Paradox - Estate Tax and Reparations

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Guynemer


That's a perfectly reasonable argument.

However, with AA going down in flames all over the country, there won't even be the faintest scent of real equality of opportunity.

We need to admit that race is a social construct and as there is really no way to prove one's membership in a particular race it makes a really terrible means of identifying those who should receive extra benefits from society. This is in addition to the obvious damage done when we perpetuate racism by adopting racist remedies to racism, like AA. The obvious means of addressing economic and educational inequality is to adopt race-blind measures to help all people who have a need for that help. This eliminates the untennable position of the government vis a vis race. It also passes the fairness test. The hillbilly with two blind parents will get some financial aid, while Michael Jordan's kids won't.

Of course culture unlike race is real and measurable. There is no guarantee that people of varying cultures will succeed at the same rates by being treated the same way in the same system. In fact there seems to be a lot of evidence that this won't happen. Take a look at the success of the Vietnamese boat people in the U.S. They came here with nothing in the late 1970's, and succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Any culture that honors education and commerce is going to have an advantage in America, in fact almost anywhere. There isn't much the government can do about this. Or should IMO. I had a choice to continue being a poor white / indian farmer warrior like my ancestors (grandparents), or to do something somewhat different. I chose to retain the warrior aspect of my own culture (to my parent's disapproval) while moving on educationally and economically. Similar personal decisions are made every day, and we should be patient and honor the decisions made by our citizens when they don't directly inhibit other citizen's rights.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


As a pro-Confederacy southern white boy who doesn't give a damn about PCness, let me 'splain something to you.

Being called a honky makes me laugh - someone says that to me, it's like "hey, this moron thinks he's Richard ****ing Pryor"

Calling a black person "******" carries a lot more weight, because it's not that far from the days when it was in the context of things like "keep them goddamned ******s in their place" "those ******s are trying to get into our swimming pool" "string that ****** up."

On construction sites in the deep south, back in the not-so-distant good ol' days, sometimes instead of renting a crane or a heavy piece of equipment, you'd "****** rig" - get 40 ******s and a rope.

Or there was that good ol' sign at the limits of McComb, Mississippi that I saw as a kid: "****** - don't let the sun set on your head in McComb"

Now try to replace "******" with "honky" in any of those contexts - it's absurd. They weren't lynching us, putting us in colored schools, telling us we couldn't use public facilities the same as anyone else. Someone runs his mouth calling someone a "honky" and you think it's some moron with a bigger mouth than he has a brain. Someone runs his mouth calling you "******" and you have to think what the hell else is coming next?

There is no way either side of hell that the two words carry anything near the same weight.

I agree with the sentiment but not the details. It would certainly be a joke to me to be (seriously) called any of the anti-white slurs over the web but not in person. In person I would expect being called honky to be exactly the same racial expression of anger as ******. In those situations (not that its happened to me) I doubt that anyone is thinking of history.

[Spiffor]

I must admit I have always been puzzled that official American forms have you declare your race just like your age or your marital status. Does the administration require to know your confession as well?

[SpencerH]

and as I've stated before since there is no test of race you can put down what you will...........

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

let me 'splain something to you.

Hey, this moron thinks he's Richard ****ing Pryor!!!

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Agathon


Um... the New Zealand government is still on the hook for Maori land confiscations 150 years ago.

Considering it was the British who rightly confiscated the land from rebel maoris as compensation for the enormous cost of bringing in the imperial troops, I don't see why they should be.

And the Maoris are still here and still pissed off. Indeed our national founding document is a recognition of Maori rights in perpetuity.

Really?


A literal translation into English, Made in New Zealand, of the Maori Version of the Treaty, in the Year 1865


Victoria, Queen of England, in her gracious remembrance of the chiefs of the tribes of New Zealand and through her desires to preserve them their chieftainship and their land and to preserve peace and quietness to them, has thought it right to send them a gentleman to be their representative to the Queen's Government. Now, because there are numbers of people living in this land, and more will be coming. The Queen wishes to appoint a Government that there may be no cause for strife between the natives and the Pakeha, who are now without law. It has now pleased the Queen to appoint me William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy, Govenor of all parts of New Zealand, which shall be ceded now and at a further period to the Queen. She offers to the Chiefs of the Assembly of the tribes of New Zealand and to the other chiefs the following laws:-

1. The Chiefs of (i.e. constituting) the Assembly, and all the Chiefs who are absent from the Assembly, shall cede to the Queen of England for ever the Government of their lands.

2. The Queen of England acknowledges and guarantees to the chiefs, the tribes, and all the people of New Zealand, the entire supremacy of their lands, of their settlements and all of their personal property. But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all other chiefs, make over to the Queen the purchasing of such lands, which the man who possesses the land is willing to sell, according to prices agreed upon by him, and the purchaser appointed by the Queen to purchase for her.

3. In return for their acknowledging the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the natives of New Zealand, and will allow them the same right as the people of England.

Signed, William Hobson
Consul, and Lieutenant-Governor.

We the chiefs of this Assembly of the tribes of New Zealand, now assembled at Waitangi perceiving the meaning of these words, take and consent to them all. Therefore we sign our name and our marks.

This is done at Waitangi, on the sixth day of February, in the one thousand eight hundred and fortieth year of Our Lord.

Note how article 2 refers to "all the people of New Zealand" - not just maoris.

[Caligastia]

Apolyton is ****ing up again.

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

If he were subject to an inheritance tax, his children would be slightly less wealthy when he dies. That's not the same thing as being enslaved a few years.

It is wrt wealth accumulation. That was my point, confiscating wealth is akin to slavery so an estate tax (any non-user fee tax) confiscates our time from our existence.

Oh, the poor Maori? **** 'em. They found out a peaceful tribe of people lived near NZ and went and exterminated them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Considering it was the British who rightly confiscated the land from rebel maoris as compensation for the enormous cost of bringing in the imperial troops, I don't see why they should be.

Erm, how could the British "rightly" be confiscating anything from the Maoris, when the British were invaders on what had been Maori territory?

[Berzerker]

For the same reason the US can invade the ME and call the opposition "unlawful cambatants".

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Erm, how could the British "rightly" be confiscating anything from the Maoris, when the British were invaders on what had been Maori territory?

By the time the confiscations occurred most Maori tribes already had the status of British citizens. Some had not signed the Treaty of Waitangi and had land confiscated. Most of the confiscations were bull**** anyway.

I like - the enormous cost of bringing in Imperial troops. By the time of the many confiscations the British Army had long departed our shores. You presumably mean the Armed Constabulary and the Maori mercenaries.

Add to that the fact that troops that were brought in were brought in to conquer tribes and expropriate land and it's really odd that the punishment "fitted" the crime, before the crime had been committed.

[Agathon]

In retrospect the Treaty of Waitangi was applied to all Maori. So the government can't just nick their stuff or kill them (like the Aussies did with the Aborigines) - they are citizens and have full legal status.

Cali may not like it, but the Treaty of Waitangi establishes his status as a British subject, just as it does for the Maoris. They agreed to cede sovereignty to the British Crown in exchange for citizenship and that ceding meant that anyone born in NZ was now a British subject.

Hence he is right that article 2 refers to all people of NZ. But that just means that anyone who had their property wrongfully expropriated has the legal right to demand it back. And that goes for the Maoris too.