# Reparations Revisited **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969 "2014-02-22T20:16:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/181 "2014-03-12T17:41:27Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I agree, though I suspect it was a gentle tweaking of **Honesty** ’s position, and not a serious argument. Were it from another poster I might be inclined to agree. If you didn’t know **Honesty** you might think just from his OP that it was over the top satire in the tradition of A Modest Proposal. **Clothahump** and gentle tweaking are pretty much mutually exclusive though; I’m pretty sure he actually believes the flip side to the reparations issue (“the area of the reparations issue that never gets addressed”) is compensation to the descendants of slave-holders for theft of property by the government – you know, the government they committed treason against. It’s truly amazing how immune to facts some people can be when it comes to the Civil War. I’ve seen people here insist the war started because the North invaded the South, have it pointed out to them and them acknowledge that Lincoln didn’t send the Army (such as it was) south in response to secession, didn’t call for 100,000 volunteers until after Fort Sumter was attacked, and that the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. Having acknowledged all of these things to be true and beyond dispute, they then proceed to talk about how the North started the war by invading the South. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/182 "2014-03-12T18:02:24Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Were it from another poster I might be inclined to agree. If you didn’t know **Honesty** you might think just from his OP that it was over the top satire in the tradition of A Modest Proposal. **Clothahump** and gentle tweaking are pretty much mutually exclusive though; I’m pretty sure he actually believes the flip side to the reparations issue (“the area of the reparations issue that never gets addressed”) is compensation to the descendants of slave-holders for theft of property by the government – you know, the government they committed treason against. It’s truly amazing how immune to facts some people can be when it comes to the Civil War. I’ve seen people here insist the war started because the North invaded the South, have it pointed out to them and them acknowledge that Lincoln didn’t send the Army (such as it was) south in response to secession, didn’t call for 100,000 volunteers until after Fort Sumter was attacked, and that the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. Having acknowledged all of these things to be true and beyond dispute, they then proceed to talk about how the North started the war by invading the South. Oh. I had no idea he was serious about reparations for descendants of slave owners (if indeed he was); it didn’t occur to me that anyone would hold that position. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/183 "2014-03-12T21:45:36Z")
My guess is that **Clothahump** made the suggestion more or less as parody - paying former slaveholders is a notion that was just as silly as reparations. He can speak for himself, of course. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/184 "2014-03-12T21:57:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > My guess is that **Clothahump** made the suggestion more or less as parody - paying former slaveholders is a notion that was just as silly as reparations. He can speak for himself, of course. > > Regards, > Shodan No, reparations is a lot less silly, because it’s based on an actual wrongdoing. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/185 "2014-03-13T02:49:13Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Half of the World/Africa are guilty of executable crimes? It was just a WAG. Could be more, if that’s your point… ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/186 "2014-03-13T09:48:35Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > I do not believe people are like governments. Governments are timeless institutions while **people are ephemeral**. > > - Honesty Bolding mine…hang on, so an individual living now must be treated without reference to the past yes? surely that is the logical consequence of your statement here? And if governments are timeless I’m guessing there is no statute of limitations on past bad (or good) actions for all governments and all must be taken into account as a cumulative whole yes? I think your arguments are divisive nonsense and without merit. My own equally valid solution would be to identify the place or origin for each immigrant, check the infant mortality rate, median income and average life expectancy for that country, make the necessary “demographic adjustments” then offer the survivors a start-up package in their ancestors country with living standards and income adjusted accordingly. Of course this does mean the USA is going to have conjure up a load of japanese people out of thin air and start work on the “re-animator-matic 4000” but the cost will balance out. _OR_…we could keep going down the slow, boring road of improving race-relations and tightening up on equality laws. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/187 "2014-03-13T13:42:57Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No, reparations is a lot less silly, because it’s based on an actual wrongdoing. All the slave owners as well as the slaves are dead. Therefore it makes no sense to pay reparations to either group. You said > [@](#): > > I have no moral quibbles with executing slavers and slave-owners, as long as long as they are actually guilty. If the principle is that someone has to be actually guilty of a crime before they can be punished for it, then reparations make no sense. Slavers and slave-owners may owe reparations to the people they formerly held as slaves, but they are all dead. Therefore we cannot collect reparations from them, and there are no former slaves to be paid. If you wish to say that their descendants are responsible for paying reparations, then you have abandoned your principle of justice and are punishing people who are not “actually guilty”. Not to mention that the notion is idiotic on a practical level. Obama is half white, and his black father was Kenyan. IOW none of them were ever held as slaves in the US. Why should he get a dime based on the color of his skin? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/188 "2014-03-13T13:58:51Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You said If the principle is that someone has to be actually guilty of a crime before they can be punished for it, then reparations make no sense. Slavers and slave-owners may owe reparations to the people they formerly held as slaves, but they are all dead. Therefore we cannot collect reparations from them, and there are no former slaves to be paid. If you wish to say that their descendants are responsible for paying reparations, then you have abandoned your principle of justice and are punishing people who are not “actually guilty”. > > Not to mention that the notion is idiotic on a practical level. Obama is half white, and his black father was Kenyan. IOW none of them were ever held as slaves in the US. Why should he get a dime based on the color of his skin? > > Regards, > Shodan You’ll notice that I never actually said I supported reparations. Just that the idea of reparations towards black people is far less unreasonable than reparations to the descendants of slave-owners. In addition, if I did support reparations (which I do not, at least not in the form the OP proposes), I would not support paying for them by “punishing” the descendants of slave-owners (not to mention that I don’t see federal taxation and/or federal spending as “punishment”). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/189 "2014-03-13T14:57:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Just that the idea of reparations towards black people is far less unreasonable than reparations to the descendants of slave-owners. As I explained, both violate the principle of justice in which you said you believed. > [@](#): > > I would not support paying for them by “punishing” the descendants of slave-owners (not to mention that I don’t see federal taxation and/or federal spending as “punishment”). You can call it whatever you like - taking money away from one group, based on skin color, and giving it to another group, also based on their skin color, is unjust, as I thought you had agreed. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/190 "2014-03-13T15:36:43Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > As I explained, both violate the principle of justice in which you said you believed. No it doesn’t. Because, for one thing, I believe that, collectively, black people continue to be victims of injustice (to a lesser degree then in the past), not that I think reparations is the right way to correct it. > [@](#): > > You can call it whatever you like - taking money away from one group, based on skin color, and giving it to another group, also based on their skin color, is unjust, as I thought you had agreed. It’s not taking money away from one group, unless that group is “everybody”. It’s certainly not taking away money from anyone based on skin color. And it’s moot, because I oppose reparations, at least in the form the OP proposes. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/191 "2014-03-13T15:58:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Actually, this is way, way less reasonable than what the OP proposes. Not that the OP’s proposal is reasonable or workable, but this is way, way worse. Sigh. sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uhm] noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony. 2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/192 "2014-03-13T15:59:13Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Your southern ancestors committed open treason against the government of the United States, meeting even the specific definition of treason laid out in the Constitution. Tell you what, let’s take the fact that they weren’t tried, convicted, hung from the neck until dead and their property, both real and human seized by the government and the fact that the very small percentage of southern ancestors who were plantation owners couldn’t each call hundreds or thousands of other human beings their property anymore and say they got off lightly, okay? Sigh. sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uhm] noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony. 2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/193 "2014-03-13T16:00:55Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > In a larger sense though, **Clothahump** ’s ‘woe the plight of the poor southern plantation owners’ argument is not only in exceedingly poor taste, it’s entirely devoid of reason. You don’t get to start a war and then cry about the outcome demanding compensation for your treason. It’s the same mindset that insists Lincoln started The War of Northern Aggression. Sigh. sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uhm] noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony. 2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms. Jesus Christ on a crutch. For a board devoted to fighting ignorance, you people are as dumb as a box of rocks. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/194 "2014-03-13T16:02:25Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Were it from another poster I might be inclined to agree. If you didn’t know **Honesty** you might think just from his OP that it was over the top satire in the tradition of A Modest Proposal. **Clothahump** and gentle tweaking are pretty much mutually exclusive though; I’m pretty sure he actually believes the flip side to the reparations issue And **Dissonance** , you’re the lead rock in the box. I’ve read some stupid damn things on this board over the years, but that one takes the cake. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/195 "2014-03-13T16:16:49Z")
Yanno, if that many people don’t get your sarcasm, you might consider changing how you present it. Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/196 "2014-03-13T16:18:17Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Sigh. > > sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uhm] > noun > 1. > harsh or bitter derision or irony. > 2. > a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms. Ahh, so when you said: > [@](#): > > Sound reasonable to you? It’s just as reasonable as the hogwash you spouted, so why don’t we simply consider it a wash and move on? you meant the opposite, due to sarcasm. So you agree with me 100%! Thanks so much for correcting me! ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/197 "2014-03-13T16:18:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s not taking money away from one group, unless that group is “everybody”. It’s certainly not taking away money from anyone based on skin color. If you take $100 away from Alice and Bob, then turn around and give $200 to Bob, how is that meaningfully different from taking $100 from Alice and giving $100 to Bob? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/198 "2014-03-13T16:29:22Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > If you take $100 away from Alice and Bob, then turn around and give $200 to Bob, how is that meaningfully different from taking $100 from Alice and giving $100 to Bob? But I didn’t take it from them. They both gave it to me because they love me and trust me to do what’s best. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/199 "2014-03-13T17:25:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > My guess is that **Clothahump** made the suggestion more or less as parody - paying former slaveholders is a notion that was just as silly as reparations. He can speak for himself, of course. The point is that they aren’t just as silly though. The OP is clearly off his rocker and over the top, but reparations for slavery and reparations for slave-holders aren’t equally as silly. A legitimate case for reparations for slavery can be argued; you and I both seem to be in agreement against the practicality or usefulness of doing so. The same can not be said for reparations for slave-holders; there is no legitimate case to be argued for it. > [@Clothahump](#): > > And **Dissonance** , you’re the lead rock in the box. I’ve read some stupid damn things on this board over the years, but that one takes the cake. **Cloth** , take a look in the mirror and at your posting history. I rather suspect that do consider reparations for slavery and reparations for slave-holders having their property taken by the gummint to be equal. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969/200 "2014-03-13T18:43:44Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I agree, though I suspect it was a gentle tweaking of **Honesty** ’s position, and not a serious argument. Thank you. At least one person got it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reparations-revisited/681969.md?page=11)