The Case for Reparations

[govols/cc]

I'm gonna hit up ancestory.com....got fingers crossed. Maybe they'll pro-rate my blackness. Be sure to check the white guilt box on your tax forms dally. I feel a little oppressed already.

 

[FLVOL69]

I'm gonna hit up ancestory.com....got fingers crossed. Maybe they'll pro-rate my blackness. Be sure to check the white guilt box on your tax forms dally. I feel a little oppressed already.

Way ahead of ya there partner..

 

[n_huffhines]

But if we were to apply the same standards across the board to business, the government would be fining ArcelorMittal for violations of the Clean Air and Water Act for pollution created by J&L Steel in the 1890s.

This is a good point, but I find them to be significantly different. Government makes the law, therefore they have no excuse that it was legal to hold slaves. If they allowed pollution, they cannot assess fines ex post facto (principle of English law dating back hundreds of years). That being said, if Sears was built on the backs of slaves they owned, I wouldn't be against a civil lawsuit.

 

[Vol8188]

I'd be interested in starting "negotiations" at $50,000 per black individual who can trace their lineage back to slavery within the United States, and $25,000 to any black individual who can trace their lineage back to an ancestor living in the United States prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

I'm open to amending those amounts and any qualifiers, perhaps up to and including a gradual end to Affirmative Action.

What about women? Our country oppressed them too.

 

[Grand Vol]

This is a good point, but I find them to be significantly different. Government makes the law, therefore they have no excuse that it was legal to hold slaves. If they allowed pollution, they cannot assess fines ex post facto (principle of English law dating back hundreds of years). That being said, if Sears was built on the backs of slaves they owned, I wouldn't be against a civil lawsuit.

I used the business analogy because J&L Steel has transferred ownership a few times since the early 1900s to the current owner ArcelorMittal. So fining ArcelorMittal for past offenses when J&L Steel was polluting (even though it was legal at the time) would be the same as the government "fining" itself for the issue of slavery (which was also legal at the time)

You have to ask yourself at what point does someone stop and say "it's really too far removed to implement."

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Oh dear...

 

[n_huffhines]

You have to ask yourself at what point does someone stop and say "it's really too far removed to implement."

Like a statute of limitations? Not really sure. The thing I hate about these issues is that these kinds of figures are conjured out of thin air. Like the damages that judges determine are owed or how many years a patent should last. It's all so arbitrary I can't stand it. I know it's a copout, but while I say government does owe something, I can't begin to guess at what amount would serve justice.

I think if people can demonstrate that J&L Steel polluted their land to their detriment, I wouldn't be opposed to a lawsuit. I have no idea what amount. I know. Copout.

 

[volmaverick]

Tell the Native Americans that we need to settle the reparations issue with African Americans first so that they are hypothetically able to pay the Native Americans, would you? Better yet, just ignore any further memos.

What about blacks that are not links to slavery? Do they get paid?

 

[Grand Vol]

Like a statute of limitations? Not really sure. The thing I hate about these issues is that these kinds of figures are conjured out of thin air. Like the damages that judges determine are owed or how many years a patent should last. It's all so arbitrary I can't stand it. I know it's a copout, but while I say government does owe something, I can't begin to guess at what amount would serve justice.

I think if people can demonstrate that J&L Steel polluted their land to their detriment, I wouldn't be opposed to a lawsuit. I have no idea what amount. I know. Copout.

You mean like $777 trillion? That actually wasn't an arbitrary figure, but made no sense whatsoever for the entire world's combined GDP to be paid over a 10 year period to the African nations that dealt in the slave trade.

I think I saw an arbitrary figure of $50K as well...

Point being is it opens a huge can of worms. I mean, if I can trace my heritage back to where one of my ancestors was a slave and I knew the owner and tracked their family back to one that was still alive, I could sue for "damages" according to most people's theories on "reparations." And the same principle applies that the current government is traced back to the government that permitted slavery. So hence the current government "owes" them reparations.

If this was 150 years ago and we were having this discussion, I would think former slaves have a valid point and argument to an extent. But again, it's so far removed that nobody and everybody can be held accountable for something that was legal at the time.

 

[FLVOL69]

What about blacks that are not links to slavery? Do they get paid?

You racist if you don't .

 

[n_huffhines]

You mean like $777 trillion? That actually wasn't an arbitrary figure, but made no sense whatsoever for the entire world's combined GDP to be paid over a 10 year period to the African nations that dealt in the slave trade.

I think I saw an arbitrary figure of $50K as well...

Point being is it opens a huge can of worms. I mean, if I can trace my heritage back to where one of my ancestors was a slave and I knew the owner and tracked their family back to one that was still alive, I could sue for "damages" according to most people's theories on "reparations." And the same principle applies that the current government is traced back to the government that permitted slavery. So hence the current government "owes" them reparations.

If this was 150 years ago and we were having this discussion, I would think former slaves have a valid point and argument to an extent. But again, it's so far removed that nobody and everybody can be held accountable for something that was legal at the time.

I think the institutions that still exist today are liable, not the descendants of individual perpetrators. If the business or government no longer exists then I don't think there is anyone that you can rightfully sue.

 

[volmaverick]

Dallasmp

Would u rather be here or in Africa in a Zulu tribe?

 

[Godfatha]

very well, now we should move on to blacks who have been the beneficiaries of programs enacted to alleviate discrimination.

dammit, another memo, this one is from a coalition of Native American tribes demanding reparations from blacks because, in their words, "it isn't fair that we got stuck on reservations, shut off from society, while the black peoples enjoyed the right to be fully integrated into American society."

What if you have a Native American who owned a slave? This is going to get complicated. I'm about 1/4 Native American. Would I get 25% of the reparations? The Caucasian part of my ancestry immigrated in the late 1800s and never owned a slave. Do I have to pay just for being white? A race tax?

 

[volprof]

The ethics of reparations for African Americans whose ancestors were in fact slaves is one question.

The practicality of reparations for African Americans whose ancestors were in fact slaves is another.

However, I think most of us can agree that the impracticality of the reparations renders the ethical questions pointless. Whether it's right or wrong to do so, it doesn't matter.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I'd be interested in starting "negotiations" at $50,000 per black individual who can trace their lineage back to slavery within the United States, and $25,000 to any black individual who can trace their lineage back to an ancestor living in the United States prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

I'm open to amending those amounts and any qualifiers, perhaps up to and including a gradual end to Affirmative Action.

Sorry but if there is any race of people who deserve reparations it would be the Native Americans. And I think with the casinos, those reparations may have been paid.

The United States does not owe African Americans anything.

 

[Vol8188]

The ethics of reparations for African Americans whose ancestors were in fact slaves is one question.

The practicality of reparations for African Americans whose ancestors were in fact slaves is another.

However, I think most of us can agree that the impracticality of the reparations renders the ethical questions pointless. Whether it's right or wrong to do so, it doesn't matter.

Agreed.

 

[Grand Vol]

I think the institutions that still exist today are liable, not the descendants of individual perpetrators. If the business or government no longer exists then I don't think there is anyone that you can rightfully sue.

In that case though it would be on the individual States themselves. Not the US Government as most clamor for. Slavery was a State by State issue so technically these reparations should be paid for out of State budgets.

Which again, everybody and nobody can be held accountable. Because the State governments that permitted slavery, and the Federal government to a lesser extent, no longer exist today as it did prior to the Civil War. Sure, the institution is the same, but a government is made up of people. Just like the families that owned slaves, lawmakers and Presidents were the ones that allowed the trade to go on until 1808 and for slavery to continue until the post Civil War era. So blaming the current sitting government of the sins past is like blaming David Cameron for giving Native Americans smallpox blankets.

Again, if we were talking 150 years ago, a case could be made. But not this day in age.

 

[volprof]

Sorry but if there is any race of people who deserve reparations it would be the Native Americans. And I think with the casinos, those reparations may have been paid.

The United States does not owe African Americans anything.

I agree with you regarding reparations of any sort, but you do know that only a small percentage of indigenous people actually benefit from casinos, right? In fact, to this day, Native Americans have the highest (or second-highest) rates of suicide (and therefore, probably also unaided mental illness), alcoholism/drug abuse, domestic violence, murder/crime, and poverty among any ethnic group in the US. Most Native Americans, by which I mean honest to god Native Americans (raised in the culture and most often on reservations) and not just white people with a sixteenth "Cherokee princess" in them, also have one of the worst (if not the worst) educational systems in the entire country.

 

[Grand Vol]

I agree with you regarding reparations of any sort, but you do know that only a small percentage of indigenous people actually benefit from casinos, right? In fact, to this day, Native Americans have the highest (or second-highest) rates of suicide (and therefore, probably also unaided mental illness), alcoholism/drug abuse, domestic violence, murder/crime, and poverty among any ethnic group in the US. Most Native Americans, by which I mean honest to god Native Americans (raised in the culture and most often on reservations) and not just white people with a sixteenth "Cherokee princess" in them, also have one of the worst (if not the worst) educational systems in the entire country.

The casinos are open to the public. Out here at least.

Trust me, they are doing just fine.

 

[volprof]

The casinos are open to the public. Out here at least.

Trust me, they are doing just fine.

The problem with your post is that you assume the current conditions of the Western and Eastern bands of the Cherokee is indicative of the current conditions of Native Americans across the board. The Cherokee are one of the largest tribes in America and, therefore, have also had much more ability to establish benefits through the casino system. Even so, I highly doubt these benefits are enjoyed by all. Perhaps it makes going to college easier for member of the Cherokee tribe, but this isn't necessarily the case for all Native Americans. See the Lakota (Sioux) for a counter.

Further, assuming the Cherokee example is indicative of the condition of all indigenous people today (which it isn't, but just for the sake of argument), then how do you explain the statistics I offered above?

 

[Grand Vol]

The problem with your post is that you assume the current conditions of the Western and Eastern bands of the Cherokee is indicative of the current conditions of Native Americans across the board. The Cherokee are one of the largest tribes in America and, therefore, have also had much more ability to establish benefits through the casino system. Even so, I highly doubt these benefits are enjoyed by all. Perhaps it makes going to college easier for member of the Cherokee tribe, but this isn't necessarily the case for all Native Americans. See the Lakota (Sioux) for a counter.

Further, assuming the Cherokee example is indicative of the condition of all indigenous people today (which it isn't, but just for the sake of argument), then how do you explain the statistics I offered above?

I was replying to the comment that only a select few were able to take part in the casinos. I think I misunderstood your post to mean only reservation and tribal members could take part in the casinos.

 

[n_huffhines]

Which again, everybody and nobody can be held accountable. Because the State governments that permitted slavery, and the Federal government to a lesser extent, no longer exist today as it did prior to the Civil War. Sure, the institution is the same, but a government is made up of people. Just like the families that owned slaves, lawmakers and Presidents were the ones that allowed the trade to go on until 1808 and for slavery to continue until the post Civil War era.

Again, if we were talking 150 years ago, a case could be made. But not this day in age.

Fair points, but is there a statute of limitations on violent crimes? I'm asking LE or anybody who is more knowledgeable than I about the law. Slavery is violent by its very nature. I don't agree that discrimination justifies suing for damages, but I believe violence does.

 

[n_huffhines]

Oh, and about the states perpetrating slavery...how can you distinguish the states and the federal government when both institutionalized it by passing laws that condoned, preserved and perpetuated slavery (3/5 clause, Fugitive Slave Act)? In fact, the states that opposed slavery were forced to observe it by federal law. Wisconsin did its best to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act but the Federal government forced it on the North when they didn't want it. The slave owners are the ones who practiced slavery. The state governments didn't practice it any more than the federal government did, IMO.

 

[volmaverick]

Oh, and about the states perpetrating slavery...how can you distinguish the states and the federal government when both institutionalized it by passing laws that condoned, preserved and perpetuated slavery (3/5 clause, Fugitive Slave Act)? In fact, the states that opposed slavery were forced to observe it by federal law. Wisconsin did its best to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act but the Federal government forced it on the North when they didn't want it. The slave owners are the ones who practiced slavery. The state governments didn't practice it any more than the federal government did, IMO.

There were what? 15 or so states that were not even around during the slave years?

 

[Grand Vol]

Fair points, but is there a statute of limitations on violent crimes? I'm asking LE or anybody who is more knowledgeable than I about the law. Slavery is violent by its very nature. I don't agree that discrimination justifies suing for damages, but I believe violence does.

No, no statue of limitations generally speaking. But since slavery wasn't a "crime" even though violent by nature, it's a hard sell in a court of law. Especially in that time. Dred Scott proved that.