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.
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.
It was just a WAG.
Could be more, if that’s your point…
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.
All the slave owners as well as the slaves are dead. Therefore it makes no sense to pay reparations to either group.
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”).
As I explained, both violate the principle of justice in which you said you believed.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yanno, if that many people don’t get your sarcasm, you might consider changing how you present it. Just sayin’.
Ahh, so when you said:
you meant the opposite, due to sarcasm. So you agree with me 100%! Thanks so much for correcting me!
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.
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.
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.
Thank you. At least one person got it.