BLM and Reparations

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Recently, those living in the USA, have heard the BLM demands for ‘reparations’ to be paid to black Americans for the hardships placed upon them due to the institution of slavery.

BLM has also justified the looting of the Miracle Mile shopping district in Chicago as ‘reparations’. Recently in Seattle, BLM is calling for white Americans to give their homes to black Americans as ‘reparations’ for an area being gentrified.

My question is; is it logical or legal to demand reparations for slavery, from people who have never owned slaves, to be paid to people who have never been slaves?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

The law is whatever Congress makes a law.  If they were to pass such a law, IMHO, there would probably be a revolt.  Given our Leftist friends these days, a future Congress could make such a law.  Fair or not.

I don't see the logic, but I don't blame blacks for trying.  I'm thinking of suing Ireland for the potato famine.  Wish me luck!  🤞

Here is an article that sort of lays out the for and against.  If you are looking to really discuss this issue, I encourage everyone to read it to the end.

If Germany atoned for the Holocaust, the US can pay reparations for slavery

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

@Dan Warnick

From your link:

 

”The United States, in contrast, has no official policy of atoning for slavery.”

 

Keep in mind that the Federal government would be the successor of the Union government, which did not benefit from slavery. In fact, the Union lost roughly 360,000 men (approximately 10% were black Union soldiers) in the attempt to save the Union and abolish slavery IN THE ENTIRE UNION.

 

The government which would have reaped the benefit, that of the Confederate States of America, ceased to exist after the cessation of hostilities.  There is no entity left which was responsible for slavery.

 

Essentially, at this point, you would be asking for reparations from the government which established, fought for, and ensured the abolishment of slavery.

 

This is a much different scenario than the Holocaust or apartheid in South Africa.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

@Dan Warnick

From your link:

 

”The United States, in contrast, has no official policy of atoning for slavery.”

 

Keep in mind that the Federal government would be the successor of the Union government, which did not benefit from slavery. In fact, the Union lost roughly 360,000 men (approximately 10% were black Union soldiers) in the attempt to save the Union and abolish slavery IN THE ENTIRE UNION.

 

The government which would have reaped the benefit, that of the Confederate States of America, ceased to exist after the cessation of hostilities.  There is no entity left which was responsible for slavery.

 

Essentially, at this point, you would be asking for reparations from the government which established, fought for, and ensured the abolishment of slavery.

 

This is a much different scenario than the Holocaust or apartheid in South Africa.

Interesting points.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

Lots of questions to be considered:

Do we have a traceable records like ancestor's slave certificate or based on skin color only?  What were the consequence of the losing side in Africa without the slave market? What is the opportunity cost  of having a slave ancestor in the US vs having a free ancestor in Africa?

The argument there is no more Confederacy is depended on using Internal Laws or International Laws (Union and Confederacy were consider one ). 

"By law, in most countries, individuals do not have to repay money that others fraudulently borrow in their name. Similarly, a corporation is not liable for contracts that the chief executive officer enters without the authority to bind the firm. But international law does not exempt citizens of a dictatorship from repaying a debt incurred by a dictator for personal and nefarious purposes." 

The Holocaust debt involved debts from third party nations in an international relationship. The debt came from Nazi attacked these countries and put their citizens in slavery but lost the war (if Nazis won the war, then it would be deeds, not debts). And US didn't own African countries either because of "trade", ie US paid to own theses slaves so feel free to sue the one who got paid for their prisoners in the first place, under International Odious Debt.

Edited August 17, 2020 by SUZNV

[Keith boyd + 178]

African American "poor" have it better then the average African today.

 

They are better off because their ancestors were slaves. Or would they rather have grown up in west Africa?

 

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

13 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Recently, those living in the USA, have heard the BLM demands for ‘reparations’ to be paid to black Americans for the hardships placed upon them due to the institution of slavery.

BLM has also justified the looting of the Miracle Mile shopping district in Chicago as ‘reparations’. Recently in Seattle, BLM is calling for white Americans to give their homes to black Americans as ‘reparations’ for an area being gentrified.

My question is; is it logical or legal to demand reparations for slavery, from people who have never owned slaves, to be paid to people who have never been slaves?

Logical and legal does not always have to relate. It's obvious that for example laws of Nazi Germany from WW2 followed different logic and presumptions than laws of democratic countries, etc. Once you accept the premise that black people do not have souls (which was the official stance of Catholic Church), then you can of course murder and torture and enslave them as you wish, and you don't even have to mention that at confession - that's both logical and legal in a society accepting colonialist values. 

However, if you look at the problem from the position of a modern, civilized, developed country (which Trumpist USA sadly probably no longer is), you have to find out that the answer must be only a resounding yes. Colonialism kidnapped and culturally uprooted millions of people, creating a frustrated, traumatized nation without history that is systemically persecuted up to this date. The whole process was an abhorrent, criminal enterprise enriching one group of people at the expense of others, so talks about compensation are entirely appropriate. 

The mentioned defense that it would concern "people that never been slaves and people who never owned slaves" is a case of "well-constructed shortsightedness". A clever criminal can discontinue the causal chain arbitrarily to remove himself from the crime and its victim - for example, one can say: "They say I killed him, but I only gave him a little push. What killed him was the impact when he fell on the ground below, but for that, I take no responsibility. A little push in itself is harmless, as I can demonstrate anytime." Or you can say. "I just pulled the trigger on my gun. I take no responsibility for wounds caused by the bullet, it was a completely unrelated event, and I was not even nearby!"

Absurd? Yes, but so is the slavery defense. The reparation should concern people who today hold privileged positions in a society that was built by involuntary contribution of those tortured and worked to death, and who continue to oppress their descendants. The profit of the first group is ongoing and real, and the oppression and suffering of the second group is ongoing and real, so yes, reparations are entirely appropriate. 

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

14 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Recently, those living in the USA, have heard the BLM demands for ‘reparations’ to be paid to black Americans for the hardships placed upon them due to the institution of slavery.

BLM has also justified the looting of the Miracle Mile shopping district in Chicago as ‘reparations’. Recently in Seattle, BLM is calling for white Americans to give their homes to black Americans as ‘reparations’ for an area being gentrified.

My question is; is it logical or legal to demand reparations for slavery, from people who have never owned slaves, to be paid to people who have never been slaves?

So the people who's ancestors died serving in the Union Army against slavery, should get what? I think by virtue of their sacrifices, all their descendants should get to share the "reparations". Without them, there would have been no end to slavery.

The looting and rioting is not reparation , it is outright and pure criminal activity , breaking and entering, looting, armed robbery , destruction of property. Can the business owners collectively sue all the "blacks" for damages and loss to their business and their income and livelihoods? Should they just blanket sue entire neighborhoods of the "blacks"? or should they also sue BLM and the leftist politicians for condoning these and being complicit in inciting these riots and looting and not putting an end to it!!?

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

4 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

So the people who's ancestors died serving in the Union Army against slavery, should get what? I think by virtue of their sacrifices, all their descendants should get to share the "reparations". Without them, there would have been no end to slavery.

The looting and rioting is not reparation , it is outright and pure criminal activity , breaking and entering, looting, armed robbery , destruction of property. Can the business owners collectively sue all the "blacks" for damages and loss to their business and their income and livelihoods? Should they just blanket sue entire neighborhoods of the "blacks"? or should they also sue BLM and the leftist politicians for condoning these and being complicit in inciting these riots and looting and not putting an end to it!!?

Yet another absurdly stupid argument. Looting and pillaging concerns only a fraction of the protesters - most of them calmly demand justice (and it's a question how many looters are government-sent provocateurs). Looting and pillaging is not done by state institutions on a society-wide level

On the other hand, slavery was an accepted practice - you could whip your legally owned slave to death, and nobody could object. It was a state-sponsored institution, and therefore the whole society is responsible for it - similarly as Germans during WW2 were responsible for nazism, because they accept it as a state ideology. 

That should be imminently obvious to anybody with brain turned on. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Yoshiro Kamamura

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

@SUZNV
 

“The argument there is no more Confederacy is depended on using Internal Laws or International Laws (Union and Confederacy were consider one ). “
 

How do you come to the conclusion that the Union and the Confederacy were the same entity? They each had separate governments and each had it’s own President. They also went to war against each other.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

There are times this subject almost defies imagination, a nation went to war...a nation lost in excess of 750000 lives to break the chain of human slavery. A nation has given more money to one distinct race of people than other other race in history. And a the same Nation always has to remind the young and innocent of this race they are not equals. 

It is deeply saddening how history just repeats itself over and over and over.How can a child grow if the press and the BLM voices constantly rain negativity...I am firmly convinced only when the black community leadership will no longer tolerates the negative im a victim message will there be any change...We have just impacted a entire younger generation again with total negativity.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

3 minutes ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Yet another absurdly stupid argument. Looting and pillaging concerns only a fraction of the protesters - most of them calmly demand justice (and it's a question how many looters are government-sent provocateurs). Looting and pillaging is not done by state institutions on a society-wide level

On the other hand, slavery was and accepted practice - you could whip your legally owned slave to death, and nobody could object. It was a state-sponsored institution, and therefore the whole society is responsible for it - similarly as Germans during WW2 were responsible for nazism, because they accept it as a state ideology. 

That should be imminently obvious to anybody with brain turned on. 

So, ‘the sins of the father can be visited on the sons’? In this case, on the fifth, sixth or seventh generation.

Perhaps claiming reparations for the Potato Famine from England isn’t such a bad idea....I’d like a new motorcycle!

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

14 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

@SUZNV
 

“The argument there is no more Confederacy is depended on using Internal Laws or International Laws (Union and Confederacy were consider one ). “
 

How do you come to the conclusion that the Union and the Confederacy were the same entity? They each had separate governments and each had it’s own President. They also went to war against each other.

How did you come to the conclusion that there was such an entity as "Confederacy"? From the point of the USA, so called "Confederacy" was just a bunch of rebels that defied the legal and properly elected president, and chose to use force to defend a criminal practice (slavery) that allowed it to profit at the expense of others. For the record, the civilized countries have long abolished slavery, relatively backward czarist Russia did it 10 years before the USA. 

Those rebels were met on the battlefield, and were defeated, and that was it. From the point of the law, it was a police operation that involved the  army due to the scale. There was never any "Confederacy", Lincoln kept emphasizing it the whole time, that's why he always refused to negotiate with the Southern rebels. 

In other words, the so called Confederacy was about as legal as the Islamic State.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Yoshiro Kamamura

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

5 hours ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Logical and legal does not always have to relate. It's obvious that for example laws of Nazi Germany from WW2 followed different logic and presumptions than laws of democratic countries, etc. Once you accept the premise that black people do not have souls (which was the official stance of Catholic Church), then you can of course murder and torture and enslave them as you wish, and you don't even have to mention that at confession - that's both logical and legal in a society accepting colonialist values. 

However, if you look at the problem from the position of a modern, civilized, developed country (which Trumpist USA sadly probably no longer is), you have to find out that the answer must be only a resounding yes. Colonialism kidnapped and culturally uprooted millions of people, creating a frustrated, traumatized nation without history that is systemically persecuted up to this date. The whole process was an abhorrent, criminal enterprise enriching one group of people at the expense of others, so talks about compensation are entirely appropriate. 

The mentioned defense that it would concern "people that never been slaves and people who never owned slaves" is a case of "well-constructed shortsightedness". A clever criminal can discontinue the causal chain arbitrarily to remove himself from the crime and its victim - for example, one can say: "They say I killed him, but I only gave him a little push. What killed him was the impact when he fell on the ground below, but for that, I take no responsibility. A little push in itself is harmless, as I can demonstrate anytime." Or you can say. "I just pulled the trigger on my gun. I take no responsibility for wounds caused by the bullet, it was a completely unrelated event, and I was not even nearby!"

Absurd? Yes, but so is the slavery defense. The reparation should concern people who today hold privileged positions in a society that was built by involuntary contribution of those tortured and worked to death, and who continue to oppress their descendants. The profit of the first group is ongoing and real, and the oppression and suffering of the second group is ongoing and real, so yes, reparations are entirely appropriate. 

Time for you to become enlightened is the word.

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teaching-resource/historical-context-american-slavery-comparative-perspective

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

1 hour ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Yet another absurdly stupid argument. Looting and pillaging concerns only a fraction of the protesters - most of them calmly demand justice (and it's a question how many looters are government-sent provocateurs). Looting and pillaging is not done by state institutions on a society-wide level

On the other hand, slavery was an accepted practice - you could whip your legally owned slave to death, and nobody could object. It was a state-sponsored institution, and therefore the whole society is responsible for it - similarly as Germans during WW2 were responsible for nazism, because they accept it as a state ideology. 

That should be imminently obvious to anybody with brain turned on. 

YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.... grow   a pair and stand in like with all bizz investores/owners etc

in the mean time , go get whatever you want???!!

 

 

You missed everything by how many hundreds of years?

Can someone come to Tokyo and or Osaka etc and whip you under the name of the YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ZAAH? hahahlol

enjooy!!!

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

19 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Recently, those living in the USA, have heard the BLM demands for ‘reparations’ to be paid to black Americans for the hardships placed upon them due to the institution of slavery.

BLM has also justified the looting of the Miracle Mile shopping district in Chicago as ‘reparations’. Recently in Seattle, BLM is calling for white Americans to give their homes to black Americans as ‘reparations’ for an area being gentrified.

My question is; is it logical or legal to demand reparations for slavery, from people who have never owned slaves, to be paid to people who have never been slaves?

Hi Doug, are you back in the States?

Where is Tom? Havent seen his posts!

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So, ‘the sins of the father can be visited on the sons’? In this case, on the fifth, sixth or seventh generation.

Perhaps claiming reparations for the Potato Famine from England isn’t such a bad idea....I’d like a new motorcycle!

I want 144 virgins of legal age.... blondes, red heads and what nots!!!!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

50 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Hi Doug, are you back in the States?

Where is Tom? Havent seen his posts!

Nope....still in Asia.

Tom and many of the old crew have opted out of OP due to the childish antics + commentary of many of the new ‘players’. The forum really only has entertainment value anymore.

To be honest, I wouldn’t have been posting recently except I am having some remodeling work done and the bike was in the shop.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

47 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

I want 144 virgins of legal age.... blondes, red heads and what nots!!!!

A million dollars in small, unmarked bills wouldn’t go amiss....

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

1 hour ago, ceo_energemsier said:

I want 144 virgins of legal age.... blondes, red heads and what nots!!!!

I understand your urge to make stupid and offtopic posts while lacking arguments, but do you have to make three in a row?

[SUZNV + 1,197]

9 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

@SUZNV
 

“The argument there is no more Confederacy is depended on using Internal Laws or International Laws (Union and Confederacy were consider one ). “
 

How do you come to the conclusion that the Union and the Confederacy were the same entity? They each had separate governments and each had it’s own President. They also went to war against each other.

I don't know, the same debates in the Vietnam war. But theoretically you can't just declare a new government in a system and the name of it is American Civil War (no third country soldiers involved). Otherwise we should have many  more countries right now and more wars.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

21 minutes ago, SUZNV said:

I don't know, the same debates in the Vietnam war. But theoretically you can't just declare a new government in a system and the name of it is American Civil War (no third country soldiers involved). Otherwise we should have many  more countries right now and more wars.

You are not making any sense now.

If the argument for slavery reparations were made at the end of the Civil War, when those to be held accountable were available, you may have a point. To attempt to find a responsible party after 155 years is ludicrous! To demand that society in general accept responsibility may sound politically correct, until you realize that there is no guilty party within society today.

Question: Is there a Statute of Limitation for this issue, or does it go on in perpetuity? 

[SUZNV + 1,197]

15 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

You are not making any sense now.

If the argument for slavery reparations were made at the end of the Civil War, when those to be held accountable were available, you may have a point. To attempt to find a responsible party after 155 years is ludicrous! To demand that society in general accept responsibility may sound politically correct, until you realize that there is no guilty party within society today.

Question: Is there a Statute of Limitation for this issue, or does it go on in perpetuity? 

I just made the point that even under assumption that US had the obligation slavery reparations , it was different from Nazi and should not be judged by international laws. Domestically, slavery was legal under US laws at that time.  No country could even judge other countries, recent example is the Pol Pot never faced formal trail. The one who may have international obligation should be the one who sold their prisoners and traffickers not slave owners.

Edited August 18, 2020 by SUZNV

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

At the end of the day, reparations for slavery in the US, assessed at this time, would be penalizing individuals who were no way involved with the crime and benefiting those who were never impacted by the crime....UNLESS the assumption is that those demanding reparation can show conclusively that they have been impacted by the historical event of slavery. 
 

To say that slavery has impeded people from meaning jobs, or condemned them to live in impoverished neighborhoods, through no fault of their own, after the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Affirmative Action, etc... would be difficult to prove, let alone find a guilty entity to charge.

It is time to put this issue to rest, take personal responsibility for ‘your’ actions, and move on. The vast majority of American’s, black, brown, red, yellow and white, already have...although it is difficult for ‘outsiders’ to tell with the reporting from the mass media.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

On 8/17/2020 at 3:08 PM, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Logical and legal does not always have to relate. It's obvious that for example laws of Nazi Germany from WW2 followed different logic and presumptions than laws of democratic countries, etc. Once you accept the premise that black people do not have souls (which was the official stance of Catholic Church), then you can of course murder and torture and enslave them as you wish, and you don't even have to mention that at confession - that's both logical and legal in a society accepting colonialist values. 

However, if you look at the problem from the position of a modern, civilized, developed country (which Trumpist USA sadly probably no longer is), you have to find out that the answer must be only a resounding yes. Colonialism kidnapped and culturally uprooted millions of people, creating a frustrated, traumatized nation without history that is systemically persecuted up to this date. The whole process was an abhorrent, criminal enterprise enriching one group of people at the expense of others, so talks about compensation are entirely appropriate. 

The mentioned defense that it would concern "people that never been slaves and people who never owned slaves" is a case of "well-constructed shortsightedness". A clever criminal can discontinue the causal chain arbitrarily to remove himself from the crime and its victim - for example, one can say: "They say I killed him, but I only gave him a little push. What killed him was the impact when he fell on the ground below, but for that, I take no responsibility. A little push in itself is harmless, as I can demonstrate anytime." Or you can say. "I just pulled the trigger on my gun. I take no responsibility for wounds caused by the bullet, it was a completely unrelated event, and I was not even nearby!"

Absurd? Yes, but so is the slavery defense. The reparation should concern people who today hold privileged positions in a society that was built by involuntary contribution of those tortured and worked to death, and who continue to oppress their descendants. The profit of the first group is ongoing and real, and the oppression and suffering of the second group is ongoing and real, so yes, reparations are entirely appropriate. 

As usual all Bullshit from your mouth

Quote

On October 7, 1462, Pope Pius II issued a letter in which he reproved and condemned the slave trade then carried on. Again, a short time later Leo X denounced slavery in 1537. Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians. In the later centuries on the revival of slavery by some of the na- tions, especially among those coming under the power of Mohammedanism in Persia, Arabia, Turkey and Africa, as also on account of the enslavement of Negroes and Indians in the Americas, other Popes proclaimed the Christian law in regard to the cruelties of the slave trade. Again Urban VIII, in 1639, and Benedict XIV, in 1741, were defenders of the liberty of the Indians and blacks even though they were not as yet instructed in the Christian faith." In 1815, Pius
VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna the suppression of the slave trade. In the Bull of Canonization of St. Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX speaks of the "supreme villainy'" of the slave-traders. Gregory XVI, in 1839, published a memo-rable encyclical in which the following strong language occurs:
"By virtue of our Apostolic office, we warn and admonish in
the Lord all Christians of whatever conditions they may be, and
enjoin upon them that for the future, no one shall venture unjustly to oppress the Indians, Negroes or other men whoever they may be, to strip them of their property, or reduce them into servitude, or give aid or support to those who commit such excesses or carry on
that infamous traffic by which the blacks, as if they were not men,
but mere impure animals reduced like them into servitude, contrary
to the laws of justice and humanity, are bought, sold and devoted
to endure the hardest labor. Wherefore, by virtue of our Apos-
tolic authority, we condemn all these things as absolutely unworthy
of the Christian name." 

Wrong on the facts, wrong on the merits, just plain wrong. Kind of the story of your life Frank.