Let me clarify: I don’t mean you personally Guin, I mean the collective you. You know, allayalls.
My mistake. Please pardon.
But how, exactly? How is mentioning the fact that the interned Japanese and the Holocaust survivors received reparations–but American Slaves did not–belittling? No one has said that they didn’t deserve their settlements or that they were trying to be greedy. So I’m not seeing what you are seeing at all.
After reading all of the posts here, I have found references to 40 acres and a mule. Where did this come from, last I heard (or remembered from history class and the history chanel) the 40 acres and a mule was a sugestion from one of the union Generals to the government, but was never acted upon. So wouldn’t that be a nonstarter there?
Also about reperations, it is true that the original slaves had no choice about comming over, but after the civil war the government told all of the slaves that if they wanted to go back to Africa, they would have a free ticket (with better accomidations then the west bound leg). Those that took the offer went back to Africa and founded the country of Liberia. They even used the U.S. flag as a model for their flag. So a choice about staying here was made in the past.
Liberia was founded before the Civil War.
It is possible that some freed slaves were offered a “trip home,” although the numbers are unknown (and were likely small).
Now, what was the incentive for a freed slave in 1866, having no money, no farming tools, and no eduction, to accept an “offer” to move away from the land and language that they knew to start over on a different continent with no knowledge of the crops or growing conditions and no way to learn them? And this assumes that they felt they could trust those offering them the trip not to simply throw them overboard in mid ocean. If the U.S. could not/would not deliver on the (never legislated) “40 acres and a mule,” why would anyone believe that the U.S. would have provided enough resources for Liberia to actually thrive?
The Liberia experiment was flawed from its inception and claiming that emancipated slaves already “had their chance” at a new life are bogus.
I do not think that reparations are workable, but they do not become less workable because spurious arguments are offered to indicate why they are not needed.
I guess I’m missing something here. Aetna is being sued because it insured the lives of slaves. How is that different than insuring the lives of a business’s senior officers? Seem’s like a pretty tangental thing to sue over. Would make more sense to go after a corporation in existence today which owned slaves at one time.
Aetna’s stock has been going slighty up since the suit was announced.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AET&d=c&k=c4&t=5d
You are really confused. The consequences of a person’s actions generally have to be foreseeable, not the actions themselves. For example, death is a foreseeable outcome of cutting someone’s head off. You don’t need a psychic to predict that the executioner was going to act.
I’m trying to stay out of this discussion because I find the majority of people’s emotional responses to the issue very disturbing. No wonder we still have such serious problems with race in this country.
Aetna is being sued under the legal “principle” of “deep pockets.”
A few points:
Concerning the 40 acres and mule, Congress voted in favor of it and then President Johnson vetoed. Unfortunate, yes, but no legal principle allows people to sue because a bill that would have benefited them got a Presidential veto.
Regarding the estimate of how much money the unpaid labor of slaves is worth, I’ve seen estimates as high as 100 trillion and as low as a couple billion. Obviously, all of these estimates involve lots of guesswork and approximations. If slavery advocates ever do win a settlement against the government, the amount paid will be simply a random number with not relation to any meaningful quantity.
I hate to tell you this, but class-action lawyers are not noble crusaders who only fight evil and act for the good of society. When they try a massive suit like this against corporations with deep pockets, they are doing so in hopes of a big payday. If you look at the lawsuits against tobacco and asbestos companies, for instance, you’ll note that the various law firms involved picked up billions of dollars while the average victim got little or nothing.
You mean “not all class-action lawyers are noble crusaders who fight evil and act for the good of society.” I’ve got friends who are going bankrupt taking class-actions on behalf of poor people. In some cases lawyers make lots of money, but sometimes they end up collecting nothing. Whenever they’re making the really big bucks, it’s because they took a gamble and would have gotten nothing had they lost.
[a completely sidetracking hijack]
That’s funny, 'cause I work for an accounting firm in the class action department. Mostly stock manipulation cases and a discrimination case or two. The settlements taken from the companies are not meant to give back all the monies the claimants lost because of SEC violations. It is punative. Sure, there are greedy lawyers. But they are far outstripped by the greedy, manipulative, lying defendants.
The lawyer fees (and my company’s administration fees) are set by the judge. There have been many cases where the lawyers requested a certain amount of money and were turned down. The claimants get their share of the settlement fund. There is no way for most claimants to get back all of their losses in most of these cases without seriously damaging the companies sued. No one wants that, not even the greedy lawyers.
[/highjack]
Lawsuits are not the way to address our racial problems here in the USA. Still, the discussion here certainly puts a bright, shiny spotlight on the racial divide.
I agree with you, Biggirl. However, I’d make a related point: The struggle for reparations tends to polarize the races.
Most people consider themselves disadvantaged in some way. It’s an excuse for not achieving more or a point of pride for having overcome the supposed disadvantages. This point came up in a seminar some years ago. I remember a young man passionately crying that he couldn’t possiblty succeed because his parents lived in Italy during the difficult post-WWII period, and besides which, they were third cousins!
This sounded ridiculous to the rest of us, but he believed that these factors determined his life. A claim that says, “We’re more disadvantaged than you are,” bothers a lot of people’s self-image. It engenders racial separation, which is not a good thing for society.
My beef is not with the fact that the effects of slavery are still being felt by today’s black population, but rather the implication that anybody should be held responsible for the wrongdoing of their ancestors. What could blacks possibly gain from having people apologize for something they had no part in?
This is probably a hijack, but this thing is waaay off the OP, so what the hell. One thing I’ve never seen addressed is the whole logistics of the thing.
Keeping it within this case: part of a class-action suit is defining the class? Is it all blacks or just those descended from slaves? If the former, why should recent immigrants get anything; if the latter, what is required to prove said descent? Do they need documentation? If so, how do we figure out what “documentation” works?
And of course, there are lots of people mixed (50% slave ancestry, 25% Caribbean immigrant, 25% white, etc.) Exactly how much of a share does Tiger Woods get? Howabout a guy who is 1/64 black, and all the rest white?
I don’t see how you can have a class-action suit if there is no clearly defined class. If it’s “not about race” as many are insisting, are you going to insist they produce great-great-great grandma’s Bible or some other family records? I don’t think the gov’t passed out cards saying “You’re free now; save this for your records.”
And what would be an appropriate settlement? If it’s a flat amount (say $1 trillion), then the plantiffs have an excellent motivation for setting the documentation bar real high.
Or if it’s some other method… do we have an army of accountants figuring out lost wages for each person’s ancestors from the 17th-19th centuries? Or do we just say that because your great-grandfather was a slave you get $500. Or $5000? $50,000? What dollar value do you want to put on it?
And finally, if the Government does work it all out, and issues checks to every aggrieved party, does this mean we end affirmitive action? (after all, the check is supposed to settle the grivience and the historical deprivation) If not, why not?
Until there is some inkling of a plan, the whole issue is meaningless, other than a great way for people like Jesse and Al to make a nice living at race-baiting.
I am open, of course to hearing the above issues addressed by Monsto or You With the Face.
Which clearly illustrates the need for safety-deposit boxes. Contact your local banker today.
Let’s just say for the sake of the hypothesizing that I’M a former slaveholder. Forget about the great-great-grandkids. I’m a spry 180 year-old and I have proud memories of encouraging my group of sadistic overseers in their whipping and branding. Now, ownership of the slaves prior to 1865 was perfectly legal where I lived (Alabama, for the sake of argument) and after the War of Northern Aggression swept through, my legal property (i.e. the slaves) was declared to no longer be such, and they all left.
None of the original slaves are still alive, but they did have children and grandchildren, and now some of the great-great-grandchilren have filed suit against me. I don’t know these people. I’ve had no contact with them and I certainly haven’t been in a position to oppress them. How much, if anything, do I owe them? Doesn’t paying them even one cent admit that I’m somehow responsible for what’s wrong in their lives?
Now, if their great-great-grandparents have filed suit against me back in 1900 or 1910 and testified to the treatment they had personally received, they might have had a case. But they didn’t or couldn’t, for whatever reason.
What’s a poor Southern gentleman to do? Pay off the great-great-grandkids? I’d rather not, of course.
Returning to reality, put a corporation (a legal person) in place of the immensely old Southerner. Slavery legally existed at the time, and giving reparations to people who didn’t personally suffer through it means a shifting of responsibility. It’s this precedent that is actually the most disturbing. If something is wrong in your life and you can’t find anyone to blame, find someone who dd something wrong to your parents. Or your grandparents. Or your great-grandparents. The slaves were forced into misery with chains and whips. What’s your excuse?
The slavery issue is a misdirection. A better, stronger and more useful case might be against the Federal Government and the several states for slipshod enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other relatively recent legislation, which has injured persons still alive. The problem, of course, is that it’s not a sexy lawsuit, and not likely in itself to get your name in the papers if you come out in favour of it, nor is it likely to sell more copies of Ebony or get you re-elected to congress. Demanding things is easy. Working for them (and challenging the Government on legal issues is definitely work - long, arduous, thankless) is hard.
If I, as a white Canadian of Jewish descent, may close with a Martin Luther King remark, he seemed far more interested in getting hearts and minds, rather than fame and money. For shame, reparation-seekers. For shame.
Denying it over and over again doesn’t make it untrue. Believe it or not, you need our respect and good will, and demanding an apology we don’t owe and you don’t deserve isn’t the way to get it. Blacks demanding an apology for slavery is every bit as callous, stupid and just plain mean-minded as whites demanding gratitude for having abolished slavery.
But I’m not comparing it to things that happened six thousand years ago. I’m comparing it to things that happened in the last two or three centuries. I’m comparing it to the oppression of poor and working class whites, which was every bit as horrid as the oppression of black slaves. I’m comparing it to the British oppression of Ireland which was in every way comparable to the oppression of large parts of Africa. I’m comparing it to the Stalinist massacres, the Hitlerite massacres, the Japanese atrocities of the Second World War, and any number of other things.
The point that people are trying to make here, and the point you keep trying so desperately to evade, is that your history isn’t nearly as unique or unusual as you imagine, and you are not deserving of special consideration. The people from whom many blacks are demanding money and apologies are often themselves descended from people who were treated every bit as badly as the slaves. A major problem with American blacks is geting them to understand that black American history is not the only history that matters.
I can trace many of the troubles of my present life to the poverty of my parents, my grandparents and my great-grandparents. (You do understand that there have always been plenty of poor whites around, don’t you?) I can trace much of that poverty to ancestors fleeing Ireland to escape poverty and hunger, and to other ancestors fleeing political persecution in France. I can trace much of my family’s hardships to the landowner who squeezed my sharecropper grandfather for every nickel he could get out of him, and left them so impoverished and poorly fed that my mother still suffers the effects of that malnutrition today.
But I don’t expect anybody to give me money, and I don’t expect any God damned apology.
GET OVER IT!!!
And a major problem with American whites is getting them to understand that saying “everybody has suffered; get over it!” results in exactly the opposite response. Perhaps people can not “get over it” like you want them to because the world doesn’t look in quite the same that it does from your eyes.
“You are not deserving of special consideration”. Who said the descendants of slaves are worthy of “special” consideration? If anything, the argument has been that they want the same consideration that other atrocities survivors in the US have received. Reparations is not a word that was invented by black people, keep in mind.
The way I see it, the major crux of the issue is the fact that slavery has not directly impacted the lives of Afican Americans, because many years have passed since then, and we are not actually dealing with people who were slaves but those who came from slaves. Like Monstro said, it is up to the courts to decide to what extent slave descendants have been hurt by slavery and therefore deserving of reparations. The issue stems from time and the effects of time, IMO. Not whether or not slavery in and of itself was a crime deserving of compensation. Because I feel it was.
Can’t believe no one’s brought this up, but here’s another reason the lawsuit mentioned in the OP is inappropriate:
Let’s say I have invested my life savings in the company being sued. When I purchased my shares five years ago, I was blissfully unaware of any part the company may have played in the slave economy. However, I diligently researched the company’s recent past, its P/E ratios, its management, its debt load --all the usual stuff.
Now if the suit is successful, I lose my shirt in spite of all my diligence, as the stock tanks.
Is this fair?
Should an investor bear the burden of something that happened 150 years ago over which he had no control and of which he was unaware? Must an investor research 150 years of company history before investing in the company’s stock? Or shouldn’t an investor be able to rely upon the statute of limitations to protect his investment from ancient claims?
I’m sure with enough sluething, one would have discovered the tie–however tenuous–these companies had with slavery.
But I agree with you for the most part. It’s one thing to know that these companies had ties with slavery. Many present-day instititutions were directly or indirectly benefitted by slavery, and yet we don’t see anyone boycotting these businesses for this reason. It’s another thing to expect that a company would be financially called to the carpet over such a relation.