It's easy to say that when the past largely leaves you intact. But black people have never been allowed to move on.
The UN demands the US pay Reparations
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
It's easy to say that when the past largely leaves you intact. But black people have never been allowed to move on.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i've been assured that they're willing to pay me out of monies they're expecting to recieve from the normans, and the vikings, and the saxons, and the romans, and the celts....
:darwinsm:
:thumb: good one!
their fathers have been allowed to move on
That may well be part of the legacy of slavery too.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/10...black-families-and-still-has-an-impact-today/
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
what - that modern ghetto blacks are too stupid to recognize self-defeating behaviors?
i guarantee you that middle class blacks aren't
genuineoriginal
New member
It did.
That is when the United States of America, a federation of independent sovereign nation states, was changed from what the founding fathers created into a nation state instead.
genuineoriginal
New member
There is nothing to compensate anyone for.
No crimes against humanity was occurring.
genuineoriginal
New member
What are you talking about?
According to the current liberal thoughts on the matter, people with dark skin are nothing more than toddlers who must be tolerated when they throw temper tantrums and must be given all the things that they are unable to gain for themselves due to their inferior nature.
Conservatives, on the other hand, expect people with dark skin to be held to the same standards as everyone else.
I see. So you think we went through moral bankruptcy, and had our moral debts discharged?
Did you miss the conditional clause, i.e., "granted that it occurred"?
lain:The US government had slaves?
The fact that that the US government enforced slavery from a legal standpoint doesn't really strike me as compelling. In places where gambling is legal, I assume that it has to be treated like any other contract in a court of law, and whereas marijuana is legal, the same rules likely apply to it as to any other form of commerce, and these rules are likely enforced in the courts.
I fail to see this as being "responsible" for gambling or marijuana, however.
The actual damages to the persons affected. Even granting your hypothesis, that's literally all that's owed.
It was implied in the "etc."
If you can't prove your case, then your case must be rejected. Once again, consider how civil courts operate. You must not only prove damages, but that the damages are what you are asking for.
If you can't, then you lose. It's that simple. :idunno:
And frankly, I find it amusing that blacks insist on demanding redress from lawmakers. Why not just sue? See how that works out for them.
Fair enough.
Edit:
A further objection: What about GO's point? Slavery was legal at the time. The fact that it became illegal later doesn't strike me as, in and of itself, a compelling reason to think that the US should be liable for civil damages ex post facto.
I looked at the link. It lists 8 things but doesn't explain how they are still having an effect today.
I am not conviced by this "still having an effect" today nonsense.
Due to the negligence of her workplace, my mother suffered a serious back injury which prevented her from becoming a nurse. She got workman's compensation, of course.
But let's fast forward a bit. Had she become a nurse, she would have gotten paid more, probably, and upon her death (whenever that may happen), I likely would have been entitled to a relatively larger inheritance.
Should I be able to sue her workplace?
For me it depends on the issue. Rex posted that about broken families. I'm skeptical about broken families in black communities being an ongoing consequence of slavery or segregation. And the link didn't even try to make an argument. I'm guessing the argument would go something like this. The primary ongoing consequence is poverty and in poverty stricken communities there is a higher rate of broken or unstable relationships.
For where I can more easily see an ongoing impact is that I think people tend to favor those of their own circles and communities. Slavery and segregation allowed whites to rule, whether in the political or business world. Even though slavery ended a long time ago and segregation ended a few decades ago, the power structures didn't change. I think it can be hard to break into that. I got a job in highschool with the help of my sister who also worked there. I've been there ever since. I went to college and then was able to get a better job within the company based on having a degree. Where I'm at now certainly depended on my own work, but I benefited from things that were beyond my control and I think it's those other things that blacks are less likely to have and are, to some degree, related to unequal treatment blacks have faced.
Blacks won't make any progress if all they focus on is what the white man did to them and what the white man can do to fix it.
HisServant
New member
If we start taking this route it will never end... can I go back and sue England, Ireland, Scotland, and France for what they did to my ancestors (stole their property, deported them to different countries.. etc.)
Lets face it, they are an unwanted people and the only place they are kind of welcome is here in the US. The have no where to go back to in africa because the tribes they were part of were wiped out by genocide....
We did give them a homeland to return to (like the Jews have a homeland).. its called Liberia, yet most did not return. And look at the mess that Liberia has become (this is probably why the still do not want to return).
They they need to understand their heritage... and own up to the choices they have made after slavery which has perpetuated their plight..
Did you miss the conditional clause, i.e., "granted that it occurred"?
So you're hypothetically asserting that a hypothetical debt has definitely been paid off?
It doesn't appear that the government directly owned slaves. But it definitely hired slaves from their masters. But it at least benefited directly from slave labor.
http://artandhistory.house.gov/art_artifacts/slave_labor_reportl.pdf
Courts issue rulings, and men with guns show up to enforce the rulings. They literally sent Dred Scott back to his master in chains. I'm not sure how much more directly you can participate in slavery without actually practicing it yourself.
And I go back to my previous question then of whether you think there are any cases where a government can be held accountable for doing wrong. Every individual actor had an excuse. The totality of the outcome was wrong. Do you think that in a three-branch government, each of the branches can just point at the other two and say they had no power to do anything? Who had the responsibility to say that what was happening was wrong?
The actual damages would include the permanent loss of freedom and in many cases, life without cause. The actual damages are infinite. Or perhaps you'd like to tell me how much money you would accept to let someone shoot you in your smug face?
Then you fail to enumerate the most important elements of the wrong that was done. Because you want to minimize them, or reduce the case for reparations to some sort of labor dispute.
Once again, consider how civil courts operate. You must not only prove damages, but that the damages are what you are asking for.
If you can't, then you lose. It's that simple. :idunno:
And frankly, I find it amusing that blacks insist on demanding redress from lawmakers. Why not just sue? See how that works out for them.
I think you know why. There's a need for systemic justice that the courts aren't designed to address. The courts deal in individual justice, albeit at times with sweeping implications.
Asked and answered. Read back.
Absent fatherhood is an inheritable trait. How would a former slave who never knew his own father know that it was important for him to be involved in the life of his kids? And then think how much harder it becomes when black men are routinely diverted into prisons for much less reason than white men.
But aside from that, I think it's pretty cruel that mostly-white mostly-conservative people ascribe a lack of black success to a condition that used to be forced upon them by white conservative masters whether they liked it or not, when there's a much more cogent explanation. There's never been a point in American history where the black family has been let alone to thrive. Either it was a threat to the slave system, and thus to be punished and destroyed, or it was a scapegoat to justify inequality.