I do not presume to know the answer to this question. I do not have the cites either. I heard the topic on NPR. But I am curious as to the feelings of others on this issue. Apparently a lawyer has brought a lawsuit on behalf of 10 African Americans against Lloyds of London claiming that they committed genocide by insuring slave ships that transported slaves across the Atlantic, to America.
While I agree that according to today’s morality it was an atrocity, but how can we hold companies accountable for actions of three hundred plus years ago?
Besides that, on a strictly legal point, the plaintiffs are claiming that they can prove by DNA tests that they came from the same genetic group as certain skeletal remains of slaves. That hardly establishes to a certainty to establish a cause of action. While family members in the zone of danger have been allowed to bring an action, and where a harm has been determined to be continuing people have been allowed to sue, this does not seem to be the case.
Is this case of a just expansion of legal action? And if it is does it open the door to bringing cases against the US for actions in Laos, or France in Indo China, of Japan in China, or Russia in Poland, or the Rwandan Tutsi against the Hutu, or the Serbs against Kosovo, or the Belgians against the Congolese or the Brazilian gov’t against the Forest People., etc?
Well, just based on what’s in the OP here… It was a horrendous injustice, but neither Lloyd’s nor the slavers were guilty of genocide. They traded in Africans, but they didn’t want to kill them–bad for profits.
Once a certain amount of time has passed, such lawsuits get a little… strange. Still I believe in reparations for slavery–not because the monetary debt can actually be repaid thereby (with compound interest the debt would be worth more than the GDP of the whole world), but as a way symbolically to purge that bad karma and atone for sins.
Nope, neither karma nor the psychology of race relations are legal concepts, but they both affect politics. I’d say it should work like this: The US Govt. says to African-Americans, “Yes, we screwed up. What is more, we can never repay the debt. But we’d like to apologize formally and make a symbolic payment to all descendents of slaves of $xyz. For your part, we’d like you to forgive the US. Govt. and the descendents of those who oppressed your forefathers. Can we agree?”
Of course, there will be those who won’t agree with the amount, etc., but it would be the moral and politically smart thing to do, overall.
Too much to quibble with here so I’ll just go for one question. If it is so “politically smart” to advocate reparations why hasn’t a single major candidate supported this issue? Political suicide is more like it.
I think the problem with the suit is that the plantiffs would have to show that they (themselves) had experienced direct harm (in terms of damages) by the slave trade and this may be more difficult than it would at first seem. Particularly it would be hard to make a case that any African-American alive today is worse off than if they were living in Africa. The only real damages the plaintiffs could claim would be based on the perceived effects of modern racism and prejudice in America. The problem there is that if they can prove that modern day prejudice is detrimental (in terms of real damages) to thier lives it would be very difficult to prove that the prejudice exists only because thier ancestors were at one time American slaves. What about black citizens who are not decendent from American slaves? Or what about non-black American minorities who experience predjudice?
As for reparations it is most likely too late. There are too many devils in the details at this point in history (141 years since slavery ended). For instance: Who will get paid exactly? Will a person have to show proof that a direct ancestor was at one time a slave? Will all black people in America get a check? If so, what percentage “black” does one need to be in order to be considered offically black? Who should pay? My ancestors immigrated to the U.S. in the 1890’s. Why should I have to foot the bill for what Americans were doing in the early 1800’s? What about black Americans who aren’t decendant from slaves? Will the other forms of reparations (affirmative action) be disbanded when checks are handed out?
I think that reparations would actually cause so much resentment on behalf of those (who for one reason or another) didn’t get a check that it would end up harming race relations in America.