If rape was legal, not just in all forms of civil law but also in common law at the time, the government is not at all culpable. The law may change so that the government has a duty to prevent rape, but unless you toss the prohibition on ex post facto laws, the government would have no culpability for rapes already perpetrated by third parties. Even a physical person could not be prosecuted ex post facto for committing a physical act of rape if said act was fully legal at the time.
Applying the analogy to slavery, let us assume arguendo that the year is 1866 and we are judges in a civil case brought by a freedman against his former master and the state of Missouri, call the case Slave v. Master. Petitioner asks for monetary damages from defendants for his former enslavement from 1838 to 1865 and a failure of the state to prevent such enslavement. Defendents counter by pointing out the fact that petitioner had no standing to sue because for the whole duration of petitioner’s servitude slavery was legal; Missouri did not ratify Amendment XIII until February 6, 1865 and that amendment did not take effect until December 18, 1865; petitioner was set free on February 12, 1865. Petitioner argues that the text of Amendment XIII clearly shows that the amendment applies retroactively, but defendants say such an interpretation is unsound and goes against the principle of lex mitior. Petitioner points to the Emancipation Proclamation, signed on January 1, 1863, and says that his continued servitude from 1863 to 1865 was illegal. Defendants countered that the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to slaves in Missouri because Missouri was not in a state of rebellion. As a judge, what is your verdict? Because I would dismiss the case.
Now let’s apply the analogy to redlining. “If [racism] was legal in the US (say, [redlining]) at some point, then the US government bears some culpability for any [racism] that it considered legal.” If redlining was legal, I take that to mean it was actually legal in common law and civil law at the time it was performed, there exists no legal culpability. Not for the government, not even for the private companies who actually discriminated.
The point of all of this is that legally speaking, an obligation to pay reparations can never develop from a fully legal act. You can and should argue that redlining was not legal, and thus injury resulting from those acts may be redressed in court, up to the statute of limitations. The time to sue for redlining has probably passed. In a strictly legal sense, reparations for slavery itself is baseless.
My argument is a moral one, and we as a country have the power (as we did for the Japanese American internees) to determine that the government is indeed legally responsible – we can pass a bill saying so. You’re probably right that lawsuits would fail under the basis you argue – that’s why I don’t think lawsuits are the right path for this to be accomplished.
I can see that you are passionate about this issue, and your motivation is honorable. But we as a country do not have the power to determine that the government is legally responsible, not without destroying the principle of lex retro non agit. I think you would be better off leaving out the legal arguments and sticking to moral arguments.
You might say “the federal government should pay reparations to African Americans because we as a country treated them immorally for so many years”. Then you can have the debate as to whether slavery was once moral and whether people now should be responsible for moral atrocities then.
We’ve already done this (or at least functionally done it), with reparations to Japanese American internees. If we didn’t use this exact legal principle, then that’s not relevant to my case. Obviously what I advocate can legally be accomplished, since this has already occurrred.
I think there’s a strong legal counterargument that our government is our representative. So if society as a whole is responsible for racism (and I feel there’s a strong argument that this is true) then our government is the entity which should pay on our collective behalf.
Is there anything in particular in any of my prior posts here or otherwise that suggests I (or other people opposed to “reparations”) oppose the overall improvement of persons who suffered institutional social injustices?
Or perhaps you are distinguishing me from the class of “intelligent and well meaning people” - which may be valid!
I suppose I include, as a starting point, the openness to evaluation of whether reparations ought to be considered as part of the overall attempt at improvement for those who have suffered institutional injustices. I don’t think that admission of collective “guilt” should be applied (implied?) in addition.
Again, for the nth time thats a False equivalency. Please stop using it. That was a defined single act, done by the US government, and the cash was paid to discrete identifiable individuals. The reparations to Black would be for vague and undefinable acts, none of which were perpetuated directly by the uS government, and be paid to a vague and undefinable group of people.
In any case there’s a huge difference between “100,000 people of Japanese descent who were incarcerated in internment camps during World War II. The legislation offered a formal apology and paid out $20,000 in compensation to each surviving victim”= $200M and the $14 trillion which reparations would cost us. $200M meant nothing to my tax bill. $14T would triple it.
No study could answer them. It would just enrage those who didnt get that million dollar check and those who fear that taxes would triple to give it. It would perpetuate scams by the dozens, preying upon those would would thing they are entitled to a $1000000 check. False hopes.
How could we define 'black" without being racist as all fuck?
You in essence watered down the topic in order to easily and flippantly dismiss it cos the problem is too big for you to comprehend from your perch. Your bottomline is… yeah and meh, it was worse for the natives and we haven’t really done a thing for them so screw the blacks.
I have no interest in reparations “for vague and undefinable acts”, but rather for specific discriminatory policies, like segregation, Redlining, and more. And I believe the US government bears some culpability for the things that it allows to legally occur in the country.
These reparations were also paid to the heirs of Japanese-American internees if the victim was deceased. And that a random internet person has suggested a price tag of $14T tells us nothing about what an in-depth and rigorous program of research and study might lead to.
I plan to keep using this example, because it demonstrates that reparations can in fact be undertaken successfully. I’m sorry if this bothers you.
My impression is that certain groups desire the assignment of guilt, nearly as much as they desire actual redress. I’m sure many may disagree.
My preference is that society address ALL who are least advantaged, rather than focusing on how they got there, and whether their family/racial/ethnic/cultural history makes them more or less deserving/needy. Avoids the need to debate and draw as many lines. Also, focusses on the present and the future, rather than the past.
I favor tossing lines to ALL who are drowning, as VASTLY preferable to “studying” whether some are more deserving that others of being saved, or deserve different types of saving methods. But some apparently prefer to allocate resources differently.
I think this should happen along with identifying, in detail, and fully acknowledging, the harm done to living Americans, directly and indirectly, by discriminatory policies and practices.
I reject this premise. We don’t know what such a commission might find. They may advocate increased investment (hospitals, schools, infrastructure, etc.) and permanent jobs programs in majority black cities and neighborhoods, which might be well within our fiscal capabilities. Or something no one has thought of yet. In fact, I see no reason to believe such a comission wouldn’t advocate for something within our capabilities, since their goal would be a policy that is feasible to accomplish. You’re not even willing to study it. Are you not interested in the scope of the harm done to your fellow Americans, in detail?
Can you read everyone’s minds, or just black people? Is that how you determined (baselessly and with no cites) that TNC is a “scamster” and a “racist”?
