"Blacks ought to be thankful for slavery; otherwise, they'd be back in Africa."

[Cairo_East]

dumb

[Sikander]

This whole thing has careened beyond all usefullness. The original thread was about people suing corporations for wages never paid to their ancestors. Thus any discussion as to whether people would have been better off if their ancestors had remained in Africa rather than carried off on slave ships was not really a germain argument in this particular case, though it might be in a general reperations argument.

Guynemeyer then made two mistakes. He misrepresents what at least most of the people who brought up this argument actually said by restating it as "Blacks ought to be thankful for slavery..", and he compounds this by making a terrible analogy and demanding that people defend it.

The result is a stupid thread, which I dutifully read hoping to learn something. Oh well. Btw I was disgusted by some of the things said on the other thread (and to a lesser extent on this one), so I understand why Guy was pi$$ed off. It's OK IMO to have different values than other people, and even to hold strong opinions about those differences and say them, (this is only a 'brainer' for PC types who believe that only certain types of values can be discussed). One should be more careful however in moving a values argument into the realm of criticizing a culture / ethnicity which has a wide variety of viewpoints on the same value by reducing them to stick figures who only embody the value you particularly disagree with, and when the terminology used to describe these people is the same whether you are talking about a culture / ethnicity or a racial distinction you are going to offend someone. Argue your intellectual point (if you have one), but leave the offensive (if not outright racist) stereotyping off these forums.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I actually read the whole thread, so just a few things.

The Holocaust thing is out of place, the Zion movement started long before uncle Adolph shows up to slaughter Jews.

Also, the Holocaust was about murder, slavery is something that has been with humanity from the begining, and still exsists today, in, you guessed it, Africa.

Reperations are nonsense for obvious reasons, first of which:

It was legal, and you therefore can't sue someone for doing somthing that is leagal, whether you agree with it's morality or not.
Secondly, can anyone produce a single person alive today who was a black slave?
You can't collect damages on something done to an ancestor, it's inane, it's like me telling a Turk he owes me because the Ottomans held Greece for centuries.
It just doesn't hold water.
Third, prove damages, if you can somehow produce a way around the first two arguments.
Despite what people argue, Black slavery was 99 percent agrucultural, in the Southern US.
The people who owned those slaves lost the US civil war, and lost heavily, so you would have to tract down their decendents.
And why should they have to pay anything?
If your great grandfather stole Guy, should we hold you to blame?
Of course not.

The real problem is a generation of Black leaders that have been preaching reperations, and other nonsense like "Blacks built this country, the whites own you everything", this kind of bullsh1t is what caused all this.
There is no reason on this earth why I should have to pay someone because there ancestor was a slave.
So was mine, in Greece, and many others.

Are blacks better off by slavery?
Nope.

Africa isn't all bad, only parts, other areas are quite prosperous, but the feeling of being owed something is quite strong there.

This whole argument is bull from all sides.

Oh, and David, Orange is right about you, your own posting proves it.

PS: It's a damn shame people didn't didn't listen to Ben Franklin, he wanted an anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution.
If they had only listened....

I support the concept of slavery reparations, but this is the first real intelligent counter-argument against mine in this entire thread. I cannot believe some of you guys simply ignored Chri's arguments.

He has caused me to rethink my arguments, and perhaps after I think about his counter-arguments, I can better form my own arguments in favor of slavery reparations, or I might change my position on it after considering his counter-arguments.

Chris, thanks for the only intelligent arguments against my position.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Would a more pertinent case be made for living blacks sueing for their reduced civil liberties under 20th century segregation?

[MrFun]

Good point, Bugs.

How about blacks suing for damages that resulted from the Jim Crow laws, segregation, disnfranchisement, sharecropping, and the legal system of lynching??

If slavery reparations is not legitimate, then maybe those that Bugs mentioned, and the ones I listed above, could be grounds for legitimate cases for reparations.

[orange]

MrFun - taking nothing away from Chris's argument...

isn't that what we've been saying all along?

I mean, you said that what he said really made you rethink your position, but i've seen it all said before, some of it even from me.

[MrFun]

Orange, nothing personal against you -- I do not hate you here on Apolyton.

Maybe it's my fault -- maybe I did not see the similar things you have said that Chris said.

But also one thing that was definitely intelligent about Chri's arguments. He avoided using the irrelvant "better off here than Africa" argument and was still able to provide good counter-arguments.

But anyway, now maybe we can move our discussion to what Bugs and I have most recently posted about. Read our last posts and see what you think, either way.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
Would a more pertinent case be made for living blacks sueing for their reduced civil liberties under 20th century segregation?

Absolutely, though the government typically has immunity to lawsuits which seek monetary damages. There is probably some room for lawsuits, though it's likely that they will only be allowed to move forward against private parties which were in violation of the law at the time of the tort.

[MrFun]

Sikander, so you agree with the points that Bugs have made, and the points I have made??

That reparations are possible for these crimes against humanity:

1) Jim Crow laws

2) legal lynching

3) segregation

4) disfranchisement

5) sharecropping

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun
Sikander, so you agree with the points that Bugs have made, and the points I have made??

That reparations are possible for these crimes against humanity:

1) Jim Crow laws

2) legal lynching

3) segregation

4) disfranchisement

5) sharecropping

No, I'm talking about the model used in the recent suit where people are suing for monetary damages for specific instances wrongdoing. Remember that:

1) The government has immunity from monetary damages in almost every instance.

2) Legal behaviors (like segregation of hotels or other Jim Crow type rules etc.) at the time of the alleged tort are very unlikely to be sustained in the courts.

3) If lynching was ever legal in the U.S. it was so long ago that no one remotely associated with it can be a party to a lawsuit.

4) Sharecropping was (and is) not only legal, but wasn't even a race specific abuse. To the extent that anyone can make a lawsuit stick regarding sharecropping then obviously so can black sharecroppers, but this can't be seen at all in the light of a civil rights issue.

5) Disenfranchisement is too vague a notion to stand up as a tort, though perhaps as a civil rights lawsuit you could successfully claim it.

A lot of what's actionable has already been covered over the last 30 years by a fairly large number of civil rights suits.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sharecropping is not a crime against humanity... in fact it can be a very intelligent economic arrangement.

You can either a)Tenant Farm, where the tenant farmer owns a rent, certain amount of money (or crop), to the landlord. In this case all risk is the tenants. b)Hire farmers, where farmers are payed a wage by the landowner and he collects the crop. All the risk is here held by the landowner. c)Sharecropping, where a certain percentage of crop is given to the landowner. The risk is shared here (and isn't too far off from tenant farming).

So explain... what is Sharecropping a crime at all?

--

And yes any reperations are illegal in the US under the Constitution (no ex post facto law... since slavery and Jim Crow was, presumably, legal).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sikander


No, I'm talking about the model used in the recent suit where people are suing for monetary damages for specific instances wrongdoing. Remember that:

1) The government has immunity from monetary damages in almost every instance.

2) Legal behaviors (like segregation of hotels or other Jim Crow type rules etc.) at the time of the alleged tort are very unlikely to be sustained in the courts.

3) If lynching was ever legal in the U.S. it was so long ago that no one remotely associated with it can be a party to a lawsuit.

4) Sharecropping was (and is) not only legal, but wasn't even a race specific abuse. To the extent that anyone can make a lawsuit stick regarding sharecropping then obviously so can black sharecroppers, but this can't be seen at all in the light of a civil rights issue.

5) Disenfranchisement is too vague a notion to stand up as a tort, though perhaps as a civil rights lawsuit you could successfully claim it.

A lot of what's actionable has already been covered over the last 30 years by a fairly large number of civil rights suits.

Ok, since sharecropping was more of a racially-based exploitation system that was semi-slavery, it's not really a crime against humanity. Leave that one out.

As for lynching, that was legal in the United States until the 1940's after World War II. No federal anti-lynching laws were passed until after World War II, I believe.

So since the Holocaust was legal under Nazi Germany at the time, that means that the Jews had no right to reparations -- those who survived the Holocaust??

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by orange
Spain was crumbling with or without the rise of France and England. They didn't allow their own country to grow, they didn't allow industry to grow in their own country.

Yes, but empires can last quite a long time if no one's strong enough to knock them over. In the case of a crumbling Spain, it was only seen as crumbling in a context in which NorthWes Europe was surging forward, based on profits created in large part through slavery and the slave trade. No slaver = no trade = no profits = no capital for economic take off.

eh?

Black Americans have quite a bit of European blood in them. Master liked to have his ways with the slaves, and Mistress liked to get her a little Mandingo. All you have to do is look at the many, many hues of Black America to realize that they aren't all African.

I honestly don't think that, on a grand scale, the Civil war led to that many advancements...at least...not enough that the world wouldn't have caught up.

The Gatling Gun and the repeating rifle are at least two of the innovations that came out of this war.

[q]Though I agree with the last sentence, the first is probably inaccurate. They lost because they were out teched, not because they were out massed. [/QUOTE]

China was out-teched, but they managed to stay independent, in part because of their mass. (But also because of the United States.) Even one of the most advanced countries in the world, Japan, couldn't conquer a divided and waring China.

However, the point remains that without the African slave trade, the world would be completely different in ways which we cannot fathom.

[orange]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yes, but empires can last quite a long time if no one's strong enough to knock them over. In the case of a crumbling Spain, it was only seen as crumbling in a context in which NorthWes Europe was surging forward, based on profits created in large part through slavery and the slave trade. No slaver = no trade = no profits = no capital for economic take off.

I don't think slavery profited mainland England much if at all. Their money was in the coal mines. In the Carribbean sure...but not mainland Europe, and I still don't think that wealth was so great that it toppled Spanish power. Spain was on a natural decline....it had no way of controlling any of its new world territory anymore.

Black Americans have quite a bit of European blood in them. Master liked to have his ways with the slaves, and Mistress liked to get her a little Mandingo. All you have to do is look at the many, many hues of Black America to realize that they aren't all African.

While I do agree that yes, that happened, realize that all Africans are not the same hue to begin with. People from Zimbabwe have a different hue then those in the Sudan, and those in Zaire have a different hue from those in Senegal. I don't think that has differing hues can show that almost all African Americans have a tough of European in them.....though I don't disagree that there are those that do.

The Gatling Gun and the repeating rifle are at least two of the innovations that came out of this war.

Yes, two of many...but don't you think that they would have come along soon after, if not during the Civil War?

China was out-teched, but they managed to stay independent, in part because of their mass. (But also because of the United States.) Even one of the most advanced countries in the world, Japan, couldn't conquer a divided and waring China.

Define independent. They had their ports robbed from them from different Euro powers. They weren't entirely dominated, no, but they certainly weren't 100% independent either. Look at Britain and India. Also - Japan could have easily conquered China without Britain and the United States (if you're talking WW2), and really, they did. At least, the only part of China that really mattered

However, the point remains that without the African slave trade, the world would be completely different in ways which we cannot fathom.

agreed

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MrFun


Ok, since sharecropping was more of a racially-based exploitation system that was semi-slavery, it's not really a crime against humanity. Leave that one out.

As for lynching, that was legal in the United States until the 1940's after World War II. No federal anti-lynching laws were passed until after World War II, I believe.

So since the Holocaust was legal under Nazi Germany at the time, that means that the Jews had no right to reparations -- those who survived the Holocaust??

Does anyone want to answer my question about the Holocaust being legal under Nazi Germany in relation to reparations to Holocaust survivors??