Slavery reparations gaining momentum

I can't believe with all the world and national problems some U.S. politicians and leaders think this STUPID idea deserves any discussion. Would taxes have to increase to pay reparations or would we cut programs like Medicare or Defense? Tying Corporations to this practice is even more ridiculous. Just how accurate would historical records be used to tie companies to slavery? Most documents would be more than 150 years old. Making companies pay would cost jobs as corporate profits would not go down due to this expense. By the way, when the companies in question were involved in any way with slavery, it was legal, ditto the U.S. government. The issue of Slavery in the U.S. was corrected when it was made illegal.

Maybe the Israeli?s should sue Egypt for being slaves over 5,000 years ago.

Yeah...and most of Europe should sue the Italians for their suffering under the Roman Empire.

I say we do it like the Japanese reparations from WWII. Any living former slaves can come forward and collect $3,899,168 (minimum wage times 24 hours in a day, times 7 days a week, times 52 weeks a year, times 65 years in a life, plus OT). To be paid out by all living former slave holders. There, now all is even.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:By the way, when the companies in question were involved in any way with slavery, it was legal, ditto the U.S. government.

In no way shape or form was it moral, nor would it relieve the companies or people of liability.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:The issue of Slavery in the U.S. was corrected when it was made illegal.

*

This statement is deserving of some kind of nomination as it shines as one of the brightest gems of knoweledge on this most enlightening forum.

Note that I grant the monumental stupidity of the reparations movement, but the vestiges of slavery remained in legal force until the 1960s.

* Note my insertions of urls is for dramatic effect, and that I have no intention of implying any specific belief unto the original poster, only to express my dismay toward the implication that the issue was "corrected" in the 1860s.

I guess it depends on your definition of corrected.

The question is are they corrected now? If not, will reparations complete the correction?

Another question is whether reparations are fair to the non-black citizens of the US.

My answers, respectively, are Yes, No, No.

I have met black people who had no slave ancestors, and there are many nonblacks, myslef among them, who have no slaveowning ancestors. How can you be fair if the reparations are based on skin color not history?

The whole corporate guilt thing is simply ludicrous.(Ludacris?)

Reparations are ludicrous.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I have met black people who had no slave ancestors, and there are many nonblacks, myslef among them, who have no slaveowning ancestors. How can you be fair if the reparations are based on skin color not history?

This question was answered in at least one forum that I read about. The short answer, to paraphrase, was that everybody owes b/c the opportunities in this country were established from slavery.

Assuming that to be true (and that's a big leap) what is ignored in this argument is that it holds for blacks too!!! Therefore, all slave-descendents should pay into the fund as well as receive from it, by the insistence of those who advocate reparations.

Would folks go for it if they knew this?

Michael Graham also makes the point that every soldier from the Union Army who died in the Civil War paid their share in blood. That's a pretty potent argument.

The idea is absurd on both a philosophical level as well as a logistical one.

T-Monay820 Wrote:I say we do it like the Japanese reparations from WWII. Any living former slaves can come forward and collect $3,899,168 (minimum wage times 24 hours in a day, times 7 days a week, times 52 weeks a year, times 65 years in a life, plus OT). To be paid out by all living former slave holders. There, now all is even.

but what about reperations by the US Government for loss of property. ;-)

T-Monay820 Wrote:I say we do it like the Japanese reparations from WWII. Any living former slaves can come forward and collect $3,899,168 (minimum wage times 24 hours in a day, times 7 days a week, times 52 weeks a year, times 65 years in a life, plus OT). To be paid out by all living former slave holders. There, now all is even.

Don't you find it odd that the government had no probles with reparations for a group of people who were inconvenienced on concentration camps, but still h ave issues with a group of people who were held in slavery for a couple of hundred years?

Now that I am done with my angry black man moment. I will have to say that as of now it is too late for re[parations now. to give todays blacks money for slavery would be on the same level as setting up a welfare system that kicks the black man out of the home and rewards welfare mother for having babies. In other word I am against reparations. My great great grandparent's deserved reparations, but I do not.

uhmump95 Wrote:

T-Monay820 Wrote:I say we do it like the Japanese reparations from WWII. Any living former slaves can come forward and collect $3,899,168 (minimum wage times 24 hours in a day, times 7 days a week, times 52 weeks a year, times 65 years in a life, plus OT). To be paid out by all living former slave holders. There, now all is even.

Don't you find it odd that the government had no probles with reparations for a group of people who were inconvenienced on concentration camps, but still h ave issues with a group of people who were held in slavery for a couple of hundred years?

I have a problem w/ the Japanese reparations.

I know I'm a horrible person...but I don't see reparations from the Roman Empire, Chinese Dynasties or Alexander. War is not pleasant. 20th Century Americans (and now 21st C) have it incredibly comfortable, and think they know all right from wrong, based on their narrow view of history and the world. When in fact, most Americans are plain stupid.

The Japanese internment was harsh but necessary. It's easy to say everyone there was an innocent victim (of the US gov't BTW) but you don't get to repeat history like a science experiment. There is no telling how differently things would have gone had not such precautions been taken. It may have only taken 20, 10 or even 1 among those interened to change things dramatically. No-one then was omniscient, so they did the best they could.

If anyone should have paid reparations to them it was the Japanese government. THAT would make sense.

BTW UHump, you earned my respect with your assessment of what would be fair re: reparations for slaves. For what it's worth.

Quote:BTW UHump, you earned my respect with your assessment of what would be fair re: reparations for slaves. For what it's worth.

I 2nd that motion.

I remember something about 40 acres and a mule. Was that after the Civil War? Would that constitute reparations? The value would of course vary with the land, but i expect a lot of those 40 acre plots would be worth a small fortune today, if a city has grown out to them. If the 40 is in downtown Dallas....

Sounds like pandering to me. However, it is done on both sides. Look at the religious right that gets pandered to by the republicans with things like gay marriage amendments or outlawing abortion. The scary thing is that this type of pandering works.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I remember something about 40 acres and a mule. Was that after the Civil War? Would that constitute reparations?

I assume it would have if it had been done. No former slaves received forty acres and a mule.....

DrTorch Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:

T-Monay820 Wrote:I say we do it like the Japanese reparations from WWII. Any living former slaves can come forward and collect $3,899,168 (minimum wage times 24 hours in a day, times 7 days a week, times 52 weeks a year, times 65 years in a life, plus OT). To be paid out by all living former slave holders. There, now all is even.

Don't you find it odd that the government had no probles with reparations for a group of people who were inconvenienced on concentration camps, but still h ave issues with a group of people who were held in slavery for a couple of hundred years?

I have a problem w/ the Japanese reparations.

I know I'm a horrible person...but I don't see reparations from the Roman Empire, Chinese Dynasties or Alexander. War is not pleasant. 20th Century Americans (and now 21st C) have it incredibly comfortable, and think they know all right from wrong, based on their narrow view of history and the world. When in fact, most Americans are plain stupid.

The Japanese internment was harsh but necessary. It's easy to say everyone there was an innocent victim (of the US gov't BTW) but you don't get to repeat history like a science experiment. There is no telling how differently things would have gone had not such precautions been taken. It may have only taken 20, 10 or even 1 among those interened to change things dramatically. No-one then was omniscient, so they did the best they could.

If anyone should have paid reparations to them it was the Japanese government. THAT would make sense.

BTW UHump, you earned my respect with your assessment of what would be fair re: reparations for slaves. For what it's worth.

There's nothing inconsistent with saying that the internment was justified *and* the people affected by it deserve compensation. It stands as an action that the US govt. took where, if anything, the presumption would be that the vast majority of those affected were completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

But, as a descendent of slaveholders, as someone named after a Japanese man whose family was interred, and as someone who lost a large portion of my extended family to both Hitler and Stalin, I'm willing to declare the reparations issue a wash.

Mostly, though I'll agree to the elegance of UHMump's statement. There is no greater evil committed in this country than slavery, but there's no rolling back time...

uhmump95 Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I remember something about 40 acres and a mule. Was that after the Civil War? Would that constitute reparations?

I assume it would have if it had been done. No former slaves received forty acres and a mule.....

This is actually what I was referring to when I mentioned the stupidity of this drive. It is astounding to me that people would view a statement made by one general around 140 years ago as something that would be legally binding. I can understand the symbolism as a banner of injustice, but this is antithetical to how legislation is done in this country...

I45owl Wrote:There's nothing inconsistent with saying that the internment was justified *and* the people affected by it deserve compensation. It stands as an action that the US govt. took where, if anything, the presumption would be that the vast majority of those affected were completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

Ok, you make a good point.

I45owl Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I remember something about 40 acres and a mule. Was that after the Civil War? Would that constitute reparations?

I assume it would have if it had been done. No former slaves received forty acres and a mule.....

This is actually what I was referring to when I mentioned the stupidity of this drive. It is astounding to me that people would view a statement made by one general around 140 years ago as something that would be legally binding. I can understand the symbolism as a banner of injustice, but this is antithetical to how legislation is done in this country...

So what was the forty acres and a mule? Did that actually happen, and if so, to whom? And why? Or was it just a slogan, like "a chicken in every pot"?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So what was the forty acres and a mule? Did that actually happen, and if so, to whom? And why? Or was it just a slogan, like "a chicken in every pot"?

PBS: American Experience

Quote:As Union soldiers advanced through the South, tens of thousands of freed slaves left their plantations to follow Union general William Tecumseh Sherman's [8] army.

To solve problems caused by the mass of refugees, Sherman issued Special Field Orders, No. 15, a temporary plan granting each freed family forty acres of tillable land on islands and the coast of Georgia. The army had a number of unneeded mules which were also granted to settlers.

News of "forty acres and a mule" spread quickly; freed slaves welcomed it as proof that emancipation would finally give them a stake in the land they had worked as slaves for so long.

The orders were in effect for only one year.

The text of the order is at the link above. I think it's similar to various land grants throughout the country. My family benefited from land grants in Texas (amounting to many thousands of acres as I understand it), but I think the vestiges of that have basically faded with my grandparents generation. Nevertheless, I can still see considerable room to argue that you could see the effects through the overal socioeconomic status of my extended family today.

I45owl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So what was the forty acres and a mule? Did that actually happen, and if so, to whom? And why? Or was it just a slogan, like "a chicken in every pot"?

PBS: American Experience

Quote:As Union soldiers advanced through the South, tens of thousands of freed slaves left their plantations to follow Union general William Tecumseh Sherman's [8] army.

To solve problems caused by the mass of refugees, Sherman issued Special Field Orders, No. 15, a temporary plan granting each freed family forty acres of tillable land on islands and the coast of Georgia. The army had a number of unneeded mules which were also granted to settlers.

News of "forty acres and a mule" spread quickly; freed slaves welcomed it as proof that emancipation would finally give them a stake in the land they had worked as slaves for so long.

The orders were in effect for only one year.

The text of the order is at the link above. I think it's similar to various land grants throughout the country. My family benefited from land grants in Texas (amounting to many thousands of acres as I understand it), but I think the vestiges of that have basically faded with my grandparents generation. Nevertheless, I can still see considerable room to argue that you could see the effects through the overal socioeconomic status of my extended family today.

Thanks for the info. If I read this correctly, there were some freed slaves who got land and/or a mule, but overall most didn't. Would that be correct?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Thanks for the info. If I read this correctly, there were some freed slaves who got land and/or a mule, but overall most didn't. Would that be correct?

That's my reading as well. Plus it was only the "respectable" heads of families who qualified. (I read the language as more an indication of the times than any racial calumny).