Announcement

**Guynemer** · March 28, 2002, 20:24

Re: I should be exempt from paying reperations

Originally posted by Lancer
If we are talking about 'the sins of the father',

Not only did I not own slaves, my dad was Swiss, my mother's family were poor yankees and they never owned slaves.

...but wtf, send me a bill.

Goodness, it never fails to impress me how people can completely miss the basic point of a conversation.

**Guynemer** · March 28, 2002, 20:28

Originally posted by Tuberski

That may be a very good idea....BUT..... The burden of proof is on the people suing not the corporations being sued or anybody else.

I don't disagree with reparations per se, just the way this was done, PROVE that you are disadvantaged because of slavery. We can argue about it all we want, but arguements no matter how convincing( Gunymeyer

) are not proof.

I'm glad you approve.

But the basis for the lawsuit shouldn't be that they were disadvantaged because of slavery. Frankly, that should be irrelevant. The relevant fact is that they are owed the wealth that was taken and/or withheld from their ancestors.

Rah--I addressed your first points several times, re: how much money depending on how many ancestors, etc.

And, for the record, Tingkai did not post a "I hate white people" poll. He posted "I'm getting tired of all the whining white fascists," or something of that sort. Pretty big difference there; don't go making it something it's not.

**MrFun** · March 28, 2002, 20:34

Originally posted by rah
When you say, trace back and see who's ancestors were slaves,
What percentate of ancestors would you consider to be valid.
100%
50%
I'm sure most people today would be unable to show direct lineage of more than 5%. Would that qualify?

I'm not trying to be picky, but standards would have to be set, and this issue would play an important role in your solution.

Personally I think penalizing companys today for doing things that were considered legal over a hundred years ago is absurd.
A lot of INOCENT hard working people would be damaged.

AND by the end of 20 years when all the appeals were finally settled, the only winners would be the lawyers. I see no justice in that.

They would have to prove two things through a civil court case:

1) That at least half of their ancestry was in slavery for a set number of years or generations.

2) That for all the generations who lived after emancipation, they have shown that they have not been able to move out of poverty or the working class as a result of lack of opportunity.

**C0ckney** · March 28, 2002, 20:41

Originally posted by MrFun
2) That for all the generations who lived after emancipation, they have shown that they have not been able to move out of poverty or the working class as a result of lack of opportunity.

Wouldn't this be damn near impossible to prove? (which is a good thing I guess, heh)

What about those descendents of slaves who couldn't move out of the 'working class' because they were lazy/stupid.

**Elucidus** · March 28, 2002, 21:49

What about Native Americans, shouldn't they be owed something? Afterall, this was their land that we built our country/businesses on.

I honestly think it is rediculous to sue a company who has a bit of slavery in its roots. I mean the company survived and in fact prospered, for over a hundred years without slaves.

Were any of these companies bought out by other companies, because if that is the case, wouldn't that negate the whole thing?

Yes, slavery was wrong, very wrong. Hell racism is very wrong, but if I were sued because my great-great-...grand father owned slaves and made some money off of it I would be very mad.

This is my take and no research was done on this. Essentially, it is okay to screw the guy today to repay debts to people from long long ago? So in a hundred years can this guys descendents sue the other guy for taking his fortune? The people controlling the companies today had no idea that slavery was involved (or at least I would imagine). There lives will be torn away, life's work, life savings, because of something they had no idea about, and absolutely no control over. That is rediculous.

Can't they just say that their payment was the cost of the boat ride over here? Yes that was a joke, but seriously, wouldn't they be a lot worse off in an african nation today, if these people were even alive, that is.

Sorry, I just can't imagine ever going after someone for something that happened to my descendants. My father yeah, but my great-great...grand father, no. Why not spend all of these energies building up your own wealth instead of trying to take others'?

Sorry if this seems harsh, but it hits a nerve for me. My father was passed up for promotion twice because he wasn't a women. He out scored the female on the test (the only requirement for the promotion), both times. The first time three men outscored the women, but since he was a white male he was passed up. That I see as rediculous also, maybe a little off topic, but then again isn't that reparations to the women for being a...well...women.

**rah** · March 28, 2002, 22:08

Originally posted by MrFun

They would have to prove two things through a civil court case:

1) That at least half of their ancestry was in slavery for a set number of years or generations.

I'm willing to bet that there isn't a single person alive that can prove that half of their ancestry was slaves. Think how fast it would get deluted. A slave moves north and marries a non-slave, all it would take is one more non-slave and they don't qualify.
Think about it.

Which is why it would be hard to set a fair threshhold.

RAH

**Tuberski** · March 28, 2002, 22:12

Well, it seems this thread is starting to wind down a little, it's been 3 days, and we haven't seen Ming or MtG. Thank you for keeping it fairly civil. Except those of you who weren't.

**Guynemer** · March 28, 2002, 22:21

Originally posted by Tuberski
Well, it seems this thread is starting to wind down a little, it's been 3 days, and we haven't seen Ming or MtG. Thank you for keeping it fairly civil. Except those of you who weren't.

Actually, you have no idea how many times I almost flew off the handle. I almost did it again just now. (Not this post, don't worry.)

I agree. This was a good, healthy debate, for the most part. Too bad some people had to leave it. Thanks again for jumpstarting this, Tuberski.

**Tuberski** · March 28, 2002, 22:29

Your Welcome!

To bad none of this counts toward my post count!

**DarkCloud** · March 28, 2002, 22:30

Originally posted by Guynemer

How is that any different from what I have proposed?

It is very different, yo usuggested paying their descendants back... Well0 they don't deserve the mojney and "legally" neither did their ancestors. Their ancestors were considered property and thus their owners were under no obligations to pay them.

**Guynemer** · March 28, 2002, 22:31

Originally posted by DarkCloud

It is very different, yo usuggested paying their descendants back... Well0 they don't deserve the mojney and "legally" neither did their ancestors. Their ancestors were considered property and thus their owners were under no obligations to pay them.

And "legally", the Jews were considered animals and unworthy of holding property, so it was confiscated.

See? Not very different at all. Very same, yes.

**Guynemer** · March 28, 2002, 22:32

Originally posted by Tuberski
Your Welcome!

To bad none of this counts toward my post count!

No kiddin'. I'd sell my soul for a custom avatar. I just can't bring myself to make another 400 or so posts about Civ3.

**Tuberski** · March 28, 2002, 22:36

Originally posted by Guynemer

No kiddin'. I'd sell my soul for a custom avatar. I just can't bring myself to make another 400 or so posts about Civ3.

Ihear that,besides all you hear is this game sucks. No it doesn't you do. No you do. BLAH BLAH BLAH

**DarkCloud** · March 28, 2002, 22:37

Originally posted by Guynemer

And "legally", the Jews were considered animals and unworthy of holding property, so it was confiscated.

See? Not very different at all. Very same, yes.

Yes, but the majority of the world did not consider them as such... At least not openly.

-
As for the slaves, I do understand that by 1800 or so, most o****ryies did not like slavery, but before that time there can be 0 argument for reparations.

And also, how can these "descendants" prove that their ancestors worked there.

There are hundreds of tiny and many large (already stated) reasons they don't deserve the money.

**loinburger** · March 28, 2002, 22:39

Originally posted by Tuberski
Ihear that,besides all you hear is this game sucks. No it doesn't you do. No you do. BLAH BLAH BLAH

Exactly! It's easy to make 400 posts about Civ3: pick one side ("This game sucks" or "This game doesn't") and vehemently defend your position on ever single thread that pops up on the subject (by "vehemently defend" I mean "post the same damn thing over and over again"). If nobody is challenging your position, then just switch sides and repeat steps 1 through 7. Within a week I guarantee that Guy will have his custom avatar.

Announcement

Slavery reparations

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment