# Suing insurers for slavery reparations? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2002, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841 "2002-05-02T13:39:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/21 "2002-05-03T17:33:58Z")
> [@](#): > > I think the lawsuits are a great idea. At the very least the discovery process will provide more pieces to the slavery puzzle. At the most it will provide a hard and exhaustive look at this period of history that has been largely swept under the rug by people that want to forget that this ever happened. We have people who research this and publish the results all the time. They are called historians. (If the call for these lawsuits prompts some historians to dig for new information in previously unexplored areas, _that_ will be a good thing.) However, there is no way that reparations will be workable or, more importantly, equitable. Discovering who has how much slave ancestry and dividing the loot on some proportional basis would take so much effort, the money would all be spent just doing the calculations. And while reparations from the government are unworkable for the reasons just noted, the very concept of suing a private corporation for profiting from legal activities is a horrible precedent. There is a specific difference between the actions of Aetna and the actions of Krupp. Slave labor was not legal in Europe until the Nazis began to change (or ignore) the laws in order to provide Krupp with labor. Aetna simply carried out the legal activities that it always had. Even today, corporations insure the lives of officers and key employees as well as insuring property. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/22 "2002-05-03T17:38:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Compliance with the law, hmmm, the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen states of America opened ::: sigh ::: The Declaration of Independence is not law. Moral or ethical principles are not law until they are enshrined in a constitution, statute, or court decision. Until the XIII Amendment, slavery was legal in the U.S. (except as modified by the statutes of various states or by executive order for those states in rebellion). ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/23 "2002-05-03T17:45:08Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\*I find the idea that blacks live in de facto slavery to be laughable. It indicates a lack of understanding of either the term “de facto” or the word “slavery.” Things may not be perfect for black Americans – and I do not argue they are – but_de facto\* slavery? Please. And the fact that the ancestors of black Americans contributed to the building of this nation without recompense does not explain why modern black Americans should be entitled to receive money for damages they have not suffered themselves. JODI– Laugh all you want, but first note that I didn’t say the condition of blacks today is defacto slavery. My point is that slavery under **certain** conditions was abolished by the 13th ammendment in 1865, however we have the 24th ammendment in 1962, almost one hundred years later which was required to remove the last loop hole that was used to disenfranchise black people i.e. the denial of the right to vote. At the very least, this period from 1865 to 1962, provides more than enough of a case for reparations. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/24 "2002-05-03T17:46:54Z")
> [@](#): > > At the very least, this period from 1865 to 1962, provides more than enough of a case for reparations. Not from insurance companies or railroads. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/25 "2002-05-03T17:49:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > \*\* > Slavery may have ended 150 or so years ago but the fallout still remains today i.e. discrimation(racial profiling, redlining, etcetera). \*\* I don’t really want to spin this off into another debate, but I’m going to ask the question anyway: Are the societial ills of today (racial profiling, redlining, etc.) a direct result of the fact that blacks were slaves; or would these ills still exist today even if blacks were never slaves, becuase some people are just simply racist jerks? While not denying that racism (and the assorted practices that come with it) exist, are they necessarily the result of the fact that blacks were slaves? As food for the argument, there are plenty of anti-Jewish people around (I hate the term “anti-Semitism”) and for many years in this country Jews were blocked from equal employment oppurtinites, educational oppurtunities, etc., but it’s not a result of their having been slaves in the U.S. It was simply because many people in that time period were bigots, period. It had nothing to do with slavery. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/26 "2002-05-03T17:50:19Z")
EASY PHIL – > [@](#): > > Yes swept under the rug…Take the movie “The Patriot”, for example, no real coverage of slavery in the movie, though it did exist during that time and was a part of those characters lives. There was no real coverage of the treatment of American Indians in that movie, either, though that was an issue at the time. The plight of indentured servants – real issue, not discussed. The unequal role of women in society – real issue, not discussed. Religious persecution – real issue, not discussed. Any or all of those things were probably part of those characters lives. So why weren’t they included? Because they were not relevant to the plot of the movie. Which is, after all, _just a movie_. I wouldn’t suggest anyone take their understanding of history fromm _The Patriot_. > [@](#): > > The Civil War era may be a hotly discussed topic, but the focus isn’t on slavery and how blacks were treated. On the contrary, it very often is. There is a huge body of work out there on the issue(s) of slavery. In fact, it is very difficult to discuss the Civil War in any detail _without_ discussing slavery. > [@](#): > > Clearly black people were “men” then, and any laws, actions that occurred that were not in compliance with the fundamental principle of the formation of the United States can’t possibly be just laws or actions. First of all, black people were not “men” then, unfortunately. Each black man was 3/5ths of a white man, under the Constitution. So you’re up a creek if you want to base your case solely on the “fundamental principle[s] of the formation of the United States.” The blunt fact is that when the Founding Fathers talked of “all men being created equal,” they were talking about all white, landowning men. They weren’t talking about Indians, women, or blacks. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/27 "2002-05-03T17:50:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\* > ::: sigh ::: > > The Declaration of Independence is not law. > > Moral or ethical principles are not law until they are enshrined in a constitution, statute, or court decision. Until the XIII Amendment, slavery was legal in the U.S. (except as modified by the statutes of various states or by executive order for those states in rebellion). \*\* I didn’t say the DOI was a law. My point is about the fundamental princple under which the country was formed. The actions that took place in Nazi Germany were legal according to the government, but still wrong. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/28 "2002-05-03T18:04:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\* > First of all, black people were not “men” then, unfortunately. Each black man was 3/5ths of a white man, under the Constitution. So you’re up a creek if you want to base your case solely on the “fundamental principle[s] of the formation of the United States.” The blunt fact is that when the Founding Fathers talked of “all men being created equal,” they were talking about all white, landowning men. They weren’t talking about Indians, women, or blacks. Sorry. \*\* The only thing I could find in the Constitution that remotely resembles what you’re saying is this… \*Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. \* I know what they meant by “men” and how narrow their vision was. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/29 "2002-05-03T18:07:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Easy Phil wrote: > **The actions that took place in Nazi Germany were legal according to the government, but still wrong.** Just curious (and I should look it up myself), but my understanding is that certain German industries were accused of using slave labor during WWII. What - if any - legal ramifications did they companies? A valiant effort, **Easy Phil.** That’s quite a line up you managed to get opposing you there in pretty short order (not that I necessarily judge the strength of arguments by the personalities expressing them.) ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/30 "2002-05-03T18:10:41Z")
_As you no doubt understood:_ What - if any - legal ramifications did they **face**? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/31 "2002-05-03T18:19:12Z")
EASYPHIL – > [@](#): > > Laugh all you want, but first note that I didn’t say the condition of blacks today is defacto slavery. My point is that slavery under certain conditions was abolished by the 13th ammendment in 1865, however we have the 24th ammendment in 1962, almost one hundred years later which was required to remove the last loop hole that was used to disenfranchise black people i.e. the denial of the right to vote. So are you saying that black Americans lived in _de facto_ slavery until 1962? > [@](#): > > At the very least, this period from 1865 to 1962, provides more than enough of a case for reparations. No it doesn’t. Damages are awardable at law to individuals or identifiable entities that suffered the damage or injury. There is no existing black person who suffered any damage as a _direct, provable_ result of their ancestors having been enslaved. Furthermore, it is not consistent with the principles of law to retroactively find a person (or persons) culpable for having done something that was not illegal when he, she or they did it. As ZEV asked: > [@](#): > > Are the societial ills of today (racial profiling, redlining, etc.) a direct result of the fact that blacks were slaves; or would these ills still exist today even if blacks were never slaves, becuase some people are just simply racist jerks? While not denying that racism (and the assorted practices that come with it) exist, are they necessarily the result of the fact that blacks were slaves? This is one of the chief legal stumbling blocks to reparations. In order to recover at law, you must _prove_ that your damages were _caused_ by the action you assert was wrong. I see no way for black Americans to accomplish that. > [@](#): > > I know what they meant by “men” and how narrow their vision was. If you think their vision was so all-fired “narrow,” then it makes no sense for you to base your arguments on their principles, does it now? ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/32 "2002-05-03T18:19:12Z")
_As you no doubt understood:_ What - if any - legal ramifications did they **face**? ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/33 "2002-05-03T18:29:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dinsdale \* > \*\* > > Just curious (and I should look it up myself), but my understanding is that certain German industries were accused of using slave labor during WWII. What - if any - legal ramifications did they companies?\*\* To the best of my knowledge a number of companies were named in a law suit and settled the suit. > [@](#): > > \*\* > A valiant effort, **Easy Phil.** That’s quite a line up you managed to get opposing you there in pretty short order (not that I necessarily judge the strength of arguments by the personalities expressing them.) \*\* It’s a hard job, but hey somebody has to do it. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/34 "2002-05-03T18:36:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\*EASYPHIL – > So are you saying that black Americans lived in _de facto_ slavery until 1962? > \*\* Yes for part of that period, yes indeed. For the entire period I mentioned previosly, they were disenfranchised and not treated equally. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > No it doesn’t. Damages are awardable at law to individuals or identifiable entities that suffered the damage or injury. There is no existing black person who suffered any damage as a _direct, provable_ result of their ancestors having been enslaved. Furthermore, it is not consistent with the principles of law to retroactively find a person (or persons) culpable for having done something that was not illegal when he, she or they did it. > \*\* If I’m denied a job, entry into a public space, the right to vote, then I’ve been damaged. > [@](#): > > \*\* > As ZEV asked: > > This is one of the chief legal stumbling blocks to reparations. In order to recover at law, you must _prove_ that your damages were _caused_ by the action you assert was wrong. I see no way for black Americans to accomplish that. > \*\* Especially true if you have whites in denial making the decisions. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If you think their vision was so all-fired “narrow,” then it makes no sense for you to base your arguments on their principles, does it now? \*\* It makes perfect sense, since, the argument is based on “their” principles. Their vision had flaws, they were racist, sexist, and classist…they were men. ---
**Author:** ![cbtcad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/46a35a/32.png) [@cbtcad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cbtcad)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/35 "2002-05-03T18:43:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > \*\* > To the best of my knowledge a number of companies were named in a law suit and settled the suit. > \*\* Yes, a fund was set up by the government, but it was set up to compensate the labors them selves not their decedents. So it has little relation to the scurrent debate. If you want an article about the case look here: [Nazi Slave Case](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/nazi991214.html) ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/36 "2002-05-03T18:46:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > \*\* > > Especially true if you have whites in denial making the decisions. > \*\* But it still does not answer the question I asked… Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Shirley\_Ujest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shirley\_Ujest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shirley_Ujest)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/37 "2002-05-03T18:59:20Z")
This is one of those questions that always crops up whenever the slavery reparation stuff comes into the media. England outlawed/abolished slavery in 1830? (vague memory), does this reparation and backlash stuff ever go on across the pond? ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/38 "2002-05-03T19:19:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\*I don’t really want to spin this off into another debate, but I’m going to ask the question anyway: Are the societial ills of today (racial profiling, redlining, etc.) a direct result of the fact that blacks were slaves; or would these ills still exist today even if blacks were never slaves, becuase some people are just simply racist jerks? While not denying that racism (and the assorted practices that come with it) exist, are they necessarily the result of the fact that blacks were slaves? > > Zev Steinhardt \*\* In my mind there’s no doubt they are a direct cause of the institution of slavery in this country. A large infrastructure was created to keep the slavery machine going, and along with that infracstructure you have the psychological component to aid in the justification and the smooth sailing of the operation. If white people back then believed that blacks were human beings, just like them, history would have been totally different. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/39 "2002-05-03T19:49:54Z")
I would agree that slavery _as it was practiced_ (_i.e._, race-based, chattel slavery supported by the errors of ethnology), was a mutually re-inforcing aspect to the social conditions that have continued to interefere with the ability of a large number of blacks in this country to achieve “the American Dream.” That said, the issue in _this thread_ addresses, not the general topic of reparations, but the specific topic of attacking individual corporations to supply the money for those reparations. If “all” “white” institutions profited from slavery, where is the justice in going after a limited number of those institutions at this time? (Mind you, I am not a fan of the reparations schtick, but even if we accept them for discussion purposes, you need to do a lot more work to establish that Aetna should bear any specific burden. Next, we will address the issue of how much harm we will actually do to the black community by damaging the economy through inflicting unfair and counter-productive penalties on the very organizations that are needed if we wish to provide investment capital to the black communities.) ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841/40 "2002-05-03T19:56:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > \*\* > > Yes swept under the rug…Take the movie “The Patriot”, for example, no real coverage of slavery in the movie, though it did exist during that time and was a part of those characters lives. > > \*\* YOu’re using one stupid and historically inaccurate movie to illustrate your point? What about _Roots_? _Beloved_? _Huck Finn_? Books and books abound about slavery and the Civil War. Sheesh! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suing-insurers-for-slavery-reparations/106841.md?page=3)