Slavery Reparations

[faded glory]

Yes but the people who owned slaves then, are not descnants of your everyday rich-cigar-smoking fat cats today. My case in point.

All this would do was drive up prices for those services.....a hardy any money would go to the people. Mostly lawyers.

UR,

We did right our wrongs. We fought a war. 470,000 Union men were killed. 210,000 Southerners died. We apoligized. It was calle the Emancipation Proclamation.

Im not going to debate how they were shafted by sharecroppers anyway. Or AA. Dam, thats another thread. But lets say we do give reparations. Then we should Immediately cut off Affirmative action...S. Welfare, and minority-benefiting programs. This is there one-time check. Do not ask for more.....

What if the courts drag their collective feet long enough so that no survivors are left

Unlikely. The most you can drag your feet is 15-30 years. Not a whole life time.

[mactbone]

Well, now you have to find out which blacks had enslaved ancestors. Then you have to find out who actually is descended from a slave owner, or even had an ancestor back then. Then you have to make a subjective decision on how much money, who pays, etc. Should all of us be blamed for our ancestors' mistakes?

[Kirnwaffen]

How can you pay reparations for an irreparable act?

No amount of money can ever cover the damage that was done to African Americans through slavery. The only thing that will heal those wounds is a huge amount of time.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
Basically, slavery prevented blacks from accumulating the same kind of wealth and assets that whites have been able to accumulate through anscestors and descendants.

How does that support a lawsuit for a legal activity a company engaged in a century ago?

I'm all for giving slaves reperations. Show me some American slaves from the 19th century and I'll be more than happy to give them money.

[MrFun]

A lot of people argue against slavery reparations by presenting the common strawman argument that we would have to compensate for people who were enslaved in ancient Roman Empire, and people who were enslaved in Rennaissance Italy city-states, and so forth.

Unfortunately, this strawman argument tries to exaggerate or blow out of proportions the single proposition of the current argument advocating slavery reparations; for black descendants of black slaves in United States.

Slavery ended recently enough in United State's history to legitimately advocate for slavery reparations in my opinion. But then of course, the anticipated counter-argument is this--how long does the abolition of slavery anywhere in world history has to occur in order for there to be legitimate slavery reparations?? Not sure yet, but we could establish some systematic, rational method in determining recency of slavery abolishment for present slavery reparations.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
A lot of people argue against slavery reparations by presenting the common strawman argument that we would have to compensate for people who were enslaved in ancient Roman Empire,

We don't even have to go back that far. Show me a person who is a victim of the Pre- Civil War African slave trade and I'll be more than happy to give him his proverbial "40 acres and a mule." Decendenats several generations removed from the victims have no legitimate claim to recieve compensation from the alleged victimization.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun
I support slavery reparations, but I have to do more reading on the current developments before I can elaborate an argument.

Basically, slavery prevented blacks from accumulating the same kind of wealth and assets that whites have been able to accumulate through anscestors and descendants.

Basically, slavery got their asses out of the tragic, corrupt, festering ****hole that is modern Africa.

The modern descendant of the African slave is doing very well in comparison to 99.9+% of his or her distant cousins in Africa - even the worst standards of living anywhere in the US are better by far than the vast majority's standard of living anywhere in Africa.

Yes, modern American blacks' sixth and seventh generation ancestors (or earlier) were kidnapped, raped, brutalized and dehumanized, but their descendents are hugely better off for it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Basically, slavery prevented blacks from accumulating the same kind of wealth and assets that whites have been able to accumulate through anscestors and descendants.

What about thost white immigrants that came from Europe with nothing on their backs. Do they get reperations because they couldn't accumulate wealth through ancestors in America? And why should they pay? Their ancestors weren't even around in the US during that era!!

[MrFun]

MichaeltheGreat, we risk diverting from the original claim and argument by getting into whether we can legitimately compare what would have been if they remained in Africa.
I'm not sure how blacks could have done so well in United States in the early 20th century for instance, if it was still legal to burn people alive in the United States.
And the fact that European colonialism is part of the cause of Africa's current impoverishment. But again--that diversion can be a completely different thread.

And Imran, aren't you using another strawman argument by arguing for a proposition that people who argue for slave reparations are not even advocating?

Strawman arguments are based on implanting argument claims into another person's argument that is not even part of their claims. They are focusing on slavery reparations in United States for black descendants of black slaves. Form your counter-arguments in that area.

[Ramo]

Slavery ended recently enough in United State's history to legitimately advocate for slavery reparations in my opinion.

What about the descendents of Russian serfs? What do they get?

Edit: wrong quote...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun
MichaeltheGreat, we risk diverting from the original claim and argument by getting into whether we can legitimately compare what would have been if they remained in Africa.
I'm not sure how blacks could have done so well in United States in the early 20th century for instance, if it was still legal to burn people alive in the United States.
And the fact that European colonialism is part of the cause of Africa's current impoverishment. But again--that diversion can be a completely different thread.

And Imran, aren't you using another strawman argument by arguing for a proposition that people who argue for slave reparations are not even advocating?

Strawman arguments are based on implanting argument claims into another person's argument that is not even part of their claims. They are focusing on slavery reparations in United States for black descendants of black slaves. Form your counter-arguments in that area.

The counterargument is simple: The entire issue of "reparations" paid to alleged 6th and 7th generation descendants of an alleged "victim" class is bull****.

[Ramo]

Strawman arguments are based on implanting argument claims into another person's argument that is not even part of their claims.

What does that mean? That the analogies one can only make are with people who explicitly are asking for reparations? I fail to see the logic in that...

[Dis]

all I know is there will be hell to pay if my tax dollars go to it. My ancestors came to the U.S. in the very late 19th century. And settled in northern states as well.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun
MichaeltheGreat, we risk diverting from the original claim and argument by getting into whether we can legitimately compare what would have been if they remained in Africa.

Oh, BTW, we don't divert from anything. One standard for "reparations", i.e. damages, is a demonstration of what economic loss was suffered by those claiming damages. The issue of what would be the claimaint's economic situation had slavery not been practiced in the United States is quite relevant.

Of course, the liberals and money-grubbers know that, so they try to avoid any attempt at serious qualification or quantification, and stick to the "give us free money" line.

[gopher]

I am totally against the idea of Slavery repartations for the following reasons:

1) There are no people actually victimized by the crimes still alive. As the argument goes, why should the descendents get paid? So that means my great-granpa who sweated out in the Imperial Valley of CA for a dime a day earns me $$?

2) Repartations come out of everyones pocket. My family on both sides came to this country about 50 years ago. So I should pay for something I was not even a part of? If this is true, Euro's get your checkbooks out, those colonial enterprises are gonna cost ya'.

3) Money for suffering 150 years ago? Come on.

4) The US. has on MANY occasions apologized for slavery, and has done even more. The Civil war killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. True, they werent just fighting to end slavery, but that was a MAJOR reason. I find this issue insulting for this fact alone.

5) This issue is being treated as a negotiating tool, not an actual case itself. I would have more respect for this argument of repartations if it sounded sincere and unyielding, as if it was a true cause. The way it is being presented, however, it is more of a political tactic, something to bring up while discussing something else. Even the people for it do not take it seriously.

6) We have done all we can do, reasonably. Apologies, govt. investigations, and most importantly, a sort of national soul searching over slavery. The US reconizes the grave injustice that occured, had atoned for it, has thought about it, and has discussed it at length.

And 7) This issue will racialize us as a nation even more. Who will get the money? All blacks? Even ones who just immigrated here? Will everyone get the same? Why just some people? I fear that color alone will be used to settle claims, that alone scares me and makes me think this whole argument just demeans the issue of racial equality.