, and has.

Exactly. There are living survivors of the Holocaust, people directly affected to be paid.

Exactly. There are living survivors of the Holocaust, people directly affected to be paid.

dude, they didn't just pay the survivors

And FS, the whole robber thing is a little off topic. What are you implying? The US government took the lives of slaves? We can't exactly give them back, whereas the robber is perfectly capable of being forced to return the money to surviving relatives, people directly affected by the murder.

What's in the past is in the past. It wasn't illegal then; an apology may be in order, but any more than that is foolish.

dude, they didn't just pay the survivors

So? I said there were still survivors to be paid. Emphasis on the "survivors."

the robber is perfectly capable of being forced to return the money to surviving relatives, people directly affected by the murder.

this must be some new use of the phrase 'directly affected'

Ok, lets all play a game.

Say the US congress agrees to slavery reparations in principle. How much, and in what form, should they take? Give me a number, people.

Just a little mental exercise.

this must be some new use of the phrase 'directly affected'

Now you're reaching for straws. Someone's killed, he has relatives who are affected by the loss.

But you're right, only the guy who was killed is actually "directly" affected. The point here is that there are survivors of the deceased--people who are related to, knew, loved the victim.

So there may be moral justification for returning the money...

is there or isn't there?

Someone's killed, he has relatives who are affected by the loss.

yeah, and?

come on man, follow the damn thought through to its clear and obvious conclusion.

is there or isn't there?

I see. You choose to ignore the argument when backed against the wall.

yeah, and?

come on man, follow the damn thought through to its clear and obvious conclusion.

Isn't it obvious? L-I-V-I-N-G.

But since you need it explained,

Slaves, anyone who knew them, anyone directly affected by governmental policies is dead. No one alive today was affected by slavery.Thus, reparations are pointless, or if not, then unnecessary.

I see. You choose to ignore the argument when backed against the wall.

mate, i'm trying to figure out what your argument even is. it seems to be changing rather rapidly. why i remember just a few minutes ago when it went something like this:

Without slaves, there can be no reparations.

Isn't it obvious? L-I-V-I-N-G.

But since you need it explained,

Slaves, anyone who knew them, anyone directly affected by governmental policies is dead. No one alive today was affected by slavery.Thus, reparations are pointless, or if not, then unnecessary.

ok, so then you accept that there were people who were owed reparations over this mess, yes? and that those reparations which ought to have been made were not (due to the abuse of governmental power to avoid justice)? and that by not paying when the government should have, and 'running out the clock' so to speak, the government has now escaped responsibility entirely? really?!


back to my murdering robber - suppose he not only killed the person he wanted to rob, but also the deceased's friends and family. does he get to keep the money now?

No, as the British Crown granted Independence to the Colonies.
(Not to mention the victimless crime that is treason.)


The rules of war were obeyed?


All right, four entities that don't exist anymore.
Way to follow the thread, people.

Who sponsored the Dutch East Indies Trading Company?
African Tribal Leaders don't exist anymore?
Who sponsored the Conquistadors?
Great Britain doesn't exist anymore?

Certainly. They are further entities that don't exist anymore.
The United States Federal Government, however, is an entity that existed then and exists now.

You might have had an argument with Strom Thrumond but he died.

You know... There is a really simple answer to the whole thread.

Here, now, today... we know slavery sucked. It was horrible. Atrocious. Mind boggling that not only would tribes in Africa take opposing tribes as slaves, but that they would sell them off to others. Then some greedy buggers decided to even partially cut out those middlemen and start taking them by themselves. Some of them were tranported to here to the US. Many more were sold/traded up and down the continent of Africa and across Europe.

Any sane person in today's world knows what happened then was wrong. Period.

The simple answer though, is that it wasn't illegal then. It was a highly prifitable market of a complete legal, tradeable product, just like silk or spices of those days.

Anyone who looks back then, and tries to apply today's mindset to then and demand "reparations"...

Well, they are the sort of folks who jump on a city bus after seeing it get in a fender bender, just to claim whiplash to sue the city...

Because they think they are "owed" something, and "deserve" to get payed.

Despicable.

Ok, lets all play a game.

Say the US congress agrees to slavery reparations in principle. How much, and in what form, should they take? Give me a number, people.

Just a little mental exercise.

I have read one argument that the labor costs gained from the slaves was worth about a trillion dollars.

The simple answer though, is that it wasn't illegal then.

so?

so?

Well?

A while ago hanging was justified for cattle rustling. It was even legal in some states.

Should not the decedents of those hanged deserve reparations? After all the same government is in place.....

In other news...Jews havn't been given reperations for being enslaved by the Egyptians. You Blacks may have picked some cotton in some fields, but did you build The Great Pyramids in the middle of the Sahara? :rolleyes:
I rest my rant.

NO
Never

unless the government has detailed info on who owned slaves, which slaves they owned, and who the descendants are then I'm against.

I know that as a white male I would end up having to pay (out of my taxes at least). However, my family is from Russia and didn't arrive until the 1920's (fleeing communism). We had nothing to do with slavery in the US and in fact the word slave is derived from the root slav; meaning the slovic peoples. We've been used as slaves for thousands of years, but no one cares.

In other news...Jews havn't been given reperations for being enslaved by the Egyptians. You Blacks may have picked some cotton in some fields, but did you build The Great Pyramids in the middle of the Sahara? :rolleyes:
I rest my rant.

three problems. first, the hebrews were never slaves in egypt. second, the pyramids were not built by slaves, hebrew or otherwise. third, the ancient egyptian state doesn't exist anymore at all in the slightest.

three problems. first, the hebrews were never slaves in egypt. second, the pyramids were not built by slaves, hebrew or otherwise. third, the ancient egyptian state doesn't exist anymore at all in the slightest.

alright, those are excellent claims...explanation/evidence?

alright, those are excellent claims...explanation/evidence?I see you are misunderfused, my fiend. FS isn't the one making claims. The burden of evidence does not rest on him.

Well?

A while ago hanging was justified for cattle rustling. It was even legal in some states.

Should not the decedents of those hanged deserve reparations? After all the same government is in place.....

We cannot forget that at different times, certain people have had to pay more taxes than they do now, even though it was then the law! They must certainly be given reparations for this harm!

Also, the vice president of the united states used to be elected, but is now appointed! The descendants of all those people who would otherwise have been appointed vice president must receive reparations for their unfair treatment!

I see you are misunderfused, my fiend. FS isn't the one making claims. The burden of evidence does not rest on him.

in a debate, all participants should bring evidence.

in a debate, all participants should bring evidence.Alright. Prove you've never been to the Moon.

Ridiculous, you say? Impossible to prove a negative, you say? But mate, in a debate, all participants should bring evidence. ;)

Alright. Prove you've never been to the Moon.

Ridiculous, you say? Impossible to prove a negative, you say? But mate, in a debate, all participants should bring evidence. ;)

I can't prove I've never been to the moon, but a by showing where I have been and when I can at least support my claim that I havn't...anyway, I don't need proof, I just wanted an explanation for the statements, is it that difficult to provide some clarification...?

and, to be honest, the only claim I wanted clarification on was the pyramids not being built by slaves...I hadn't heard that. As, for the other 2, those I get.

I can't prove I've never been to the moon, but by showing where I have been and when I can at least support my claim that I havn't...anyway, I don't need proof, I just wanted an explanation for the statements, is it that difficult to provide some clarification...?OK, forgive me for assuming it was common knowledge.

1. There's not a shred of evidence to support the Jewish peoples were enslaved in Egypt. This means if they ever were, some mysterious agency has obscured all evidence of the fact. But of course, one cannot prove a negative, so it's very much like me accusing you of having been to the Moon. You can't prove you weren't there. You can only wonder why the hell I'd assume you were.

2. The pyramids were build by workers, not slave labour. Just like the Jews in Egypt, pyramid-building slaves is fiction. This (http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidworkforce.htm) touches on the subject, in case you're interested.

3. Well.. uh.. I dunno what to say here. The Pharaohs haven't been around for quite a while. You're just gonna have to take everyone's word for it. The Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Egypt) of Egypt, I think, is a pretty good indication everyone's right about the absence of Pharaohs, but again, it's impossible to prove a negative.

Regardless, don't try to shift the burden of evidence. It's irrational, often obnoxious and always painfully naive. And it is absolutely not conductive to a debate.

EDIT: Well, looks like you got more than you asked for.

I had ancestors who gave their lives to free the slaves, so do their ancestors owe me for what my ancestors did ??You had ancestors who died trying to pass the Thirteenth Amendment?

And what about someone who had ancestors on both sides of the war (or both slaves and slave owners). The Civil War was not fought to end slavery, so this is irrelevant.

Making someone pay for someone else's mistakes is fundamentally wrong,Indeed. Make the government pay for its own mistakes.

And there your reasoning fails...

Without slaves, there can be no reparations.There were slaves. It isn't necessary that they still be living.

Rather than just giving them money let's put more funding into education, or social welfare programs.I'm confused, are you for or against reparations? Because the bolded indicates that you favor one form of reparations.

Ok, lets all play a game.

Say the US congress agrees to slavery reparations in principle. How much, and in what form, should they take? Give me a number, people.

Just a little mental exercise.

You might have had an argument with Strom Thrumond but he died.The U.S. government is not the same entity as the individual politicians that run it.

Who sponsored the Dutch East Indies Trading Company?It is an entity that doesn't exist anymore.

African Tribal Leaders don't exist anymore?Not in the same form that they did.

Who sponsored the Conquistadors?An empire that doesn't exist anymore.

Great Britain doesn't exist anymore?Great Britain is not the British Empire.

I know that as a white male I would end up having to pay (out of my taxes at least). However, my family is from Russia and didn't arrive until the 1920's (fleeing communism). We had nothing to do with slavery in the US and in fact the word slave is derived from the root slav; meaning the slovic peoples. We've been used as slaves for thousands of years, but no one cares.Okay, analogy time.
Let's say that 30 years ago a corporation illegally dumped toxic waste and then covered it up. All of the people running the corporation died. Then thirty years later, you bought stock in it.
Then, the dumping of the toxic waste was discovered after people fell ill. Some of them died. Should the corporation pay? Should the money that you spent in the form of stocks go towards paying for this, even though you had nothing to do with it?

Okay, analogy time.
Let's say that 30 years ago a corporation illegally dumped toxic waste and then covered it up. All of the people running the corporation died. Then thirty years later, you bought stock in it.
Then, the dumping of the toxic waste was discovered after people fell ill. Some of them died. Should the corporation pay? Should the money that you spent in the form of stocks go towards paying for this, even though you had nothing to do with it?

A reasonable analogy. It brings to mind something that I often wonder about. There is now doubt in my mind that we should both learn from our history, and not use it as an excuse to do further harm to each other.

So the question is one of time. How long should we allow before we forgive and forget hurts?
If I went to Egypt and dug around and found an undiscoverd, and unrobed tomb, if I then dug up the buried body of whomever lies there, it would be called archelogy.

If though I went to Yepres, and dug up a few skeletons of world war one soldiers, took their remains and artifacts, there would be many who would cry grave robber. Why? Because of time that has passed.

Do the allied contries of the second world war still bear ill will towards the axis countries? Should they do so? This was 60 yeas ago now and the world seems to have largely forgiven and forgotten.

So what is the answer for the decendents of slaves? For how long exactly can we blame the past for the present?

Again: what of the plight of the poor souls doomed by our national wickedness not to succeed because the law mandated that the vice president be elected, rather than appointed?

We must not rest until reparations have been paid, until every descendant of every person who might have been appointed vice president is as well represented in all successful fields as every descendant of everyone who was elected vice president!

Also, every person who was taxed at a higher rate than he or she is taxed at now deserves Reparations! America's national wickedness at taxing certain people at a higher rate in the past must be righted!

We must not rest until every descendant of every person who was taxed at a higher rate than he would be taxed now achieves full parity of representation with those who are taxed at the current rate!

These people deserve reparations even more than blacks, because while enormous amounts of time and money have been sunk into helping the blacks, not one dime has been invested and not one hour of work done to lift the blight on the descendants of would be vice presidents.

Again slavery was prevalent long before the U.S. Government was even formed. Hell it was around before the States themselves were established.

The corporation didn't dump the toxic waste, they simply hesitated removing it, and at the time it was completely legal. So when dumping toxic waste became an illegal practice, they stopped it.

I don't support reparations, I just use any excuse to plug in for an increase in education and welfare.

Again: what of the plight of the poor souls doomed by our national wickedness not to succeed because the law mandated that the vice president be elected, rather than appointed?

We must not rest until reparations have been paid, until every descendant of every person who might have been appointed vice president is as well represented in all successful fields as every descendant of everyone who was elected vice president!

Also, every person who was taxed at a higher rate than he or she is taxed at now deserves Reparations! America's national wickedness at taxing certain people at a higher rate in the past must be righted!

We must not rest until every descendant of every person who was taxed at a higher rate than he would be taxed now achieves full parity of representation with those who are taxed at the current rate!

These people deserve reparations even more than blacks, because while enormous amounts of time and money have been sunk into helping the blacks, not one dime has been invested and not one hour of work done to lift the blight on the descendants of would be vice presidents.

wow

The corporation didn't dump the toxic waste, they simply hesitated removing it

they did dump it, and did so despite knowing that it was harmful. this makes them morally responsible for it, and therefore obligated to repair the damage caused.

I have read one argument that the labor costs gained from the slaves was worth about a trillion dollars.

So every black person in the US should be given a check for $26,000. Problems solved.

three problems.
Nope, 1.
first, the hebrews were never slaves in egypt.
Wrong.
second, the pyramids were not built by slaves, hebrew or otherwise.
Wrong.
third, the ancient egyptian state doesn't exist anymore at all in the slightest
So? If most of the White Americans, whose families were in Europe at the time are forced to pay reperations for sometihng they didn't do....in my opinion that makes as much sense if not less sense than making Egypt pay Jews reperations. Atleast most of the Egptians weren't in Europe during the time of the the pyramid building.

Well?

A while ago hanging was justified for cattle rustling. It was even legal in some states.

Should not the decedents of those hanged deserve reparations? After all the same government is in place.....

if it was justified, no reparations need be made. if it wasn't, then they do. but the reparations needed to repair the damage caused by the unjust hanging of cattle rustlers would seem to me to be rather small - perhaps on the order of an apology.

of course, some people opposing reparations seem to think even that would be a huge and horrible imposition, at least when it applies to black people, so ymmv.

Nope, 1.

Wrong.

Wrong.

read a book.

So? If most of the White Americans, whos' familys were in Europe at the time are forced to pay reperations for sometihng they didn't do....in my opinion that makes as much sense if not less sense than making Egypt pay Jews reperations. Atleast most of the Egptians weren't in Europe during the time of the the pyramid building.

you join an organization, you accept responsibility for its previous actions, good and bad. that's the way it works. or is it your position that new citizens who just got in now ought not pay for the debt accumulated before september 2007? really?!

you join an organization, you accept responsibility for its previous actions, good and bad. that's the way it works. or is it your position that new citizens who just got in now ought not pay for the debt accumulated before september 2007? really?!

you have got to be kidding me. your saying that becoming a citizen of the united states is equivalent to joining a company? that is absolutely ridiculous. and the position you take proposes that change can't happen because one system has the same characterisitics throughout all time. true, politicians accept that their country committed certain acts when they take office, but they certainly dont take responsibility! whoever follows bush will not say "im so sorry i got us into this mess in Iraq". in fact, the reason many people join organizations is to effect change of some sort, and mold the organization towards their beliefs.

back to the analogy. if the president of a company makes a decision, and then 40 years later people find out about it, there is no one to punish! the hard truth is that if you shoot someone and die, your children cannot be punished. just because this involves race doesn't make it a different matter.

Okay, analogy time.
Let's say that 30 years ago a corporation illegally dumped toxic waste and then covered it up. All of the people running the corporation died. Then thirty years later, you bought stock in it.
Then, the dumping of the toxic waste was discovered after people fell ill. Some of them died. Should the corporation pay? Should the money that you spent in the form of stocks go towards paying for this, even though you had nothing to do with it?

Interesting point, I hadn't thought of it that way. I'm still not sure I'm convinced...since we didn't "buy stock" before it was discovered, we bought it after we knew the practice had stopped; but still worth thinking about.

Suggesting I lack reason is.

No, because again that has nothing to do with my argument itself. I'm not saying you're wrong because you lack reason. Actually, I only suggested you lack reason because you're wrong. ;)

You know the point of the question and you probably know it involves why the courts have not answered on the reparations question.

Since you are a lawyer; why not edumacate us rather then ad hominem us?

Are you seriously just going to cry "ad hominem" every five fucking seconds?

I'm asking you to prove that the United States Federal Government is not the United States Federal Government. We already establi shed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13035621&postcount=294) that you kinda need to do that in order to make your case. Now you keep dodging (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13035702&postcount=295) the question and even saying that my asking it is an "ad hominem." Can I take this as a sign that you can't prove it, because the United States Federal Government *does* remain, it is *not* "LOOOONG dead" and therefore, unlike (for example) the ancient egyptian civilization, is a current and contemporary sovereign state which remains culpable for its own actions?

A reasonable analogy. It brings to mind something that I often wonder about. There is now doubt in my mind that we should both learn from our history, and not use it as an excuse to do further harm to each other.

So the question is one of time. How long should we allow before we forgive and forget hurts?
If I went to Egypt and dug around and found an undiscoverd, and unrobed tomb, if I then dug up the buried body of whomever lies there, it would be called archelogy.

If though I went to Yepres, and dug up a few skeletons of world war one soldiers, took their remains and artifacts, there would be many who would cry grave robber. Why? Because of time that has passed.This is arguably true, yes.

Do the allied contries of the second world war still bear ill will towards the axis countries? Should they do so? This was 60 yeas ago now and the world seems to have largely forgiven and forgotten.I should think that the Allied and Axis countries did enough mutual harm to each other that it was best for them to forgive and forget.

So what is the answer for the decendents of slaves? For how long exactly can we blame the past for the present?One of the things that you have to keep in mind is that the South was segregated for a number of years following the banning of slavery. This is one of the legacies of slavery, but more importantly, it prolonged the healing process by reducing the number of avenues through which blacks could better themselves. After all, if there were "literacy" tests that took away from blacks the right to vote, how could they vote for policies that benefit them? If schools are "separate, but equal", why was the funding for black schools significantly lower than the funding for white schools? These are just two of many examples. So, while slavery itself has been abolished for over a century, people didn't even begin to confront its legacy until far more recently.

Again: what of the plight of the poor souls doomed by our national wickedness not to succeed because the law mandated that the vice president be elected, rather than appointed?

We must not rest until reparations have been paid, until every descendant of every person who might have been appointed vice president is as well represented in all successful fields as every descendant of everyone who was elected vice president!

Also, every person who was taxed at a higher rate than he or she is taxed at now deserves Reparations! America's national wickedness at taxing certain people at a higher rate in the past must be righted!

We must not rest until every descendant of every person who was taxed at a higher rate than he would be taxed now achieves full parity of representation with those who are taxed at the current rate!

These people deserve reparations even more than blacks, because while enormous amounts of time and money have been sunk into helping the blacks, not one dime has been invested and not one hour of work done to lift the blight on the descendants of would be vice presidents.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Again slavery was prevalent long before the U.S. Government was even formed. Hell it was around before the States themselves were established.Certainly, but none of those entities exists anymore.

The corporation didn't dump the toxic waste, they simply hesitated removing it, and at the time it was completely legal. So when dumping toxic waste became an illegal practice, they stopped it. Nope. If it was legal, they wouldn't have needed to keep it a secret.

I don't support reparations, I just use any excuse to plug in for an increase in education and welfare.Increasing education and welfare is one possible form reparations can take.

Interesting point, I hadn't thought of it that way. I'm still not sure I'm convinced...since we didn't "buy stock" before it was discovered, we bought it after we knew the practice had stopped; but still worth thinking about.No, the scenario says that the stock was bought before it was discovered.

you join an organization, you accept responsibility for its previous actions, good and bad.

Is that really true? If you convert to Catholicism then you are responsible for peadophilia?

Is that really true? If you convert to Catholicism then you are responsible for peadophilia?Yes, in the sense that the money that you donated to the church can be used to pay the victims of pedophilia, even if all of the cases of pedophilia occurred before your conversion.

One of the things that you have to keep in mind is that the South was segregated for a number of years following the banning of slavery. This is one of the legacies of slavery, but more importantly, it prolonged the healing process by reducing the number of avenues through which blacks could better themselves. After all, if there were "literacy" tests that took away from blacks the right to vote, how could they vote for policies that benefit them? If schools are "separate, but equal", why was the funding for black schools significantly lower than the funding for white schools? These are just two of many examples. So, while slavery itself has been abolished for over a century, people didn't even begin to confront its legacy until far more recently.


And that is a very salient point. Not forgetting also that within my own life time black people in the States have had to fight for equal oppertunities.

Can we do more to help impoverished people to better help themselves? Yes we can, should we? of course we should, I'm still not sure, even bearing in mind what you say, wether we should concentrate these efforts soley on providing some sort of 'redress' for slavery. Although what you say does bear thinking upon.

Yes, in the sense that the money that you donated to the church can be used to pay the victims of pedophilia, even if all of the cases of pedophilia occurred before your conversion.

Ahhh I see. A subtle differance between 'being responsible', and 'being responsible' though huh.

The U.S. government is not the same entity as the individual politicians that run it.



And he misses the joke about Strom being around at the time of the civil war.....

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.Where the hell are they going to get the money then, the gold from Fort Knox. Me thinks not because that technicaly belongs to the people of the Unitrf States and if not from Fort Know will not be used then you sue the government which will have to come from taxes, thus from the people which renders your statement a paradox because you if sue the government then you sue the people and the people will be the ones who pay.

No, because again that has nothing to do with my argument itself. I'm not saying you're wrong because you lack reason. Actually, I only suggested you lack reason because you're wrong. ;)

Ok I will admit to a chuckle.


Are you seriously just going to cry "ad hominem" every five fucking seconds?

I'm asking you to prove that the United States Federal Government is not the United States Federal Government. We already establi shed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13035621&postcount=294) that you kinda need to do that in order to make your case. Now you keep dodging (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13035702&postcount=295) the question and even saying that my asking it is an "ad hominem." Can I take this as a sign that you can't prove it, because the United States Federal Government *does* remain, it is *not* "LOOOONG dead" and therefore, unlike (for example) the ancient egyptian civilization, is a current and contemporary sovereign state which remains culpable for its own actions?

Ok. I will ask you this. Would the government before the war have passed the amendments over slavery?

Is not the government that did, different from the other one?

The fact the government is still exists does not avoid the statue of limitations question of renumeration for the past.

Did the slaves have a worst life by slavery as compared to the existence they had or would have had in Africa? Has that question been answered?

Legal question: You have been basically arguing about rights violations. They were property by law. Are they legally entitled to said rights?

Where is the legal precedence that they deserve reparations? The matter of the internees nobody argues because people are alive. Their children are alive. Their grandchildren are alive.

As to the question of continual ad hominems; I don't need to because you didn't this time :p

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.

Well said.

The day after the US government cuts a check for "reparations", I'll send a bill to Italy demanding reparations for the thousands of my ancestors who were slaves of the Roman Empire. Yes, I still have nightmares at night about my ancestors who sank chained to Roman galleys, were abused, beaten and killed by Roman nobles, or were sent to the Colosseum to be killed by wild beasts! Every time I see a public building built in the classical style I have flashbacks! Every time I see something written in Latin, the horror comes back to me! I can still feel it! I'm still suffering! PAY ME!!!

(Sister Mary Elephant voice) Thank you. ;)

The day after the US government cuts a check for "reparations", I'll send a bill to Italy demanding reparations for the thousands of my ancestors who were slaves of the Roman Empire.

fucking christ

will you guys at least read the thread before saying the same damn thing over and over and over and over? it might also be nice if you then followed that up by even beginning to attempt to rebut the clear and obvious argument that has been offered which to all appearances destroyed the alleged point in the above.

Ok. I will ask you this. Would the government before the war have passed the amendments over slavery?

Is not the government that did, different from the other one?

no. but then, the dems probably wouldn't have launched an invasion in iraq, but they'll still have to keep paying for all the debt the government has accumulated over there even when they sweep the 2008 elections. cause the state is the same fucking entity, regardless of who happens to be in charge at any particular instant.

The fact the government is still exists does not avoid the statue of limitations question of renumeration for the past.

there is no limitation on fugitives from justice - which the government quite clearly has been in this case. and, of course, nobody is charging the federal government criminally, which is the domain of said limitations anyway.

Did the slaves have a worst life by slavery as compared to the existence they had or would have had in Africa?

utterly irrelevant. the question is of actual wrongs committed, not hypothetical situations.

ok, so then you accept that there were people who were owed reparations over this mess, yes? and that those reparations which ought to have been made were not (due to the abuse of governmental power to avoid justice)? and that by not paying when the government should have, and 'running out the clock' so to speak, the government has now escaped responsibility entirely? really?!


back to my murdering robber - suppose he not only killed the person he wanted to rob, but also the deceased's friends and family. does he get to keep the money now?

Your robber is irrelevant as I explained previously. And to your first question, slave should never have been owed reparations--but if they were to be paid, it requires a party actually injured or affected by the slave-owning policies, otherwise it is ridiculous. Ever heard of ex-post-facto? I guess not, considering how quickyl you delve into red herrings. I suggest you learn to read an argument and understand it, then come back and try debating. Obviously you are not interested in debating, but rather making hypotheticals that are hardly relevant, and making pathetic attempts at claiming my argument has changed, or taking parts of argument out of context and trying to pass it off as legitimate debate. If you don't have a point, concede, or work a little harder at finding out what it exactly is you're arguing. I'm done.

Your robber is irrelevant as I explained previously.

no, you have demonstrated no such thing. you just don't wish to address his implications.

And to your first question, slave should never have been owed reparations

so slavery is not a wrong? or is it that wrongs should not be repaired?

Ever heard of ex-post-facto?

as explained elsewhere, "it was legal at the time" is not a universal defense, on pain of having to say that in many instances genocide is a-ok. chattel slavery is so obviously wrong to any rational being that there is no excuse possible for partaking in it.

fucking christ

will you guys at least read the thread before saying the same damn thing over and over and over and over? it might also be nice if you then followed that up by even beginning to attempt to rebut the clear and obvious argument that has been offered which to all appearances destroyed the alleged point in the above.

Or you could completely ignore what I've said repeatedly.

Stop charging the U.S. for a crime they did not commit. Slavery was functioning in the 13 colonies, property of the British Empire, before even the Articles of Confederation were even signed. The United States was not even around when Slavery was formed.

The ones who started and supported the slave trade were self governing farmers. Later states were formed. Immediately after the constitution was signed the United States government took steps to abolish slavery, however this did not fare well for the south, so they made compromises in order to unite against Britain. The threat of the mother country did not end until well after the war of 1812. Only then could the Federal United States begin to push the South, and that they did for many reasons including slavery. Civil War happens, slavery is abolished.

In a criminal trial the Federal U.S. Government was not even born when the crime was committed. Good luck getting a conviction there.

In a civil trial you may find them liable, except *gasp* they sacrificed nearly half million people to win the war against the South. If we held any debt, it was paid during the civil war.

Now a lawsuit against states who wrongfully segregated Blacks after the Federal government outlawed it is a much more feasible option no?

n
as explained elsewhere, "it was legal at the time" is not a universal defense, on pain of having to say that in many instances genocide is a-ok. chattel slavery is so obviously wrong to any rational being that there is no excuse possible for partaking in it.

It was not only legal at the time, it was perfectly moral to a lot of people. So obviously wrong that over half the world committed the sin with no remorse or reimbursements to the slaved peoples.

Or you could completely ignore what I've said repeatedly.

Stop charging the U.S. for a crime they did not commit. Slavery was functioning in the 13 colonies, property of the British Empire, before even the Articles of Confederation were even signed. The United States was not even around when Slavery was formed.

The ones who started and supported the slave trade were self governing farmers. Later states were formed. Immediately after the constitution was signed the United States government took steps to abolish slavery, however this did not fare well for the south, so they made compromises in order to unite against Britain. The threat of the mother country did not end until well after the war of 1812. Only then could the Federal United States begin to push the South, and that they did for many reasons including slavery. Civil War happens, slavery is abolished.

In a criminal trial the Federal U.S. Government was not even born when the crime was committed. Good luck getting a conviction there.

so in your opinion it is only the invention of slavery that is wrong, and not the actual running of the slave system?

also, what criminal trial are you lot on about?

It was not only legal at the time, it was perfectly moral to a lot of people. So obviously wrong that over half the world committed the sin with no remorse or reimbursements to the slaved peoples.

moral relativism can't save you - again, on pain of genocide approval. the fact that people thought they were doing right does not change the fact that their position is indefensible.

so in your opinion it is only the invention of slavery that is wrong, and not the actual running of the slave system?

also, what criminal trial are you lot on about?

The United States Government had nothing to do with the running of the slave system. There was no Federal Standard for slave trading like in some European countries, they simply ignored it, or did their best to marginalize it.

The federal government needed the south to have slaves because without that the south wouldn't ratify the constitution, and without the south America loses the war and remains property of the British Empire. In which case, slavery wouldn't be abolished until it becomes impractical around 1900-1910.

In short, it was really about self defense.

moral relativism can't save you - again, on pain of genocide approval. the fact that people thought they were doing right does not change the fact that their position is indefensible.

It can't save me, but it can make up the whole of your argument. Hmmm pretty convenient.

moral relativism can't save you - again, on pain of genocide approval. the fact that people thought they were doing right does not change the fact that their position is indefensible. Moral relativism can save them. It has. This whole argument is a lever based of a relative fulcrum. There is no objective moral wrong (Thats right, I'll take the 'pain of genocide approval'- genocide isn't objectively wrong in the same regard that nothing is objectively right or wrong. It is just most often subjectively wrong). So that blows the notion that there should be reparations based on moral reasons out of the water. Slavery being illegal is irrelevant because it was previously legal as well, the law means nothing when it is the law that you are charging.

You are literlly trying to charge the law, with the law, based on the law, and a bunch of moralistic asessments.

The United States Government had nothing to do with the running of the slave system.

ah, i see. so those fugitive slave laws just passed themselves. oh, and the laws allowing slavery to exist in the first place, and governing its expansion.

In short, it was really about self defense.

doesn't excuse their complicity, let alone active participation.

Ok. I will ask you this. Would the government before the war have passed the amendments over slavery?

It didn't, so no. I don't see how that's relevant.

Is not the government that did, different from the other one?

Not sure what you're asking here.

The fact the government is still exists does not avoid the statue of limitations question of renumeration for the past.

Statute of limitations has pretty much nothing to do with this. Slavery is classified as a crime against humanity, and there is no get-out-of-jail-free-by-waiting-long-enough clause when it comes to those.

Did the slaves have a worst life by slavery as compared to the existence they had or would have had in Africa? Has that question been answered?

I'm going to pretend I didn't hear you ask this because it's irrelevant and rather insulting.

Legal question: You have been basically arguing about rights violations. They were property by law. Are they legally entitled to said rights?

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

A lot of the atrocities committed in Nazi Germany were lawful at the time and place; but they were still classified as crimes against humanity by the international court. That same court today considers slavery to be a crime against humanity, so there is precedent and argument for reparations for a "legal" crime undertaken by a state.


As to the question of continual ad hominems; I don't need to because you didn't this time :p

I didn't last time either.

It didn't, so no. I don't see how that's relevant.

Not sure what you're asking here.

You have declared it to be the same government as it was 150 years ago.

Statute of limitations has pretty much nothing to do with this. Slavery is classified as a crime against humanity, and there is no get-out-of-jail-free-by-waiting-long-enough clause when it comes to those.

So any offense that we declare wrong in the past the decedents are accountable for the actions of the forefathers?


I'm going to pretend I didn't hear you ask this because it's irrelevant and rather insulting.

Be insulted all you want. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

As to the comment, it begs the question of what was claimed to be lost and suffering for having lived here.

What was the standard of living of Africa at the time? The talk is about money. Give me a figure.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.


The DoI is irrelevant to the question.

A lot of the atrocities committed in Nazi Germany were lawful at the time and place; but they were still classified as crimes against humanity by the international court. That same court today considers slavery to be a crime against humanity, so there is precedent and argument for reparations for a "legal" crime undertaken by a state.


So the great-great-great-great grandchildren are to be held accountable for the actions of the past?

I didn't last time either.

Of course you never do.

Moral relativism can save them. It has. This whole argument is a lever based of a relative fulcrum. There is no objective moral wrong (Thats right, I'll take the 'pain of genocide approval'- genocide isn't objectively wrong in the same regard that nothing is objectively right or wrong. It is just most often subjectively wrong).

the fact that moral realism is false does not require you to morally approve of genocide. mere subjectivity doesn't imply that it is fine to hold any position whatsoever.

now on to the sorts of relativism which might save the slavers from being morally condemnable. there is a sort of relativism which holds that moral claims are true or false, but that truth and falsity is context dependent. these types require us to say that genocide is objectively right from time to time (rightness and wrongness being objectively discoverable). do you wish to adopt this position? if so it requires a slight reworking of your claim. this might save the slave owners, but it also requires you to say that slavery was what ought to have been done. and, frankly, i'll call you a fucking monster if you hold this position.

the other way for relativism to save the slavers is to be of the sort that holds there quite literally is no right and wrong whatsoever in any sense. this position is impossible for humans to hold, and so can be rejected as nonsense. we make moral claims judgments and we mean them. even if we are merely expressing personal approval or dislike through those statements, that betrays the fact that we believe things to be right or wrong.

me, i'll stick to my anti-realism with a place to stand. there may be no fact of the matter, but we still make and defend claims. and those that cannot withstand scrutiny or even pass a trial of basic plausibility must be scrapped.

moral relativism can't save you - again, on pain of genocide approval. the fact that people thought they were doing right does not change the fact that their position is indefensible.

The funny thing about "morality" is that it's an interpretation. There are common things a majority of people will hold the same. There are things that one group will hold as right while others think is preposterous. There things in the past that were right and now people declare them wrong.

So how do you hold the people 3-4 generations after the crime accountable?

People arguing against reparations will tell you slavery was wrong. We have learned. We have "grown." What will be accomplished by making everybody pay taxes/whatever for actions of 150+ years ago?

Much as the reparations people like to argue it's the Feds who should be held accountable. Problem is we the people end of paying for it. Why should I pay reparations? Why am I at fault? How am I at fault?

So I am curious. Let hear your and GT's plans for what reparations are. How they are to be collected, allocated, etc...

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

Ok, simple we give 30 acres of land, and 1 mule to every living American citizen who was kept a slave by pre-Civil War U.S. Laws... since that group includes the large population of 0, the reparations point is moot.

Ok, simple we give 30 acres of land, and 1 mule to every living American citizen who was kept a slave by pre-Civil War U.S. Laws... since that group includes the large population of 0, the reparations point is moot.

Well, since all 0 people have been paid, then all reparations have been made to living American citizen who was kept as a slave. Sweet, I wish everything was this easy.

People arguing against reparations will tell you slavery was wrong. We have learned. We have "grown." What will be accomplished by making everybody pay taxes/whatever for actions of 150+ years ago?

the damage caused can begin to be fixed

the damage caused can begin to be fixed

Well, I think time would be the best healing. Like say someone killed someone close to you. Would you feel completely better just because someone gave you 30 acres and a mule? If you say yes, I doubt your mental stability.

But what about people that had absolutely nothing to do with slavery, like a 3rd generation American. Well, they would be taxed just like anyone's who's ancestors were the cause of slavery.

Also, people are born by coincidence. Since so much time has passed, it's not as much a disadvantage to have ancestors who were slaves. We should respect the past that it doesn't happen again, and keep our eyes on the future, as to not dwell on something that cannot be changed.

Ok, simple we give 30 acres of land, and 1 mule to every living American citizen who was kept a slave by pre-Civil War U.S. Laws... since that group includes the large population of 0, the reparations point is moot.

does this theory apply to debts more generally? if i owe your father a million dollars, but he dies before i pay him (because i was doing everything in my power to stall and delay, no less), do i no longer owe anyone anything?

Good, I think I sould get reperations, cause the S.O.B. that built my house in 1927 used legal, lead-based paint, which is now illeagal, and I need to repaint it. Even though the contractor I have in mind to do the work had nothing to do with the "original sin", I would be offended if he opposed to do the work at no charge. After all, MY house is the one that was affected.

But what about people that had absolutely nothing to do with slavery, like a 3rd generation American. Well, they would be taxed just like anyone's who's ancestors were the cause of slavery.

again, by becoming and remaining part of an organization, you get your share of both its glories and its shames. you don't get to not pay taxes to pay down debts that were created before you were eligible to vote or even were created by policies which you loudly opposed.

Since so much time has passed, it's not as much a disadvantage to have ancestors who were slaves.

hah!

Good, I think I sould get reperations, cause the S.O.B. that built my house in 1927 used legal, lead-based paint, which is now illeagal, and I need to repaint it. Even though the contractor I have in mind to do the work had nothing to do with the "original sin", I would be offended if he opposed to do the work at no charge. After all, MY house is the one that was affected.

what is the harm you are alleging and who was it caused by, exactly?

again, by becoming and remaining part of an organization, you get your share of both its glories and its shames. you don't get to not pay taxes to pay down debts that were created before you were eligible to vote or were created by policies which you loudly opposed.


hence 3rd gen. first gen arrived, second gen stayed, 3rd gen is like wtf mate? why am I here? so...... do enlighten me, if i can't vote or anything like that (can't even drive yet) and I wasnt' really part of the decision to get here, and I can't really go anywhere since I'm legally stuck at home. How does this become my fault?

well, riddle me this, when people were done being slaves, they had nothing. as luck would have it, today they have quite a lot of net worth. so how would their offspring be more entitled to government reparations than someone who wasn't as lucky? I think it would be archaic to base wealth redistibution on such a far passed event. So why we just go with welfare or whatever system we've got at the moment.

They won't happen and I don't support them either. Nobody that owned slaves is alive anymore. Nobody that was a slave is alive anymore. Let the issue lie in the past and go with the poor decisions of the past instead of keeping it in the present and by penalizing those who have had nothing to do with it.

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

Yeah, that's cuz the fads always carry the day till someone figures out what its logical end is... :headbang: Haha... Sorry this had me laughing for a while. I don't think they should be paid, and I kinda think some idiot will try to make them be paid.

They won't happen and I don't support them either. Nobody that owned slaves is alive anymore. Nobody that was a slave is alive anymore. Let the issue lie in the past and go with the poor decisions of the past instead of keeping it in the present and by penalizing those who have had nothing to do with it.

i totally feel like i'm talking to a wall.

your argument has been handled a dozen times over already. there has yet to be much of an attempt to rebut. the short of it is:
1) that there are guilty parties still 'alive', particularly the federal government and plausibly some state governments, along with a number of businesses.
2) the death of the wronged does not absolve the wronger in any other case. especially when the wronger has actively sought to delay making amends for as long as the ones here have.
and 3) the legacy of slavery is alive and well and will be at least until issues like this stop being like pulling teeth from whitey.

hence 3rd gen. first gen arrived, second gen stayed, 3rd gen is like wtf mate? why am I here? so...... do enlighten me, if i can't vote or anything like that (can't even drive yet) and I wasnt' really part of the decision to get here, and I can't really go anywhere since I'm legally stuck at home. How does this become my fault?

by staying when you can leave, too.

well, riddle me this, when people were done being slaves, they had nothing. as luck would have it, today they have quite a lot of net worth. so how would their offspring be more entitled to government reparations than someone who wasn't as lucky?

first, nobody here is really talking about sending checks to individuals. second, the net worth of someone has no bearing on what they might be owed by another who wronged them.

the damage caused can begin to be fixed

Ok. How?

by staying when you can leave, too.



first, nobody here is really talking about sending checks to individuals. second, the net worth of someone has no bearing on what they might be owed by another who wronged them.

I will when I can, but I still have to pay taxes in the mean while. Where's the justice in that? Second of all, nobody was personally wronged (that's alive anymore). Ooh, now that's a science project for ya, reanimate dead slaves and pay them. I ran out of pissedness, and this argument is clearly futile, ciao.

Ok much as this is interesting.

I have a truckload of work just dumped on me so I will not be around for awhile......

Continue on! :)

So far the most compelling argument for reparations is the analogy of a the United States with a corporation, and the citizens with shareholders.

This analogy is fine only so long as it is stuck to strictly, and that it why it doesn't apply to the question of reparations.

This is because slavery was not against the law when it was practiced.

The most compelling answer to this is that sometimes people are punished for doing terrible things that arent illegal in the strict sense, with the illustrating example being trials for genocide.

The main problem with this, and the one that prevents it from applying to the question of reparations is that such post facto punishments are given to guilty individuals, not to mere 'shareholders' in the government that those individuals ran or worked for, and never to the 'shareholders' of a body politic because of historically distant wrongs.

The analogy would only hold, therefore, if guilty individuals were punished for slavery after the fact, but this is impossible anymore, since they have all died off.

Also, it is rather demeaning to the victims of genocide to equate that horror with that of blacks in the US, who live very well compared not only to their peers in Africa but to people the world over. The supposed 'lingering effects of slavery' are different from genocide on an order of magnitude.

Also, it is rather demeaning to the victims of genocide to equate that horror with that of blacks in the US, who live very well compared not only to their peers in Africa but to people the world over. The supposed 'lingering effects of slavery' are different from genocide on an order of magnitude.

Slavery Not So Bad
New Granada Speaks Out

And that is a very salient point. Not forgetting also that within my own life time black people in the States have had to fight for equal oppertunities.

Can we do more to help impoverished people to better help themselves? Yes we can, should we? of course we should, I'm still not sure, even bearing in mind what you say, wether we should concentrate these efforts soley on providing some sort of 'redress' for slavery. Although what you say does bear thinking upon.I wouldn't limit reparations to slavery. Slavery is just one issue that should be reparated.

Ahhh I see. A subtle differance between 'being responsible', and 'being responsible' though huh.Well, of course you wouldn't be charged with pedophilia, but nobody says there's anything wrong with the money you donated going to the victims.

And he misses the joke about Strom being around at the time of the civil war.....Oh, sorry. I thought you were remaking the "politicians = the government" argument. ;)

In a civil trial you may find them liable, except *gasp* they sacrificed nearly half million people to win the war against the South. If we held any debt, it was paid during the civil war. Once again, the Civil War was not about ending slavery.

Now a lawsuit against states who wrongfully segregated Blacks after the Federal government outlawed it is a much more feasible option no?Which would be part of reparations.

Moral relativism can save them. It has. This whole argument is a lever based of a relative fulcrum. There is no objective moral wrong (Thats right, I'll take the 'pain of genocide approval'- genocide isn't objectively wrong in the same regard that nothing is objectively right or wrong. It is just most often subjectively wrong). So that blows the notion that there should be reparations based on moral reasons out of the water. Only if the people that we are arguing against don't believe that slavery is or was morally wrong.
Do you approve of slavery?

So far the most compelling argument for reparations is the analogy of a the United States with a corporation, and the citizens with shareholders.

This analogy is fine only so long as it is stuck to strictly, and that it why it doesn't apply to the question of reparations.

This is because slavery was not against the law when it was practiced.Vioxx was on the market legally and yet Merck has been held accountable in certain cases for deaths as a result of Vioxx.
Simply because something is legal doesn't mean some doing it makes them immune from civil suits.

A few simple questions:

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

By "reparations for slavery," of course, I understand "concrete action to repair the damage done to those of African descent in America as well as American society as a whole, as a result of chattel slavery and its historical legacy."

I do not support any "payments" that will, in every likelihood, do utterly nothing whatsoever to repair anything at all. I do not support "compensation" for slavery, as I do not even believe such a concept makes sense.

Do you think reparations will ever be paid? Why or why not?Reparations are already being "paid" in the form of a variety of programs designed to undo and overcome racism in our society. More can and should be done, and I do not believe it is unrealistic to believe that we can see further progress in the near future. It will, of course, take substantial work.

Vioxx was on the market legally and yet Merck has been held accountable in certain cases for deaths as a result of Vioxx.
Simply because something is legal doesn't mean some doing it makes them immune from civil suits.


You're simply mistaken here.

Merck can only be held negligent because there was a legal duty that they violated, which caused harm to people. This is the 'law' they 'broke' to use the terms loosely, and what gives people grounds to sue them.

In Merck's case, the company did not comply enough with the law regarding disclosing the dangers of the drug. There is no analogue to this in the case of perfectly-legal slavery.

Because slavery was perfectly legal, there was not a comparable legal duty towards the slaves, and they do not have ordinary legal standing to sue because of harm done.

The most compelling answer to this is that sometimes people are punished for doing terrible things that arent illegal in the strict sense, with the illustrating example being trials for genocide.

The main problem with this, and the one that prevents it from applying to the question of reparations is that such post facto punishments are given to guilty individuals, not to mere 'shareholders' in the government that those individuals ran or worked for, and never to the 'shareholders' of a body politic because of historically distant wrongs.

except, of course, governments have had to make reparations for genocide before, as they should. and they have done so after all those directly guilty of various war crimes personally have been taken care of. so there goes that line of attack. oops.

Opponents of reparations insist that debt is not inheritable. I think this argument is really beside the point (because it implicitly mistakes reparation for compensation), but I'll go ahead and address it anyway.

Debt is not inheritable. Ordinarily, however, before the heirs to an estate can collect on their inheritance, the estate must settle its debts: the heirs inherit only from what is left over after debts have been paid.

Likewise, if a debt is owed to a person deceased, the estate may nevertheless collect on the debt.

Assuming arguendo that reparations represent a "debt owed" by the American generation of the 1860s to slaves freed in that era, the collective estate of the American republic has unjustly (and, by analogy, illegally) retained its full "inheritance" without ever paying off its debts. Those debts are still outstanding.

I see no general principle of law suggesting otherwise.

But then again, I think this is all beside the point. Reparation /= compensation.

I will when I can, but I still have to pay taxes in the mean while. Where's the justice in that?

sorry, them's the breaks. you think i'm happy paying good money to blow up small children around the world into tiny bloody pieces?

Second of all, nobody was personally wronged (that's alive anymore).

but again, we already recognize that the death of the personally wronged party does not get the wronger off the hook. so why is this case different?

Much has been made of the fact that slavery was allowed, even positively recognized, under U.S. law until emancipation.

This is important indeed, but not for the reason critics of reparations suppose.

It is important that slavery was legal because if it were not then any claim for compensation or reparations might be laid solely at the feet of slaveholders and their descendants--that is, the descendants of those who broke the law and by their infraction caused the harms of slavery. They would be responsible, but not (at least not necessarily), society as a whole.

But as we know, that's not how it went down. Slaveholders did not break the law (at least not insofar as they owned slaves). Rather, the law itself was wrong.

Now, there is no higher legal entity that can compel us as a society to recognize that wrong and to determine to make it right. But that's all too obvious: the question is not whether we can be made to recognize our debts, but whether we should as a matter of law.

How could we possibly recognize a "wrong" in the law itself such that we, the inheritors of the lawgivers, should inherent their responsibility as well?

This is a deep question of legal theory. Ultimately, it comes down to whether we regard emancipation as merely a change in the positive law: slavery was legal, then it was illegal, with principled arguments about "right" and "wrong" having nothing to do with it. Alternatively, we might allow that principles have a bearing on the law, but we might suppose (relativistically) that slavery "was right," but that at some point it "became wrong." Of course, in this case it is important to ask at what point it became wrong: was it before or after the law changed, or did the two somehow mystically coincide?

But then, we might argue instead that slavery violated from the outset the legal principles at the foundation of our society--we simply refused to recognize that fact until circumstance compelled us to do so.

If we really believe in the "rule of law" as opposed to the "rule of men" as an important theoretical underpinning for our notion of what "counts" as "law," then slavery--an institution very clearly embodying the rule of some men over others rather than a rule of law over all--was never really law in the first place. It couldn't be. It violates the very essence of what law is in a modern society.

This is not the same as to argue that it was law, but not "good" law. I am arguing that it was, in fact, never law at all--regardless of whether police, magistrates, and society at large applied it as such. It was not law because law, by its very nature, is general. Slavery is not.

There are other ways to approach this point.

What I want to emphasize is that even the legal argument does not simply end because slavery was, in a positive sense, "not illegal." That conclusion already begs the question regarding the foundation of law: it assumes positivism without proving the case.

I'm Irish and my ancestors originally went to the USA as indentured servants. This was effectively slavery, as for the period of indenture they were treated as property. Women could be legally raped, the penalty for a runaway was death and they could of course be flogged at the Master's discretion.
This obviously was a crime against humanity under modern international law, perpetrated by the US Government against my ancestors. So I'd hope that the campaign for reparations will play a prominent part in Saint Patrick's day parades next year.
My great grandmother's grandmother was black. So, despite having come from a series of relatively comfortable, middle class, shop owners, I presume I will be entitled to a cut of the slavery reparations when they come. Will I get less than others because I'm not purebred? I am a bit worried that some of the 'carpet baggers' who came from Africa after slavery had been abolished may get part of the cake. After all, not only is there no proof that they have any ancestors who were slaves, but some of their ancestors might have been responsible for great, great, great granny's plight. On that basis I'd resist any form of reparations that targeted particular communities or skin colors. These reparations are for people who have ancestors who were slaves and I want my share.
I'm a bit concerned about the 50% of my ancestors who were female. The way they were treated as their husband's property and denied most basic freedoms would obviously be considered illegal today. Now this isn't on a direct par with slavery so I wouldn't expect so much for this. But I do want to make sure that people aren't double dipping into this pot of reparations. If you are already getting money for slavery or indentured servitude, it doesn't seem fair that you should also be able to claim for female ancestors who were slaves or indentured servants.
Working out who gets what and how is obviously going to be a very complex job and take a great deal of court time. So I think I have come up with a solution that will work for all practical purposes. Lets decide on an arbitrary ammount of money for all past government misdeeds and pay it directly into the personal accounts of every lawyer and leader of minority interest groups in the USA. After all, they are the only ones who will benefit eventually, no matter how reparations are paid.

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.Is there some way in which you still suffer today as a result of that oppression?

Yes? Sexism still exists? Well, then... I suppose we'll have to repair that.

The whole notion of reparations is silly.No, the notion of compensation for generations of oppression is silly.

The notion of reparations merely adds positive social obligation to the various other reasons we must repair the legacy of past oppressions.

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 muleYou're wrong on several counts, though it hardly matters. But for the sake of historical accuracy...

1) General Sherman's order provided freed slaves with 40 acres of land (an average homestead size). His orders never mentioned a mule, though it's possible the military actually handed some out. "Forty acres and a mule" later became a slogan of an early movement to supply freed slaves with some means to a livelihood.
2) Within six months, it had been implemented to the point that 40,000 freed slaves had actually settled on the land allocated to them.
3) General Sherman had full authority from Lincoln to issue such orders. They do not become "null and void" at the conclusion of the war. Rather, the next year Lincoln's successor Andrew Johnson explicitly revoked the order. He returned the land to its white owners.

I hate people who just ignore history. Even if it is largely irrelevant in this case.

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

That's why we call them "reparations."

Not "compensations."

You're simply mistaken here.

Merck can only be held negligent because there was a legal duty that they violated, which caused harm to people. This is the 'law' they 'broke' to use the terms loosely, and what gives people grounds to sue them.

In Merck's case, the company did not comply enough with the law regarding disclosing the dangers of the drug. There is no analogue to this in the case of perfectly-legal slavery.

Because slavery was perfectly legal, there was not a comparable legal duty towards the slaves, and they do not have ordinary legal standing to sue because of harm done.Slavery was not perfectly legal. It contradicted a number of laws, namely the Bill of Rights.
It wouldn't the only time two laws have contradicted each other, would it? When this occurs, what happens?

ah, i see. so those fugitive slave laws just passed themselves. oh, and the laws allowing slavery to exist in the first place, and governing its expansion.

doesn't excuse their complicity, let alone active participation.

Fugitive laws were only in place to appease the southerners. Again you seem to be missing the fact that the U.S. government only allowed slavery for one generation. 1812-1865. Even then they took steps to marginalize and eliminate it while trying to keep to the south from bitching. War became inevitable. The fact of your argument is that the U.S. government did not abolish slavery quickly enough. I counter that any change of such magnitude takes time, lots of time.

The ones responsible for bringing about, and managing slave trade were European nations. You claim they don't exist today but that is laughable at best. Or "That is not the point!"

Of all the slaves brought from Africa a total of 4% went to the U.S. so I suppose only that fraction deserve reparations. Maybe you can go ahead and explain why that is? I feel I've demonstrated why the U.S. government effectively ended slavery where you say they ran it because of Fugitive Laws. Did blacks have to pay reimbursements for the civil war? No. Any at all? No. The cost of the war and reconstruction of the south, in monetary value alone can be considered reparations.

Why you think only African Americans, 4% of all slaves introduced from 1615-1865 deserve reparations, and not 99% of slaves traded, sold, and managed by European nations? Because they are Americans.

Malum in se is a pretty hard thing to prosecute. Especially when you're singling out one nation. I must ask, what do you have to gain from African American reparations? A personal grudge against America, or because you simply dug up a tired argument someone else created without any research on your behalf?

Slavery was not perfectly legal. It contradicted a number of laws, namely the Bill of Rights.
It wouldn't the only time two laws have contradicted each other, would it? When this occurs, what happens?

First, the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10 of the US Constitution) are not laws, but the basis of law. A bit different.

The Constitution specifically alludes to slaves as "other persons" under the apportionment clause having to do with census and congressional representation.

The only other specific clause of the Constitution specifically forbids the importation of slaves after 1808.

Until the 13th Amendment, the Constitution specifically recognizes the legality of slavery.


Moral contradiction yes (and it was recognized by a number of leading Southerners, including Jefferson, Monroe and Madison), but not a legal one.

Assuming arguendo that reparations represent a "debt owed" by the American generation of the 1860s to slaves freed in that era, the collective estate of the American republic has unjustly (and, by analogy, illegally) retained its full "inheritance" without ever paying off its debts. Those debts are still outstanding.

I see no general principle of law suggesting otherwise.

But then again, I think this is all beside the point. Reparation /= compensation.


But the point has been made repeatedly that the US Government, and population of the United States paid that debt to the order of nearly 1 million lives (including various estimates of civilian deaths) during the Civil War, not counting the rather massive spending for the time.

Lincoln pointed out on a couple of occasions to Congress it would have been far cheaper for the Federal government to have simply bought all the slaves and freed them, even as late as 1864 when he conducted negotiations with Vice President Stephens of the Confederate Government.

Of course at that point too much blood had been shed and too much hatred built up.

The fact of your argument is that the U.S. government did not abolish slavery quickly enough. I counter that any change of such magnitude takes time, lots of time.



you don't get to duck responsibility for your wrongs by claiming you were [i]intending to stop doing them.

The ones responsible for bringing about, and managing slave trade were European nations. You claim they don't exist today but that is laughable at best.

which european states responsible for the slave trade are still in existence? honest question. the uk is probably your best bet.

Of all the slaves brought from Africa a total of 4% went to the U.S. so I suppose only that fraction deserve reparations. Maybe you can go ahead and explain why that is?

never said anything of the sort.

I feel I've demonstrated why the U.S. government effectively ended slavery

after being responsible for its continued existence. the fact that the south was too powerful for the north to abolish it sooner doesn't mean shit, unless you are proposing that the southern states' representatives were not part of the government. this aint fucking complicated.

First, the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10 of the US Constitution) are not laws, but the basis of law. A bit different.

The Constitution specifically alludes to slaves as "other persons" under the apportionment clause having to do with census and congressional representation.

The only other specific clause of the Constitution specifically forbids the importation of slaves after 1808.

Until the 13th Amendment, the Constitution specifically recognizes the legality of slavery.


Moral contradiction yes (and it was recognized by a number of leading Southerners, including Jefferson, Monroe and Madison), but not a legal one.If the Bill of Rights is the basis of law, then there's an even bigger contradiction here since the basis of law comes before law.

But the point has been made repeatedly that the US Government, and population of the United States paid that debt to the order of nearly 1 million lives (including various estimates of civilian deaths) during the Civil War, not counting the rather massive spending for the time. And the point has been made repeatedly that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, so bringing it up does not help your case.

If the Bill of Rights is the basis of law, then there's an even bigger contradiction here since the basis of law comes before law.

Ok Jello. Which of the first 10 was violated when slavery was legal?

And the point has been made repeatedly that the Civil War was not fought to end slavery, so bringing it up does not help your case.

And that is not 100% entirely true. It was not to end slavery until the Emancipation Proclaimation (a non-legal document) freed the slaves of the South. It was this pivotal moment after Antiteam that the focus of the war changed.

Ok Jello. Which of the first 10 was violated when slavery was legal?Well, slavery itself violates the Ninth Amendment, and slaveowners routinely violated the First, Second, Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments.

And that is not 100% entirely true. It was not to end slavery until the Emancipation Proclaimation (a non-legal document) freed the slaves of the South. It was this pivotal moment after Antiteam that the focus of the war changed.What were Lincoln's motives for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation? If they were to end slavery, why not end slavery throughout the entire country?

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.


I agree

Well, slavery itself violates the Ninth Amendment, and slaveowners routinely violated the First, Second, Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments.

Second deals with militias and arms. The Fourth deals with illegal search and seizures. How did slavery violate the first, eighth and ninth?

What were Lincoln's motives for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation? If they were to end slavery, why not end slavery throughout the entire country?

Simple word being politics. He did not want to lose the border states that stayed in the Union and doing it nationwide could very well have done just that.

First, the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10 of the US Constitution) are not laws, but the basis of law. A bit different.No. They're laws. Find any legal theory that says any different.

But the point has been made repeatedly that the US Government, and population of the United States paid that debt to the order of nearly 1 million lives (including various estimates of civilian deaths) during the Civil War, not counting the rather massive spending for the time.See, this is just the sort of calculation I think is beside the point, which is one of the reasons I don't try to defend reparations as a "debt."

How do you decide what was owed to slaves? Is it enough to pay the costs (however considerable) to free them? Or did the government owe them more for a history of oppression than simply to end it?

If we're going to talk about debt, I find it hard to believe that ceasing the practice, however expensive that may have been, suffices.

If someone is owed compensation, the debt is not settled based on how much the debtor expends, but rather how much the victim receives. The question is not whether the United States "spent enough" in fighting a war that ended slavery; the question is whether ending slavery actually settles the debt.

If we're talking about a debt, whether in terms of "compensation" or "reparation," the important question is how well was the victim compensated or how well has the damage been repaired?

The cost of ending slavery, from this perspective, was merely a "transaction cost." It was the cost of delivering one part of what was owed to slaves.

If I owe you $100 and I send you a check by FedEx, do you think I get to deduct the cost of my airbill from what I owe you? Of course not: I owe you $100, so I send you $100. The fact that I spend an extra $16 to send it is a cost to me, but it is not part of the debt owed to you.

If the government spent millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives to end slavery, those costs cannot on any reasonable principle be deducted from the reparations owed to freed slaves. That's just how much it cost to "deliver" one part of their due.

Ok Jello. Which of the first 10 was violated when slavery was legal?Fifth Amendment, due process clause, at least insofar as certain federal laws can be read actively or passively to support the institution of slavery in individual states.

Well, slavery itself violates the Ninth Amendment, and slaveowners routinely violated the First, Second, Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments.Well, you don't really need the Ninth Amendment to find liberty rights violated by slavery. The Fifth Amendment spells it out pretty clearly: "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

But this only protects people against the federal government, which means it could be used to invalidate certain federal legal supports for slavery. It has no impact on state activity.

Likewise for the other amendments you list, whether slavery violates their principles or not. None of the protections in the Bill of Rights apply against the states until after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As far as here in the US goes, no, I do not support reparations for slavery. Slavery was an awful idea and it's a good things that we got rid of it, but to make people nowadays who have never had a slave give compensation to people who have never been a slave just isn't right. It was a very long time ago, and needless to say happened beyond the control of anyone alive today.

But if there are any countries in which slaves and slave owners are still alive then I believe reparations should be made.

Simple word being politics. He did not want to lose the border states that stayed in the Union and doing it nationwide could very well have done just that.Indeed. It was political to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He did not do so because he believed the War was being fought to free the slaves.

Slavery was an awful idea and it's a good things that we got rid of it, but to make people nowadays who have never had a slave give compensation to people who have never been a slave just isn't right.We're talking about reparations, not compensation.

While I'd love to stay and keep arguing with you, Free Soviets I know I can make better use of my time. An example of such would be digging up my dead dog and moving him three feet to the left so I don't have to get creeped out every time I look out my window in the middle of the night.

After all, I can get a similar experience by arguing with my 7 year old niece who has developed the profound ability to say "nuh uh" regardless of how well thought out my statement may try to be.

which European states responsible for the slave trade are still in existence? honest question. the uk is probably your best bet.

England, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands. While the latter two are debatable. For the sake of all conscious bipedaled beings you had better not seriously try to argue that Portugal and Spain weren't unified by the 18th century.

you don't get to duck responsibility for your wrongs by claiming you were intending to stop doing them.

The fact that the north was pushing the south into abolishing slavery was one of the reasons why the war fucking started.

never said anything of the sort.

Yet why is the U.S. under the gun while their European counterparts whom existed then and now, enslaved 25 times the number of blacks, and even gave the U.S. the little four percent they had, not liable for doling reparations as well? It's because the people asking for reparations, or arguing for it, are completely ignorant of the simple fact that European Nations masterminded slavery throughout every square inch of the New World including America.

fucking christ

will you guys at least read the thread before saying the same damn thing over and over and over and over? it might also be nice if you then followed that up by even beginning to attempt to rebut the clear and obvious argument that has been offered which to all appearances destroyed the alleged point in the above.

I gave it all the commentary it deserves. It's a horsesh*t idea and it's never gonna happen. Bury it and move on.

And "clear and obvious" rebuttals? ROFLMAO

England, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands. While the latter two are debatable. For the sake of all conscious bipedaled beings you had better not seriously try to argue that Portugal and Spain weren't unified by the 18th century.

mate, the spanish state today isn't the same as the spanish state of 1975. perhaps it would help for you to go back and reread the arguments thus far?

The fact that the north was pushing the south into abolishing slavery was one of the reasons why the war fucking started.

that's nice. the southern states were still part of the union and used their strength to get the federal government to go along with slavery, yes? then the federal government is morally responsible for it. this really ain't fucking complicated.

Yet why is the U.S. under the gun while their European counterparts whom existed then and now, enslaved 25 times the number of blacks, and even gave the U.S. the little four percent they had, not liable for doling reparations as well? It's because the people asking for reparations, or arguing for it, are completely ignorant of the simple fact that European Nations masterminded slavery throughout every square inch of the New World including America.

or maybe its a combination of the fact that most of the people who you talk to about the subject are actually in usia, and stand at least a theoretical chance of making things happen here, in addition to the fact that essentially all of the european countries we could blame have been through 3 or 4 entirely different governments since then, which makes the moral responsibility much less and murkier? nah, couldn't be.

Yet why is the U.S. under the gun while their European counterparts whom existed then and now, enslaved 25 times the number of blacks, and even gave the U.S. the little four percent they had, not liable for doling reparations as well? It's because the people asking for reparations, or arguing for it, are completely ignorant of the simple fact that European Nations masterminded slavery throughout every square inch of the New World including America.Is there an International Law under which to charge them?

all of the european countries we could blame have been through 3 or 4 entirely different governments since then, which makes the moral responsibility much less and murkier? nah, couldn't be.

I just want to make sure I understand this. If I live in a country that has had continuous government since slavery, I am somehow morally responsible. On the other hand if I live in a country that happens to have had a change in governmental structure my moral responsibility is much less?
Out of curiosity, If my family emigrated to the USA, after slavery and from a country that had had a governmental change, does that let me out of the collective moral responsibility for reparations?

Yet why is the U.S. under the gun while their European counterparts whom existed then and now, enslaved 25 times the number of blacks, and even gave the U.S. the little four percent they had, not liable for doling reparations as well?If I were an English citizen, I'd be arguing for reparations from England.

If I were a Spanish citizen, I would be arguing for reparations from Spain.

As it happens, I am an American citizen. I am arguing that my fellow citizens and I should make reparation for what our nation has done. Let others, for the sake of honor, take up the collective responsibilities of their respective states.

I just want to make sure I understand this. If I live in a country that has had continuous government since slavery, I am somehow morally responsible. On the other hand if I live in a country that happens to have had a change in governmental structure my moral responsibility is much less?

no, the nation's government is the entity bearing moral responsibility here. your personal moral responsibility remains unaffected by any of that and is more like that being argued by anarchyel.

Out of curiosity, If my family emigrated to the USA, after slavery and from a country that had had a governmental change, does that let me out of the collective moral responsibility for reparations?

no

I still haven't seen an argument for payed reparations. Any meaningful some of money given to black people will cost the government hundreds of billions of dollars, and you should know that just handing out free money can cause inflation.

I also haven't seen why you can support giving money to black people, but not to native Americans and Women. Because you can't give money to all three, since that would be an economic disaster.

I think that slavery reperations are stupid. If they get reperations for things committed 150-200 years ago, then I demand money from the Italian government for enslaving my Great (x 20) Grandfather in Roman times.

I think that slavery reperations are stupid. If they get reperations for things committed 150-200 years ago, then I demand money from the Italian government for enslaving my Great (x 20) Grandfather in Roman times.


very true. Nearly everyone alive today at sometime had an anscestor who was a slave.

Also, imho, the only ones who should get reparations are those of us who bust our ass everyday to make an honest living to support those who are sitting on their ass waiting for a handout( i am not talking about those who are physically or mentally incabable). Its one thing to struggle and to go through hard times for short period of time( a year in a 10 year period imo is the max time a person should be allowed to live off the government IF they are physically and mentally capable to work or go back to school). I have personally been homeless, bankrupt and at one time even survived on foodstamps. BUT I never quit trying to better myself and make it. And now I make over double the average income as a single father and without a college degree.

So don't fucking tell me anyone deserves a handout 'just because'. Your handout is being alive in a country where you can actually make a living better then 70% of other places in the world and live in relitive safety.

Let me ask this of you in favor of reparations: does it go to ALL of african-american descent? What about native americans, hispanics, chinese and others who helped build this country as slaves or extreme low paid workers?

Alls I am saying is anyone can sit and whine about the past and who did what to whos anscestors. But YOU have the same opportunity as everyone else to be successful already. Get off your ass and do it. Only you can make your life better.

Nearly everyone alive today at sometime had an ancestor who was a slave.Maybe. But how many of us are still suffering for it?

Maybe. But how many of us are still suffering for it?

Many, for all you know; you seek to establish an objective historical truth that certain households and groups suffer from the legacy of slavery and others do not. Unfortunately, any passable historian will demonstrate that historical truth is unattainable.

Many, for all you know; you seek to establish an objective historical truth that certain households and groups suffer from the legacy of slavery and others do not.You're partly right on two counts:

1) I seek to establish an objective historical truth that certain groups suffer from the legacy of slavery. I have little concern with certain households or individuals.
2) While I seek to establish an objective historical truth that certain groups suffer from the legacy of slavery, I am not particularly concerned to show that others do not. I am making a positive case: African Americans as a group are harmed, objectively, by the legacy of American chattel slavery.

If other groups can show that they are harmed by other legacies of slavery, I invite them to make their case. But this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Unfortunately, any passable historian will demonstrate that historical truth is unattainable.If she did, she wouldn't be a historian.

;)

You're partly right on two counts:

1) I seek to establish an objective historical truth that certain groups suffer from the legacy of slavery. I have little concern with certain households or individuals.
2) While I seek to establish an objective historical truth that certain groups suffer from the legacy of slavery, I am not particularly concerned to show that others do not. I am making a positive case: African Americans as a group are harmed, objectively, by the legacy of American chattel slavery.

If other groups can show that they are harmed by other legacies of slavery, I invite them to make their case. But this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

If she did, she wouldn't be a historian.

;)


Most historians, following Carr's "What is history?", accept that a definitive history such as that sought by Ranke is impossible.

As for African Americans, good for them. One might contend that, in being transported to the USA, the descendants whom you seek to give money to, have recieved a good deal. They have an oppurtunity to pursue a life, and to access services that those in Africa cannot.

As for your seeking to establish a historical truth; you cannot. Goodbye.

Most historians, following Carr's "What is history?", accept that a definitive history such as that sought by Ranke is impossible.You didn't say "definitive" before. You just said "truth."

As for your seeking to establish a historical truth; you cannot.Sure you can.

You just need to remind yourself from time to time that it's not the same sort of truth established by physics or chemistry or biology.

You didn't say "definitive" before. You just said "truth."

Sure you can.

You just need to remind yourself from time to time that it's not the same sort of truth established by physics or chemistry or biology.

A definitive history is a truth; it is correct.

Equally, historical truth cannot be established. One might fashion an argument that, in light of prevalent contemporary morals and sensibilities, and available evidence, is convincing, but a truth requires such a contention to be incontrovertible; no historical conclusion defies contradicition.

a truth requires such a contention to be incontrovertible;That's an epistemological claim with which I think you will find few epistemologists in agreement, let alone historians.

no historical conclusion defies contradicition.A nuclear bomb was detonated in Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945.

John F. Kennedy, then President of the United States, was shot and killed on November 22, 1963.

Statements such as these are both historical and defy contradiction, at least so far as any positive statement can: they are falsifiable, positive evidence points toward their confirmation, and little to no positive evidence tends to disconfirm them.

Of course, it is possible that evidence favoring these truths is really the result of mass hallucination or careful conspiratorial manipulation. But to a certain extent the same can be said of any truth we choose: as Quine pointed out better than anyone, rearrange our most basic assumptions and we can conceive of a world-view in which any single statement is "true."

Naturally causal relations in history and other such problems are much more difficult for us to agree upon, but to varying degrees we can establish truths with respect to these as well.

Modern epistemology and philosophy of science, including that concerning itself with the social sciences and history, does not deny the possibility of "truth." Rather, it speaks in terms of degrees and varieties of truth.

Historical truth is one kind of truth, with properties of its own that it may not share with truth in other disciplines.

But there is historical truth, and no historian will deny it. If she did, she would not be a historian.

no, the nation's government is the entity bearing moral responsibility here.

Ok I wanted to be certain that was the position being expounded before getting into this.

This argument is being made assuming that there is a general consensus that a government or other community can actually bear moral responsibility.
Not only does there seem to be little general agreement here on this view, but it is still a minority view among moral & ethical philosophers. Moral responsibility has on the whole been confined to actions concerning interpersonal relationships and the concept of collective moral responsibility is relatively new and much challenged.

Joel Feinberg is perhaps the most influential of the minority championing the cause of collective moral responsibility. And even he would seem to argue that the most appropriate reparation for an organization which was morally culpable to make, is that the organization be changed in such away to prevent the sin ever recurring. That condition would appear to have been met by the USA.

Now I have no problem accepting that there may indeed be such a thing as collective moral responsibility, but no argument in this entire thread has attempted to establish its existence. Rather there has been a general assumption that anyone who didn't automatically acknowledge it, is some sort of ethical idiot and that would encompass the majority of serious moral philosophers.

If we want to discuss governmental moral responsibility, someone has to first of all define morality in an acceptable way, such that a government can be considered to have a moral status beyond the actions of its individual members. Until that is done all the arguments that use governmental moral responsibility as an imperative are merely empty rhetoric.

Rather there has been a general assumption that anyone who didn't automatically acknowledge it, is some sort of ethical idiot and that would encompass the majority of serious moral philosophers.As perhaps it should.

But let us not pretend that there is a "professional" consensus only on the basis of a loose consensus among professional moral philosophers among whom the notion of collective moral responsibility is a relatively new idea giving rise to a series of ongoing philosophical debates.

The problem here is that collective responsibility has generally been considered from a strictly political rather than moral perspective, and the discipline of philosophy has found it difficult to bridge gaps between the two. The fracturing of academic discourse in general over the last two centuries has done anything but alleviate the problem.

Indeed, from a philosophical point of view what has been "assumed" in this discussion is "political responsibility," NOT moral responsibility. But, being a philosopher clearly trained in a single tradition, you saw words resembling things you know and leapt to the conclusion that they actually meant the same things.

While one might like to argue that political responsibility is necessarily a kind of collective responsibility, this already presumes a great deal about the nature of politics.

To follow up on the distinction I have just drawn...

When philosophers discuss collective moral responsibility, this generally seems to entail that if a group of which I am a member is morally responsible for X, I am responsible for X (or I "share" responsibility for X, or I have "some part of" responsibility for X).

When political theorists, however, discuss political responsibility, there is no sense in which this entails (necessarily) that if a polity of which I am a member is responsible for X, I must be responsible for X, or share responsibility for X, or even have some part of responsibility for X.

Most philosophical criticisms of collective moral responsibility boil down to criticisms of the claim that if my group is responsible for X, then I am responsible for X.

Political theorists have never asked for this conclusion.

In other words, a polity (as conceived by political theorists) is not necessarily a "group."

When philosophers discuss collective moral responsibility,
When political theorists, however, discuss political responsibility

Wow - not blatant or anything. The classic political tactic of answering the question you want to answer rather than the one posed.

If it helps - I totally agree that political responsibility is entirely different from governmental moral responsibility. So now I wonder why the phrase moral responsibility was used in the first place - it couldn't be a bit of empty political rhetoric could it?

But, being a philosopher clearly trained in a single tradition,

You actually couldn't be more wrong there - but again obey the first rule of politics - sling mud at the opposition and don't let the truth get in the way.
I studied English and Ancient History and work on environmental issues - just in case you want to give the character assassination some factual basis next time.

Have a nice thread.

Wow - not blatant or anything. The classic political tactic of answering the question you want to answer rather than the one posed.I'm well aware that I'm not answering a question about the legitimacy of collective moral responsibility as a concept of moral theory.

My point was to undercut your argument to the effect that in order to have this discussion we actually need that concept. My contention is that what we need is a theory of political responsibility, not moral responsibility.

If it helps - I totally agree that political responsibility is entirely different from governmental moral responsibility. So now I wonder why the phrase moral responsibility was used in the first place - it couldn't be a bit of empty political rhetoric could it?Conceptual confusion by a philosophical novice, more likely. But if an underlying concept has been rather consistently assumed within the context of this debate, it has been what professional philosophers would recognize as political responsibility rather than collective moral responsibility... whatever terms some participants have used to describe it.

You actually couldn't be more wrong there - but again obey the first rule of politics - sling mud at the opposition and don't let the truth get in the way.I wasn't slinging mud, actually. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

When you came barreling into the discussion proclaiming to diagnose the fundamental philosophical confusions of the thread, citing the collective opinions of the philosophical discipline, I allowed the assumption to your credit that you presumed to speak with such authority because you were, in fact, an authority. I presumed in turn to speak with you as a colleague.

I do appreciate your honestly settling that doubt to the contrary.

I also haven't seen why you can support giving money to black people, but not to native Americans and Women.Who said that I or we didn't support giving reparations to Native Americans and women?

If we want to discuss governmental moral responsibility, someone has to first of all define morality in an acceptable way, such that a government can be considered to have a moral status beyond the actions of its individual members. Until that is done all the arguments that use governmental moral responsibility as an imperative are merely empty rhetoric.Well, the U.S. government is a separate entity than its individual members, so it wouldn't be that difficult to do so.
At the very least, it makes the case for political responsibility a hell of a lot easier.

Who said that I or we didn't support giving reparations to Native Americans and women?

Well, the U.S. government is a separate entity than its individual members, so it wouldn't be that difficult to do so.
At the very least, it makes the case for political responsibility a hell of a lot easier.

Hydesland did.

Sounds good to me, but probably not to the government.

Maybe. But how many of us are still suffering for it?


whats your basis for saying that ANYONE is still suffering TODAY from the legacy of slavery? If it was then why are there many African-Americans and women and other minorities who are extremely succesful today? Wouldn't you say that just by becoming citizens of the USA that should be enough reparation? That you are now free and have the same opportunity IF you put your mind to it to become as successful as anyone else in this country. No matter what you color or education success is possible. Henry Ford was mentioned earlier in this thread. Do many of you know he did not have a formal education? And at one time he was labeled as incompotent(which he actually won a libal suit for that!)?

alls i know is that the media and some politicians try and make excuses for failure instead of trying to help people realize that they can make it if they try. Sorry, but I have no patience for whiners or those who are looking for a crutch or a handout just because of who they are. To me it is an insult to those who truelly need help because of circumstance whether health, physical or mental that prevent them from making a better life for themselves.

whats your basis for saying that ANYONE is still suffering TODAY from the legacy of slavery?If you don't see it already, then I can only assume you suffer from (intentional or incidental) denial of reality. I doubt very much that my rehashing the evidence of ongoing racism, discrimination, and white privilege will change your mind.

If it was then why are there many African-Americans and women and other minorities who are extremely successful today?The question is not, "Why are some African Americans successful?" The question is, "Why are African Americans, head for head, so much less successful than others?" Racism and the legacy of slavery are not the only answers to this question, but important answers they remain.

Wouldn't you say that just by becoming citizens of the USA that should be enough reparation?No, I wouldn't.

That you are now free and have the same opportunity IF you put your mind to it to become as successful as anyone else in this country. No matter what you color or education success is possible.If that were as true in empirical reality as it is in your ideology, I would have much less about which to complain. Unfortunately, when it comes to reality I am right and you are wrong. I honestly wish this were otherwise, but I cannot turn away from scientific evidence in favor of rhetoric and anecdote.

Henry Ford was mentioned earlier in this thread. Do many of you know he did not have a formal education? And at one time he was labeled as incompetent(which he actually won a libal suit for that!)?Did I mention anecdote? Yes... yes, I did. And you couldn't even come up with a black anecdote for me. How disappointing. You're not even trying, and I find that insulting. Doesn't the argument at least deserve a little effort?

I was so certain you were going to mention Oprah.