Hey, women didn’t get to vote until 1920! Does that mean every descendent of a woman, or every woman gets reparations?
The fact that women were seen as inferior still exists today? Does that mean every man owes me? I don’t think so.
Now Guin, it’s hardly fair to point out that The Patriot got 90% of all of its history wrong. That would mean that it was actually irrelevant to the discussion.
(Hint, Phil: The Patriot bears no relation to the life and actions of Francis Marion on whose exploits it is based about as loosely as Disney’s The Swamp Fox.)
Let us get back to basics. To quote a brilliant legal mind (from a brief I wrote):
Assuming arguendo that insurers committed a legal wrong in engaging in the (then-legal) practice of insuring slaves, it is legally and factually impossible for any descendant of that slave to demonstrate injury to themselves at this point.
To take the particular case of insurance companies, what injury did insuring a slave cause that slave, much less his/her descendants? It did not cause the enslavement, or even make it possible - going out (slightly) on a limb here, I would be extremely surprised if all, or even most, slaves were insured.
To take the idea of private reparations more generally, be it from insurers or companies/families whose predecessors actually owned slaves, the injury to the slave was (a) loss of income and (b) non-economic damages (“pain and suffering”), to be compensated by a financial award. OK, fine, that money was owed to the slave.
But it was not owed to the descendants. If we could go back in time and hand over the cash to the slave, there is absolutely no guarantee (or even likelihood) that that cash would have been passed on to the now-living descendant. The slave might have had a prediliction for the ponies. The slave’s grandson might have been a stock investor who lost everything in 1929. The slaves great-great grandaughter may have decided to give all of her inherited money to charity. The list of possible intervening factors is nearly limitless. In short, the living descendant has absolutely no way of meeting his/her burden of proof that, but for the enslavement of his/her ancestor, he/she would be in a better financial situation now.
Quite simply, whatever their political or equitable merits, reparations are not an appropriate judicial issue. I am, quite simply, appalled at this overt attempt to use the judicial system as a means of extortion.
Sua
I asked EASYPHIL “So are you saying that black Americans lived in de facto slavery until 1962?” He replies:
Which part of that period would constitute de facto slavery? And why? You do realize, do you not, that blacks were not uniformly disenfrancized until 1962. Surely you are not arguin that 1962 marked the first time any black person got the vote. And unequal treatment is not the same as slavery.
Maybe so. But in order to recover for that damage, you must be able to show that a particular person or entity caused that damage to you. Black Americans very probably cannot show that the institution of slavery (abolished 150 years ago) caused them (black Americans living today) damages for which society (people living today) should be held liable. That’s the problem.
This actually doesn’t make any sense as a response to what I said, but I would point out in passing that having people disagree with you does not mean they are “in denial.” I don’t believe reparations are legally supportable. I don’t believe they are socially a good idea. I am not “in denial” to have so concluded.
I said:
To which EASYPHIL replies:
Let’s back up for a minute. The person quoting the Founding Fathers, by posting the Declaration of Independence, was you, not me. Therefore, you are the one relying upon “their” principles to back up your argument. I am not. Now you admit they were “racist, sexist, and classist.” So why do you rely upon their works to support your argument?
I assume you mean modern racial societal ills are a result of slavery; they obviously are not a cause. But, you see, it is not enough for there to be “no doubt” of this “in your mind.” You have to be able to articulate why those ills should be directly attributed to slavery, as opposed to racism, or classism, or a lack of education, or missed opportunities, or whatever. You have to prove that slavery then caused the problems we experience now. How do you propose to do that?
TOM –
I would add as well that I see little basis for holding an insurer liable for the condition of the property of the insured. If I can find a company to insure a horse with a broken leg, that’s fine. But it doesn’t make the insurance company responsible for the fact the horse’s leg is broken. There is a retroactive (if not revisionist) moral case to be made that an insurance company should not have done any business with slave owners, and certainly should not have insured people as chattel, even when slavery was legal. But I don’t see how that makes insurers any more responsible for slavery than any other segment of a society that tolerated the practice.
TOM, are you saying The Swamp Fox was not a documentary?? Blasphemer!
Yeah. What SUA said. I always make a point to agree with brilliant legal minds. 
I have a couple of questions:
-
Are blacks any worse off now than if their ansectors had arrived as immigrants in 1865?
-
Where do statutes of limitations apply in the lawsuits mentioned in the OP.
More the merrier. 
Well, that is an essentially unanswerable question. It needs an answer, among many other questions, as to whether racism and concomitant denial of economic opportunity would have been as virulent as it was (is) without the history of slavery, what the economic condition of the U.S. (better or worse) would have been without slavery - including whether there would have been a Civil War, with its impact on the economy and economic trends, etc.
And, of course, the fact that the question is unanswerable means that it cannot be proven in a court of law.
The statute of limitations expired well more than a century ago. Going back as far as insurance of slaves occurred, it is even longer. However, there is a doctrine of equitable tolling - if unfairness would result, for various reasons, in strictly applying the statute of limitations, then the statute of limitations may be “tolled” - that is, stop running.
Equitable tolling, however, is a very narrowly tailored doctrine that is rarely applied, and IMO, should not apply here.
Sua
I’m not sure I understand what you mean here. Blacks were uniformly disenfranchised prior to 1962.
This link illustrates some of the unique challenges you face by just having darker skin in the USA
Actually I’m mocking them in a way. Not all they were expousing was bad, they were just short sighted. The fundamental principle they had is a sound one and one I agree with especially when you define “men” to mean human.
**
Slavery is the cause of the resulting racial societal ills. That’s what I’m saying. Racism was a fundamental component of slavery, and is today the main reason why we still struggle with the race issue. You couldn’t have had slavery here without racism and without racism you don’t have the racial issues you have today nor the harm to a group of people singled out because of the color of their skin.
That’s simply wrong. Blacks were uniformly disenfranchised in some Southern states prior to 1962.
Your link to the unique challenges facing minorities in the U.S. does not address the question Jodi asked.
That’s self-contradictory. You say that slavery is the cause of the racial societal ills. Two sentences later, you say that racism is the cause of those racial issues. (You also note that racism is a fundamental component of slavery).
The result is that racism is that cause of racial societal ills. Slavery was one of those societal ills. By far the worst, no doubt.
But let’s get to hard knocks. Racism - current racism - is the problem we face and must overcome. It was the cause of slavery, it was the cause of lynchings, it was the cause of Jim Crow laws.
And a bogus lawsuit to get money out of slavery centuries later will do nothing to combat racism.
Sua
Sua
EasyPhil –
No, my little chickadee, my little kumquat, they were not. Black Americans were freed when slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. Black Americans were granted full rights and citizenship by the Forteenth Amendment in 1868. Black Americans were granted the right to vote by the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
Now, it you may mean that some Black Americans were effectively disenfranchised by various Jim Crow laws, right up until 1962. And I would not disagree. But they were none of them legally (as opposed to realistically) disenfranchised, and many (specifically those in the North and West) were not disenfranchised at all.
Has anyone said that being black in America does not present challenges? What does that have to do with reparations.
Ah. So you advocate the principle but do not endorse the way it was applied originally. I’m okay with that; I agree with that, in fact. But it doesn’t really make much of an argument for reparations.
I agree. But in order to recover money at law, you must prove that slavery caused racism, and not vice versa. If the root cause of modern racial societal ills is generalized racism, and not specifically slavery, then you cannot recover on the basis of slavery – because it was not the cause of the problem, racism was. You see?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
To a degree of exactitude, I think yes, that’s true, but there’s another way to look at it. In particular, I think there’s something to the notion of considering how ethnic newcomers are treated in any culture.
There are lots of examples that don’t involve slavery: Pakistanis in Britain, Indians in Fiji, Afghanis in Iran, and so on. In the United States, we also have periods where the major immigration trend was Irish, Italian, Mexican, and so on. In all of these cases, the newcomers are considered inferior or worker-clone level for a period of time; call them the “taxicab driver class.” 
So, to me, when thinking about slavery reparations, the question is answerable only if one can distinguish between the specific lingering effect of slavery, whatever it might be, and the more general tendency of humans overall to stratify themselves, which occurs whether or not the underclass was ever actually enslaved. In other words, the question is very much as sqweels states it, but I don’t think it’s wholly unanswerable: Are Black Americans any worse off now than they would be given the unfortunate but inescapable habit of human beings to place themselves and others into identifiable and subtly reinforced class rankings?
I don’t know if there’s an easy answer, but I suspect there’s a profitable niche here for ambitious graduate students looking for interesting topics in sociology for their dissertations…
I have a theory, which is quite unprovable, that the reason we are hearing all this talk about reparations now, and not ten, twenty, or thirty years ago, is the rapid growth of America’s hispanic population.
For most of my life, “minority” has been a code word for “black”. When somoene talked about programs to help “minorities”, the unstated assumption was that that money would be funneled into black neighborhoods. Now then, this has been changing for sometime in Chicago, Texas, and California, but in the last ten years it has begun to change everywhere: here in Alabama we have large population of hispanic immagrants. This is totally new.
Most calls for reparations don’t call for a check for every slave-decendent–they call for money to be put into schools, and neighborhood revitalization programs, and scholorship funds. In other words, they serve to subsidize the sorts of programs we already have in place to counter-balence the fact that America has a very poor track record (as does everybody) when it comes to dealing with minorities. The effect of reparations is to make African-Americans the “most-deserving” minority, because they have actually been wronged by the federal government in a way that the courts have ruled has a legally different quality than the wrongs felt by other minorities.
Now then, I want to make totally clear that I am in no way saying that African-Americans as a group are in any way conspiring to set themselves up as more deserving than other minority groups. Obviosuly, “African Americans” is much to broad a class to do anything. Nor do I have any evidence, or serious reason to suspect, that anyone at all sat down and said that “Gee Whiz, there are more hispanics than blacks these days, we gotta find a way to keep control of the pie”. I don’t think anything of the kind has happened. But the fact is that reparations are suddenly a big deal, and that this has occured at percisely the historic momment when the hispanic population became the largest minorty group in America. I tend to suspect that on some level, one component of this is the fact that “minority” no longer assumes “African-American”.