Slavery reparations

[Tuberski]

Even if they got 40,000 bucks apiece is that going to square them away? No way in hell.

That is only a down payment on a house.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Tuberski
I thought I read somewhere 35 million african-americans, that's 40,000$ a piece. Fine, until someone else is born...do the reparations stop? Why should they? Why shouldn't they?

I imagine that would be a clause in the suit... it would absolve the corporations in question of all further liability.

[orange]

Guy - what is being debated is the legality of a civil lawsuit for 1.4 trillion dollars of slavery reparations.

It is unjustifiable, regardless of whether or not they're asking for a mile just to get an inch.

Speaking of which: that's an awful practice. Or should we revert to a bargaining style market, where prices are set at ridiculous amounts, and people haggle their way down to a price that suits them?

Simply put - ask for what you deserve. What these people deserve, in cash, is zero dollars and zero cents. What urbanites in general deserve is education and healthcare funding, and if they raise the corporate tax to fund it, than fine by me.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by orange
Guy - what is being debated is the legality of a civil lawsuit for 1.4 trillion dollars of slavery reparations.

It is unjustifiable, regardless of whether or not they're asking for a mile just to get an inch.

Speaking of which: that's an awful practice. Or should we revert to a bargaining style market, where prices are set at ridiculous amounts, and people haggle their way down to a price that suits them?

Hey, I don't like the practice of it either; but that's just the way it's done. They certainly can't be held to blame for the way civil suits work.

And I don't think it's unjustifiable. By DC's above criteria, it is perfectly justifiable--at least my proposal is.

[orange]

sorry, what is your proposal again?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by orange
sorry, what is your proposal again?

That reparations be paid to those who can prove direct descent from those slaves who worked for those companies. The fewer generations separating them, the more money. The more ancestors who worked for those corporations, the more money.

Can't prove descent? Tough noogies.

This fits the reasoning DC holds, and it also allows for non-black slaves to share the wealth.

[orange]

Originally posted by Guynemer
That reparations be paid to those who can prove direct descent from those slaves who worked for those companies. The fewer generations separating them, the more money. The more ancestors who worked for those corporations, the more money.

Can't prove descent? Tough noogies.

This fits the reasoning DC holds, and it also allows for non-black slaves to share the wealth.

So if Michael Jordan can prove that his grandfather was a slave for a few years and worked for the tobacco industry, MJ is entitled to 40 some thousand dollars?

Why?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by orange


So if Michael Jordan can prove that his grandfather was a slave for a few years and worked for the tobacco industry, MJ is entitled to 40 some thousand dollars?

Why?

Because he can prove that his grandfather was a slave for a few years and worked for the tobacco industry (or a corporation named in the lawsuit). MJ's current status has nothing to do with the fact that the descendants of that slave are owed that money.

[orange]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Because he can prove that his grandfather was a slave for a few years and worked for the tobacco industry (or a corporation named in the lawsuit).

So the labor was not Michael Jordan's, and Michael Jordan did not contribute to that company thus does not deserve money. Correct?

MJ's current status has nothing to do with the fact that the descendants of that slave are owed that money.

The descendants technically are not owed any money. Who is to decide how much they should have been paid. Was slavery a horrible injustice - yes. But that doesn't take away from the fact that, at the time, they were working legally for no wage.

That aside, your argument says that descendants of slavery are less well off than white workers. But there are a good majority of the populace that are less well off than MJ currently is. So why does he deserve money for work he didn't do from someone who didn't have slaves?

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by MrFun
You see, since white families were never enslaved in the United States, they were able to work for wages (however terribly low they were), and that is why you have examples of how later generations of white families are better off, due to inter-generational accumulation of capital and then moving into the middle class or upper class.

Balls! Intergenerational accumlation of capital? What hogwash! Where are you getting this crap? I assume you are aware of inheritance tax, no? By your little theory my whole family should be filthy rich, which is hardly the case. And for your information the social system in this country isn't based on the caste system. While you do have people on the way up the ladder you also have people on the way down. There is no constant class you are born into or achieve and infinitely maintain.

[orange]

yeah, not to mention White Indentured Servants.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Because he can prove that his grandfather was a slave for a few years and worked for the tobacco industry (or a corporation named in the lawsuit). MJ's current status has nothing to do with the fact that the descendants of that slave are owed that money.

You want your cake and you want to eat it to. First, is this about helping the disadvantaged that are that way because of slavery, or is it about repaying people who were never paid? If, in fact, people such as MJ were so disadvantaged that this $40,000 is going to be godsend how do you explain the advantages they must have taken advantage of to get to where they are now? How does Oprah's phenominal success as an entertainer fit within the paradigm of oppression and repression that you've boxed every African American decendent of slavery into? How can you argue that the decendents of slavery have been so keenly disadvantaged when there are a plethora of examples to suggest that they weren't quite as disadvanted as you thought? How is it that Orprah Winfrey is so disadvantaged that she is this countries most well paid and popular entertainer? She cannot possibly exist within your paradigm, no?

Is this not a perfect example of PC liberalism run amok?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


Balls! Intergenerational accumlation of capital? What hogwash! Where are you getting this crap? I assume you are aware of inheritance tax, no? By your little theory my whole family should be filthy rich, which is hardly the case. And for your information the social system in this country isn't based on the caste system. While you do have people on the way up the ladder you also have people on the way down. There is no constant class you are born into or achieve and infinitely maintain.

l

Whites who are ignorant on how slavery affected blacks hoot and harp about how hard their immigrant ancestors worked and with some, succeeded into moving into the middle class in spite of discrimination. Where did I say that we should ignore the factor of inheritance taxes??

There are historical accounts from white individuals on how they have improved their lives after their ancestors began as indentures servitude, which was a different system from slavery.

Blacks never had the same opportunities that white immigrants had. White immigrants never suffered the same degree of institutional racism that blacks have suffered from.

[KrazyHorse]

This seems to be a reasonably well-justified civil suit. Certain corporations caused material harm to certain individuals. These individuals have died, but their estates have passed on to their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The corporations can easily be sued by these descendants.

It's no more ridiculous than any of dozens of other cases before the courts. Those who will lose stock value due to this lawsuit should have done their research better. Too bad.

Is there any statute of limitations on civil suits in the US?

[Tuberski]

I heard on MSNBC today that Aetna had insured 33 slaves, I assume as proerty and not life insurance. Now who took out these policies? Shouldn't THEY also be held accountable for this 1.4 trillion? Didn't they get the money from these policies?