easyphil, you said:
AND:
Pot, would you please pick up the white courtesy phone? The Kettle is on line one. Yeah, you’re both black, get over.
BTW, tovarish, back in the days of slavery, my ancestors, were Poles, Hungarians, Irish and Slovak. They certainly would NOT have been seen as “white”.
Yeesh! Are we going to continue to see this as an intended counter-argument? It is bullshit, not because it is racist, but because it is bad history.
The reason that Africans are seriously worse of that Americans, even black Americans, has as much to do with slavery as the discrepancy between white and black Americans. There were several African nation-states that were at a level of development comparable to much of Europe in the fifteenth century (minus the gunpowder), but they were wholly undermined and destroyed by the influence of the slavers (who, of course, had the gunpowder).
We are never going to know what Africa might have looked like without the interference of European and Arab slavers, because there are far too many variables in the last 400 years of history.
Claiming that blacks in America are better off than they would have been if they had not been enslaved simply ignores too much of what slavery actually did to that continent.
The reason that Africans are seriously worse off thanAmericans
Sorry, Guin, but I’ve gotta call you on this one. While each of those groups would have been considered as less than desirable at different points in U.S. history (in each case only after the group became a significant immigrant population) they were always considered white and were generally treated better than blacks. In fact, their very white status was used to give them the edge over blacks in hirings and firing throughout the twentieth century. (Which is not to say that they were embraced by American society or that they never suffered discrimination. They were even put down by some ethnologists as being inferior to the Anglo/Germanic ideal, but they were definitely always considered white.)
Well, you see, tomndebb, that’s a whole different discussion. Now you’re talking about the ravages of colonialism. You’ll want to speak to various Arab and European powers about that. The U.S. never had much a stake in African colonialism so you can hardly hold the U.S. government responsible, can you?
Of course, in the fifteenth century, Europeans weren’t active in the interior of Africa. Rather, they bought slaves on the coast from other Africans. No doubt the availability of an export market for slaves did warp local economies. On the other hand, it isn’t like Eurpoeans were landing conquering armies in West Africa like they did in South America.
In fact, as far as colonialism goes, Africa actually got off fairly easy. Now South America, there’s a continent that has cause to complain. Indigenous societies wiped out to the last man, women and child. Countries crushed, cultures destroyed. European elites seizing political power and permanently marginizing the locals ala South Africa – a situation, by the way, that continues to this day!
In any case, you can’t really hold the U.S. federal government liable for slavery reparations under any theory. Slavery was, of course, a state matter. The mere fact that the federal government has the most money is hardly a reason to send them a bill.
So reparations are a bad idea because no one still alive suffered under slavery. That is a good reason this should have happened earlier, not a good reason not to do it now.
So reparations are not a good idea because racist assholes will use it as an excuse for their harassment. Since when have they needed an excuse?
My earlier analogy to kicking someone in the nuts then running off was flawed, a better analogy would be if I beat, raped, and robbed your grandmother and then complained and got self righteous when you tried to get her money back after she died.
African colonialism (aside from the Cape Colony) did not really begin until the 19th century–about the time that slavery was being ended in the U.S. The ravages of slave-taking had then been going on for three hundred years, destroying most of the potential nation-states of Africa in the process.
I am not suggesting that the U.S. owes any debt for the (European coordinated) colonial expeditions; I am only noting that it is invalid to simply declare “blacks in America are better off than if they had not been enslaved” since we cannot know how they would actually have gotten along if slavery had not made such horrible depredations on that continent.
Note that I am an opponent of reparations. I am also an opponent of specious logic.
So let me see if I can follow your ‘logic’ Grendel: if some guy kills my grandfather, I can kill his grandson? Or can I just get money from him because in whatever airy fairy land of slap-happy dumbasses that you obviously inhabit, I’m still a victim? The US is, as I have previously stated, morally clean on the slavery issue. We paid for it in blood. Now, you want to argue that segregation sucked and racism is still a problem in the USA? Fine, I agree but you’ve got ways for redress if you personally are victimized because of your race. Some guy refuses to serve you? Great, sue him. It happens all the time and you’re justified in my opinion. But don’t try to argue that just because your ancestors got screwed that you deserve money because I’ve got shocking news for you: everyone’s ancestors got the shaft. So, if you want to redress all the injustices that humans have perpetuated on each other go and sue God with my blessing. Otherwise, quite whining and buckle down like everyone else on the damn planet.
**
So am I. While the idea that descendants of slaves ought to be thankful that their ancestors were enslaved is patently ridiculous, the logic regarding economic damages is not. On the contrary, this exact line of reasoning is used in courtrooms every day.
While no court would ever seriously attempt to calculate damages that occurred hundreds of years ago, if it did, it would use an analysis like I described. Your argument that “we don’t know what would have happened in Africa absent slavery” is indeed, speculative by definition and would be rejected. We don’t know what might have happened, but we do know what did happen and that’s where any analysis would have to start.
In any case, as you say, the very serious damage to Africa caused by full-blown colonialism, didn’t really get going until the slave trade was winding down. This suggests most of the colonial damage to Africa would probably have occurred anyway.
As I’ve said, this is all speculative nonsense. Nonetheless, if someone seriously advocates reparations, the first step is to explain why any living person ought to be entitled to them. Proving they were personally somehow damaged is the first step.
**
No, a better analogy would be if your great, great, great grandfather did this to someone’s great, great, great grandmother and then the great, great, great, granddaughter demanded that you, personally, cough up restitution and damages with interest.
Wabbit, I personnaly am not victimised. I wouldn’t get a penny of reparations, and I don’t favor reparations as I’ve said several times in this thread. The self righteous indignation of dumbfucks like you is what pisses me off.
People were fucked over, their descendants still start off with marks against them, and when you claim all they need to do is “work harder” you are being a fucking idiot.
Reparations should have been done a long ass time ago, I wouldn’t be pissed off if reparations were paid out tomorrow- it’s just money.
I have a question for anyone who wishes to answer.
Do you feel that certain people in this country deserve preferential treatment from the government based upon who their ancestors were?
Erek
Well, from what I’ve gathered, Hungarians and Slavs were seen as those “dirty Hunkies” and what not. So maybe they were seen as “White”, perhaps, and yes, better off than your African slaves, definitely.
But they were seen as dirty, stupid, etc.
All true, of course, but much worse than that, they were ::: hissing ::: papists.
‘Just money’–heh, that’s rich. You’re either young, naive, wealthy or a combination of all three. All this ‘just money’ would be better used to support poor schools, provide affordable housing, job training etc. etc. This reparations issue reeks of racism, classism and liberalism (in it’s most extreme, paternalistic form–I don’t have anything against liberals in general) so yea, I get a little upset when empty-headed rabble-rousers start espousing it. Sorry for the personal attack, by the way, sometimes my Scottish blood just starts boiling though… 
<runs off to get tons of cash from the Brits>
A whole bunch of folks have made the argument that black Americans are better off than Africans. Faulty reasoning. First of all, black Americans aren’t Africans. Not in a genetic sense - black Americans are a mixture of African, Native American, and Eurpopean ancestry.
Not in a cultural sense. Black American culture has African elements, certainly, but these elements are part of an English speaking, Protestant framework that owes as much to the King James bible, the Enlighenment, and the distinct influence of American history. Black English Vernacular aka ebonics, derives largely from rural southern England, not Africa. For example the use of the term “aks” for “ask” is archaic rural English, not African.
Not in an historical sense. Black Americans have been instrumental in creating America from the start. Laboring to build its economy. Fighting in all of its wars. Influencing the nation in so many ways that it is impossible to imagine America as it is now without black Americans.
To put it another way, both black and white Americans fought in the Revolutionary War. If descendents of the black soldiers have been denied full citizenship rights and equality before the law while descendents of the white soldiers have not, an injustice has been done.
Reparations may not be the best way to remedy this injustice, but the status of Africans in Africa is irrelevant to the issue.
Well, so are you!
Well, lets see…
It is a fairly common practice to use the year you were born as the numbers in a username… hmmm- that would make me 30. If you’re calling a 30 year old a young whippersnapper I hope you wont object to being called an old fart.
Am I wealthy? I’ve been called “white trash” by another esteemed conservative poster on this board because I live in a trailer park.
Naive? thank for the condescention, guy. You have shown me the error of my tree hugging hippie ways, you are 100% correct that money is more important than such things as justice and morality- now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to rob a liquor store.
Do you think it’s possible, just maybe, that I have lived my life and seen things that would lead me to have a different viewpoint than you?
It is just money.
OK–live without it.
I do live without it.
When the cashier at the convienience store gives me too much change, and I point it out- I’m living without that money.
When I find a wallet on the street and return it to the owner- I’m living without that money.
When I decide not to con old people like you out of their money, not to rob a liquor store, not to do the wrong thing- I’m giving up that money.
If I had no morals I could easily have a lot more money than I do- even beyond illegal activities there are things I could do for money but refuse to do.
It’s just money
Which gets to the heart of the problem with reparations. It’s just money. No amount of money can compensate black Americans for the abuse and persecution endured during and after slavery. In the end, it’s the psychological and cultural effects of this abuse and persecution that are important, not the monetary ones.
With a gross domestic product of 500 billion or so, black America by itself is actually one the world’s richer nations, in the top twenty at least. The bottom half of black America is still poor, by American standards, but a lot of this owes to complex cultural and social issues that can’t be solved merely by writing checks.
Are reparations justified? Sure. The problems created by slavery and the racism that grew out of slavery are American problems, and all Americans have an obligation to contribute to the solution. In becoming an American, you take on both the advantages and disadvantages of this country and its history. You take on both the assets and the deficits. Reparations just aren’t an effective way to address these problems.
Middle class black people don’t need the relatively small sums of money that reparations could provide. Poor black people don’t need ready cash so much as they need job skills, drug treatment, better schools, better law enforcement, and less isolation from the mainsteam of society. Reparations don’t directly address any of these isssues, and may in fact take resources away from them.
From a legal standpoint, reparations for slavery per se are almost impossible to pursue. Almost all of the people born into slavery died before 1970. There are no victims to file suit.
A much stronger case can be made for reparations for Jim Crow. There are roughly 15 million black Americans who lived under Jim Crow still alive. These are US citizens who were denied citizenship rights and equal treatment before the law in ways that were both unconstitutional and illegal.
Just because a case can be made doesn’t mean that it should be made. Reparations don’t directly address pressing problems facing the black poor. Education, crime, single parenthood, drug and alcohol abuse, persistent racial discrimination.
There’s ultimately a big difference between money and wealth. Wealth is the capacity to produce goods and services that people want and need, and this capacity is only tenuously related to money.