It wasn’t a “British institution.” BTW, it still goes on in Sudan.
Well, but not always in the sense of the chattel slavery that existed in the U.S. (as you continue to ignore).
Not exactly. The slavery that the American colonists inherited tended to be indentured servitude. There were limits on how long a person could be indentured and anyone could become an indentured servant (to pay off a debt or to work off criminal punishment, for example). It was in the nascent United States that the laws were passed to define slavery based on “race” and to eliminate limits on how long a person could be indentured.
you with the face: the car analogy is of a wreck that is presumably an accident, and therefore invalid here. Accidents involving property damage are covered by insurance, and of course you can sue through the justice system.
As to the steak knife through the hand, which is a crime and therefore closer to what we’re talking about here, society gets to decide the punishment through the justice system. There is a mechanism for civil justice as well, but this applies only to the victim of the crime and the perpetrator, not to the descendants of either. Which would also be true of the car wreck, of course.
Justice needs to be applied to the actual person who performed the wrong, not to those who by an accident of birth are in some way related to the wrongdoer. I should think this would be obvious, as anything else starts us down the slippery slope of feuds and vigilantism. Which I’m sure is why that passage in Ezekiel is there.
by pantom:
This is, as I’ve already said, a reasonable argument. Should reparations only be given to actual surivors or should they be extended to descendants? We could debate about this all day with no problem.
But to say that the Civil War was reparations for slavery is hogwash. Would you say that to an actual slavery survivor? Would you actually tell someone who had been treated not much better than livestock that the Civil War is payment enough for their mistreatment, dehumanization, and stolen income? If you wouldn’t tell a slavery surivor that, then why would you tell a descendant that? In neither instance does that argument hold water. It is horse puckey.
And the car analogy need not be an exact fit to illustrate the absurdity of saying that abolishing slavery clears the debt incurred by slavery. I thought that was obvious.
British rule was also something the colonies were saddled with; didn’t take until 1865 to get rid of that…
(Does this mean all descendants of, hmm, American women can expect to get a cheque for years of their unpaid labour, without which American society woud not have been able to function and grow?)
Other countries were in part responsible for slave trade in America. If someone sells your kid some crack I guess your kid gets all the blame for buying it ? No. We hold the person selling that comodity responsible also and go after him.
The car analogy is bunk. If my great great grandpa wrecked your great great grandpas’ car I don’t owe you jack.
I have no taste for the general topic, but the factual error needs to be corrected. Arab or non-Sub Saharan Muslim slave traders had little to nothing to do with the American slave trade, and the dominant Africa slave trading ports were in Xian areas, although at the time largely pagan. Of course the counter is that the trade was dominated by Xians. Mere artefact of power relations.
The trans-Saharan trade into the Middle East certainly was large, and continued a long time, estimates on the numbers are all over the place. Less good documentation all in all.
Just a general remark on the topic at hand - there ARE precedents:
- The question of whether this should ever have happened or not aside (still a major debate in Israel), Germany paid/pays reparations to Jews who were victimized during WWII. ONLY to the actual victims. The victim dies = reparations cease (German reparations to Jews were/are in the form of a life-long stipend, not a single sum). The victim dies without having filed (or even having filed but not completed) a claim for reparations = no dice (believe me, I know). This despite the well-known “Second Generation Syndrome” among children (and even grandchildren) of holocaust survivers.
- Not sure about American reparations to Japanese interns, but I gather that the same general idea applies there too, i.e., only the actual victim was/is eliible for reparations.
In short, I think that the question of whether reparations SHOULD HAVE BEEN paid by the US to former slaves is moot, since said former slaves are no longer around to collect.
Not even trying to address the moral issue.
NIS 0.09 ($1 ~ NIS 4.5)
Dan Abarbanel
That is not the story I was referring to. My story came from this book. In my story, the black man was just upset that the elderly woman seemed so frightened of him.
** dutchboy208, ** I highly doubt that anyone needs * evidence * of racism or dispirate treatment. My little story wasn’t there to prove that. Are you honestly doubting that things like that do happen?
by Hank Fescue:
Emphasis mine. In your drug analogy, we wouldn’t let your kid go scot free; they would be expected to pay for their crime whether or not the other people involved in the exchange were also prosecuted. In this discussion, however, everyone on the opposition seems to want to blame everybody and their mama for slavery except for the government most responsible for its perpetuation in this country. That’s insane to me.
Since you used drugs to make a point, I’ll do the same. In Holland, it is quite legal to purchase and sell marijuana. In this country, however, it is not. Let’s say I hopped on a plane to Amsterdam and bought 50 ounces of the stuff, and then made a quick dash back to the states where I distributed it to thirty of my closest friends. Let’s say one of these friends got very stoned one night, got on the freeway in their car, and killed a family of four. Is it Amsterdam’s fault that this happened? Should Amsterdam apologize and give restitution to the relatives of the family? What role, if any, does Amsterdam play in the events that took place?
In my eyes, a very minor role. Very very minor. Focusing on them rather on the friend who actually abused the drug and killed people while under its influence unfairly puts the blame on the least culpable party. Imagine how stupid the friend would sound to relatives of the slain family when he offered his defense: “But your honor, if it hadn’t been for Amsterdam selling the drug to my pal, then none of this would have happened; thus I owe no one anything and in fact, Amsterdam should pay!”
The fool would be laughed out of the courtroom, don’t you think?
Now let’s apply this story (which of course is not going to be an exact fit, but it’s close enough) to slavery. I hope you get my point by now.
So why are you not basing your protest on that aspect, rather than the guilt of the US relative to the guilt of other countries? I notice that bait 'n switch tactics are quite prevalent in reparation discussions. As soon as the anti-reparation side realizes that its original argument is bull, they suddenly retort with “but the problem is that we don’t owe the descendants jack shit”. Well that’s fine, but why was your initial gripe about the responsibilities of other countries and the relative guilelessness of the US? That has nothing to do with whether or not descendants deserve reparations.
Thanks for the link. Another New York Times reporter is making shit up in print. I am shocked.
And you know he’s lying how?
Not at all… I’m half indian (dots) and half caucasian, which makes me look vaguely Hispanic to some people… if I wear jeans any baggier than drainpipes, or a sleeveless t-shirt (which living in Florida I am wont to do) older white folk run in terror, or at least give me sour looks, and mutter about “thugs” behind my back…
I simply found the two sentences amusing taken out of context; sorry.
Because the author is trying to pass off an urban legend as fact, that’s how.
IOW, it’s bull crap.
Also,
It’s no surprise that liberals like the author, the OP, and monstro are repeating such nonsense.
It’s no surprise that assholes would automatically assume something like this never happens just because Snopes (as if Snopes is an authority on everyday racism and the human psyche) says it doesn’t.
I guess the first-hand experiences of my black male acquaintances and friends (because yes, we talk about this kind of thing) are all lies. They must all be liberals. :rolleyes:
Are you calling me an asshole in Great Debates? I believe that is frowned upon.
Your “first-hand experiences” are nothing more than hearsay. You fell for an UL, get over it.
What I still don’t understand, is if you don’t like it here, please leave.
Y
If you don’t automatically believe everything you read, then I’m not calling you an asshole.
You were the first person calling people names, remember.
Well, that sucked. I actually, for once, had some lucid, pertinent things to say, and the golddarn hampsters ate 'em.
I think it’s a conspiracy.