I agree with MT above, but, it is clear that if social inequalities were not so patently influenced by race then anyone suggesting such (black) slave-reparations would be laughed out of town.
I suggest that if these inequalities were to be addressed then this “demand” for reparations evaporate.
I do agree that finding a fair and equitable way to collect and distribute reparations would be a monumental task; the difficulties might be insurmountable.
Nonetheless, I think the ethical principle applies. That’s the narrow argument I’m making.
Beyond that, there’s a question, which I don’t presume to answer: if the descendants of slaves are entitled to reparations for their stolen inheritance, and if it’s logistically impossible to collect that stolen inheritance from the beneficieries of the theft, and if the theft occurred under the government’s watch, does it make sense to collect the stolen inheritance from the government?
I think there are decent arguments on either side of this issue.
Daniel
I agree with joel that there is a significant diference in stealing and object and using unpaid services for your benefit. The problem with this analogy is that nothing was “stolen” by the father. In this anaology his wife’s mother’s carving tools would have been legaly purchased by his dad from another party, so therfore contractually fullfilled his end of the bargain and would not have been liable to the mother. Her beef would be with the third party wouldnt it? And would the third party be the slave traders in africa, or the government wich made the contracts legal. (more on that in a second)
So this is reperations for being black? If so wouldnt that open a whole legal ballgame of being able to sue parents? And if you are using these issues as cause for reparation wouldn’t you have to prove that the defendants are benefitting or have benefitted from the current injustices?
This argument is giving desendants a right to an inheritance. Wouldnt you have to establish an intent by their ancestors that they wanted their labor to go solely to their descendants? And wouldnt this also open up more litigation against parents for preconcieved rights based on intent hundreds of years in the past?
this argument is saying that reperations are entitled for the labors of both parties. Lets say a buddy of mine is a thief. I get money from him (wich he has stolen) and make a few wise investments, open a business and work hard and become rich. Are the descendants of the people that the money was stolen from able to sue me for my wealth, or their share of it?
If ultimately the government is to blame and sueing those that benefit from the government (blacks included) would do irreperable harm to the race issue. First of all the “slavery debt” would be concidered by many as paid for. We can wash our hands of it and consider the bill paid.
note* the last part was MHO. and as for the legalities of my assertions and questions…well that is why they were questions. I know civil cases are different from criminal cases and my legal jargon is about what you can get from wachin judge judy once a year.
I’m not saying whether reparations are right or wrong (I personally think the slavery reparations idea is bunk).
I was merely pointing out that you cannot say “Hey, slavery is over, it doesn’t affect people today, so blacks should just get over it.” We’re still feeling the impact of slavery today; it’s just become so commonplace we often ignore it.
But the government is just the representative of the people. By collecting from the government you are collecting from every taxpayer in the nation, and the overwhelming majority of those taxpayers had nothing to do with slavery.
The U.S. Constitution forbids Ex Post Facto laws. I know that the current interpretation is that it doesn’t apply to civil law, but I suspect that would be challenged if this actually became a law.
What I want to know is, why aren’t they suing the decedents of the tribal leaders in Africa, who sold their own people to the white slave traders?
And as for what we supposedly owe. First, only the South benefited from slavery, so if I were to believe that reparations should be paid, it would only be by the South. But, we had a civil war, where thousands of white soldiers died. That paid the debt already.
If the OP’s analogy is supposed to be similar to slave reparations, then it is fatally flawed for one simple and obvious reason: one involves acts committed by a person, and the other involves acts committed by some labelled group of people (white people) where the individuals currently in the ‘relationship’ did not actually commit the deeds for which reparations need to be made.
In terms of actual personal relationships: well, I’m in a relevant one now. My father did a lot of things when I was growing up that were bad enough that I can’t let them go – mostly because he isn’t sorry for them, and his attitude is that he was justified.
I am all for forgiveness, but forgiving someone and staying in a relationship with a person who isn’t sorry isn’t being loving and forgiving – it’s being a doormat. If your husband comes to you and admits adultery but is sorry, it’s noble to forgive. but it isn’t if your husband comes to you and admits adultery and says “you drove me to it, nuts to you”.
Now, with slave reparations, we’re taking it several steps beyond.
1.) It’s not the individual who is blamed, but the perceived group of people (whites) based on ethnic descent, even in the cases where people are not actually descended from slaveowners, or even did not have ancestors resident in the US at the time.
2.) None of the perceived group of people actually were involved as those who were were deceased.
3.) Those of the blamed group generally oppose the wrongdoing (slavery) and are sorry that it occurred.
So, we’re talking about forgiving people for a crime that they didn’t commit and that they oppose. I’d say that no forgiveness is necessary.
I do think that slave reparations would cause a great deal more harm than they would help. Centrally, though, who’s going to foot the bill? Corporations existant at the time were acting within the law; as for the government, are they going to tax whites to pay reparations to blacks, or simply take it out of everyone’s pool?
I understand that collecting from the guv would be collecting from every taxpayer in the nation. And I know that this is problematic.
It is, nevertheless, appropriate in some cases. When a government engages in or condones practices that violate someone’s basic rights, the government can justifiably be required to pay the victims.
The only examples I can think of violate Godwin’s Law, unfortunately. Stupid glass of wine with dinner, fogging my memory!
Daniel
But they did not have those basic rights until after slavery was abolished.
If you are going to follow this reasoning, then every person who is a descendant of a woman who lived in the era before women were given the right to vote, is owed reparations. Those women were also denied the right to education at universities, good jobs, land ownership, etc…
So every citizen deserves reparations, let’s just open up the mints and start handing out currency as soon as it is printed. Everybody get in line!
Given, slaves still endured much more than the average woman of that era. But if modern people are going to be held liable for the government’s lack of intervention on the slave issue, then we can simply say our ancestors were denied the ability to change government because our great grandmothers were not allowed to vote.
So we owe reparations because of our fathers’ actions, and we are due reparations because our mothers’ rights were violated.
We can either hand everybody a check, or nobody. But we can’t go handing out checks based on a persons skin color, because that would be discrimination and it would violate my civil rights.
:eek:
Folks on this thread have made a good point about INDIVIDUALS not being responsible for the sins of their fathers, but the issue takes on a different light when you look at CORPORATIONS. A corporation is a creature of state law, and as such, it enjoys perpetual existence. So a hypothetical cotton company that used slaves as labor way back when can still be in existence today.
So now that it’s possible to still have the wrong-doer around, the question now is: what’s the statute of limitations on this kind of stupid act? As stated earlier, corporations were acting within the law at the time; good luck trying to find any corporations around today that had violated the 13th Amendment (the only amendment that applies to people and not the government). Right now in Massachusetts there’s an action against an insurance company that had carried fire-protection policies on slave quarters. I wouldn’t bet any money on the plaintiffs in that case, but that’s the only way I think you could legitimately go after a company like that - IF, that is, you could state a cause of action (there isn’t any that I know of) AND if the judge could keep a straight face through the proceedings. Oops, I think I just tipped my hand on where I stand. Dang, I hate it when I do that.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard this point made before, so I’m going to put it on the table:
There is a fundimental difference between theft and forcing someone to do manual labor. A Thief operates from a position of weakness, and victimizes the strong. If a thief is caught, he will be punished.
Slave owners operated from a position of strength and exploited the weak. There was no one to catch them because they were legally entitled to this exploitation.
Slave owners had the power and resources to have slaves shipped from Africa, to control their slaves, and to keep their slaves. They paid taxes for the right to own slaves, and they were legally entitled to the benefits they accrued from slaves.
In much the same way, today, factory owners operate from a position of strength to exploit their workers. It is certainly possible for the owner of a factory to put less effort into the factory and accrue more benefit than his workers, and it is his legal right by virtue of his ownership of the factory.
Although the factory owner does not own his workers, the exploitation is no different. It is true that the workers can choose to leave the factory and work somewhere else, but that they choose to be exploited does not make it any less exploitive.
We are enlightened now, and we no longer believe that owning human beings is ethical. However, we are still not enlightened enough to believe that exploitation is unethical. Thus, the slaves are not entitled to reparation for their exploitation – this was natural and just – such was the power embalance in the South at the time. What they may or may not be entitled to is reparation for the slavery – the lack of choice in the matter, the atrocity of human ownership.
These are related, but it seems to me that the atrocity was a symptom of the power, and not the other way around. In other words, if slavery was not allowed, equal exploitation through other means (for example, indentured servitude, or credit) would have been employed. The slave holders had enough power to orchestrate the exploitation and so it came to pass – the end was exploitation, the means was inconsequential.
In conclusion, the descendents of slaves may be entitled to a long overdue formal apology. It’s up to them what terms they want to lay down for the acceptance of the apology, i.e., “It will only seem heartfelt to us if it is supplimented by a few Benjamines.” But then again, it is up to us how heartfelt we really want it to be.
What they are not entitled to is direct compensation for exploitation, or any admission that the exploitation of their people that persists is in any way wrong-doing by the white people who still own the establishments where they work. Those people are still in a position of power, and they still pay taxes to retain that legal right. Again, anyone who thinks we are ready to take the enlightened stance that exploitation is wrong is living in a fantasy world.
Exploitation has nothing to do with race. It crosses all color boundaries, and has been the most persistant characteristic through every civlization, even or especially those with ideals that were absolutely contrary to it (e.g. socialism).
And where they still keep slaves.
What about someone whose mother is the descendant of black slave-owners and whose father is the descendant of slaves? Does he pay himself?
Two points, please.
First, I self-identify as white. Simple enough. But I also have 1/16 Native American and 1/16 African American in me. Where would I fall on this.
Second…
I have to agree with the unfortunate statement that slavery was legal. Wouldn’t trying people (or causing reparations) go against the ‘No ex post facto’ law concept?
I think I need a lawyer.
Yeah, the reason we paid reparations to the Japanese for the internment camps, aside from the fact that it was wrong, was the fact that it wasn’t legal, whereas where slavery was wrong, it was, unfortunatly, legal.
So, one of your great-great-grandparents was Native American and one of your great-great-grandparents was African American, but the rest of your direct ancestry is European American? I would say that your non-Caucasian bloodlines are so diluted that you are white.
IIRC, don’t you need to have at least 1/8th Indian blood to be considered legally Indian?
I’d like to know the answer to that one myself.
My father is Native American (he says) 50% this tribe, 50% that tribe. My mom is of German-American.
What am I?