Because that’s the M.O of most anti-reparations people. Start off by saying there are no living survivors or oppressors and too much time has passed, then switch to “Do I deserve reparations for being descended from a poor Irishman escaping the Potato famine?”, then switch to, “Reparations are divisive to race relations”, change the channel to, “But it will BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY!!!”, and end with “They need to stop whining and start appreciating how good they have it over Africans.” Goal posts move, rotten red herrings are pulled out, and nothing productive ever gets done.
Meanwhile, the percentage of black people actively fighting for reparations is so small, and the chance of reparations ever being received is even smaller, that it’s like these people are suffering from altitude sickness standing on top of a mole hill. Why the hell this topic keeps coming up, I’ll never know.
It comes up because it is a way of diverting attention from the real issues that need addressing, and that can be address, but would require an admission that class is not a dirty word, and systemic inequality exists within the American dream.
By definition? By whose definition? A statute of limitation has nothing to do with harm. Harm doesn’t disappear after a person gets raped 10 years ago, but the statute of limitations still prevents that person from seeking justice. If Jim Crow police officers slammed a billy club against your head because it was institutional policy to brain uppity black people, you were still harmed even if it happened 40 years ago.
[quote]
If I’m freed after 50 years in Jail, the “harm” was suffered by me, personally, right up to the minute I was let out.
[quote]
So you don’t think you were entitled to a life of freedom and acquiring wealth? You think the government wouldn’t owe you something for wrongly imprisoning you for half a century. Oh, I really wish we could do an experiment, just to see how hunky-dory you really would be.
It is a different case, you’re right. But if the claimants can show that earlier descendents were denied the right or the access to get redress, that your imprisonment harmed them in a documentable ways and that the federal government recognized that some form of compensation was warrented but decided it wasn’t political tolerable, then maybe those distant descendants deserve, at the very least, a chance to make a formal case to a judicial body.
The question is, how does it hurt someone else if an individual decides their distant ancestor was harmed and seeks to acquire the compensation owed to that ancestor. When talking about an institution like slavery, where there was beaucoups of money involved, we’re talking about people profitting off the backs of people. Those profits didn’t just disappear into outer space. They were passed down through the generations, to both individuals and corporate entities. People benefited indirectly from slave labor. So if reparations are handed out, it’s not a case of punishing people. Not any more than taking a toy from a child who stole it from another child is punishment. It’s an attempt to even the score.
Now we can make an argument that in the case of black Americans, various institutions have been established to help level the playing field, therefore making financial reparations unnecessary. I don’t agree with it, but it’s a valid point. But saying that the descendents of slaves aren’t owed anything because they weren’t harmed by slavery is wrong. Harm can be inherited just like wealth can. Anyone who has spent a semester in a modern US history class would know how true this is.
The point is that I am not harmed if it happened to my grandfather, and he’s dead.
All the slaves in America are dead, as are their owners. And their children, and (I would bet) all or most of their grandchildren as well.
If you want to argue that you have inherited some kind of harm, then fine - let’s impose a 90% inheritance tax on all these kinds of historical grievances. 145 years ago, it was “forty acres and a mule”. Call it six generations. You are now entitled to ask for 1.7 square feet and a spavined guinea pig. Knock yourself out.
They might as well have, since they have long been diffused into the economy. All the money out there belongs to somebody and they believe that they–or at least their immediate parent–acquired it by working hard. With perhaps a very few exceptions.
It’s also worth reiterating that much of the wealth accumulated from slavery was expended–by both sides–in the Civil War.
That some wrongs are more recent than others is a basis for a limitations period.
The argument against a case-by-case analysis is that, after a certain point, there simply ought to be no case to make: namely, after the death of everyone who either caused or suffered the harm in issue.
That objection makes no sense. The plight of someone who personally suffered harm is obviously a different matter than that of someone who did not. Moreover, you can only provide redress to the living, not the dead.
Once again - the living are not affected by “historical limitations”. Someone who has actually been harmed is not similarly situated to someone who claims a greivance as a birthright, and pretending the two are the same does not advance the argument.
No group should get reparations - for harms individual members of said group did not suffer.
In my jurisdiction there are no limitations on indictable offences (what you would call felonies, roughly). So rapist and brain-ee would, legally, still be on the hook.
But that is neither here nor there, as I am not supporting the existing laws of limitations, but proposing a rule of public policy - that no reparations be considered for crimes where both perps and victims are no longer alive (say, arbitrarily, 100 years).
You quite missed my point. I’m saying that no limitations would apply, so I’d be totally entitled to sue when I was let out - under both the law and my proposed policy.
If I’ve been in jail for 50 years the harm dod not happen 50 years ago, it happened up until the moment I stepped out of jail (say, yesterday). That’s when the time starts to run.
But in aid of what? If my ancestors were persected by Oliver Cromwell, what good does it do anyone to teach old Oliver a lesson in civics? Good king Charles the duece stuck his rotting head on a pike centuries ago - he isn’t likely to care.
What it harms is two-fold: firstly, you are taking money from one group of people and giving it to another - that’s harm right there; and secondly, the example it provides encourages others to think in terms of group identity and historic grievance, which is a mode of thought that causes plenty of harm.
I have no investment either way in the specific case of reparations for Black slavery (I’m neither Black nor an American, for one), but the same goes for any number of other causes sacred to specific groups - Blacks are not alone in having a whopping great historical greivance, not by any means.
I did give my views on the OP…and not even in a show of good faith. This is what I previously said on the subject of the OP:
So…my view is that the statute of limitation runs out wrt historical grievance when those directly effected by the event die off. In the case of the Japanese interred during WWII, I have no problem with them asking for and receiving reparations, even though I wasn’t personally alive then (and in fact on my fathers side of the house my ancestors weren’t even living in the US at that time).
Is that clear enough?
Um…horseshit. Zionism wasn’t created to squeeze reparations out of anyone, nor was it based on historical grievances…it was founded with the desire for a single Jewish homeland.
So, what you want is not so much reparations for slavery is reparations for every wrong the US has committed throughout it’s history? Yes, Jim Crow laws certainly effected the black community and has had a non-zero effect on the black community. Much the same can be said about Native American’s and various laws that effected them as well. And Mexican/Hispanic American’s. And Asian American’s. And…well, just about every minority in the country.
How would reparations for past wrongs help them out at this point? Society is constantly changing, and has changed drastically in the last 3-4 decades wrt minorities…and continues to evolve. So, why do you suppose that, at this point, when things are already changing, that reparations would be a good idea? How would it be fair both to the group receiving reparations as well as the groups not…along with the groups having to pay them? What would the point of those reparations be exactly? To punish society as a whole? To help out the groups effected?
Which is an interesting point.
With that in mind consider that in civil court the goal is to make the victim “whole” again. We can never undo what America did to African Americans. They’re mainly American because their ancestors were kidnapped, and put through horrible abuse. However they are American. They have American family, friends, citizenship and American culture. The only difference is the color of their skin and who their ancestors were.
The problem is the abuse against their ancestors continued into living memory. A large percentage of African Americans live in poverty as a direct result of what slavory, then racism did to their ancestors.
Poverty is a generational cycle for people of any race. Poor breeds poor, and what Jim Crow ensured was a large percentage of people with ebony skin would be poor.
Now some might say African Americans deserve dispensation, but a payout won’t fix the problem. What will fix the problem is breaking the generational cycle of poverty. Besides, dispensation for African Americans would be racism. I never discriminated against anyone due to a protected class, and I’d hope most haven’t. Although I am 1/4 Hispanic 1/4 Inuit, and a trace Shawnee. So technically I could be a dick and say “screw ya’ll. It’s your own problem, whitie”
The solution is simple, yet maybe easier said then done. We need to break the poverty cycle for everyone. We need to focus resources on making everyone as upwardly mobile as they can be, regardless of race.
I’m not sure where to start with that, and the best way to do that is another debate, but the first generation where either “black flight” is just as common as “white flight”, or the inner cities cease to zones of extreme poverty will be the first generation to be “made whole”.
How large do you suppose is the percentage of African American’s living in poverty today? Just out of curiosity…you seem to feel that it’s pretty large (20%? 30%? 50? 75%?), so I’m curious how large you feel it is today.
Also, MY ancestors weren’t (by and large) enslaved, yet I’d guess just as large a percentage of them live in poverty (and in various ghettos throughout the country as well) as well. While I acknowledge freely that slavery and Jim Crow had a profound effect on the black community, I think it’s a excuse at this point to say that those are the over riding reasons for continued poverty in the black community, instead of the same pressures and effects that make many of my own ‘people’ poor generation after generation.
Where did I talk about reparations? Would you please respond to things I say?
I was just addressing the point that whites certainly have used slavery, and then discrimination and racism, to enrich themselves well into the 20th century.
Civil war families may indeed have spent much of their original money, but it’s complete bs to say the original families didn’t use their wealth, privilege, and status to institute Jim Crow to greatly stack the deck in their kids favor.
Well, that’s the subject of the thread, ehe? I’m not sure what your point was if you weren’t speaking to this subject.
Yes…certainly. I don’t believe anyone is disputing this, to be honest. But, what’s your point wrt to the over all discussion? Blacks were used as slaves and treated pretty badly for most of the 19th and over half of the 20th centuries (with small decreases in the level of badness over the course of the 20th century, until the present day, when they are treated in an, um, less bad manner today)…and?
It would be BS to say that, if anyone actually said it. Which, afaik, no one has. Sort of a strawmanesque type situation here.
To clarify, what I said was that most of the old money slave owning families (who, presumably you or someone would want to hit up for funds for reparations in some manner) were blown away by the Civil War and it’s aftermath. I doubt there are many old money families left from that era to the present day with large parts of their fortune still intact. Heck, I doubt there are a lot of old money families around today from that era, though I’m sure there are a few…wealthy families who last for generation after generation are, if not a myth, at least a bit more of a rarity than most people seem to think.
And their children and grandchildren just have to live with the effects it had on their own lives? And the continuation of the cause of the grievance has no effect on your thinking?
And the way that homeland was created, and the way it is being expanded even today, occurred and is occurring at the expense of … no one?:dubious: The desire for a single Jewish homeland, and in that spot, is rooted in, if not “historical grievances” lovingly nursed since the friggin’ Roman Empire, then in what? :dubious:
I do understand why you and Malthus insist on discussing money only, not land, and avoiding the most prominent example of the problem today, I really do. But do you understand how unconvincing that form of special pleading is to those of us who lack a history of nursing grievances over it?
My objection does make sense, if only because the focus of your “but what about the poor white folks!” had nothing to do with who was directly or indirectly harmed by slavery. It concerned the fairness of helping out one group who was a victim of circumstance while not helping out another group who was a victim of circumstances.
The same goes for your Saxons appeal and the “but I didn’t do nothing!” appeal. All excuses that could be applied to do-nothingness for any atrocity, regardless of recency.
Like monstro, I have to wonder why the subject of reparations for American blacks–which only exist as theory, has no strong movement behind it, and is about is as likely to occur as child voting rights–is such a source of so much vehemence on this board. Interestingly enough, all the arguments you’re using to argue against slavery reparations have been used to argue against Jim Crow reparations…in which there are living survivors. So pardon me if I view your thesis with a skeptical eye.
With a person directly harmed, that is, they personally suffered the harm, there is no “victim of circumstances”; they are victims, not by historic circumstance, but directly. Hence, different case.
I don’t see that at all.
The Saxon case rather obviously points to recency - the important thing about the Saxons, after all, is that they were long ago.
The “I did nothing” issue (while highly theoretical in this case - again, I’m not American, so presumably you would not hit me up for cash, even under your theory) points to the fundamental injustice of holding people now alive liable for the acts of those long dead: no-one now alive “did anything”.
In the case of those still alive who are suing governments, presumably it would make sense to hold the voters en mass vicariously liable for the acts of their government, even if some or most people did not vote for 'em: after all, it would be utterly impractical to seperate out those who voted for the gov’t and hold them personally liable, however satisfying that would be; in any event, any unfairness to persons not responsible is outweighed by the requirement to do justice, in a specific case, for someone personally harmed.
But it makes no sense to hold the present-day voters liable for the acts of (say) Oliver Cromwell, if you are English.
I was not the one who started with the subject of reparations for Blacks specifically in mind - my thesis was broader than that: it encompases all historical grievances - of which reparations for Black American slaves are merely one example. Indeed, as pointed out, I have no dog in that fight - I’m not American.
Indeed, I originally thought this thread would be hijacked by those specifically interested in the Israeli issue, not American Black slaves.
If you are wondering about the vehemence with which this issue is argued, I suggest a mirror.
The institution of slavery existed in Canada as well. Why do you insist so strongly that “I did nothing” is “highly theoretical” in your own case? :dubious:
And we needn’t get into why you think bringing inconvenient but relevant real-world problems into the discussion is somehow “hijacking”. That’s evident enough.
Just to shake the thread up a little, are there any examples of grievances from prior to WWII (and other than Israel) that were redressed at least 50 years later?
" Resolved: A Statute of Limitations on Historical Grievance is a Good Idea"
Which also sums up the op pretty good.
Whether or not a group is still feeling the negative effects of a “Historical Grievance” is pretty relevant to the subject wouldn’t you agree?
Also you can feel a group has a legitimate grievance while still finding reparations objectionable for other reasons.
You don’t think they might have a legitimate grievance with the maltreatment?
Isn’t wealth best defined by purchasing power? Confederate dollars were worthless after the war, rendering many families poor, but what polices ensured the purchasing power stayed with whites?
However with the clarification below I see this indeed wasn’t what you were arguing.
Ahh I see. That’s actually a good point, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Strawman withdrawn.
I agree any legitimate reparations would have to come from the original slavers, which is why I don’t agree with them either.
