Printable View
Found this article on yahoo. It made me think about the history of america, and where we are in the progress to eliminate racisim. I will admit that this topic is a sensitive one, and I approach it with curiosity. If this action were to come to pass, what would it accomplish for those living today (other than the obvious monies involved)?
My first thought after reading this article was, Why do we do this to ourselves? then; What actual good is this going to do for anyone? followed close behind.
It seems our country is always so busy trying make up for the past that we don't do enough for the future. Instead of digging up dirt let's move ahead.
I'm not sure how to put into words what I'm trying to say.
Let me try this, why are we worried about slavery in the USA; that has not existed here in how many years???? When there are real slaves in other countries. Not pretend slaves! Real slaves? To me that just blows my mind.
In a similar vein
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5054398.stm
One has to ask "Who's interests are being served in such cases as this?"
I think efforts against the slave trade would be more rewarding (in the moral sense rather than the financial) if activists focussed on the very real slave trade at work in this day and age. Here in the UK we are still seeing plenty of evidence of human trafficking and slavery including a lot of deaths (see links below), I'm quite sure there is as much or more going on in the US too
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/4851194.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/pr...n/china2.shtml
(Your links are fine hun. Sorry about the removal, just wanted to be safe than sorry, but they are approved. :) bear with me as I learn the Mod, ropes. Thanks!- Sera)
I read that article in my local paper today and my first thought was, let sleeping dogs lie. We have enough problems created by ourselves let alone trying to make up for the mistakes of our ancestors. Just my opinion.
Giving monetary reparations to individual people is, I think, useless and just a publicity stunt.
However.
If they really wanted to repay black people, and in general anyone wronged in the past (largely because of slavery), they should do this in the form of scholarships to universities, increased funding to underprivileged schools, etc.
That way you would actually repay, as best as possible, the slavery of several generations ago. Before, slavery removed the hopes and dreams of countless people by enslaving them. Now, you can help their descendants achieve those dreams. It has a certain symmetry.
If those who were oppressed, deported, or otherwise inconvenienced (I realize that is a huge understatement) are still alive, then yes. Find a way to recompense them for their losses.
While there may be some justification for making some sort of reparation to the surviving children of those who were so treated... as a way of getting the family back to it's original status... or as a way of acknowledging the wrong-doing... in general I am against making reparations for bad deeds done long ago.
Reparations have the dual purpose of compensation and punishment. So who is being punished? Is it the families descended from slave owners? Or is it the many many families that immigrated to this country long after slavery was abolished? Should the descendents of staunch abolishionists be effected? The descendents of Union soldiers?
I am much more aware of reparation issues regarding WWII detainees in Europe (Jews, Poles, Gypsies, etc.,) than I am with regard to the Chineese articles... but anything past recompensing the first generation just doesn't make sense.
Where do you draw the line?
Should the Jews and Muslims be recompensed by Spain for the Spanish Inquisition? Should Christians be recompensed by Turkey for the actions of the Ottomans? Europeans by the Scandinavian countries, for the ravages of the Vikings?
Everyone has history and most histories, somewhere, sometime, involve being the oppressor and being oppressed. We need to learn the lessons of the past, look to stopping oppression in the present, and stop fretting about "getting even."
Slavery and the treatment of the Native American people are the "original sins" of the United States. We can never seem to get over them.
If you're really interested in the issue of reparations though, check out the Penn & Teller Bullshit show on it: http://www.tv.com/penn-and-teller-bu...9/summary.html
They talk to people on both sides and also discuss the reparations that were paid to American citizens who were interred in camps like Manzanar during WWII.
Why not? It wouldn't be a bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozme52
Yes, and then maybe. If you can find a viking to do the reparations, go ahead. Vikings dont really exist anymore. So in that sense, the 'line' would be drawn if the offended group, or the offending group, still exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozme52
Its not about getting even. If it was, people would be pushing for native americans to re-conquer new york, for example. No ones asking for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozme52
Would you agree that, at the very least, african american slaves deserve an apology from the U.S. government?
Monetary reparations are tricky because you cant just give people money. That accomplishes nothing. And, you can't pay a one-time sum of X dollars and expect that to be sufficient, because that would be the same as putting a price on another persons life. You can't repay some things.
So, why not devote some millions of dollars anually to supporting underpriveleged children? That and an apology would seem to be ample reparation and evidence that the government truly regrets what happened in the past, and is doing all it can to correct the mistake.
Neither do North American Slaves.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeseburger
I will conceed that there is slave labor in the USA, but it is not sanctioned, and that is not the issue here.
We do, its called welfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeseburger
Exactly right Dawg.
And to answer CB, yes the Vikings do exist, they're called Norwegians, Swedes, Finns, and Danes. If you disagree, because they're not "still" out there viking... (yes, it's actually originally a verb...)
...then how can you put it on me to make reparations to descendents of American slaves... I'm not descended in any way, manner, or form from American slave holders.
Well, you miss my point... before you could do that... don't you have to get the Muslims to recompense Spain for ousting them from the Iberian pennisula in the first place...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozme52
of course before that you need to get the Spanish (Visigoths) to repay the Italians for taking it all away from Rome... and the Italians owe the Cathaginians who had it first...
In other words, there is no way to balance the account sheets. The only thing we can try to do is say "It won't happen again." For the most part, at least we in the various democracies around the world are trying to see it true.
Didn't the Civil War show the Government's feelings toward slavery? Many gave their lives to free the slaves. Were their families made whole by any form of compensation?Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeseburger
Thats only one side of the issue. Many soldiers died to keep slavery. Thats sending mixed messages at its best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbaby1943
The vikings were around some 1000 years ago. Whatever they did does not directly influence anything specific in the present. There is no point arguing who did what first and why. Just look at whats going on right now. I mean this in a very broad sense.
Contrast that with, for example, slavery in America. That would account for the reason there are significant numbers of black people (in America), and for plenty of other things. I would even go so far as to argue that is one reason the black prison population is so high (if you dont believe me, read this: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0881455.html)
Dawg, you know I'm not talking about the illegal slave trade happening right now.
And on the subject of the spanish inquisition, the church has actually apologized for many of the atrocities it commited. I think its about time the other major religions apologized for any acts of violence commited in their names. To me, thats good enough, because like I said before, dealing with money is tricky.
And on the subject of reparations, does anyone here think its possible to 'repay' the murder of a human being? No amount of money, jail time, or executions can bring him/her back. Yet no one seems to mind the fact that we still prosecute and seek to punish the criminal, despite the fact that it will not 'balance the account sheets'. So why the double standard?
Procecuting a criminal is prevention in action. If you don't stop them, they very well may continue. As far as both sides, yes, the side that wanted to keep slavery lost, and that governing body was removed. So why should those who fought for and succeeded in freeing slaves pay for actions that were corrected with the civil war? Since we are going there.
V/R
ID
The following.. is disjointed, sorry.
Is slavery bad? Yes. Is it a sad chapter of this country? Yes. Is it only in this country that slavery existed? No.
I wonder how many people can really say they are the descendants of slaves -- I mean "pure" desendants. How do you handle things if one parent (well great, great, great -- is three greats enough??) was a slave and no one else in the family tree is? Do they get some fraction of the reparations?
Heck, my family comes from largely English and German descent, I'll wager that someone in my family tree was a slave to someone else -- probably the Romans. Do I get something from Rome? What about all the Jews, they were slaves for years and years.
Should the son of the person who murdered my father, but was never arrested.. should this innocent son be put in jail for a crime his father committed? Should I seek vengence on him? No. It's absurd.
To be honest.. the notion of reparations when no one left alive who was a slave or who had slaves (as far as I know) smacks me of.. entitlement thinking. People want something for nothing. They want to say way back when someone in my family was wronged and someone today needs to make "make me whole" for it. To me, this is a pure logically fallacy. The person harmed is dead.. the person doing the harm is dead. They say what was done 100 years ago holds me back now.
I say, the problem is your thinking and you don't get a damn thing you don't go out and earn. Our history is rife with people born into abject poverty but end up rich.
It's now widely acknowledged that a large part of the Kenndy family fortune was gotten from illicent trade.. should they be stripped of all their money?
Oh... one more thing to think about -- who sold the slaves to the slavers? That's right.. other Africans sold the "slaves" to folks who shipped them across the ocean. No one much wants to talk about that...
If we are going to give reparations -- don't you think the folks torutred and killed by the Spanish Inquisition (well their families) deserve something? The families of the women burned at the stake or drownd in Salem?
Do you go back in time and try to "right" every wrong with money? In fact... how does money even factor into this?! How much money is a life worth? Are you sure we want to be putting a dollar value on life?
Only all of Great Britain, especially those of Anglo and Saxon descent. It's all ruled by the descendents of the original Normans led by William the Conqueror. The Gauls, who were displaced first from the areas now called Normandy and later from the areas now called Brittainy. The original owners of Malta, Many inhabitants of cities far up the Seine, the Rhine, and the Danube. Many inhabitants of western Russia... just to name a few...Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeseburger
All directly impacted by Scandinavians (nee Vikings.)
But that's not the point is it... Your next point is far more cogent.
You dismiss our examples as being too old and proclaim your own examples as being current.Quote:
There is no point arguing who did what first and why.
But they're not current and no more or less valid than any of the other examples. You just don't choose to see it that way. But you have basically agreed with those of us who are against slavery-reparations, because we are making the same arguement. The "offenses" are not current.Quote:
Just look at whats going on right now. I mean this in a very broad sense.
I don't agree at all. This country is full of very large numbers of many ethnic groups who have, at different times, immigrated, assimilated, and integrated themselves into the "American" way of life. Are you saying that somehow blacks wouldn't be here EXCEPT for slavery? I would argue that if, instead of slavery, the plantation owners had offered wages to work the fields, and conduits had been made available to legally tap the labor pools of Africa, we'd have approximately the same numbers of the same ethnic groups in the country as today. Maybe even more black Americans. They might have come in even greater numbers, say to help build the transcontinental railroads.Quote:
Contrast that with, for example, slavery in America. That would account for the reason there are significant numbers of black people (in America), and for plenty of other things. I would even go so far as to argue that is one reason the black prison population is so high (if you dont believe me, read this: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0881455.html)
That's off topic. If you want to talk about the politics of religious persecution and who should apologize to whom, start a separate thread.Quote:
And on the subject of the spanish inquisition, the church has actually apologized for many of the atrocities it commited. I think its about time the other major religions apologized for any acts of violence commited in their names. To me, thats good enough, because like I said before, dealing with money is tricky.
Gee... I think you're arguing our point now.......Quote:
And on the subject of reparations, does anyone here think its possible to 'repay' the murder of a human being? No amount of money, jail time, or executions can bring him/her back.
Also a different topic.Quote:
Yet no one seems to mind the fact that we still prosecute and seek to punish the criminal, despite the fact that it will not 'balance the account sheets'. So why the double standard?
"Slavery is an abomination!" That's a quote from Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote the eloquent words in the Declaration of Independence, who also happened to be a slave owner.
The man knew in his heart that slavery was in fact a low point in this country's history. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was an economic measure which broke the back of the Confederacy. Those rich plantation owners would no longer have this free labor market to exploit.
Somehow, I don't feel sorry for them!
It is a fact that poor white folks also worked in the fields right next to the slaves. The difference was, the po' white folks got paid for their labor!
There is no question that some sort of reparations are owed to the families of these unpaid slaves.
I thought this was interesting:
Ten Reasons why reparations are a bad idea:
One
There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery
Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestors of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slave-owners in the ante-bellum United States. Are reparations to be paid by their descendants too?
Two
There Is No One Group That Benefited Exclusively From Its Fruits
The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. The GNP of black America is so large that it makes the African-American community the 10th most prosperous "nation" in the world. American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.
Three
Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them
Only a tiny minority of Americans ever owned slaves. This is true even for those who lived in the ante-bellum South where only one white in five was a slaveholder. Why should their descendants owe a debt? What about the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves? They gave their lives. What possible moral principle would ask them to pay (through their descendants) again?
Four
America Today Is A Multi-Ethnic Nation and Most Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery
The two great waves of American immigration occurred after 1880 and then after 1960. What rationale would require Vietnamese boat people, Russian refuseniks, Iranian refugees, and Armenian victims of the Turkish persecution, Jews, Mexicans Greeks, or Polish, Hungarian, Cambodian and Korean victims of Communism, to pay reparations to American blacks?
Five
The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury
The historical precedents generally invoked to justify the reparations claim are payments to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Japanese-Americans and African- American victims of racial experiments in Tuskegee, or racial outrages in Rosewood and Oklahoma City. But in each case, the recipients of reparations were the direct victims of the injustice or their immediate families. This would be the only case of reparations to people who were not immediately affected and whose sole qualification to receive reparations would be racial. As has already been pointed out, during the slavery era, many blacks were free men or slave-owners themselves, yet the reparations claimants make no distinction between the roles blacks actually played in the injustice itself. Randall Robinson's book on reparations, The Debt, which is the manifesto of the reparations movement is pointedly sub-titled "What America Owes To Blacks." If this is not racism, what is?
Six
The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination
No evidence-based attempt has been made to prove that living individuals have been adversely affected by a slave system that was ended over 150 years ago. But there is plenty of evidence the hardships that occurred were hardships that individuals could and did overcome. The black middle-class in America is a prosperous community that is now larger in absolute terms than the black underclass. Does its existence not suggest that economic adversity is the result of failures of individual character rather than the lingering after-effects of racial discrimination and a slave system that ceased to exist well over a century ago? West Indian blacks in America are also descended from slaves but their average incomes are equivalent to the average incomes of whites (and nearly 25% higher than the average incomes of American born blacks). How is it that slavery adversely affected one large group of descendants but not the other? How can government be expected to decide an issue that is so subjective - and yet so critical - to the case?
Seven
The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt To Turn African-Americans Into Victims. It Sends A Damaging Message To The African-American Community.
The renewed sense of grievance -- which is what the claim for reparations will inevitably create -- is neither a constructive nor a helpful message for black leaders to be sending to their communities and to others. To focus the social passions of African-Americans on what some Americans may have done to their ancestors fifty or a hundred and fifty years ago is to burden them with a crippling sense of victim-hood. How are the millions of refugees from tyranny and genocide who are now living in America going to receive these claims, moreover, except as demands for special treatment, an extravagant new handout that is only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others -- many less privileged than themselves?
Eight
Reparations To African Americans Have Already Been Paid
Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) - all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances. It is said that reparations are necessary to achieve a healing between African-Americans and other Americans. If trillion dollar restitutions and a wholesale rewriting of American law (in order to accommodate racial preferences) for African-Americans is not enough to achieve a "healing," what will?
Nine
What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?
Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade was born, and in all societies. But in the thousand years of its existence, there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans -- created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still be slaves. If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world, and indeed one of the highest standards of living of any people in the world. They would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?
Ten
The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom
Blacks were here before the Mayflower. Who is more American than the descendants of African slaves? For the African-American community to isolate itself even further from America is to embark on a course whose implications are troubling. Yet the African-American community has had a long-running flirtation with separatists, nationalists and the political left, who want African-Americans to be no part of America's social contract. African Americans should reject this temptation.
For all America's faults, African-Americans have an enormous stake in their country and its heritage. It is this heritage that is really under attack by the reparations movement. The reparations claim is one more assault on America, conducted by racial separatists and the political left. It is an attack not only on white Americans, but on all Americans -- especially African-Americans.
America's African-American citizens are the richest and most privileged black people alive -- a bounty that is a direct result of the heritage that is under assault. The American idea needs the support of its African-American citizens. But African-Americans also need the support of the American idea. For it is this idea that led to the principles and institutions that have set African-Americans - and all of us -- free.
I find this conversation rather interesting. Due to its past, germany has paid a lot of direct or indirect "reperations". Just some years ago we paid sums to to former forced laborers living in eastern countries. (Those were not quite reachable during the cold war and the time after, therefor those payments were that late.)
While I absolutly welcome those payments, I'd call a reperation for slavery in US-America difficult at least. If the grandchildren of slavers give money to the grandchildren of slaves, it would imply the concept "original sin" (I hope I got the term right), a concept I strongly dislike.
Sure, some of todays problems can directly be related to the "bad starting position" that the decendents of the slaves had. But I guess it would be better to face todays problems directly, than trying to retribute the wrongs of 1880.
(Reperations for survivers of any kind of wrong are another matter entirely. I absolutly welcome those.)
Another interesting notion (for an outsider like me) is the way the participants of this discussion describe the american civil war.
Good guys fighting only for the reason to "free the slaves" and bad guys fighting only to keep slavery.
You know much more about american history than me, but does anybody really think the comon soldiers cared about the slaves at all?
(Another day spent, another group of people despising me. I really should shut up from time to time...)
The truth of the matter is that the war wasn't fought to end slavery. The real reasons for the war had much more to do with the powers of the Federal govenment versus the rights of the States. The southern states were firm believers in smaller govenment and in keeping laws and govenment at the smallest possible levels at the expense of a strong Federal govenment.Quote:
Originally Posted by robart
Those attitudes remain largely today, with the old Northestern U.S. states tending (and this is a broad generalization) towards support for a strong centralized Federal govenment (which is typical of the old Democratic Party beliefs) and the Southern states tending towards support for more local power and rights (which is typical of the old Republican Party beliefs).
In actuality both parties today support strong centralized Federal power and the Bush administration has actually set records for the amount of power its taken upon itself, as well as in the massive expansion of the federal govenment it has created.
Having said that, its interesting to note that by the time Lincoln freed the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation even Southern attitudes towards slavery had changed. Also, economic conditions at the time were changing rapidly which made ownership of slaves less desirable. Many experts today agree that most, if not all of the slaves of the time would have been freed soon after the war and the Reconstruction period ended.
Fair point. I'll concede the analogy isn't perfect, but the concept remains. When something goes wrong, heads roll. Thats how its always been.Quote:
Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg
At some point in America's history, slavery was rampant throughout the entire country, and was accepted legally. At another point, a more subtle form of racism was practiced against largley one group of people. As a citizen of this country, I feel that 'we' collectively have a debt to pay them. And no, before you ask, my grandparents were from eastern europe. I'm not even descended from the original slave owners. However, as a country, we owe them something in return. At the very least, a formal apology.Quote:
Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg
I just dont like the attitude where you think, "yes, something wrong happened. But who cares? It didn't happen to me, so lets not worry about it." I don't think thats right.
Talk about a fringe point of view!!! That's completely inaccurate if you're referring to America as "The United States of America" and accept that as such the United States of America didn't exist as an entity until the government was formed under the United States Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeseburger
As such here are some actual facts:
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. Most Americans take the term to mean the actual written text which was completed on September 17, 1787, with its adoption by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and was later ratified by special conventions in each state.[1] When nine states of the then thirteen states ratified the document it marked the creation of a union of sovereign states, and a federal government to operate that union. It took effect on March 4, 1789. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest federal constitution currently in use.
Therefore, The United States of America didn't exist until 1789...
In fact, the 1790 census (the first census conducted by the government of the United States of America) shows no slaves in MASSACHUSETTS, MAINE, NEW JERSEY, VERMONT, or DELAWARE.
By no means was slavery "rapant throught the entire country" nor was it "legally accepted"!!
In fact, in 1783 Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice William Cushing announced that slavery was incompatible with the new Massachusetts Constitution:
. . . [T]hese sentiments [that are favorable to the natural rights of mankind] led the framers of our constitution of government - by which the people of this commonwealth have solemnly bound themselves to each other - to declare - that all men are born free and equal; and that every subject is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws as well as his life and property. In short, without resorting to implication in constructing the constitution, slavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence. The court are therefore fully of the opinion that perpetual servitude can no longer be tolerated in our government, and that liberty can only be forfeited by some criminal conduct or relinquished by personal consent or contract.
The facts speak for themselves on this issue.
No need to shout.
(We all know that in matters like this there are not only "the" facts.Quote:
The facts speak for themselves on this issue.
I am sure that there are facts that support your point of view, and I'm sure there are facts at least slightly contradicting with it.
You seem to have much emotion riding on that issue.
When I meet people with so much emotion for an issue, I always get doubts if their emotions are based on information, or if they collected their informations acording to their emotions.
@JackBNible: Please don't be offendet, for I don't want to offend you. Everybody has strong emotions for one issue or another. Certainly I have.)
Giggle no need to whisper. Kick up that font size some of us are over 40.
Wow I just love the info I'm getting here. A real history lesson. Thanks for the insightful comments everyone. Thanks IDCrewDawg for starting the thread.
You're welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbbe
Are you implying I have no concern for the history of African Americans? If you are, I am rather surprised you would make this assumption. My stance on this particular subject is; I don't feel there is any need to financially compensate a racial group of people for something that happened more than 2 generations before. There is not a single American "trapped in their current situation" as a result of something the US government did to their ancestors three generations ago. Not even living here in America. You may tell me they wouldn't be here if their ancestors hadn't been brought to America, and I counter than once slavery was abolished, those same ancestors could have at some point made their way back to their roots. This did not happen for whatever reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesburger
The attitudes and oppression that was very prominent until the civil rights movement of the 1960's is not related to this issue, and I would caution anyone who may attempt to link the two. For if you do, what your saying is America had a situation of near slavery, without acknowledging the slave status of African Americans.
V/R
ID
Just a reminder to keep the discussion friendly :)
Now my opinion on something that was said.:
Do we.. you or I... them ... anyone owe anyone ANYTHING?..
Here is how I feel about it.
YES, Slavery is/was wrong. HOWEVER, I do not owe anyone anything. Yes, I think the things that happened in america's history are terrible and say shame on those who thought it okay. However, nearly EVERY race has been subjected to slaver/torture/etc at some point in history. I am cherokee, irish, and greeks. Do I have a right to be angry at the Brits ? ... both for their treatment of my irish and native american family? No. Its something that happened well before my time and something I cannot change. It doesn't really affect me in anyway today. Why would I waste precious time protesting and whining about something that is not happening?
Yes certain races may or may not be treated differently currently.. human traffiking exists. I think its a terrible crime, slavery of unwilling people, BUT, like everything else in the wrong in the world today, I can be sad it happens and I can try to be a good person... but I cannot/will not have regret over something that I share NO part in.
My point really.. lol (YES, I have one) is that it has been a part of human history in EVERY part of the earth to hurt others to get what you want. Not all, but many humans are greedy bastards who will do whatever it takes to be on top or be better. Sadly, many do not know any better because they do what they are taught.
In school there was an african american. Now this boy was well off,far better than my family, had one of the HIGHEST GPA's, and had everything going for him and he is going to constantly pick debates on how "he" is a minority... or "he" deserves this or that... EXCUSE ME... YOU do not deserve jack-shit. History is history, leave it there. If it is a current problem, react.... if I am hurting you.. .react. Until one of those 2 things happens, I refuse to apologize.
I just feel its a part of ALL humans history and if one or two races expect something back.. then we all should.
And for people information. I am not at all ignorant to any race. I grew up in city full of miniorities, my best friends growing upwere minorities.. and my first boyfriend was black. I believe all people should be treated fairly. But I do not feel responsible b/c of what my GREAT x 4 or 5 or whatever, grandfather may or may not have done. I do what I can do each and everyday to be a good person.
Anyway, I didn't read the whole thread... maybe I should have... but I just picked up on one thing I saw. I hope I do not offend anyone, as this is only my opinion.
Sera
For a subject than can invoke great emotions and such deep feelings, I think the discussions have been very friendly. In any debate or discussion there is alway the outside chance of total disagreement but I think the participants have handled themselves with great poise and respect. Just my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by wingsofanangel
as always with these topics, I'm just poking my head in with reminders. Its very easy to get hurt feelings in a thread like this. I saw some potential for that and just wanted to put a reminder in. But, nope, no problems! I agree everyone is being very very civil and I am thankful that everyone on this forum is so "adult" about these topics! I really appreicate it. Good job guys.
Sera
The same kind of thing is going on in New Zealand, with arguments over whether the natives should be given ownership of the beaches. I won't go into it because it will probably bore you all to death, but basically the same sort of thing, with the Maori being tricked, lied to and treated terribly in the 1800's, and are now coming out and claiming they should own the land.
In logical terms, yes they probably should, but I tend to think along the same lines as many of you, as in how long to we have to keep making up for the mistakes of our anscestors. And at the end of the day - no matter how much we do make up for it, will it ever actually be enough? Or will we have to keep trying indefinately?
Robart,Quote:
Originally Posted by robart
I wasn't shouting...if I'd intended to do the equivalent of shout, I'd have used all capitalization. :)
I believe what I posted was a well reasoned argument that countered the statements previously made. Having been trained in speech and debate, I know that the first person to let their emotions cloud their judgement typically loses the debate. I don't believe I was emotional, but I'll accept that my logic may have had an edge to it.
The are times when one can emphatically make a point and take advantage of a glaring hole in the logic of one's opponent. This can have the effect of making it extremely difficult for the opponent to continue.
"Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth;" Thomas Jefferson to P. H.
Wendover, 1815.
I believe the purpose of this thread was to debate the giving of money in the form of reparations to people of African-American ancestry under the supposition that this would serve as repayment of some kind for the holding of slaves by a relatively small number of United States citizens over 150 years ago? Certainly this is a topic worthy of debate.
"Nothing but good can result from an exchange of information
and opinions between those whose circumstances and morals admit no
doubt of the integrity of their views." --Thomas Jefferson to
Elbridge Gerry, 1797.
That is exactly why I started the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackBNimble
V/R
ID
JackBNimble, you are taking what was a very simple statement and clouding it up beyond recognition. Was legal slavery practiced in a large percentage of the country at some point in the past? (after 1790 or whatever?) The answer is yes; end of story. If you are arguing that there never were slaves, (and thus there is no one to compensate), you will have to wait until someone rewrites the history books.
Granted, you are probably right on this. However, one thing still confuses me. You agree there was some wrongdoing on the part of the American Government in endorsing slavery, or allowing its practice. You say financial compensation is innapropriate. What then should 'we' do? If the answer is nothing, then again I disagree with that attitude. If it isn't, what do you propose 'we' do? My 'plan' for repaying the affected parties is in my first or second post here, I won't bore you with it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg
One thing people have evaded directly talking about is the idea of apologizing. This technically is not what the board is about, but I would be very interested in knowing others opinions on this.
I know you asked for other opinions but I don't think you're going to like this one very much. How about we continue to support all the illegitimate babies with welfare checks for one more generation then we cut that off. Isn't that a form of repayment that we have been doing for ages? I don't consider myself bigoted but all one has to do is look around inside any big city to realize what is happening. We have been making reparations for years, in my opinion, we need do no more.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeseburger
I personally don't feel anyone today has anything to apologize about but if apologizing would end the resentment, bitterness, and endless cycle of living off of welfare, then I say go for it.
I know there are other ethnic groups that make their living off of welfare also and I believe that must end one day too.
Let me ask you one question. Assume there never had been slaves. Would we still be paying welfare checks for illegitimate babies? I kind of think the answer is yes. Associating the two as a kind of repayment doesn't cut it for me. Its a little like telling a kid you bought him/her new shoes because s/he grew out of his old ones, and by the way that was your present for next years christmas, your birthday, and whatever other holidays you celebrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbaby1943
...not my best example. And I understand where you're coming from on the welfare checks; I just think that a society such as ours should look after people with no money, like illegitimate babies.
If its a question of where the money comes from, just look down the list of what our government spends tax dollars on. (hint - start at the top). Welfare is pretty low on my list of complaints.
For this to happen, people have to be educated. (Did you know only some 15.5% of Americans have a bachelors or better? http://www.usatoday.com/news/educati...ion-census.htm)Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbaby1934
In todays world you cant get a decent job without a decent education, and if you cant get a decent job its very difficult to live without said welfare, etc. Its far too interconnected.
Maybe but sure as hell not as many.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeseburger
Ok, lets take it one step at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeseburger
No, I don't agree that legal slavery was practiced by anything approaching a large percentage of the country. By no means is it the end of the story. Here are some numbers that support my point.
Prior to and during the Civil War, the great majority of the U.S. population was located in the northern states, where slavery did not exist. In 1860, the total population of the U.S. states where slavery was outlawed was about 19.5 million. The free population of the South was 7.5 million.
Let us take the small minority of Americans living today who had ancestors living in the south. Chances are, those ancestors were not slave owners. Of whites living in the South at that time, only one out of four owned slaves. Only a tiny minority of Americans, therefore, had direct ancestors who were slave owners. At the time of the Civil War, less than 7% of the "white" population of the United States were slave owners. Even if we accepted that every white Southerner was in some way responsible for slavery this would still mean that the vast majority, 68% were still not responsible.
Next, do I agree that there was some wrong-doing by the United States government. This poses an interesting question. At what point does the government become legally responsible and therefore liable for the practices of it's citizens? [As a sidebar, I suspect Isreal would like an answer to this question with respect to Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia and several other governments]
I would say that if you viewed this as a civil lawsuit against a single slaveowner, then potentially there might have been a case 150 years ago. The statute of limitations has probably run out now though. In addition, unfortunately, The doctrine of “sovereign immunity” essentially holds that the United States government cannot be sued without its consent.
But lets take some more specific questions into mind. You state that you agree reparations should be paid, so then let me ask, by whom?
The U.S. government is a government "by the people, for the people" and not an individual or a corporation. In order for it to pay reparation it would be required to tax some individuals. That being the case, who should pay??
I have a friend who recently became a U.S. citizen. He came to this country from Australia, where he was incidentally an Olympic athlete who won a bronze medal in the pole vault. Certainly as an Australian he never supported slavery, but he is "white". Does he have to pay?? What about my friend who's parents came here from Mexico? She's a U.S. citizen and was born here, but clearly neither she nor her family ever benefited or supported slavery. Does she have to pay??
My own family came to the United States from Ireland and Germany in the late 1800's. My grandmother was born in New York City in 1901. As immigrants from Ireland and Germany at that time they never took part in or benefited from slavery. Do I have to pay??
The point is that it becomes a ridiculous argument. Where would the burden of proof lie? On each person to prove that they weren't responsible for slavery and wouldn't have to pay? And realistically speaking, wouldn't this create a cottage industry of people who could provide effectively "forged" documents to prove such was the case (I mean really, how many of us have documentation that shows where their family has been going back almost 10 generations?)
No, the reality is that slavery and the displacement of the Native American tribes are akin to the "original sins" of the United States, much as the treatment of the Irish people is a similar issue for the people of the U.K. or the Inquisition for Roman Catholics. They're part of history. Not a pretty part, but not something that can be fixed or cured either. Whether we're talking about people of African decent, Mexican decent, Chinese decent...etc, in the end, we're all citizens of the United States of America now. If ever there was a time for people to put aside their "hyphenated origin" and pull together as one people, as citizens of one country, certainly now is the time.
Nothing, and the following link more adequately explains than I would be able to.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeseburger
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JS...s_iv_ctrl=1021
V/R
ID
double post
The way Ralston spews out this vitriol... just read what he says. In effect he is saying an apology would inflict "Massive Destruction". Hello? Do we live on the same planet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard E. Ralston
People like him infuriate me. On one hand, when terrorists are firing rockets randomely into cities, its not an outrage; thats ok. Lets all talk about the 'palestinian people' and how sad the family of the suicide bomber is. On the other hand, if you mention an apology, oh no! Massive destruction! Its an outrage! This cant happen! We need to apologize for even suggesting that we apologize! And he talks as if he has a moral highground. Ugh.
...
Look, I don't know what youre trying to prove. 7.5/19.5 is about 1/3. The U.S. government knew about the practice of slavery going on in the south. They supported it. There was even an entire buisness based on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackBNimble
...?
As soon as you agree with me that the United States of America did something totally inhumane and contrary to just about any civil rights law, its a starting point for an apology.
Again, it is not a personal apology. Let me use a more recent analogy. Hypothetically, *If* The Government supported torture, in say Abu Ghraib, then The Government should apologize. Does that mean that I, a citizen of the U.S., tortured people in my backyard? No. However, they should still apologize.