OK, a quick check of the Aetna site says it was involved in such insurance shortly after its founding in 1853. It doesn’t say how long it went on insuring slaves after that, but if it presumably kept issuing policies until 1865, I’d say they made some money off of it. Twelve years is a little long to go on a money-loser.
As an additional point of interest, here is a Slavery Insurance Registry put together by the State of California.
The following things:[ul][li]No black American alive today has suffered because of slavery[]No white American alive today has ever owned any slaves, black or otherwise[]The solution of financially benefiting one group over the other -based on shaky grounds at best- will most likely create a bigger gap, rather than narrowing it.[/ul][/li][quote]
**I’m amazed by people who think racisms is advanced by talking about things such as reparations to a group that has been grossly wronged through the use of slavery, lynching, jim crow, segragation, racial profiling, and descrimination. What does that say about the person that thinks this way. **
[/QUOTE]
First off, we’re specifically talking about slavery here. The reparations are about slavery, and slavery alone. Therefore, no individual has been “grossly wronged” by it: they were all born free men and women.
What does it say about people when they argue against reparations?
To me, it tells me they are rational individuals unwilling to settle for a politicaly correct pseudo-solution that has minor positive short term effects for the beneficiaries, and substantially negative long term effects for integration between races as a whole.
Zev, how many businesses do you actually think use the source of income in determining where the money goes? Most businesses I’m familiar with only care how much they have to spend. None of them would sit down and say “OK, the money that comes from X, Y, and Z sources has to be spent on A, B, and C expenses”.
The Nazis had “science” to back up their claims about Jewish inferiority, but they started out by blaming the Jews for the European financial crisis. No, it wasn’t caused by slavery, but the situation in the Weimar Republic was much the same as in the South immediately after 1865. I’d certainly be interested in knowing how much of that crap was put out both before and after the Final Solution began to be implemented. I’d put money on the propaganda mill really churning it out after the trains started shipping Jews to the death camps.
Your last question is an interesting one. IMO, a victory against those companies now would increase people’s confidence in fighting for deeper, more far-reaching reforms, so that 50 years down the road the issue will have progressed to the point where there are greater steps forward to take than suing a group of insurance companies.
iampunha, zev_steinhardt
You are both right, the recipients of the reparations (not right after the war but the ones paid out last year) were and are still alive.
Problem is that the only ‘survivors’ that were taken to task were corporation not Nazi indviduals. Since the trial was held here in the US, the German corporations were treated like individuals would have been; hence the payments.
Either way, a somewhat similar precedent has been set and it does not surprise me that it is in the interest of some lawyers to pursue this course.
TLW
How beautiful you are! Thank you for sharing a meaningful opinion.
Coldfire, my man, the whole history of Blacks in the US after 1865 shoots that assertion right out of the saddle. The freed slaves got absolutely nothing besides the manacles off their wrists once the war was over - not even the “40 acres and a mule” Lincoln promised them. (Not his fault; he was dead and Johnson was a jerk.) They had to start from nothing, competing for jobs with the poor Southern whites, or migrating up North to the cities of the Midwest and Northeast. They had to deal with the Klan, “whites only” businesses, fighting like hell to actually exercise the right to vote, and still poverty affects Blacks disproportionately in comparison to whites. The racism and bigotry used to justify slavery continued long after slavery was abolished, and plenty of Blacks have suffered because of it.
**
I’ll be honest, I don’t know. I’m not a corporate accountant. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some money from certain sources are “earmarked” for certain expenses.
In any event, both of us have been speculating, since neither of us has seen Aetna’s books (if they even still exist). However, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the proceeds from this practice are still evident in the company today. It’s not Aetna’s burden of proof to prove that they aren’t.
**
Germany got progressively uglier for the Jews between 1920 and 1944. I really couldn’t tell you when the Nazis started putting forth their “scientific” theories. However, in any event, it still clearly wasn’t because of slavery.
In short, people don’t need slavery as a reason to hate other people. They can do a fine job of it all by themselves.
Zev Steinhardt
I guess my point was, Zev, that the really egregious anti-Semitic propaganda probably came out to justify the concentration camps, rather than the concentration camps being a result of viciously rabid anti-Semitism.
That I can help you with. The concentration camps didn’t get started until the mid-late 30s. The Nazi “scientific theories” were out there before then.
Zev Steinhardt
I’m half Irish and half English. Does that mean I cancel myself out?
genie vanishes in a poof of logic
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Coldfire *
The following things:[ul][li]No black American alive today has suffered because of slavery[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Uh, surely you don’t believe this. Do you really think all was better the moment slaves were freed?. The economic repercussion alone from families not earning an income or owning land adversely affected future generations.
I am not for reparations, by the way. (It bothers me that I just typed that but I don’t know why. I’m not, nor have I ever been, for reparations, but I don’t think my stance should validate or invalidate my previous point.)
Anyhoo, I’m signing off for the day. If another poster doesn’t come along to elaborate on this point, I’ll address it tomorrow.
I’m not saying that current discrimination of Blacks in the US doesn’t have at least a partial origin in slavery: it probably does.
But just giving every African American some money doesn’t rectify the current situation of racial inequality: if anything, it will aggravate it.
In fact, if I were a black American, I’d consider this approach a slap in the face. It completely ignores current racist patterns, does nothing to improve socio-economic status for blacks in the long run, and looks like a fucking buy-out out of the guilt of a nation. Guilt for which no individual can currently be held responsible.
Zev - with all due respect, show me what you got on that point.
I hope my response to Olentzero also answers Juanita’s question. Yes, my statement needed elaboration.
I’m Jewish. If I could sue everybody who mistreated my ancestors, the world might very well go broke.
How will paying out reparations aggravate racial inequality? I can see how it might enrage some of the tiniest white supremacist minds (something I heartily favor), but I fail to see how it will aggravate actual inequality.
Can i please get a cite for Lincoln saying 40 acres and a mule? i remember a big fight a few years ago on whether this was a real promise.
I think you underestimate the power of money there, Olent. Typical, for a commie. 
I think even a lot of pretty emancipated, well behaved and downright righteous white folk will get mightily pissed off that their black neighbour is getting money from the gummint all of a sudden. I really do. Does that make me a cynic?
Personally, I’m against reparations, but only because at this point we’re too far removed from it.
Look, people did work & didn’t get paid, were prisoners for life, were treated worse than animals, murdered, tortured and it was all legal. The country condoned it & benefited from it and that was wrong. Reparations should have been paid in the first, say, 50 years after slavery was abolished. It would have been the right thing to do.
But to do it now gets a little iffy. My grandparents came from Yoo-rip in the 20’s, so even though I’m white I don’t know that my tax dollars ought to go towards paying reparations. In fact, its fair to state that most non black people in the US today have ancestors that came to the US after slavery was abolished. And many of the decendants of slaveowners are now not so well off. And many decendants of slaves are doing very well for themselves. And while its probably true that most black Americans today are decendants of slaves, most would have trouble proving it.
Now, reparations to those who could prove that their ancestors were slaves could be on OK idea, I think. After all, those reparations really should have been paid to their great, great, great grandparents and so now should be paid to their heirs. But that would be pretty unfair to the those who know they come from slaves but couldn’t prove it.
Plus, in practice, the whole thing would just be vulgar. What would happen, really? Every black American gets a check from the taxpayers? Or from the defendant in a class action lawsuit? What would it be, a couple hundred bucks? So they get that check and go buy a new TV and that makes up for 400 years of slavery?
Tars: Got this right quick off of Google.
So I was off in attributing it to Lincoln, but there were actual attempts at giving freedmen land (up to 40 acres) and farm animals as reparations for slavery.