Slavery Reparations: Is it time?

[Crezth]

It's a bit more complex than that. The West also exported hugely to these countries, and indeed, it had to; plunder may be a viable basis for some Assyrian despotate, but not for a modern capitalistic state. The problem wasn't "plundering", but the development of an industrialised core and a backwards periphery, the former possessing all the accoutrements of modernity, the latter almost none of them. (In fact, it was often the very opposite of plunder: a process of careful economic cultivation, such as developing Egypt as a major producer of cotton. It was just development in a way which suited Western capitalist ends, rather than local ends.) And that's not something that "the West" did, collectively, it's something deliberately pursued by Western capital, embodied in the Western capitalist class. If it just so happened that the concentration of capital in this manner also left it vulnerable to the Western working class, who were able to carve for themselves a halfway equitable piece of the pie, why should they be held responsible? The most austere poverty on their part would not have improved the lot of the colonial subjects one iota- and we have a century of just that arrangement to prove it- so to cast aspersion upon them for trying to alter their lot is to do them a serious injustice.

That's a good point, I don't mean to imply that the foreign workers were robbed any more than the domestic workers, but the sense in which the domestic workers were capable of profiting from that exploitation whereas those foreign workers were not is the sense in which I am arguing that the West's prosperity is owed to this pattern of systematic exploitation.

By asking one set to pay questionable "reparations" to another, for example?

Well, I never advocated reparations as such, but my view on the subject is more nuanced than "reparations or no reparations." I think that more important than the conclusion is the mental route that people take to get there, and "we don't owe the rest of the world anything," while true in the direct sense, ignores what is a substantial element in that this prosperity was largely built on the backs of those who do not, now, benefit from it.

How so?

Haha, well, I don't really have the intellectual stamina to go there, so I'll just mention it was a quote I heard somewhere, and which is a subject in ethical reasoning.

 

[TheLastOne36]

According to Mitt, Companies are people, therefore there are still people from around then. I say Chase Manhattan Bank pay reparations to all descendents of slaves.


(not serious btw )

 

[downtown]

Not that I think reparations are a good idea, but I don't think you would have had to own slaves to benefit from slavery, or more broadly, the widespread, systemic discrimination against black americans until the mid 20th century. Every black guy that was kept out of the widespread labor pool was one less guy your ancestors had to compete with for a job or university spot, after all...

 

[amadeus]

I don't think blacks were the only ones negatively affected by state-imposed racial discrimination. Just as a not-so-abstract example, private bus companies that were forced to segregate seating lost revenue because white ridership tended to be lower and white-reserved seats remained empty. In a more abstract sense, I would say that keeping blacks out of the labor market was detrimental to whites over the long-run in the same way that keeping any country in poverty hurts the general economy.

 

[JohnRM]

If we give the blacks Mexican slaves, will that make us even?

 

[Commodore]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery

There's a wiki article to get you started.

Obviously the Is it time saying is a bit too late. The time to do it was in 1866 or so. But maybe better late than never? I ask this as a question, because I do not know. I think giving reparations could lower the crime rate, and that would be a good thing. I can't blame them for taking what was stolen from their ancestors over 100 years ago.

The problem of course is it's nearly impossible to implement. Obviously people who came after 1865 should not receive benefits, although they did have to endure segregation and discrimination, so maybe they should get some money too? How is this paid for? It would be unfair to tax just whites (many like my family came over well after slavery ended). The only fair way would be to tax everyone, including blacks.

Anyways, I have no idea, but I think this thread will spark some interesting discussion, and I look forward to reading it.

You speak as if reparations should be a "when" and not an "if". I most vehemently disagree with the idea of reparations for an atrocity that neither I nor may ancestors took part in. If the slaves couldn't make their case for reparations immediately after the atrocity ended, then I'm sorry but their decsendants don't get it. I have some Irish heritage in me, should I sue the British government for the atrocities Cromwell committed? Or should I sue the Italian government for the atrocities the Romans committed against my German ancestors? No, because that would be outrageous, just as ancestors of slaves receiving reaprations would be outrageous.

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually, I'm totally on board with "when". The problem is just that the "when" was in 1865, or there abouts. If the North had any guts, they'd've torched the plantation houses and broken up the land between the slaves- maybe hanged a few planters just to get the point across- but that would have meant putting altogether more economic power into the hands of the American black than was considered proper. So, unfortunately, the boat has rather sailed on that one.

 

[Commodore]

Actually, I'm totally on board with "when". The problem is just that the "when" was in 1865, or there abouts. If the North had any guts, they'd've torched the plantation houses and broken up the land between the slaves- maybe hanged a few planters just to get the point across- but that would have meant putting altogether more economic power into the hands of the American black than was considered proper. So, unfortunately, the boat has rather sailed on that one.

I agree it should have been done in the past, but what I was trying to say was that the OP seems to think that reparations should be guarenteed now, and we should work to find a way to implement a system to pay those reparations. I completely disagree with that idea and find it outrageous that someone would suggest reparations paid in 2012 for an atrocity that ended in 1865.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I have some Irish heritage in me, should I sue the British government for the atrocities Cromwell committed?

No, the British Government gave compensation for the Cromwellian Land Settlement through the Irish Land Acts of 1881, 85, 87, and the Wyndham Land Act, and various acts by the Irish Free State, and what an unfair disaster those were.

 

[Leonel]

I think there may be precedent for this, such as when a company is responsible for the negligent death of a family member and a settlement is paid to the surviving family members.

 

[Commodore]

I think there may be precedent for this, such as when a company is responsible for the negligent death of a family member and a settlement is paid to the surviving family members.

But survivor compensation only applies to immediate family. For example: If I died due to the negligence of the company I worked for, only my wife and daughter would be eligible for survivor compensation. My great-grandchildren 100 years from now though would look absolutely ridiculous trying to prove they are eligible for survivor compensation from that company.

So no, there really is no legal precedent for reparations being paid centuries after an atrocity occurred.

 

[Incodcito]

The best form of reparations for African Americans is an effective universal social safety net, which should be implemented in every society capable of supporting such a structure anyway.

 

[luiz]

Should black people living in Africa pay reparations for black people living on America? After all, it were black Africans who captured the ancestors of black Americans and sold them to Europeans.

Guys, nobody owes or deserves compensation for something that happened 150 years ago to long dead ancestors they never met. This is the most ridiculous concept ever.

 

[Commodore]

Should black people living in Africa pay reparations for black people living on America? After all, it were black Africans who captured the ancestors of black Americans and sold them to Europeans.

Guys, nobody owes or deserves compensation for something that happened 150 years ago to long dead ancestors they never met. This is the most ridiculous concept ever.

Exactly. Try getting the bleeding hearts to realize this though.

 

[useless]

Exactly. Try getting the bleeding hearts to realize this though.

Why not just come out and say "The Liberals"?

 

[Ayn Rand]

While we're at it, maybe African countries should be forced to pay the British navy compensation for their expenses in eradicating the slavery that Africans practised? My ancestors had to pay for those military operations in defence of freedom, while many of the African's ancestors gained from the acquisition of land and wealth which they have not yet returned to its rightful owners [unlike us ]

 

[ParkCungHee]

So no, there really is no legal precedent for reparations being paid centuries after an atrocity occurred.

So...you're just skipping the thing where your own example happened, and that it's a pretty damn good model for wealth redistribution on a societal scale?

 

[Commodore]

So...you're just skipping the thing where your own example happened, and that it's a pretty damn good model for wealth redistribution on a societal scale?

Because what I said was there is no LEGAL precedent. It's a valid example of reparations long after the atrocity but it's not legal precedent. The Irish didn't sue for those land rights; the British government chose to give them that land as an act of government. There was no court case therefore it does not qualify as legal precedent.

Legal precedent- Rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.

That definition comes from Black's Law Dictionary.

Why not just come out and say "The Liberals"?

Because I am a liberal, I'm just not a bleeding heart. I don't feel like I have to apologize because I'm white and I definitely don't feel like I have to apologize for an atrocity that I nor my ancestors had a part in. This is especially true when those who want the apology have a tenuous connection, at best, to the atrocity. However, the bleeding hearts seem to tout this ideology that the "white man" is evil and can never fully atone for the "wrongs" committed in the past. I'm sorry if not buying into the whole "white man ruined the world" ideology makes me an ignorant conservative fascist in your eyes.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Because what I said was there is no LEGAL precedent. It's a valid example of reparations long after the atrocity but it's not legal precedent. The Irish didn't sue for those land rights; the British government chose to give them that land as an act of government.

Actually, the British government forced landholders to sell the land in closed markets as an act of government, but of course you knew that.

There was no court case therefore it does not qualify as legal precedent.

Oh, well first, I see no reason why litigation is necessary, other then the de facto issue that America Doesn't Care About Black People, but you certainly could take the precedent of the Maori in New Zealand, and as many people have pointed out, sue existing limited liability corporations.

 

[Commodore]

Oh, well first, I see no reason why litigation is necessary, other then the de facto issue that America Doesn't Care About Black People, but you certainly could take the precedent of the Maori in New Zealand, and as many people have pointed out, sue existing limited liability corporations.

Litigation would be necessary in America because any attempt to collect reparations will most assuredly be challeged (and rightfully so), it would end up in court anyway.

I'm not familiar with the Maori case, but if black people tried to sue the corporations for reparations, I seriously doubt they would get a judge or jury on their side. It would have nothing to do with racism either; it would just boil down to the fact that I don't think they can meet the legal burden of proof to show that slavery that ended in 1865 is still negatively impacting them today to the point that they need compensation.

Basically, black people do not have a strong enough case for it to survive the nasty court battle that would ensue.

Actually, the British government forced landholders to sell the land in closed markets as an act of government, but of course you knew that.

You know what I was trying to say, there's no need to get technical. I was pointing out that the Irish Land Acts were a result of parlaimentary vote not legal action taken by Irish citizens.