Slavery Reparations??

[BrianH]

Yep and by the same logic, since one side of my family came from Germany after WWII I should have to pay the families of Jews killed in WWII, even though I am also part Jew

So you can just pay yourself? A great monetary strategy to get out of debt...

 

[Reality]

In other words, it WAS illegal for them to kill the Jews.

THank you for clearing that up.

If it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk in your community but a cop sees you spit on the sidewalk and doesn't write you a ticket is it illegal?

 

[AllieBaba]

Er...yes. It's still illegal.

Owning slaves wasn't illegal at the time they were owned.
Killing Jews WAS illegal at the time.

Get it yet?

 

[BrianH]

If it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk in your community but a cop sees you spit on the sidewalk and doesn't write you a ticket is it illegal?

It's still illegal, but you're left at the discretion of the police officer. Just like exceeding the speed limit is illegal, however, you may not get a ticket.

But the point is, people who have never owned slaves should not have to pay people that have never been slaves--for something that happened 200 years ago. Even if you want to look more recently than that. I should not have to pay for my family members who were simply alive during racial segregation. I have never segregated anyone, nor discriminated against the black race--yet, I should have to pay them? Sure, there are some blacks that I don't like, just as there are whites I don't like. If this is the logic based on reparations, I hope one of your ancestors never committed a crime against someone else, because their family today could find out and sue you over it. This makes as much sense as a robber falling on a kitchen knife and suing the home-owner...

 

[Ravi]

It's still illegal, but you're left at the discretion of the police officer. Just like exceeding the speed limit is illegal, however, you may not get a ticket.

But the point is, people who have never owned slaves should not have to pay people that have never been slaves--for something that happened 200 years ago. Even if you want to look more recently than that. I should not have to pay for my family members who were simply alive during racial segregation. I have never segregated anyone, nor discriminated against the black race--yet, I should have to pay them? Sure, there are some blacks that I don't like, just as there are whites I don't like. If this is the logic based on reparations, I hope one of your ancestors never committed a crime against someone else, because their family today could find out and sue you over it. This makes as much sense as a robber falling on a kitchen knife and suing the home-owner...

Even though I'm not for reparations, your logic is flawed along with a couple of the other posters on this thread. The COUNTRY is the responsible party, and as citizens of the country, all of us would be responsible even if we had nothing to do with it. Ditto the dude who claims his relatives had some responsibility for killing Jews...he's (I'm assuming) an American, not a German, so it isn't his COUNTRY that was responsible...it's Germany.

Don't take the pledge lightly.

 

[BrianH]

Even though I'm not for reparations, your logic is flawed along with a couple of the other posters on this thread. The COUNTRY is the responsible party, and as citizens of the country, all of us would be responsible even if we had nothing to do with it. Ditto the dude who claims his relatives had some responsibility for killing Jews...he's (I'm assuming) an American, not a German, so it isn't his COUNTRY that was responsible...it's Germany.

Don't take the pledge lightly.

I agree with you, but the country is made up of the people... My logic is not flawed. Considering the people of THIS country (right now) don't believe in slavery and have never condoned it, they should not have to pay of their ancestors. The government is not a broad everlasting individual who lives forever and is responsible for everything. It was still run by people....who do not exist anymore. The people who believed in slavery and legalized it are not around. The people who do not agree with or practice slavery should not have to pay for past actions for which they never had control of. Using that same logic, you could be held responsible and pay for someone's death 300 years ago...

 

[AllieBaba]

And a huge percentage of the people who live in this country are actually the people who want reparations. They'll be paying themselves.

It's just idiotic on so many levels.

 

[Ravi]

I agree with you, but the country is made up of the people... My logic is not flawed. Considering the people of THIS country (right now) don't believe in slavery and have never condoned it, they should not have to pay of their ancestors. The government is not a broad everlasting individual who lives forever and is responsible for everything. It was still run by people....who do not exist anymore. The people who believed in slavery and legalized it are not around. The people who do not agree with or practice slavery should not have to pay for past actions for which they never had control of. Using that same logic, you could be held responsible and pay for someone's death 300 years ago...

I was assuming something done in a more timely manner. You are correct, there is no reason we should pay reparations. If we'd done it immediately, the country would have been responsible as a whole. We can't be part of the country only when we choose to be.

 

[BrianH]

I was assuming something done in a more timely manner. You are correct, there is no reason we should pay reparations. If we'd done it immediately, the country would have been responsible as a whole. We can't be part of the country only when we choose to be.

Yeah, I can agree with that. If it had been done immediately and only slave owners would have to pay, that would be acceptable IMO...now, whether the southerners would have accepted then, would be an entirely different discussion.

 

[Ravi]

Yeah, I can agree with that. If it had been done immediately and only slave owners would have to pay, that would be acceptable IMO...now, whether the southerners would have accepted then, would be an entirely different discussion.

Ha! That would have probably kicked off another civil war.

 

[AllieBaba]

At the end of the war, slave owners had no money left. What they didn't spend or invest in confederate war bonds the North confiscated.

So they already paid once.

 

[BrianH]

Ha! That would have probably kicked off another civil war.

I wouldn't doubt it.

 

[Nemo Securus]

We already provide reperations in a way its called welfare. Not a racists just pointing out something slightly obvious. When I was in High School I remember hearing some black kids talking about how that was their plan for life. Never work just have a lot of kids and get money for it. As long as the government continues to allow this behavior we tax payers will always suffer the consequences. I know not all blacks are on welfare either but probably more are on it than were ever actually slaves so I say lets call it even.

 

[Reality]

I agree with you, but the country is made up of the people... My logic is not flawed. Considering the people of THIS country (right now) don't believe in slavery and have never condoned it, they should not have to pay of their ancestors. The government is not a broad everlasting individual who lives forever and is responsible for everything. It was still run by people....who do not exist anymore. The people who believed in slavery and legalized it are not around. The people who do not agree with or practice slavery should not have to pay for past actions for which they never had control of. Using that same logic, you could be held responsible and pay for someone's death 300 years ago...

This isn't my point at all. Compensation for forced labor (what we are actually talking about) should be paid by those who profited from that labor. Compounded interest and investment of profits of that forced labor still reap benefits today. The descendants of those who were forced into labor, and thus generated income for those who wrongfully imprisoned them, have a right to the wealth of their ancestors. Because that wasn't done in a timely manner is only the fault of the oppressors.

Let me pose a hypothetical. You may have heard of a recent story of an Australian women held for 24 years in a basement as a prisoner. Say that she wasn't discovered until her captor had passed away and had left his wealth, lets call it substantial for the sake of argument, to his descendants. In a civil action, should she be able to sue the benefactors of his estate? Under the argument posed here, she should not. His descendants imprisoned no one.

That, quite frankly, is ludicrous.

Equally as ludicrous is saying that a government who encouraged and permitted attacks on Jews which often led to murder is somehow not responsible because it had a law on its books it never enforced. Read the Constitution. Read the Declaration of Independence. In no context does the reading of those documents in any way leave room for slavery being legal. Because the Constitution was not enforced does not give viability to any argument that slavery was at any time legitimate. It was an illegitimate institution every moment it was permitted to exist. An immoral act does not become legitimate simply because a government says so.

 

[BrianH]

This isn't my point at all. Compensation for forced labor (what we are actually talking about) should be paid by those who profited from that labor. Compounded interest and investment of profits of that forced labor still reap benefits today. The descendants of those who were forced into labor, and thus generated income for those who wrongfully imprisoned them, have a right to the wealth of their ancestors. Because that wasn't done in a timely manner is only the fault of the oppressors.

Let me pose a hypothetical. You may have heard of a recent story of an Australian women held for 24 years in a basement as a prisoner. Say that she wasn't discovered until her captor had passed away and had left his wealth, lets call it substantial for the sake of argument, to his descendants. In a civil action, should she be able to sue the benefactors of his estate? Under the argument posed here, she should not. His descendants imprisoned no one.

That, quite frankly, is ludicrous.

Equally as ludicrous is saying that a government who encouraged and permitted attacks on Jews which often led to murder is somehow not responsible because it had a law on its books it never enforced. Read the Constitution. Read the Declaration of Independence. In no context does the reading of those documents in any way leave room for slavery being legal. Because the Constitution was not enforced does not give viability to any argument that slavery was at any time legitimate. It was an illegitimate institution every moment it was permitted to exist. An immoral act does not become legitimate simply because a government says so.

There is a flaw in your hypothetical...the man imprisoning his Austalian woman was committing an illegal act. Slavery was not illegal until 1865...which means that anyone owning slaves--even in the North, were not committing an illegal act.

Now, as far as slavery being legal....you can't go back and change events. Whether you believe it was legal or not, will not change the fact that it was. If it was so overwhelmingly illegal in the eyes of all Americans, it would not have been legal. Unfortunately, it was legal according to many Americans during this period up until 1865. I agree with you that slavery was immoral, however, whatever you and I have to say about the immorality of slavery, it doesn't change the fact that it was permitted by the government. It was obviously legititamate simply because the government said so. It's just like anything else in our country. Segregation was legitimate simply because the government said so.....until it was illigitimate simply because the government said so...

Now, another historical assumption that you have, is that slaveholders all just had this giant estate full of money...where in fact, the fast minority of slave-holders were super-rich plantation owners. Many families only owned a few slaves and weren't superiorly rich compared to everyone else. And after the civil war, most slave-holding Southern farmers suffered severely when slavery was outlawed. They had no one to work the fields, harvest crops, etc...but them and their children. Their entire economic system had been taken away.--I'm not sympathizing with slaveowners, but I'm correcting your assumption that the ancestors of all slave-owners are benefiting socially and economically from slavery. Many southern slave-owners were forced to become share-croppers themselves, working for a minority of wealthy plantation owners who were forced to hire share-croppers. My family owned slaves back in the day (from what I've heard), but, we certainly did not benefit from anything remotely related to my slave-owning ancestors. I've had to work for everything I have and have never gained anything from some kind of estate started by my slave-owning ancestors. My great-grandmother's family were share-croppers in South Texas.

I don't agree with slavery any more than you do, but the stuff you assume is simply not true to the extent you think.

 

[BillyBob]

Why should white people today have a higher social and economic status as well as white privilege because of past actions of whites exploiting and enslaving people and having a system that keeps nonwhites below them and ensures they will forever be on top?

Because whites are smarter than blacks.

 

[editec]

Reparations to invdividuals at this stage of game is simply an unworkable plan.

The only affirmative action that I support is that which affirmatively acts to help everyone who needs it regardless of race, creed, color, age or gender.

Help them what needs help, today, says I, and to hell with historic injustices we cannot NOt rectify.

 

[nukeman]

This isn't my point at all. Compensation for forced labor (what we are actually talking about) should be paid by those who profited from that labor. Compounded interest and investment of profits of that forced labor still reap benefits today. The descendants of those who were forced into labor, and thus generated income for those who wrongfully imprisoned them, have a right to the wealth of their ancestors. Because that wasn't done in a timely manner is only the fault of the oppressors.

Let me pose a hypothetical. You may have heard of a recent story of an Australian women held for 24 years in a basement as a prisoner. Say that she wasn't discovered until her captor had passed away and had left his wealth, lets call it substantial for the sake of argument, to his descendants. In a civil action, should she be able to sue the benefactors of his estate? Under the argument posed here, she should not. His descendants imprisoned no one.

That, quite frankly, is ludicrous.

Equally as ludicrous is saying that a government who encouraged and permitted attacks on Jews which often led to murder is somehow not responsible because it had a law on its books it never enforced. Read the Constitution. Read the Declaration of Independence. In no context does the reading of those documents in any way leave room for slavery being legal. Because the Constitution was not enforced does not give viability to any argument that slavery was at any time legitimate. It was an illegitimate institution every moment it was permitted to exist. An immoral act does not become legitimate simply because a government says so.

The bolded part is the MAJOR flaw in your logic.. the woman doing the suing IS THE ONE THAT WAS IMPRISONED, not her descendent's. By your reasoning every person killed or injured at any place at any time should have their descendent's receive pay for their mishaps. It is one thing for the "victim" to seek reparations it is another for their great great great great great great.... etc grandchild to seek compensation for their labor and sweat.. Work for yourself and EARN what you have.....

What about the blacks that owned slaves, and before you say there weren't any or not that many, yes they did own them. Lets seek reparation all the way back to the PEOPLE WHO SOLD THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. You do realize that most slaves were purchased from other blacks in Africa!! If you want your reparations than go to your original country and DEMAND your ancestors land back, ti was probably taken in a tribal war and they were captured and sold. Ohh thats right they don't have MONEY to pay you....

Reparations is the biggest crock of shit out there. All it is, is a group of people looking for something THEY HAD NO INVOLVEMENT IN.

Why do YOU feel YOU deserve this money or service??

 

[BrianH]

The bolded part is the MAJOR flaw in your logic.. the woman doing the suing IS THE ONE THAT WAS IMPRISONED, not her decendents. By your reasoning every person killed or injured at any place at any time should have thier receive pay for thier mishaps. It is one thing for the "victim" to seek reparations it is another for their great great great great great great.... etc grandchild to seek compensation for their labor and sweat.. Work for yourself and EARN what you have.....

What about the blacks that owned slaves, and before you say there wern't any or not that many, yes they did own them. Lets seek reparation all the way back to the PEOPLE WHO SOLD THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. You do realize that most slaves were purchased from other blacks in Africa!! If you want your reparations than go to your original country and DEMAND your ancestors land back, ti was probably taken in a tribal war and they were captured and sold. Ohh thats right they don't have MONEY to pay you....

Reperations is the biggest crock of shit out there. All it is, is a group of people looking for something THEY HAD NO INVOLVEMENT IN.

Why do YOU feel YOU deserve this money or service??

Exactly...I should seek reparations from Rome for all the ancestors I may have had that were enslaved. Or the England, for my Irish and Scottish ancestors...but then again, I have English in me to, so wait...how does that go again? lol.

Not only is Reality's logic flawed, he assumes that all SOuthern slaveowners ultimately benefitted from slavery and have certain social positions in life today. When in reality, the majority of slave-owners were extremely small slave-owning families that had a few slaves. These people were not rich to begin with, nor made it rich while owning slaves. Those with large plantations also lost out when slavery was outlawed. There were some that prospered, granted, but in the South, it's as if everyone went back to square 1.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not only that, they lost everything at the end of the war.