PDA

View Full Version : Reparations!



wanxtrmBANNED
July 21st, 2007, 10:51 AM
The following article was the best piece I have seen in a long while as a result I will be using it.

(Unlike BF who copied others work and called it his own, I will use it and source it!)



One

There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery

Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestors of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slave-owners in the ante-bellum United States. Are reparations to be paid by their descendants too?


Two

There Is No One Group That Benefited Exclusively From Its Fruits

The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. The GNP of black America is so large that it makes the African-American community the 10th most prosperous "nation" in the world. American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.


Three

Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them

Only a tiny minority of Americans ever owned slaves. This is true even for those who lived in the ante-bellum South where only one white in five was a slaveholder. Why should their descendants owe a debt? What about the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves? They gave their lives. What possible moral principle would ask them to pay (through their descendants) again?


Four

America Today Is A Multi-Ethnic Nation and Most Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery

The two great waves of American immigration occurred after 1880 and then after 1960. What rationale would require Vietnamese boat people, Russian refuseniks, Iranian refugees, and Armenian victims of the Turkish persecution, Jews, Mexicans Greeks, or Polish, Hungarian, Cambodian and Korean victims of Communism, to pay reparations to American blacks?


Five

The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury

The historical precedents generally invoked to justify the reparations claim are payments to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Japanese-Americans and African- American victims of racial experiments in Tuskegee, or racial outrages in Rosewood and Oklahoma City. But in each case, the recipients of reparations were the direct victims of the injustice or their immediate families. This would be the only case of reparations to people who were not immediately affected and whose sole qualification to receive reparations would be racial. As has already been pointed out, during the slavery era, many blacks were free men or slave-owners themselves, yet the reparations claimants make no distinction between the roles blacks actually played in the injustice itself. Randall Robinson's book on reparations, The Debt, which is the manifesto of the reparations movement is pointedly sub-titled "What America Owes To Blacks." If this is not racism, what is?


Six

The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination

No evidence-based attempt has been made to prove that living individuals have been adversely affected by a slave system that was ended over 150 years ago. But there is plenty of evidence the hardships that occurred were hardships that individuals could and did overcome. The black middle-class in America is a prosperous community that is now larger in absolute terms than the black underclass. Does its existence not suggest that economic adversity is the result of failures of individual character rather than the lingering after-effects of racial discrimination and a slave system that ceased to exist well over a century ago? West Indian blacks in America are also descended from slaves but their average incomes are equivalent to the average incomes of whites (and nearly 25% higher than the average incomes of American born blacks). How is it that slavery adversely affected one large group of descendants but not the other? How can government be expected to decide an issue that is so subjective - and yet so critical - to the case?


Seven

The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt To Turn African-Americans Into Victims. It Sends A Damaging Message To The African-American Community.

The renewed sense of grievance -- which is what the claim for reparations will inevitably create -- is neither a constructive nor a helpful message for black leaders to be sending to their communities and to others. To focus the social passions of African-Americans on what some Americans may have done to their ancestors fifty or a hundred and fifty years ago is to burden them with a crippling sense of victim-hood. How are the millions of refugees from tyranny and genocide who are now living in America going to receive these claims, moreover, except as demands for special treatment, an extravagant new handout that is only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others -- many less privileged than themselves?


Eight

Reparations To African Americans Have Already Been Paid

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) - all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances. It is said that reparations are necessary to achieve a healing between African-Americans and other Americans. If trillion dollar restitutions and a wholesale rewriting of American law (in order to accommodate racial preferences) for African-Americans is not enough to achieve a "healing," what will?


Nine

What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?

Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade was born, and in all societies. But in the thousand years of its existence, there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans -- created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still be slaves. If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world, and indeed one of the highest standards of living of any people in the world. They would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?


Ten

The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom

Blacks were here before the Mayflower. Who is more American than the descendants of African slaves? For the African-American community to isolate itself even further from America is to embark on a course whose implications are troubling. Yet the African-American community has had a long-running flirtation with separatists, nationalists and the political left, who want African-Americans to be no part of America's social contract. African Americans should reject this temptation.

For all America's faults, African-Americans have an enormous stake in their country and its heritage. It is this heritage that is really under attack by the reparations movement. The reparations claim is one more assault on America, conducted by racial separatists and the political left. It is an attack not only on white Americans, but on all Americans -- especially African-Americans.

America's African-American citizens are the richest and most privileged black people alive -- a bounty that is a direct result of the heritage that is under assault. The American idea needs the support of its African-American citizens. But African-Americans also need the support of the American idea. For it is this idea that led to the principles and institutions that have set African-Americans - and all of us -- free.

Horowitz, David (2001) Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist Too

Slipnish
July 21st, 2007, 11:08 AM
Tell you what...

I'll pay reparations when hell freezes over, and Satan and Jesus are witnessed in Times Square having a 1:1 hockey match.

wanxtrmBANNED
July 21st, 2007, 11:25 AM
Tell you what...

I'll pay reparations when hell freezes over, and Satan and Jesus are witnessed in Times Square having a 1:1 hockey match.

Hahah lol exactly

Snoop
July 21st, 2007, 03:15 PM
Make reparation payments tax deductable and I bet some people will pay:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="<A href="http://www.youtube.com/v/9XnVwS6XgE4"></param><param">http://www.youtube.com/v/9XnVwS6XgE4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9XnVwS6XgE4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

YouTube - living flag: panhandling for reparations (damali ayo) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XnVwS6XgE4)

Turtleflipper
July 21st, 2007, 03:16 PM
I dunno if it is off-topic by I support reperations for the Japenese still alive who were inturned during WW2. Any other reperations I don't support.

Bf55
July 21st, 2007, 09:19 PM
slaves. This is true even for those who lived in the ante-bellum South where only one white in five was a slaveholder. Why should their descendants owe a debt? What about the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves? They gave their lives. What possible moral principle would ask them to pay (through their descendants) again?



i belive that is a false statement seing as they gave their lives because lincoln wanted the union to stay together, or am i wrong?

wanxtrmBANNED
July 21st, 2007, 11:18 PM
i belive that is a false statement seing as they gave their lives because lincoln wanted the union to stay together, or am i wrong?

I have proof, may I see yours?

You have called my statements into question based on?

The ideology presented at the time was dependent on the "people" believing slavery to be evil, and also eradicating this menace (the South) from being its own country.
While the real reasons were far more monetarily concerned than that, the reasons given were the above.

eliotitus
July 22nd, 2007, 02:35 AM
Aren't reparations, you know for reparing damage done. Seeing as not one black man is legally enslaved in America anymore or ever has been in his lifetime what damage would we be trying to pay for?

Slipnish
July 22nd, 2007, 07:47 AM
I dunno if it is off-topic by I support reperations for the Japenese still alive who were inturned during WW2. Any other reperations I don't support.

I spent some time thinking this over, and decided that I'm against it. It may have been wrong, but honestly, I believe in precedent. If you start here, legally you can set a horrible precedent for the next batch of loonies who demand payments for whatever weirdness they can dream up.

Yeah, it's a slippery slope, but in the world of legality, that's how it works.

So...nope, don't think it's a good idea.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

i belive that is a false statement seing as they gave their lives because lincoln wanted the union to stay together, or am i wrong?

Alright, how many were conscripted and how many volunteered. Of those who volunteered, how much money is each of those worth via a settlement? ;):

Turtleflipper
July 22nd, 2007, 08:41 AM
I spent some time thinking this over, and decided that I'm against it. It may have been wrong, but honestly, I believe in precedent. If you start here, legally you can set a horrible precedent for the next batch of loonies who demand payments for whatever weirdness they can dream up.

Yeah, it's a slippery slope, but in the world of legality, that's how it works.

So...nope, don't think it's a good idea.
:

These are the exact people that we wronged though. If it was the day after slavery, I could see us giving money to blacks. But it is over a hundred years after, and all those directly effected are dead.
So long as we consider reparations on an individual basis I don't think we'll ever sink into giving it to every Tom Dick and Harry the government messed with over its hundreds of years

FruitandNut
July 22nd, 2007, 08:48 AM
Reparations should be made hot-foot after an event, and only if targetted specifically at the real miscreants - aka known as those held the 'wider decision making powers' - not the nation as a whole. Even then, consideration should be made of the outcomes and consequences of such a decision. There is not moral or ethical purpose to kicking a whole people after they are 'down', or if they had no real involvement in the decision making processes of the regime. We may be to some extent 'our brothers' keeper ('Love your neighbour as yourself'), but we are not to be held to account for their decisions, or the decisions of our ancestors, or indeed of the generations to come.

As a child, I cruised back to Southampton, England from Singapore on a 'reparations' ship. It was called HMT (His/Her Majesty's Troopship) Empire Fowey, but it had been earlier the Potsdam, North German Lloyd, taken in war reparations in 1945 and became a P&O troopship, (1961 sold to Pan-Islamic Co, Karachi, renamed Safina-el-Hujjaj and used as a Hajj/Hadj pilgrim ship - kind of ironic, since the Germans had used it as an officers' 'nookie boat' on odd occasions, I am given to believe).

Slipnish
July 22nd, 2007, 01:23 PM
A "nookie boat"!?!?!!?!?!? :grin: :smitten: :shocked:

Wonder what those retail at? And what add ons are available? Can you get "Power blondes" or "disc lock brunettes?" Maybe throw in a few "automatic redheads."

That's what I'm talking about. Never mind the cost, just tell me where the nearest dealer can be located!

As for reparations...

Had we done them, then okay. Doing them now...nope. Still can't sanction it.

Squatch347
July 23rd, 2007, 05:14 PM
Aren't reparations, you know for reparing damage done. Seeing as not one black man is legally enslaved in America anymore or ever has been in his lifetime what damage would we be trying to pay for? You don't post as much elio, but when you do its golden! Excellent point.

The only thing I would add is, that you are making people (like my family) pay for something they had no part in (my ancestors came in the early 1900s) and oddly enough, african americans would be paying their own reparations, since obviously they are paying taxes.

Just Me
July 27th, 2007, 05:44 PM
My great grandparents did not own slaves, so I will not pay reparations for something I had nothing to do with. Even if my ancestors owned slaves it would not have had anything to do with me. I will not apologize for something that I had absolutely nothing at all to do with. There is not any slaves living in America today. There is noone who has ancestors alive who were slaves living in America today.

People want to move on out of the slavery days, but how are you (we) suppose to do that when some people will not let it die down? It is not legal today, it is not happening today. It was legal when slaves were owned. There is nothing that can be done to change the past. All anyone can do is look at the present time and the future.

FruitandNut
July 28th, 2007, 12:09 AM
Just Me - It is 'possible' that some of my ancestors 'owned' slaves on their plantation in 'British Guiana', Central America. (I need to do a bit more research.) But as it was not of my volition, and I don't appear to have benefitted to any measurable degree from it, aside from an internal 'irrational' embarrassment, I also can't see why I 'owe' anything.

Just Me
July 28th, 2007, 04:13 AM
Just Me - It is 'possible' that some of my ancestors 'owned' slaves on their plantation in 'British Guiana', Central America. (I need to do a bit more research.) But as it was not of my volition, and I don't appear to have benefitted to any measurable degree from it, aside from an internal 'irrational' embarrassment, I also can't see why I 'owe' anything.

I guess anything is possible...

Bf55
August 1st, 2007, 08:50 PM
I dunno if it is off-topic by I support reperations for the Japenese still alive who were inturned during WW2. Any other reperations I don't support.lol what a stupid comment that is nothing compared to slavery, why do these people deserve it more than mine, i think its funny that you would say that. slavery is way worse than a little detention. come on now how could u support it. the governemnt should pay seeing as slavery helped build this country.

Turtleflipper
August 1st, 2007, 08:58 PM
lol what a stupid comment that is nothing compared to slavery, why do these people deserve it more than mine, i think its funny that you would say that. slavery is way worse than a little detention. come on now how could u support it. the governemnt should pay seeing as slavery helped build this country.

Because they were personally deprived of property and liberty because of Roosevelt's insanity.
YOU personally have never suffered a day of slavery in your entire life, and therefore YOU deserve absolutely nothing.

If you can find your great-great grandfather who WAS a slave, I would support his getting any reperations he should reasonably get.

Just Me
August 2nd, 2007, 03:25 AM
lol what a stupid comment that is nothing compared to slavery, why do these people deserve it more than mine, i think its funny that you would say that. slavery is way worse than a little detention. come on now how could u support it. the governemnt should pay seeing as slavery helped build this country.

Bf what have you personally, (not your ancestors, but you), been denyed in this country that was due to slavery? Or what have you been denyed in this country because of the color of your skin?

wanxtrmBANNED
August 2nd, 2007, 01:10 PM
Bf what have you personally, (not your ancestors, but you), been denyed in this country that was due to slavery? Or what have you been denyed in this country because of the color of your skin?

I can answer this, NOTHING. Remember he has admitted to being lazy, not wanting to work, and having only an 85% in the educational side. All with having gone to "private" school.

Just Me
August 2nd, 2007, 02:30 PM
I can answer this, NOTHING. Remember he has admitted to being lazy, not wanting to work, and having only an 85% in the educational side. All with having gone to "private" school.

I know that and you know that. He keeps bringing up all of this and that that he is held back with BECAUSE of SLAVERY and I want to know what it is that he thinks he is effected by.

Squatch347
August 2nd, 2007, 05:20 PM
I'm with Wanna and JustMe, in any legal court in order to sue you have to show damages. Come on BF, what are your damages?

supercodes
August 3rd, 2007, 12:25 PM
Man, there are quite a few people who don't feel justified in paying reparations because they themselves, or their ancestors were not involved in subjugation of victims.

I ask you all this then--what about national accountability?

It was this "nation" who allowed crimes against the Japanese, American Indians, slaves, and any other groups of Americans that we arguably persecuted in some debilitating fashion. The last time I checked, America is a nation by the people, and when people feel wronged by this nation, they almost always go back to that statement...this is a nation BY the people, FOR the people. However, when an issue comes up that people feel they don't want to get involved in, they all of a sudden take the laissez-faire approach, claiming no responsibility. I say so what if your ancestors weren't directly involved in persecutions, if the United States determines that a group of Americans were persecuted, it is the responsibility of ALL Americans to chip in, and make right what was once wrong.

Do you think German citizens right after WW2 shouldn't be held accountable just because they didn't take part in the cleansings? Every able bodied German, with access to rational thought, was responsible for that disaster. Should they go to jail for their ignorance? Absolutely not, that wouldn't solve anything. However, making sure that the persecuted of their country are made to feel like they have/had been justly compensated in some way, is an important step forward, and a good way for the people of that nation to understand their ignorance, and work as a unit to set right what was once wrong.

Now, as for my personal opinion about slave reparations, I am all for national reparations to the families of those who were never given proper compensation for the hardships they had to endure. However, to say that blacks deserve compensation just because they are black, and slaves of the U.S. happened to be black too, is absurd in every way.

Once it is determined what slaves have NOT been properly compensated with evidence to support such determinations, it is our responsibility as citizens of the United States to make sure that the descendants of those who were subjected to slavery, are given their just compensation on behalf of the people of our country.

Accountability is not a matter of convenience people.

CliveStaples
August 3rd, 2007, 12:34 PM
I ask you all this then--what about national accountability?

Slavery wasn't illegal.

Additionally, if you're talking about not prosecuting criminal offenses, you cannot hold the general public or private individual civilians accountable, because they have no obligation to enforce the law. Policemen, judges, juries, and prosecutors have an obligation to enforce the law. John and Jane Q. American do not.

Castle
August 3rd, 2007, 12:48 PM
While I emphatically disagree with the notion of reparations, I must take issue with the "no one wronged is alive today" argument. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc. not only harmed their individual victims; they also created a pattern of racially based socio-economic inequality. And while the individual perpetrators and victims of the injustice may be dead today (and even this is not as certain as one might assume; Jim Crow laws existed in the not-so-distant past), the pattern continues. The goal of reparations, one might reasonably argue, is to break that pattern, to undo the artificial factors that created an unjust system in the first place.

wanxtrmBANNED
August 3rd, 2007, 12:52 PM
Now, as for my personal opinion about slave reparations, I am all for national reparations to the families of those who were never given proper compensation for the hardships they had to endure. However, to say that blacks deserve compensation just because they are black, and slaves of the U.S. happened to be black too, is absurd in every way.

Once it is determined what slaves have NOT been properly compensated with evidence to support such determinations, it is our responsibility as citizens of the United States to make sure that the descendants of those who were subjected to slavery, are given their just compensation on behalf of the people of our country.

Accountability is not a matter of convenience people.


In that case I must state that as a Scottish American with great grand parents that were enslaved and pressed into the military (during the Civil war) loss of life and limbs, I must claim reparations as well. Their pain and suffering as well as being Scottish has caused me to be white, and poor.
Unlike dear BF I did not attend a private school, unlike BF I was unable at 18 to be lazy and sit around not WORKING. My entire self worth is trash as a direct result of my great great grandparents problems. And I have had to work since I was 16 (full time) just to help my poor repressed parents as well.

supercodes
August 3rd, 2007, 08:08 PM
Slavery wasn't illegal.

Additionally, if you're talking about not prosecuting criminal offenses, you cannot hold the general public or private individual civilians accountable, because they have no obligation to enforce the law. Policemen, judges, juries, and prosecutors have an obligation to enforce the law. John and Jane Q. American do not.

Who says it wasn't illegal? The government? According to the Constitution, the slaves should have been represented equally under the law based on the birthright of those born within the nation's borders, but most Whites believed blacks were not on the same level as their white brethren, not citizens,; but this was merely an interpretation of the Constitution, and thus, allowed to continue. Slavery was accepted, that didn't make it legal according to the Constitution of the United States. The funny thing about legality is that it is entirely dictated and carried out by the government, whatever that may be.

Besides, when does legality determine morality?

According to the German government, the persecution of Jews was completely legal because the "powers that be" at the time deemed it not only acceptable, but the right of every right blooded German citizen to support the subjugation of Jews. Does that make moral?

As a recognized sovereign nation by the international community, it was well within the "rights" of the United States government to relocate Indian tribes to wherever they felt was sufficient.

History is filled with examples of government using their authority to either ignore or support the persecution of certain groups of people. This is the reason why victims seek reparations from those that were responsible for the nation...the government.

Next, you speak of certain officials who are placed in a position of authority to dictate the rule of law to the citizenry, yet in a democracy (or even a republic), public officials are held accountable by their constituents. These officials are brought in because they have a professional expertise to make sure law and order is maintained, but law and order is determined by the will of the people, and nothing more.

Yes, I know there are nations that are ruled with fear and propaganda, but complacency based on government dictatorship and fear mongering is no excuse for its people to allow injustices to happen. Sometimes it takes a while for the people to develop the fervor to take down unfavorable governments, but history has shown it is inevitable.

A nation with a stable form of government, and a history of democratic rule, should be an example of progressivism in the role of human rights.

CliveStaples
August 3rd, 2007, 08:14 PM
Who says it wasn't illegal? The government? According to the Constitution, the slaves should have been represented equally under the law based on the birthright of those born within the nation's borders

Based on what amendment?


Besides, when does legality determine morality?

Legality determines obligation under the law.


Next, you speak of certain officials who are placed in a position of authority to dictate the rule of law to the citizenry, yet in a democracy (or even a republic), public officials are held accountable by their constituents. These officials are brought in because they have a professional expertise to make sure law and order is maintained, but law and order is determined by the will of the people, and nothing more.

And? Legalizing slavery is tantamount to owning slaves? How do you determine whose voices contributed more or less to the legalization of slavery? Moreover, with a secret ballot, how can you make that determination without denying people their Constitutional rights?

I don't think that reparations should be paid because no one living has owned a slave.

supercodes
August 3rd, 2007, 09:27 PM
In that case I must state that as a Scottish American with great grand parents that were enslaved and pressed into the military (during the Civil war) loss of life and limbs, I must claim reparations as well. Their pain and suffering as well as being Scottish has caused me to be white, and poor.
Unlike dear BF I did not attend a private school, unlike BF I was unable at 18 to be lazy and sit around not WORKING. My entire self worth is trash as a direct result of my great great grandparents problems. And I have had to work since I was 16 (full time) just to help my poor repressed parents as well.


You mean they were drafted? What makes your great grandparents any different than any other soldier who was drafted? They were citizens of this country (or at least living here) and were, at the time, obligated to take part in the war. This wasn't an action of persecution, it was an action of nationalism. Even some liberal progressive nations such as Switzerland today require all individuals, up to a certain age, to take part in military service. Our nation agrees with this sentiment, but because it is so unpopular with the constituency, it is barely uttered these days.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

Based on what amendment?

Based on the entire Constitution. There is no precedence in this country's various written legal documents that mentions anything about slavery being legal. There are divisions between "free people" and "other people", but it has been argued for awhile that that cannot be interpreted between citizens and slaves.

Also, virtually all Northern states had abolished slavery before the outbreak of the civil war, yet the Dred Scott decision made it illegal for Northern states to harbor escaped slaves in National court. However, many abolitionists and Republicans (including Abraham Lincoln) thought this decision was merely a result of the economic power the South had in influencing National attention.

Slavery was merely a State run tradition with the Federal government turning a blind eye because it was "acceptable." However, there is little legal precedence to say that slavery was legal on a national level.

It should also be noted that the British government, who had outlawed slavery in their country, deemed slavery to be illegal in their colonies, so even before the country was founded, slavery was not allowed.

Here are a few sites I managed to scrounge up:

Slavery Was Illegal and Unconstitutional (http://medicolegal.tripod.com/slaveryillegal.htm)

Article #1 - Introduction (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/PLJ1III.htm)



Legality determines obligation under the law.

Ever heard of natural rights?




And? Legalizing slavery is tantamount to owning slaves? How do you determine whose voices contributed more or less to the legalization of slavery? Moreover, with a secret ballot, how can you make that determination without denying people their Constitutional rights?

I don't think that reparations should be paid because no one living has owned a slave.

Slavery was never legalized in the U.S., see above. And your claims that just because no one living owned slaves goes back to my argument about accountability. If there are families of slaves who were not justly compensated, it is the legal responsibility of every American to pay the descendants of those people since they are not alive to accept their compensation themselves, it has nothing to do with direct involvement.

FruitandNut
August 4th, 2007, 03:11 AM
Hey, wanna - Having a Scottish bloodline, hows about claiming against the English and the Germans as well - remember 'Edward Long Shanks' and the Hanoverian 'Butcher Cumberland' - in for a penny, in for a pound, I say! Can I be your legal rep, and get a fat fee, win or lose? ;): :afro:

Turtleflipper
August 4th, 2007, 03:34 AM
Even some liberal progressive nations such as Switzerland today require all individuals, up to a certain age, to take part in military service.
.
Because it was only the ability to mobolize and field a deadly force of pikemen that kept the relatively puny and resoruceless switzerland from being conquered by its massive neighbors.
It was not a matter of nationalism, but requirement. It was that or die. Its like we still have the 2nd ammendment even thought there seems little chance we'll ever really need to overthrow a sitting government. It is a tradition.


Our nation agrees with this sentiment, but because it is so unpopular with the constituency, it is barely uttered these days.
.
Then our nation does not agree with this senitment. Our nation is the people at the end of the day remember.


Based on the entire Constitution. There is no precedence in this country's various written legal documents that mentions anything about slavery being legal. There are divisions between "free people" and "other people", but it has been argued for awhile that that cannot be interpreted between citizens and slaves.
.
Slaves actually argued their way to freedom in some northern states. Which is cool.


Slavery was merely a State run tradition with the Federal government turning a blind eye because it was "acceptable." However, there is little legal precedence to say that slavery was legal on a national level.
.
On what other level do you wish? The Federal government's "blind eye" is no better then having done it themselves.
If you can show the Feds didn't collect taxes on slave-related trade or slaves themselves, you'll get a bigger staunch of support.
But as it stands, they simply seem to be the ones who aren't actively whipping them.


It should also be noted that the British government, who had outlawed slavery in their country, deemed slavery to be illegal in their colonies, so even before the country was founded, slavery was not allowed.
.
Ya, actually, no.
1834 =/= 1776


Ever heard of natural rights?
.
Ever hear of completely made up? My "natural right" is to kick everyone I meet in the shin. Prove me wrong.
Objectively remember, as "natural" implies inherent.


Slavery was never legalized in the U.S., see above. And your claims that just because no one living owned slaves goes back to my argument about accountability. If there are families of slaves who were not justly compensated, it is the legal responsibility of every American to pay the descendants of those people since they are not alive to accept their compensation themselves, it has nothing to do with direct involvement.
Why not?
Your arguement replaces the impartial nature of the modern legal world into one of lineage. That what one's father did or suffered should reflect upon their children. But it dosen't and it shouldn't. This country is build for individuals, not their prodgeny. Washington's child should not be praised for having a famous father, and Hitler's kid (if not dead) shouldn't be chastized for having an evil one.
Your arguement falls completely apart because the world has moved beyond desendant accountability in all things. Why not in this?

supercodes
August 4th, 2007, 09:08 AM
Because it was only the ability to mobolize and field a deadly force of pikemen that kept the relatively puny and resoruceless switzerland from being conquered by its massive neighbors.
It was not a matter of nationalism, but requirement. It was that or die. Its like we still have the 2nd ammendment even thought there seems little chance we'll ever really need to overthrow a sitting government. It is a tradition.

For the most part, I agree with you, and by bringing up this point you only solidify my point, and support that wannaextreme's claim of reparations for his grandparents because they were drafted during the civil war (which when you realize how costly that war was, the draft at the time was probably viewed as being entirely necessary) are not valid.


Then our nation does not agree with this senitment. Our nation is the people at the end of the day remember.

Touche! However, Americans live in a republic remember, and until the people put forth an agenda to abolish selective service, it will remain as a potential necessity.


Slaves actually argued their way to freedom in some northern states. Which is cool.

Most definitely.



On what other level do you wish? The Federal government's "blind eye" is no better then having done it themselves.
If you can show the Feds didn't collect taxes on slave-related trade or slaves themselves, you'll get a bigger staunch of support.
But as it stands, they simply seem to be the ones who aren't actively whipping them.

I agree, which is why so many people assume that slavery was legal as an institution because of the traditions and passe response from the federal govt. Slave Power as I may have mentioned earlier was the coined term, because as long as the south was being economically successful, slavery was merely a tool to achieve taxes. However, this doesn't mean it was legal, OR morally correct, which was my entire point, that the government does not determine morality.


Ya, actually, no.
1834 =/= 1776

Try again, in 1772 slavery was abolished in England. In 1838, slavery was abolished in the entire British EMPIRE.


Ever hear of completely made up? My "natural right" is to kick everyone I meet in the shin. Prove me wrong.
Objectively remember, as "natural" implies inherent.

Not according to the Declaration of Independence.


Why not?
Your arguement replaces the impartial nature of the modern legal world into one of lineage. That what one's father did or suffered should reflect upon their children. But it dosen't and it shouldn't. This country is build for individuals, not their prodgeny. Washington's child should not be praised for having a famous father, and Hitler's kid (if not dead) shouldn't be chastized for having an evil one.
Your arguement falls completely apart because the world has moved beyond desendant accountability in all things. Why not in this?

This country WAS built for the individuals, exactly, and when certain individuals are not given their just deserves, what is the government supposed to do, just say "ahhhhh crap, that slave lady died before we could give her her check, I guess we can just rip up this check and forget about it!"?

The only logical course of action, and the responsibility of the government, is to pass along any remaining reparations to the heirs of those wronged individuals. It is not about accountability, their heirs did nothing to deserve the money, but they don't have to have done something to earn it because the government allowed a belligerent moral ineptitude to run rampant in this country.

Squatch347
August 4th, 2007, 10:38 AM
First, let me say that the analogy to Nazi Germany is a spurious one. The holocaust was not a morally acceptable thing to most Germans, and while many if not most turned a blind eye to it, there was never a moral argument for it at the time by anyone but those who instigated it. Slavery however, was believed to be moral, and while our views on that have most certainly evolved, I find it dishonest at the least to judge our ancestors by our standards. However, I don't think that that really has much to do with our reparations discussion. The question remains, have blacks today earned or are entitled to a compensation to offset a tangible harm. I.E. is there something tangible that they have lost that is a result of the federal government's actions or negligence?

Only star has come up with anything close to a valid answer here. Arguably, you could say that the jim crow laws have created a 'culture' of rascism. But those are state laws, and would be therefore be only state reperations.

The argument that Slavery wasn't legal in the early United States is assinine, it was clearly legal, laws passed concerning slavery dealt with the issue as if it was clearly a fact. The same could be said of supreme court decisions. Its like saying walking is illegal because no law exists out there allowing for it. The Constitution works under the opposite context, if not specifically mentioned by laws, it is considered legal.

CliveStaples
August 4th, 2007, 11:57 AM
Try again, in 1772 slavery was abolished in England. Then it was still legal in the colonies.


In 1838, slavery was abolished in the entire British EMPIRE.The American colonies were no longer a part of the British EMPIRE as of 1776. Britain never outlawed slavery in the American colonies.


Based on the entire Constitution. Which section, specifically? Which provision of the Constitution forbade slavery?


There is no precedence in this country's various written legal documents that mentions anything about slavery being legal. You mean apart from the laws that legalized slavery, and apart from a complete lack of language in the Constitution precluding such?


There are divisions between "free people" and "other people", but it has been argued for awhile that that cannot be interpreted between citizens and slaves.The only guarantee of liberty was in the 4th Amendment, which says:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Due process of the law was followed; the law happened to allow slavery. Should slavery have been legal? Absolutely not. Was it Constitutional? I believe so.

wanxtrmBANNED
August 4th, 2007, 01:14 PM
Hey, wanna - Having a Scottish bloodline, hows about claiming against the English and the Germans as well - remember 'Edward Long Shanks' and the Hanoverian 'Butcher Cumberland' - in for a penny, in for a pound, I say! Can I be your legal rep, and get a fat fee, win or lose? ;): :afro:

I should, but why would I? I can make myself what I make of myself!

The other guy is new so he doesnt understand when I am being facetious. You however FN you should know I am being facetious!

Turtleflipper
August 4th, 2007, 03:35 PM
For the most part, I agree with you, and by bringing up this point you only solidify my point, and support that wannaextreme's claim of reparations for his grandparents because they were drafted during the civil war (which when you realize how costly that war was, the draft at the time was probably viewed as being entirely necessary) are not valid.
.
Well probably, I just don't want you arguing for a state's absolute command of the body public at a later part of the debate (as Russia does on occassion)


Touche! However, Americans live in a republic remember, and until the people put forth an agenda to abolish selective service, it will remain as a potential necessity.
.
Probably, but I don't think the draft will ever be insituted again as to utilize it would be political death


I agree, which is why so many people assume that slavery was legal as an institution because of the traditions and passe response from the federal govt. Slave Power as I may have mentioned earlier was the coined term, because as long as the south was being economically successful, slavery was merely a tool to achieve taxes. However, this doesn't mean it was legal, OR morally correct, which was my entire point, that the government does not determine morality.
.
It does in terms of responsibility though. It benefits from its inaction in a morally reprehensible activity (while policing everything else I might add), and therefore owed back at the least something to the freed slaves.


Try again, in 1772 slavery was abolished in England. In 1838, slavery was abolished in the entire British EMPIRE.
.
Unless I'm mistaken England =/= American?


Not according to the Declaration of Independence.
.
I don't think the DOI is actually a foundation of our legal system, although the concepts it embodies in part may be.
I mean, "inalienable" rights would seem to elimiante the legality of prison.


This country WAS built for the individuals, exactly, and when certain individuals are not given their just deserves, what is the government supposed to do, just say "ahhhhh crap, that slave lady died before we could give her her check, I guess we can just rip up this check and forget about it!"?
.
Yes. As no one else justifiably deserves the money.


It is not about accountability, their heirs did nothing to deserve the money, but they don't have to have done something to earn it because the government allowed a belligerent moral ineptitude to run rampant in this country.

For which it should be sorry and watchful lest it happen agian. But to pass on money for wrongdoing to those not wronged is very much an anachronism. Children are not their parents.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>


The argument that Slavery wasn't legal in the early United States is assinine, it was clearly legal,.

AmericanHeritage.com / THE SLAVE WHO SUED FOR FREEDOM (http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1990/2/1990_2_51.shtml)

Ah-ha, no it wasn't. If a judge would, in the North, rule slavery as having no grounds, and eventually that sentiment would culminate in the illegalization of slavery in that state, it shows that our ancestors (well yours) had roughly the same morale centre as we did, and thusly can be judged accordingly.

supercodes
August 4th, 2007, 09:18 PM
First, let me say that the analogy to Nazi Germany is a spurious one. The holocaust was not a morally acceptable thing to most Germans, and while many if not most turned a blind eye to it, there was never a moral argument for it at the time by anyone but those who instigated it. Slavery however, was believed to be moral, and while our views on that have most certainly evolved, I find it dishonest at the least to judge our ancestors by our standards. However, I don't think that that really has much to do with our reparations discussion. The question remains, have blacks today earned or are entitled to a compensation to offset a tangible harm. I.E. is there something tangible that they have lost that is a result of the federal government's actions or negligence?

Slavery wasn't moral, it was just accepted because blacks were considered economic tools, and not citizens to many. If slavery was moral in this country then it wouldn't have been abolished in Vermont in 1777, or in Massachusetts in 1783, nor would various acts be imposed that prevented the importation of nationwide slaves from Africa. Abolitionists knew it was wrong, while most people just thought it was life, much like the Germans did in WWII. There were hundreds, if not thousands of pieces of literature that expounded upon the inhumanity of slavery. It is therefore not dishonest to judge our ancestors based on our knowledge, because they had the capacity to know it was wrong, they just did not accept it. Just because actions are acceptable at one time does not make it excusable.

And why do their losses have to be tangible? That is ridiculous. You think preventing an American from being free is not means enough for reparation? Just because we didn't steal their land, or kill their livestock does not mean we didn't do harm.



Only star has come up with anything close to a valid answer here. Arguably, you could say that the jim crow laws have created a 'culture' of rascism. But those are state laws, and would be therefore be only state reperations.

[quote]
The argument that Slavery wasn't legal in the early United States is assinine, it was clearly legal, laws passed concerning slavery dealt with the issue as if it was clearly a fact. The same could be said of supreme court decisions. Its like saying walking is illegal because no law exists out there allowing for it. The Constitution works under the opposite context, if not specifically mentioned by laws, it is considered legal.

If the Constitution does not specifically mention that colored individuals birthed into this country are allowed as slaves, then slavery is not allowed for one simple reason, they are considered citizens of the United States. Some might say that this could be considered erroneous except for the mere fact that there were thousands of free black men in some states during this time, who were allowed to own land and pay taxes. Were they given their full rights? No, but neither were women.

I agree laws were passed concerning the issues of slavery, but that doesn't mean it was legal to begin with. Women didn't get the right to vote until the 1920's with the 19th amendment to the constitution, yet they had the legal right since the inception of this country. Traditions and a male dominated government are the only reasons why women were prevented from voting for as long as they were.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

Then it was still legal in the colonies.

The American colonies were no longer a part of the British EMPIRE as of 1776. Britain never outlawed slavery in the American colonies.


This is frustrating the hell out of me because I could have sworn that I read that the British constitution ruled that the American colonies were forbidden from having slaves. I will concede this one as I can't find the article that I read.


Which section, specifically? Which provision of the Constitution forbade slavery?

You mean apart from the laws that legalized slavery, and apart from a complete lack of language in the Constitution precluding such?

The only guarantee of liberty was in the 4th Amendment, which says:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Due process of the law was followed; the law happened to allow slavery. Should slavery have been legal? Absolutely not. Was it Constitutional? I believe so.

You asked me to find a specific place in the Constitution that mentions slavery as being illegal, and I found none, you know why? Because there is zero mention of slavery in the Constitution, there is only generic usage of "persons" and "people." Therefore, it is quite easy to conclude that black Americans born into the United States, should have been considered Americans. However, racism and traditions prevented this from happening. Women had the right to vote too, as I mentioned earlier, yet they didn't because males dominated government.

Here is an interesting speech by Frederick Douglass:

The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery? by Frederick Douglass (http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1128)

CliveStaples
August 4th, 2007, 09:27 PM
You asked me to find a specific place in the Constitution that mentions slavery as being illegal, and I found none, you know why? Because there is zero mention of slavery in the Constitution, there is only generic usage of "persons" and "people." Therefore, it is quite easy to conclude that black Americans born into the United States, should have been considered Americans. However, racism and traditions prevented this from happening. Women had the right to vote too, as I mentioned earlier, yet they didn't because males dominated government.

There is nothing in the Constitution that demands that the "people" or individual "persons" not be subject to slavery. Until the 13th Amendment, of course.

supercodes
August 4th, 2007, 09:46 PM
There is nothing in the Constitution that demands that the "people" or individual "persons" not be subject to slavery. Until the 13th Amendment, of course.

And there is nothing that specifically mentions that women don't have the right to vote, but that doesn't make it so.

The absence of a specific clause or amendment that specifically mentions slavery as being legal, should be enough evidence to prove that there is no legal precedence to support the notion that slavery is, indeed, legal.

CliveStaples
August 4th, 2007, 09:52 PM
And there is nothing that specifically mentions that women don't have the right to vote, but that doesn't make it so.

You misunderstand the case.

Your claim is thus:

"The Constitution does not claim [x]; therefore, [x] is not the case."

The Constitution doesn't mention that women have the right to vote, which means that there has to be a law granting such.

You see, my claim is thus:

"The Constitution does not claim [x], therefore [x] is not necessarily the case."

Just because the Constitution is silent on an issue does not mean that the matter cannot be addressed by legislation on the federal or state level.


The absence of a specific clause or amendment that specifically mentions slavery as being legal, should be enough evidence to prove that there is no legal precedence to support the notion that slavery is, indeed, legal.

The point isn't that slavery is mandated by the Constitution, which it clearly is not. The point is that it is allowed by the Constitution (which doesn't forbid slavery). The Constitution also includes no clause or amendment that mentions the criminalization of child molestation; that does not mean that laws to that effect are null and void.

FruitandNut
August 4th, 2007, 10:29 PM
wanna - The emoticon 'wink' in my last post should have told you that I was just joining in with your 'fun'.

ps. In terms of civil law, anything that is not clearly declared outlawed/illegal, is by omission - allowable/permitted/tolerated. The Constitution was not originally written with inclusion of slaves in mind.

supercodes
August 5th, 2007, 11:43 AM
You misunderstand the case.

Your claim is thus:

"The Constitution does not claim [x]; therefore, [x] is not the case."

The Constitution doesn't mention that women have the right to vote, which means that there has to be a law granting such.

You see, my claim is thus:

"The Constitution does not claim [x], therefore [x] is not necessarily the case."

Just because the Constitution is silent on an issue does not mean that the matter cannot be addressed by legislation on the federal or state level.



The point isn't that slavery is mandated by the Constitution, which it clearly is not. The point is that it is allowed by the Constitution (which doesn't forbid slavery). The Constitution also includes no clause or amendment that mentions the criminalization of child molestation; that does not mean that laws to that effect are null and void.

Listen, the problem during the 18th and 19th centuries was that the power of the States was more tantamount to a strong Federal government. However, in the late 18th century, Americans were beginning to realize that Federal guidelines were needed in order to unify the states into a conducive nation (before the Constitution, some states even declared official religions). However, with the advent of the Constitution, there were some inalienable rights that every citizen of the country, regardless of what state they lived in, had under the laws of the country, which were paramount to those of the States. Laws were still largely on a state by state basis, however, once the Constitution was created, all laws of the country HAD to coincide with the fundamental rights of all people.

Specifically, one of the original amendments in the bill of rights, the 5th amendment simply states no person will be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Now, where controversy arises on the issue of slavery, is with the State's ability to create laws on their own, which many states did declaring slaves as property, and as such, not recognized by the federal bill of rights. This is where the debate ends for some, however, my argument is that the Bill of Rights does not mention slavery in any form, which in turn acknowledges all individuals to be represented by the texts therein.

Unfortunately, the articles of the Constitution, which preceeded the Bill of rights, included some concessions made acknowledging the State's rights to slavery. However, this is widely acknowledged as merely a political move to ensure support from Southern states, and thus, is not acknowledged in the Bill of Rights (technically, these articles are still written into the Constitution, which is funny considering the 13th amendment abolishes slavery).

I may be considered radical in this opinion, but I consider the Bill of Rights the true governing ability of the Constitution (along with all proceeding amendments) when it comes to individual rights, while many parts of the articles were compromises to appease certain States.

The hypocritical and conflicting messages in comparing the articles with the bill of rights has been acknowledged by countless lawmakers and other political figureheads, even BEFORE the Constitution was added. Many believe that the civil war was fought in large part because of the problematic nature of slavery in the Constitution, as Lincoln declared that slaves were no longer to be slaves, which causes a MAJOR outcry from the Southern states who saw the Constitution as clearly representing them in the issue, when in reality, Lincoln and the Constitutionalists used the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence as their evidence.

Basically, in a nutshell, racism, compromise, and state's power were the true problems with interpreting the Constitution, which in turn led to the Civil War.

Sorry that this is so long winded, but I needed to really explain myself.

CliveStaples
August 5th, 2007, 05:15 PM
Specifically, one of the original amendments in the bill of rights, the 5th amendment simply states no person will be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Now, where controversy arises on the issue of slavery, is with the State's ability to create laws on their own, which many states did declaring slaves as property, and as such, not recognized by the federal bill of rights. This is where the debate ends for some, however, my argument is that the Bill of Rights does not mention slavery in any form, which in turn acknowledges all individuals to be represented by the texts therein.

And my point is that slavery was legal, even if the slaves are considered people vis-a-vis the 5th Amendment. All that is required to deny someone of life (death penalty), liberty (in this case, slavery), or property (fines), is due process of the law. Unless you can prove that slavery laws denied due process, you have no 5th Amendment claim.


Sorry that this is so long winded, but I needed to really explain myself.

Most of your post was irrelevant to the question of the legality of slavery laws. The reasons and motivations behind the Civil War have rather little to do with the then-text of the Constitution and the question of due process.

supercodes
August 5th, 2007, 06:45 PM
And my point is that slavery was legal, even if the slaves are considered people vis-a-vis the 5th Amendment. All that is required to deny someone of life (death penalty), liberty (in this case, slavery), or property (fines), is due process of the law. Unless you can prove that slavery laws denied due process, you have no 5th Amendment claim.



Most of your post was irrelevant to the question of the legality of slavery laws. The reasons and motivations behind the Civil War have rather little to do with the then-text of the Constitution and the question of due process.

And my point was that federal rights vis a vis, the 5th amendment, are paramount to state laws that may interdict those rights. Despite the influence of "Slave Power", the bill of rights state slaves are people via omission of the term slave, therefore, protected under the amendments therein. If you disagree with this, then we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I don't know how to make it anymore plain.

CliveStaples
August 5th, 2007, 06:56 PM
And my point was that federal rights vis a vis, the 5th amendment, are paramount to state laws that may interdict those rights. Despite the influence of "Slave Power", the bill of rights state slaves are people via omission of the term slave, therefore, protected under the amendments therein. If you disagree with this, then we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I don't know how to make it anymore plain.

I agree, sir, but you have yet to demonstrate how their Constitutional rights were violated. Slavery does not violate the 5th Amendment unless it denies "due process", and it didn't violate the 14th Amendment because it didn't exist at the time.

supercodes
August 5th, 2007, 07:47 PM
I agree, sir, but you have yet to demonstrate how their Constitutional rights were violated. Slavery does not violate the 5th Amendment unless it denies "due process", and it didn't violate the 14th Amendment because it didn't exist at the time.

Could you enslave a white person? Why or why not?

CliveStaples
August 5th, 2007, 07:52 PM
Could you enslave a white person? Why or why not?

There was not yet any Constitutional mandate for equal protection of the laws; that did not come about until after the civil war.

supercodes
August 5th, 2007, 08:09 PM
There was not yet any Constitutional mandate for equal protection of the laws; that did not come about until after the civil war.

Sure there was. The Bill of Rights does not make any specific distinction between white people and black people/slaves.

CliveStaples
August 5th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Sure there was. The Bill of Rights does not make any specific distinction between white people and black people/slaves.

And the Bill of Rights at the time applied to everyone. Slaves were deprived of their liberty, true; but you have not demonstrated that the slavery laws denied anyone due process.

And it makes no difference whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to blacks and whites alike; what matters is that it does not preclude laws from applying differently to blacks and whites--or rather, that it did not at the time. Slavery wasn't mandated by the Constitution, but it was allowed. The only way that slavery would not be Constitutional is if the Constitution disallowed it. The Fifth Amendment does not do so, nor any Amendment until the 13th.

Squatch347
August 6th, 2007, 06:08 PM
AmericanHeritage.com / THE SLAVE WHO SUED FOR FREEDOM

Ah-ha, no it wasn't. If a judge would, in the North, rule slavery as having no grounds, and eventually that sentiment would culminate in the illegalization of slavery in that state, it shows that our ancestors (well yours) had roughly the same morale centre as we did, and thusly can be judged accordingly. Excellent find, however it is clearly the exception that proves the rule. Fugitive Slave Law (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASfugitive.htm) The fugitive slave law assumes its legality. You could also make the argument that since the constitution does not forbid it it "leaves all other matters to the states." Meaning that they can declare it legal, which many did. Of course, it also begs the question, if it was illegal, why did we need the emancipation declaration or an amendment to the constitution? And these aren't my ancestors as I have pointed out many times. Your link refered to a jury declaring it illegal. And that only means that the morality of that state was against slavery. States were vastly different organisms than today, with wide ranging cultures and norms.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

AmericanHeritage.com / THE SLAVE WHO SUED FOR FREEDOM

Ah-ha, no it wasn't. If a judge would, in the North, rule slavery as having no grounds, and eventually that sentiment would culminate in the illegalization of slavery in that state, it shows that our ancestors (well yours) had roughly the same morale centre as we did, and thusly can be judged accordingly. Excellent find, however it is clearly the exception that proves the rule. Fugitive Slave Law (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASfugitive.htm) and Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford) The fugitive slave law assumes its legality. You could also make the argument that since the constitution does not forbid it it "leaves all other matters to the states." Meaning that they can declare it legal, which many did. Of course, it also begs the question, if it was illegal, why did we need the emancipation declaration or an amendment to the constitution? And these aren't my ancestors as I have pointed out many times. Your link refered to a jury declaring it illegal. And that only means that the morality of that state was against slavery. States were vastly different organisms than today, with wide ranging cultures and norms.

supercodes
August 6th, 2007, 08:26 PM
And the Bill of Rights at the time applied to everyone. Slaves were deprived of their liberty, true; but you have not demonstrated that the slavery laws denied anyone due process.

And it makes no difference whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to blacks and whites alike; what matters is that it does not preclude laws from applying differently to blacks and whites--or rather, that it did not at the time. Slavery wasn't mandated by the Constitution, but it was allowed. The only way that slavery would not be Constitutional is if the Constitution disallowed it. The Fifth Amendment does not do so, nor any Amendment until the 13th.

Dude, you just said that the slaves were deprived of their liberty, which is the essence of due process in the U.S.! Every American is defended by due process based on what is written under the 5th amendment.

As I have been saying throughout this entire thread, slavery does not need to have a special mandate in the Constitution to be legal, that is ridiculous. This is the reason why I brought up the women's right to vote. Just by omitting any specifics about slavery in the bill of rights, we can assume that blacks, via the bill of rights, had EQUAL rights to those of white individuals, and thus, should have been recognized as legal equals to their white brethren.

Now, am I saying that is how things were perceived? Obviously not, or else this country would probably have abolished slavery like England did in the 18th century. Through a multitude of reasons, our own bill of rights was literally ignored for the sake of economic success.

This nation basically violated its own oath to its people because of racism, and probably a healthy dose of "the white man's burden" thrown in.

This thread has seemingly been beaten to death over the legality of slavery. I don't really know how I can explain myself anymore than I already have, so to avoid being redundant I will make my stand clear on the topic at hand:

Reparations for blacks as a whole should not happen, but reparations for families of victims of slavery should get reparations, just as Japanese families should if they have not received anything as well.

Perhaps above all though, I feel that we need to devote more federal money to preserving the Native American way of life, which above any other society, we have damaged to a drastic point. The way Native Americans have to live on their land is an outrage. As long as there is a Native American population in this country, they should receive free healthcare and free education.

CliveStaples
August 6th, 2007, 08:48 PM
Dude, you just said that the slaves were deprived of their liberty, which is the essence of due process in the U.S.!

The text reads:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

That is, given due process of the law, people can be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Since slavery laws were enacted, the only question of due process is whether the law is followed appropriately.


As I have been saying throughout this entire thread, slavery does not need to have a special mandate in the Constitution to be legal, that is ridiculous. This is the reason why I brought up the women's right to vote. Just by omitting any specifics about slavery in the bill of rights, we can assume that blacks, via the bill of rights, had EQUAL rights to those of white individuals, and thus, should have been recognized as legal equals to their white brethren.

They are entitled to the protections the Constitution grants to all American persons. But, given the lack of an Equal Protection clause at the time, and given no Constitutional anti-slavery or anti-racist mandate, all that is required for slavery to be Constitutional is legislation legalizing the practice.


Reparations for blacks as a whole should not happen, but reparations for families of victims of slavery should get reparations, just as Japanese families should if they have not received anything as well.

I disagree. Compensation is deserved if someone has been illegally harmed. In this case, unfortunately, the victims of the slave trade have suffered damnum absque injuria.

supercodes
August 6th, 2007, 09:18 PM
The text reads:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

That is, given due process of the law, people can be deprived of life, liberty, or property. Since slavery laws were enacted, the only question of due process is whether the law is followed appropriately.

"...due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must respect all of a person's legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property." (wikipedia.org)

Slaves had the rights that, based on the bill of rights, required the judiciary to follow this system of due process, the same as white people. It was the government's lack of respect for the bill of rights as it was written, that enabled slavery to continue.



They are entitled to the protections the Constitution grants to all American persons. But, given the lack of an Equal Protection clause at the time, and given no Constitutional anti-slavery or anti-racist mandate, all that is required for slavery to be Constitutional is legislation legalizing the practice.

It doesn't make it constitutional, but it does make it "legal" according to the government's interpretation at the time. So in a way, I agree with your statement.




I disagree. Compensation is deserved if someone has been illegally harmed. In this case, unfortunately, the victims of the slave trade have suffered damnum absque injuria.

Alright, ignoring the issue of legality since we can't seem to reach a consensus on that one, don't think you based on the fact that we can now perceive the government back then as morally corrupt, that we should have the decency to give those people something as a way to apologize? I mean I think we can agree that slaves were Americans that were ruefully ignored by their government based on prejudices, so what harm can it do to give something back?

Turtleflipper
August 7th, 2007, 06:09 AM
Excellent find, however it is clearly the exception that proves the rule. Fugitive Slave Law (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASfugitive.htm) The fugitive slave law assumes its legality. You could also make the argument that since the constitution does not forbid it it "leaves all other matters to the states." Meaning that they can declare it legal, which many did. Of course, it also begs the question, if it was illegal, why did we need the emancipation declaration or an amendment to the constitution? And these aren't my ancestors as I have pointed out many times. Your link refered to a jury declaring it illegal. And that only means that the morality of that state was against slavery. States were vastly different organisms than today, with wide ranging cultures and norms.
<

Because all men's laws are not alike.
Isn't beggint the question a fallacy?
ALSO: To say the past existed in a time-warp makes no sense. I use it as a case-point, that the Americans of the Antebellum period of the Civil War had OUR morality, but were conflicted by materialism (slavery in the south was big bucks).

CliveStaples
August 7th, 2007, 09:18 AM
"...due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must respect all of a person's legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property."

And how did slavery laws unlawfully deprive people of their life, liberty, or property?


Slaves had the rights that, based on the bill of rights, required the judiciary to follow this system of due process, the same as white people. It was the government's lack of respect for the bill of rights as it was written, that enabled slavery to continue.

Suppose that the slavery laws stated that only Blacks could be enslaved. That doesn't deprive Blacks of their right to due process, it denies them their right to liberty. It does so lawfully (i.e., by the law).


It doesn't make it constitutional, but it does make it "legal" according to the government's interpretation at the time. So in a way, I agree with your statement.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't outlaw slavery, which is why they passed the 13th. The Fifth Amendment only says that you have to go by the books. And when slavery is on the books...


Alright, ignoring the issue of legality since we can't seem to reach a consensus on that one, don't think you based on the fact that we can now perceive the government back then as morally corrupt, that we should have the decency to give those people something as a way to apologize?

I can't even offer them an apology, because I had nothing to do with enslaving blacks. Should I give them money or goods/services because they've suffered cruelly? I don't think so.


I mean I think we can agree that slaves were Americans that were ruefully ignored by their government based on prejudices, so what harm can it do to give something back?

What harm could it do to give someone money because their ancestors were oppressed? Well, first it harms the people giving away their money, because no longer enjoy the use of that money. Why should I give them money or property? I've worked hard for mine. They can do the same. Sure, slavery shouldn't have happened. And Nicole Simpson shouldn't have been murdered. Should black people feel obligated to give money to random white people for what O.J. did?

supercodes
August 7th, 2007, 12:29 PM
And how did slavery laws unlawfully deprive people of their life, liberty, or property?

You keep going back to these slavery laws, but these slavery laws were state laws. These laws do not circumvent what is written in the Bill of Rights. If lawmakers, state OR federal, were to have abided by the bill of rights, word for word, those laws would have never been created in the first place. However, in reality, the bill of rights was readily ignored for the sake of economic stabilization. Due process applied more than ever for slaves, who are Americans under the bill of rights, but the government at the time, both federal and state, ignored their right to due process. Basically, these "laws" were illegal from the get go.



Suppose that the slavery laws stated that only Blacks could be enslaved. That doesn't deprive Blacks of their right to due process, it denies them their right to liberty. It does so lawfully (i.e., by the law).

If the bill of rights stated that blacks could be enslaved, then you are right, due process would not apply to them, but since slavery is not mentioned in the bill of rights, slaves are equal under these rights, including the right to due process. Slavery laws should have never been allowed to be created based on the rights of slaves.



The Fifth Amendment doesn't outlaw slavery, which is why they passed the 13th. The Fifth Amendment only says that you have to go by the books. And when slavery is on the books...

The 5th amendment doesn't say you have to go by the books, in fact, "the books" are supposed to be based on the bill of rights, meaning laws cannot be created that could potentially violate the basic rights of all Americans (i.e. laws proclaiming a warrant needs to be issued when conducting searches based on the rights described in the 4th amendment).

Any laws that made slavery legal in any way, were in fact illegal because of their violation of the 5th amendment.




I can't even offer them an apology, because I had nothing to do with enslaving blacks. Should I give them money or goods/services because they've suffered cruelly? I don't think so.


What harm could it do to give someone money because their ancestors were oppressed? Well, first it harms the people giving away their money, because no longer enjoy the use of that money. Why should I give them money or property? I've worked hard for mine. They can do the same. Sure, slavery shouldn't have happened. And Nicole Simpson shouldn't have been murdered. Should black people feel obligated to give money to random white people for what O.J. did?

So do you believe you shouldn't have to pay taxes (ignore income tax based on the controversy surrounding that) either?

Your view of this, no offense to you, is quite selfish in its nature. Just as we owe a debt to this country for what it offers us, we should also be required, as a nation, to pay any Americans who have been illegally persecuted based on conduct unbecoming of our government. I understand the position that if the government ****ed up, it shouldn't be the fault of the people, however, if this country is supposed to be as democratic as everyone wants it to be, the people should step up and give back to those that the government wronged. It is OUR responsibility, as the people, to right the wrongs in government, which I believe we have done as it pertains to civil rights, and also making sure that the people who have suffered as a result of those wrongdoings, should be given some sort of compensation for their problems.

I don't see how a comparison to widespread illegal actions by the government (slavery), can be associated with giving white people money for the murder of Nicole Simpson. This isn't about race and shouldn't be about race, so I don't know how you came up with that. However, if Nicole Simpson was found to be the victim of a secret black ops CIA assassination, in which it was found she was innocent and the people found out about it, then I believe Nicole's family should receive reparations on behalf of the government.

CliveStaples
August 7th, 2007, 12:57 PM
You keep going back to these slavery laws, but these slavery laws were state laws.

So?


These laws do not circumvent what is written in the Bill of Rights.

They didn't. They provided the "due process" by which blacks were deprived of liberty.


If lawmakers, state OR federal, were to have abided by the bill of rights, word for word, those laws would have never been created in the first place.

They did abide by the words of the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment doesn't forbid slavery, it forbids the abandonment of due process. The slavery laws and the courts that apply them are the due process.


However, in reality, the bill of rights was readily ignored for the sake of economic stabilization. Due process applied more than ever for slaves, who are Americans under the bill of rights, but the government at the time, both federal and state, ignored their right to due process. Basically, these "laws" were illegal from the get go.

Being an American doesn't mean that you can't also be a slave--before the 13th Amendment.


If the bill of rights stated that blacks could be enslaved, then you are right, due process would not apply to them, but since slavery is not mentioned in the bill of rights, slaves are equal under these rights, including the right to due process.

Terrible, terrible logic.

The bill of rights doesn't mention that rapists can be imprisoned. The bill of rights doesn't mention that child molesters can be arrested.

Slavery is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. If it were forbidden by the Bill of rights, the slavery laws would be unconstitutional and therefore null and void. If slavery laws were demanded by the Constitution, it would be illegal NOT to have slavery laws.

As it is, however, the Constitution is silent (at the time). That does not forbid the legislatures from passing slavery laws, no more than the lack of mention of rape in the Constitution forbids laws against rape.


Slavery laws should have never been allowed to be created based on the rights of slaves.

The slaves' Constitutional rights weren't violated.


The 5th amendment doesn't say you have to go by the books, in fact, "the books" are supposed to be based on the bill of rights, meaning laws cannot be created that could potentially violate the basic rights of all Americans (i.e. laws proclaiming a warrant needs to be issued when conducting searches based on the rights described in the 4th amendment).

But there is no Constitutional right not to be enslaved; there is only the right that any deprivation of liberty must be the result of due process of the law.


Any laws that made slavery legal in any way, were in fact illegal because of their violation of the 5th amendment.

Slavery doesn't violate the Fifth Amendment. No "due process" is violated; the slavery laws were followed.


So do you believe you shouldn't have to pay taxes (ignore income tax based on the controversy surrounding that) either?

Of course I have to pay taxes. It's the law. Should it be the law? That's a practical issue, not a moral one.


Your view of this, no offense to you, is quite selfish in its nature.

If it is selfish to think that my property and my money belongs to me, then I am selfish.


Just as we owe a debt to this country for what it offers us, we should also be required, as a nation, to pay any Americans who have been illegally persecuted based on conduct unbecoming of our government.

Bullpuckey. I didn't pass those laws, I cannot be held accountable for them.


I understand the position that if the government ****ed up, it shouldn't be the fault of the people, however, if this country is supposed to be as democratic as everyone wants it to be, the people should step up and give back to those that the government wronged. It is OUR responsibility, as the people, to right the wrongs in government, which I believe we have done as it pertains to civil rights, and also making sure that the people who have suffered as a result of those wrongdoings, should be given some sort of compensation for their problems.

First off, to think that money can compensate someone for being enslaved by another person is rather naive.

Second, it is good for you to be generous and charitable with your own money. It is not so good to be charitable with other peoples' money.


I don't see how a comparison to widespread illegal actions by the government (slavery), can be associated with giving white people money for the murder of Nicole Simpson. This isn't about race and shouldn't be about race, so I don't know how you came up with that. However, if Nicole Simpson was found to be the victim of a secret black ops CIA assassination, in which it was found she was innocent and the people found out about it, then I believe Nicole's family should receive reparations on behalf of the government.

Well, I don't. If people want to bring civil charges, let them. But I think that the guilty parties should be the ones to pay reparations, and I'm not guilty of enslaving anyone. Neither is the current government.

wanxtrmBANNED
August 7th, 2007, 02:54 PM
Could you enslave a white person? Why or why not?

Wow I will assume you read none of what I posted regarding this, in this thread as well as others.

WHITE PEOPLE WERE IN FACT SLAVES AS WELL> :afro:

supercodes
August 7th, 2007, 05:31 PM
Wow I will assume you read none of what I posted regarding this, in this thread as well as others.

WHITE PEOPLE WERE IN FACT SLAVES AS WELL> :afro:

Not in the States.

Squatch347
August 7th, 2007, 06:02 PM
Because all men's laws are not alike.
Isn't beggint the question a fallacy?
ALSO: To say the past existed in a time-warp makes no sense. I use it as a case-point, that the Americans of the Antebellum period of the Civil War had OUR morality, but were conflicted by materialism (slavery in the south was big bucks).

Sorry turtle, I'm not really getting what you are going at. These laws clearly indicate that slavery was common law, if not explicit law.

As for my argument about judging the past with our standards, your case in point seems more like you are arguing that they did have the same standards as ours. I'm not so sure, but that is a far different point from judging them by our conceptions of right/wrong.

supercodes
August 7th, 2007, 06:06 PM
They did abide by the words of the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment doesn't forbid slavery, it forbids the abandonment of due process. The slavery laws and the courts that apply them are the due process.

The 5th amendment states that every American has the right to due process. Slaves were Americans, thus they should have been covered equally under due process. Any laws or courts that ignore this fact was illegal.



Being an American doesn't mean that you can't also be a slave--before the 13th Amendment.

Yes it does! That is the whole point of having a Bill of Rights! Taking someone's freedom away from them would entail violating several amendments. The 13th amendment was enacted to make it plainly obvious that racist lawmakers couldn't have their way anymore. :grin:



Terrible, terrible logic.

The bill of rights doesn't mention that rapists can be imprisoned. The bill of rights doesn't mention that child molesters can be arrested.

Slavery is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. If it were forbidden by the Bill of rights, the slavery laws would be unconstitutional and therefore null and void. If slavery laws were demanded by the Constitution, it would be illegal NOT to have slavery laws.

As it is, however, the Constitution is silent (at the time). That does not forbid the legislatures from passing slavery laws, no more than the lack of mention of rape in the Constitution forbids laws against rape.


Its not terrible logic, its common sense. The Constitution is not a code of laws, it is a guideline of rights that cannot be violated. Laws are created for one simple purpose, to prevent individual rights from being violated...simple as that. Rapists are imprisoned because there are laws against rape, and there are laws against rape because a rape victim had their rights violated. This same equation can be used for all your other examples as well. Slavery is not the slaves violating the slave owner's rights, it is the slave owners who were violating the slave's right, so what is the answer to this equation? My logical conclusion would be that there should have been laws that prevented slavery, but instead, there were laws that ALLOWED slavery. What kind of logic is that? It was flawed an illegal.



But there is no Constitutional right not to be enslaved; there is only the right that any deprivation of liberty must be the result of due process of the law.

According to this argument, there is no constitutional right not to be raped. We both know this is inaccurate because the act of rape makes it a violation of rights, which in turn caused laws to be created to help prevent it. The same logic can be applied to slavery to, but unfortunately the lawmakers say it differently.




Of course I have to pay taxes. It's the law. Should it be the law? That's a practical issue, not a moral one.


What I mean is, do you think you should have to pay taxes, it is a philosophical question. Sorry if there was some confusion there. I don't mean the issue of law.




Well, I don't. If people want to bring civil charges, let them. But I think that the guilty parties should be the ones to pay reparations, and I'm not guilty of enslaving anyone. Neither is the current government.

So you think that people should be able to sue the government for damages?

CliveStaples
August 7th, 2007, 07:22 PM
The 5th amendment states that every American has the right to due process. Slaves were Americans, thus they should have been covered equally under due process.

They HAD due process, so long as the law was followed. The relevant statutes were followed--those statutes legalized slavery. "Due process" doesn't mean "can't be deprived of liberty", it means "following the laws set forth". Thus, the Constitutional guarantee of due process is that the processes of the law will be observed.


Yes it does! That is the whole point of having a Bill of Rights! Taking someone's freedom away from them would entail violating several amendments.

No, unlawfully taking away someone's liberty would. The Constitutional right to liberty is conditional--so long as the deprivation follows due process, it is allowed. Only later would slavery become illegal.


The 13th amendment was enacted to make it plainly obvious that racist lawmakers couldn't have their way anymore.

Ah, so by logical extension, since I agree with those lawmakers, am I racist?


Its not terrible logic, its common sense. The Constitution is not a code of laws, it is a guideline of rights that cannot be violated.

It is a code of laws. That is why it calls itself the "supreme law of the land".


Laws are created for one simple purpose, to prevent individual rights from being violated...simple as that. Rapists are imprisoned because there are laws against rape, and there are laws against rape because a rape victim had their rights violated.

The law against rape is what makes rape illegal. The fact that it violates rights is irrelevant to the question of its legality. The Fifth Amendment could be repealed, and murder legalized. Murdering someone would therefore still deprive them of their right, even though the action was lawful.


Slavery is not the slaves violating the slave owner's rights, it is the slave owners who were violating the slave's right, so what is the answer to this equation?

There was no unconditional right to liberty (there still is not), so your legal objection is unconvincing.

The problem with your argument is that slavery doesn't criminalize actions, it permits them.


My logical conclusion would be that there should have been laws that prevented slavery, but instead, there were laws that ALLOWED slavery. What kind of logic is that? It was flawed an illegal.

There was no Constitutional barrier to crafting slavery laws as such. Now, of course I think that the passage of slavery laws was a flawed decision. I'm no racist. I simply think that you misconstrue the rights granted by the 5th Amendment.


According to this argument, there is no constitutional right not to be raped.

It violates the right of someone to be secure in their person, perhaps.


We both know this is inaccurate because the act of rape makes it a violation of rights, which in turn caused laws to be created to help prevent it. The same logic can be applied to slavery to, but unfortunately the lawmakers say it differently.

*sigh*

If the Constitution already made rape illegal, then rape laws are superfluous and redundant. The reason that rape laws were created was precisely because there were no standing laws against it.


So you think that people should be able to sue the government for damages?

Damages? You mean a civil suit against "the government"? Who would be the defendant? Members of Congress? The Government as a whole?

supercodes
August 8th, 2007, 08:28 PM
The law against rape is what makes rape illegal. The fact that it violates rights is irrelevant to the question of its legality. The Fifth Amendment could be repealed, and murder legalized. Murdering someone would therefore still deprive them of their right, even though the action was lawful.

Alright, here we go, this is what I was waiting to read. This is about as black and white a statement as I can quote. You say that law is its own entity in
that the law itself has the power to determine what is legal based on the nature of the law as written. I am saying that laws are merely tools for protecting the rights of the people, and that laws that violate the rights of the people are unlawful. I am going to throw out some evidence here to support my claims.

"...the “sovereign” within any nation or state is the ruler of that state and makes all the rules and laws with the explicit intention to provide the most complete protection for his, her, or their rights to life, liberty, and property.

"Any act done and any law passed by the federal government which is not authorized by the Constitution is unlawful, because not authorized by the written contract called the Constitution that is the source of ALL of their delegated authority."

Here is a portion of their basis for the above, which is a statement by the Supreme Court:

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886)]

And I also found the below interesting in the same article after it describes the nature of a compact, which states that the government's actions are the responsibility of its people:

"Enacting a mutual agreement into positive law and which takes the form of a Constitution, then, becomes the vehicle for proving the fact that the People collectively agreed and directly consented to allow the government to pass laws that will protect their rights. When our federal government then passes laws or “acts”, the Congressional Record becomes the legal evidence or proof of all of the elected representatives who consented to the agreement. Since we sent these representatives to Washington D.C. to represent our interests, then the result is that we indirectly consented to allow them to bind us to any new agreements or contracts (called statutes) written in furtherance of our interests. If the statute or law passed by Congress will have an adverse impact on our rights, it can then be said that indirectly we consented or agreed to any adverse impact, because the majority voted in favor of their elected representatives."




"An efficient and effective constitution allows government to function to protect the lives and liberties of citizens without violating the rights of some to provide gains to others".

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000902-11.htm




Damages? You mean a civil suit against "the government"? Who would be the defendant? Members of Congress? The Government as a whole?

Yes, and it would be a suit against the government.

CliveStaples
August 8th, 2007, 08:30 PM
You say that law is its own entity in that the law itself has the power to determine what is legal based on the nature of the law as written. I am saying that laws are merely tools for protecting the rights of the people, and that laws that violate the rights of the people are unlawful. I am going to throw out some evidence here to support my claims.

You refer to natural law. I am referring to the system of laws established by the Constitution and bills passed by the legislature. If you wish to equivocate, we can use different terms.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

Yes, and it would be a suit against the government.

The 2007 U.S. government isn't responsible for slavery. Why would you sue someone who has done nothing wrong?

wanxtrmBANNED
August 9th, 2007, 02:34 PM
Not in the States.

******** and if you had read any of the other slavery threads started you would see the proof.

However given that your arguments have included no proofs I will provide some for you.

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/history/10922-slavery_blacks_only_race_can_whine.html#post238083



Please read this thread, than counter.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>



"An efficient and effective constitution allows government to function to protect the lives and liberties of citizens without violating the rights of some to provide gains to others".

THE PURPOSE OF LAW AND CONSTITUTIONS (http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000902-11.htm)




How does a Canadian phrase have any meaning in the States?

Or does it just have 1/3 rd the meaning?
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>


Yes, and it would be a suit against the government.

So you are denying that the government is a government of the people and for the people?

Are you assuming that the government is a separate entity of its own?

Why?

First any law suit must have a reasonable expectancy of time involved, as well as any crimes. The only crimes that are not bound by time are Murder. (In most states, of the United States)
Slavery was, A. not a crime. B. Legal in the United States. C. applicable to more than just black people.
Less than 5000 people owned slaves, and even then far less than that were cruel and or mean to their property.
After all you don't beat a race horse that you pay good money for unless that horse will never again run a race.

supercodes
August 9th, 2007, 05:00 PM
******** and if you had read any of the other slavery threads started you would see the proof.

However given that your arguments have included no proofs I will provide some for you.

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/history/10922-slavery_blacks_only_race_can_whine.html#post238083


Please read this thread, than counter.


The only evidence you have shown is that there was indentured servitude for whites. There is a BIG difference between indentured service and slavery and that is not news. I read somewhere in which a responder to this very debate made a comparison, that comparing slavery to indentured servitude, is like comparing rape to prostitution. I didn't notice any other evidence in this thread that supported your claim. You called my statement ********, yet this thread you supplied me gives no evidence whatsoever to support you claim that white SLAVES existed in North America. You want to prove your point, then show me a direct comparison of indentured servitude and slavery that claims they are one in the same.



How does a Canadian phrase have any meaning in the States?


So only Americans can write about the Constitution? :shocked: Also, some of those quotes were from other sites. My computer crashed while I was writing that. I didn't realize I omitted the links to those sites. Sorry about that. If you are interested, I can attempt to dig up the sites again.



So you are denying that the government is a government of the people and for the people?

Are you assuming that the government is a separate entity of its own?

Why?



Nope. The case would be against the country. Why? Because it is an option. Here is an example of its legality:

Federal Tort Claims Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act)



First any law suit must have a reasonable expectancy of time involved, as well as any crimes. The only crimes that are not bound by time are Murder.


You are correct, you may not be able to sue the government because of the time issue, but that doesn't mean all legal recourse is off the table.



Slavery was, A. not a crime. B. Legal in the United States. C. applicable to more than just black people.
Less than 5000 people owned slaves, and even then far less than that were cruel and or mean to their property.
After all you don't beat a race horse that you pay good money for unless that horse will never again run a race.

Slavery was illegal, and you are right, slaves did not include just black people, but I also remember stating that slavery reparations weren't about race. Also, whether that stat about 5000 landowners is correct or not is irrelevant, because the amount of slaves in this country often made up state populations between 12-14&#37;, which is a large chunk of individuals.

Just Me
August 9th, 2007, 05:31 PM
Slavery was illegal, and you are right, slaves did not include just black people, but I also remember stating that slavery reparations weren't about race.

From about the 1640s until 1865, people of African descent were legally and inhumanely enslaved within the boundaries of the present U. S. mostly by whites, but also by a comparatively tiny number of American Indians and free blacks. The wealth of the U.S. was greatly enhanced by this exploitation of African American slaves.
Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States)

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished, and continues to prohibit slavery and, with limited exceptions (those convicted of a crime), prohibits involuntary servitude. Prior to its ratification, slavery remained legal only in Delaware and Kentucky;
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)

How exactly do you get slavery was illegal?

supercodes
August 9th, 2007, 05:46 PM
From about the 1640s until 1865, people of African descent were legally and inhumanely enslaved within the boundaries of the present U. S. mostly by whites, but also by a comparatively tiny number of American Indians and free blacks. The wealth of the U.S. was greatly enhanced by this exploitation of African American slaves.
Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States)

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished, and continues to prohibit slavery and, with limited exceptions (those convicted of a crime), prohibits involuntary servitude. Prior to its ratification, slavery remained legal only in Delaware and Kentucky;
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)

How exactly do you get slavery was illegal?

So I can avoid having to type this whole debate out again, please go back through the thread and read the debate, that would save me oodles of time, and will perhaps answer your question. :grin:

Just Me
August 9th, 2007, 05:48 PM
So I can avoid having to type this whole debate out again, please go back through the thread and read the debate, that would save me oodles of time, and will perhaps answer your question. :grin:

I have read the whole debate and disagree with you. Thats why I posted the links and the information I posted.;):

Squatch347
August 9th, 2007, 05:54 PM
I have an interesting supposition, if they are able to sue the US government for reparations, shouldn't they be able to sue Islamic governments for enslaving them? Most of the Atlantic slave trade was from Islamic ports and done by Islamic raiders. Am I way off base here?

supercodes
August 9th, 2007, 05:57 PM
I have an interesting supposition, if they are able to sue the US government for reparations, shouldn't they be able to sue Islamic governments for enslaving them? Most of the Atlantic slave trade was from Islamic ports and done by Islamic raiders. Am I way off base here?

If there are Americans today who had family members who were enslaved or were enslaved themselves by Islamic governments, then they could give it a try. The rate of success? Phew.

Squatch347
August 9th, 2007, 06:09 PM
If there are Americans today who had family members who were enslaved or were enslaved themselves by Islamic governments, then they could give it a try. The rate of success? Phew. There are of course people alive today whose ancestors were enslaved by muslim governments. Who do you think was providing those slaves to the slave ships?

Also, remember that slavery was legal in Saudi Arabia till 1950, and is still legal in Yemen, Somalia and defacto practiced in SA.

supercodes
August 9th, 2007, 06:21 PM
There are of course people alive today whose ancestors were enslaved by muslim governments. Who do you think was providing those slaves to the slave ships?

Also, remember that slavery was legal in Saudi Arabia till 1950, and is still legal in Yemen, Somalia and defacto practiced in SA.

Yup, I agree.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

You refer to natural law. I am referring to the system of laws established by the Constitution and bills passed by the legislature. If you wish to equivocate, we can use different terms.

No equivocation needed. I am basing my arguments on the bill of rights, which could have influences from the philosophy of natural law.

CliveStaples
August 9th, 2007, 07:36 PM
No equivocation needed. I am basing my arguments on the bill of rights, which could have influences from the philosophy of natural law.

Yes, but the Constitution does not say "Natural law shall be the law of the land." This is a democracy; the majority passes laws, and unless the Constitution disallows them, the laws stand. This doesn't always result in good laws--slavery, hate crime legislation, etc.--but it's the system that we use.

wanxtrmBANNED
August 9th, 2007, 11:05 PM
You are correct, you may not be able to sue the government because of the time issue, but that doesn't mean all legal recourse is off the table.

Why? Why would you sue and for what real reason?



Slavery was illegal, and you are right, slaves did not include just black people, but I also remember stating that slavery reparations weren't about race. Also, whether that stat about 5000 landowners is correct or not is irrelevant, because the amount of slaves in this country often made up state populations between 12-14&#37;, which is a large chunk of individuals.

No slavery was not illegal in the states.

Well as to the second part it is very apparent that you are merely voicing as much opinion as possible and hoping it sticks.
My stats are legitimate. Of course by reading the Op you would have seen that.

Again how does something that ended over 120 years ago have any relevance today? Especially given it was the normal practice at that time, and in fact continues as practice in many countries still (African countries).
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

If there are Americans today who had family members who were enslaved or were enslaved themselves by Islamic governments, then they could give it a try. The rate of success? Phew.

Again WHY?

Am I and the few that agree the only ones that see this is a stupid, pointless lawsuit?

Again it would be the same as my family and every other Scottish/ Irish American suing England for taking our lands and giving them to nobility.

No instead we made something of Ourselves, and got over the crap England did too us. We decided to WORK and LIVE and LEARN, and in so doing proved that we could.

tothelastdrop
August 10th, 2007, 09:02 AM
The holocaust was legal, but the victims were reimbursed, in some cases, surviving family members
Holocaust Reparations (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/holocaust1.html)
As was japanese interment.

Wannaextreme, your weak argument comparing your race to blacks is childish, Ive never seen such an argument because no one would be so foolish as to try to compare the two.

The question you ask of bf55 ONLY applies to you and your race, why has slavery done to YOU personally? Nothing, so much time has gone by that it hasnt effected you in the least. You truly arent rich as a result of your own abilities, or should i say non-abilities. such is not the case with blacks.

As was pointed out, slavery ended officialy, but still exists in different ways. but it was only drastically damaged with the civil rights movements.
So blacks have only really had 30 years or so to "move on" and even this means very little what with the rampant discrimination in the US.

Blacks have to be in chains before they are allowed reparations, what about the chains of discrimination that still exist to this day.

http://www.worldbank.org/research/inequality/June18Papers/EthnicDiscrimination.pdf
VDARE.com: 05/04/05 - Why Has Black Unemployment Risen (Yes, Risen!) In The "Bush Boom"? (http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/050504_nd.htm)


African Americans throughout most of the 20th Century have been discriminated against in housing, education, employment, and politics. The FHA, up until just a couple of decades ago, affirmed and supported the placing of restrictive covenants in trust deeds, and the practice of redlining is still suspected of being engaged in by some home mortgage lenders. Separate, inferior school buildings existed for most of the century, and even today, the issue of adequate state support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) is couched in Proposition 209-type terms that such support will be a drain on public resources. In the industrial job market, which is the primary target for most blacks, the unions either had rules forbidding black membership or leadership. The political parties and political organizations always had less powerful "auxiliaries" they shuffled their black members off to, even today with "black caucuses". Nowhere and by no one are these past discriminations even recognized or redressed


despite the overturning in Brown, that blacks are forever deprived of their right to exercise intuition and preference about the quality of things that whites are provided with. This is nothing less than the worst kind of apartheid, a policy of racial discrimination that denies one group the whole freedom to choose what is good and what is bad


Much has been made of the legacy of slavery as a central element in black culture. The phrase "legacy of slavery" means neo-colonialism, which means modern or new forms of dominating paternalism. In criminal justice, the equivalent phrase is "seeing the police as an occupying army". The thinking operates on the basis of analogy; e.g., most blacks are kept in slum dwellings, usually owned by white absentee landlords; there are no community services unless they serve the needs of the community with cheap labor; and specially trained police are ready to seal off the area and quell any disturbance. The situation is analogous to: the colonists are provided the means for rudimentary shelter and they will get more when they start contributing to the commonwealth but meanwhile, our army stands ready to crackdown on the slightest sign of insurrection. It's not called colonialism because the people involved are citizens, not colonists. It's called neo-colonialism and it's built into our institutional structure

Discrimination against African Americans (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/soc/355lect11.htm)

Lets not get involved with how well off, even poor whites are when compared to poor blacks.
Oh nevermind, here it is

RaceandHistory.com : A Look at the Myth of Reverse Racism (http://www.raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1024893033,80611,.shtml)


Recently, when speaking to a group of high school students, I was asked why I only seemed to be concerned about white racism towards people of color. We had been discussing racial slurs, and a number of white students wondered why I didn’t get as upset about blacks using terms like “honky” or “cracker,” as I did about whites using words like “nigger.”

Read the rest of it in the link

The part in red is funny, since I was just saying how wannaextremes argument was childish, maybe I should have said high school dramaish

Word Life

Just Me
August 10th, 2007, 10:29 AM
The question you ask of bf55 ONLY applies to you and your race, why has slavery done to YOU personally? Nothing, so much time has gone by that it hasnt effected you in the least. You truly arent rich as a result of your own abilities, or should i say non-abilities. such is not the case with blacks.

BF has been asked several time how slavery has effected him today personally and he has YET to answer any of us. Wanna is not the only one who has tried to get those answers out of BF.

tothelastdrop
August 10th, 2007, 11:03 AM
BF has been asked several time how slavery has effected him today personally and he has YET to answer any of us. Wanna is not the only one who has tried to get those answers out of BF.

Irrelevant. Look at the statistics in my posts as it pertains to blacks in this country, everything from work, school, home, crime, justice system including racial profiling ALL contributes to their current state.

We arent talking about a group of black guys "thuggin it" in downtown somewhere, driving slow and smoking, then getting pulled over.

As an example continuing from this line of thought, here is a typical day.

Earlier in the day, they all attended their 10th interview this month, after submitting 50 applications. Theyve been looking for jobs for over a year, some of them have a criminal record (having dead beat lawyers didnt help, having a justice system that is inclined to convict didnt help) which they know is keeping them from getting a job (employers discriminating didnt help, some of them as a result of name alone didnt even get a call back, the interview sealed the deal that they werent getting the job). they stole from someone because they are poor (social programs are defunct) and so no way out, growing up in a crime infested part of the city (police are often no shows, barely any patrols), school is run down, (barely any funding unlike the majority white schools get from the government). Even the parks are just places to buy and sell drugs. Violence is constant, half of them were involved in gang violence even though they arent involved in any gangs, and those that are, join just for protection.

Stop thinking of racial problems as just ONE thing that happens to SOME black people. It is a constant issue, in every aspect of their lives. Directly as a result of slavery, the effect of which did NOT end with jim crow, it simply removed most of it from being illegal



And if BF gives you the answers, what then? BF is going to make or break the "reparations" issue for you? If so, then maybe I should have you make or break the whole pro-gay rights issue for me, youre making BF representative of the entire black population in the US. So youll be ok with me, making you the representative of all homosexuals in the US. ok ? thanks


Read this Just Me

Diversity Vs, White Privilege - Vol 15 No 2 - Rethinking Schools Online (http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/15_02/Int152.shtml)

Just Me
August 10th, 2007, 11:13 AM
Irrelevant. Look at the statistics in my posts as it pertains to blacks in this country, everything from work, school, home, crime, justice system including racial profiling ALL contributes to their current state.

We arent talking about a group of black guys "thuggin it" in downtown somewhere, driving slow and smoking, then getting pulled over.

As an example continuing from this line of thought, here is a typical day.

Earlier in the day, they all attended their 10th interview this month, after submitting 50 applications. Theyve been looking for jobs for over a year, some of them have a criminal record which they know is keeping them from getting a job. they stole from someone because they are poor and so no way out, growing up in a crime infested part of the city, school is run down, barely any funding unlike the majority white schools get from the government. Even the parks are just places to buy and sell drugs. Violence is constant, half of them were involved in gang violence even though they arent involved in any gangs, and those that are, join just for protection.
Can you provide proof of this or is this just your thinking here?


Stop thinking of racial problems as just ONE thing that happens to SOME black people. It is a constant issue, in every aspect of their lives. Directly as a result of slavery, the effect of which did NOT end with jim crow, it simply removed most of it from being illegal
Show some stats, a link or something.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>



And if BF gives you the answers, what then? BF is going to make or break the "reparations" issue for you? If so, then maybe I should have you make or break the whole pro-gay rights issue for me, youre making BF representative of the entire black population in the US. So youll be ok with me, making you the representative of all homosexuals in the US. ok ? thanks

BF is the one who has made claim after claim after claim so it was up to him to provide.

Do you even know if I am pro-gay or not?

tothelastdrop
August 10th, 2007, 11:20 AM
[QUOTE=Just Me;243811]Can you provide proof of this or is this just your thinking here?

Show some stats, a link or something.

Oh Im sorry, I thought you were reading through the thread and not just hitting reply to up your post count, my mistake.

Diversity Vs, White Privilege - Vol 15 No 2 - Rethinking Schools Online (http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/15_02/Int152.shtml)
Discrimination against African Americans (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/soc/355lect11.htm)
RaceandHistory.com : A Look at the Myth of Reverse Racism (http://www.raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1024893033,80611,.shtml)
VDARE.com: 05/04/05 - Why Has Black Unemployment Risen (Yes, Risen!) In The "Bush Boom"? (http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/050504_nd.htm)
http://www.worldbank.org/research/inequality/June18Papers/EthnicDiscrimination.pdf






BF is the one who has made claim after claim after claim so it was up to him to provide.

Do you even know if I am pro-gay or not?

Claims have been answered for in my links, many statistics, let me know if you need more.

Im guessing your pro-gay, unless you hate yourself and youre a republican, one of those "changing the republican party from the inside" types
or a self hating pagan?

Just Me
August 10th, 2007, 11:58 AM
most blacks see racial profiling as rampant and widespread. This level of magnitude may or may not be true, but Amnesty International (2004) estimates that blacks constitute 47% of the victims of racial profiling (Hispanics follow with a 23% rate, Asians at 11%, multiracial people at 19%, and whites at only 3%).
Discrimination against African Americans (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/soc/355lect11.htm)

About 10 million (or 33% of) African Americans fit the Census Dept. definition of "poor."One of the problems may be a prevalence of female-headed single parents in the black community,Another problem may be employment insecurity. Blacks are overrepresented in service sector jobs ("McJobs"), where employment is less secure. Blacks are also overrepresented on unemployment and welfare rolls.

Not the first link you provided gave any statistics for gangs that you talked about. That was the links I was talking about.

tothelastdrop
August 10th, 2007, 12:14 PM
most blacks see racial profiling as rampant and widespread. This level of magnitude may or may not be true, but Amnesty International (2004) estimates that blacks constitute 47% of the victims of racial profiling (Hispanics follow with a 23% rate, Asians at 11%, multiracial people at 19%, and whites at only 3%).
Discrimination against African Americans (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/soc/355lect11.htm)

About 10 million (or 33% of) African Americans fit the Census Dept. definition of "poor."One of the problems may be a prevalence of female-headed single parents in the black community,Another problem may be employment insecurity. Blacks are overrepresented in service sector jobs ("McJobs"), where employment is less secure. Blacks are also overrepresented on unemployment and welfare rolls.

Not the first link you provided gave any statistics for gangs that you talked about. That was the links I was talking about.


My story is a hypothetical, nonetheless whats your problem with the gangs part? Heres a quick list of why people join gangs, notice what the least important factor is?

why do kids join gangs? (http://gangsta411.com/why_do_kids_join_gangs.htm)


Now, why are gangs successfull? what other factors make someone join a gang?




Daily strains from many directions take their toll and strip minority peoples of their coping skills. Being left out of mainstream society in so many ways and in so many places relegates these urban youths to the margins of society in practically every sense. This positioning leaves them with few options or resources to better their lives. Often, they seek a place where they are not marginalized—and find it in the streets. Thus, a result of multiple marginalization has been the emergence of street gangs and the generation of gang members.

Table of Contents and Excerpt, Vigil, A Rainbow of Gangs (http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exvigrai.html)


Low-income and ethnic minorities have historically suffered negative, damaging experiences in the educational system. Research shows that standard school policies such as tracking by ability group and the use of standardized tests as the ultimate measure of educational performance and ability have worked against minority students. These students often attend segregated, underfunded, inferior schools, where they encounter cultural insensitivity and an ethnocentric curriculum.


Multiple forces working jointly lead to children spending more time on the streets, under the purview and guidance of a multiple-aged peer group. In various Los Angeles ethnic communities, this group often takes the form of the street gang. For girls as well as boys, the street becomes a haven and gang life is romanticized, even though it often ultimately brings them trouble and, for girls, additional victimization. What established gangs in the neighborhood have to offer is nurture, protection, friendship, emotional support, and other ministrations for unattended, unchaperoned resident youth. In other words, street socialization fills the voids left by inadequate parenting and schooling, especially inadequate familial care and supervision. This street-based process molds the youth to conform to the ways of the street. On the streets, the person acquires the models and means for new norms, values, and attitudes.

Conclusion: Poverty, racism and discrimination in society, as well as a justice system that seeks out blacks, all come together to bring us the current state of blacks in the US.

Which is 100 % the fault of blacks? None. Not a single damn factor here is totally the result of blacks. Every single factor is effected by or rooted in the US government or social, economic factors.

Just Me
August 10th, 2007, 12:46 PM
My story is a hypothetical, nonetheless whats your problem with the gangs part? Heres a quick list of why people join gangs, notice what the least important factor is?

why do kids join gangs? (http://gangsta411.com/why_do_kids_join_gangs.htm)
Now, why are gangs successfull? what other factors make someone join a gang?

Ok to spell it out for you, this is what I was asking for stats on.


Originally Posted by tothelastdrop
Violence is constant, half of them were involved in gang violence even though they arent involved in any gangs, and those that are, join just for protection.

What does gangs have to do with slavery? Are their no other options?

wanxtrmBANNED
August 10th, 2007, 01:30 PM
The holocaust was legal, but the victims were reimbursed, in some cases, surviving family members
Holocaust Reparations (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/holocaust1.html)
As was japanese interment.

And that is good, after all the reparations occurred within 20 years of both events, with the Japenese slightly longer. For BLACK slaves they received LAND and money as well. Now they want more?


Wannaextreme, your weak argument comparing your race to blacks is childish, Ive never seen such an argument because no one would be so foolish as to try to compare the two.

Than it is obvious you know nothing about my race.


The question you ask of bf55 ONLY applies to you and your race, why has slavery done to YOU personally? Nothing, so much time has gone by that it hasnt effected you in the least. You truly arent rich as a result of your own abilities, or should i say non-abilities. such is not the case with blacks.

BF55 is a self admitted lazy, non-productive, low scoring person.
Why and how would you want him representing the black race?


As was pointed out, slavery ended officialy, but still exists in different ways. but it was only drastically damaged with the civil rights movements.
So blacks have only really had 30 years or so to "move on" and even this means very little what with the rampant discrimination in the US.

You are absolutely INCORRECT if you truly feel the black race is still subjugated. The black race in the United States as a whole has more opportunity than the Lower White class too move ahead through school.
I can find (within 10 minutes) several thousand grant, and low cost loan programs that are either government backed or privately held, based solely on being BLACK.
In the same amount of time I would find less than 100 for a lower class white person, and these would need high scores, etc.

There are several laws protecting blacks when entering the work force, (should they so choose to actually work, unlike BF who has self admittedly declared himself LAZY)

I can list more, however in the end it boils down too whether someone wants something more for themselves and how hard they are willing to work for it.



Blacks have to be in chains before they are allowed reparations, what about the chains of discrimination that still exist to this day.

?????? Let me guess you and Jesse Jackson, Malcolm X, Louis Farrahkan, and your other Brothers from Da hood thought this one up?

The last two million man marches I watched, as they were nationally televised. I realized that I was watching a far more racist crowd than I had ever seen in my life.
Now I am admittedly white however I am the furthest thing from racist.
But why would you care, I am white.






Discrimination against African Americans (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/soc/355lect11.htm)

Lets not get involved with how well off, even poor whites are when compared to poor blacks.
Oh nevermind, here it is




Serious sarcasm alert ahead!
When you quote something try and point to what you are quoting, (kind of like I did with your posts) I understand using a computer (as a poor underprivileged black person) can be hard.



Seriously though never assume anything. I love your sources, and I hope you read at least one of mine. I do my best to use unbiased sourcing, whereas much of yours is very much biased and a large part of it is not even peer reviewed. (this means it is worthless academically!)
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

My story is a hypothetical, nonetheless whats your problem with the gangs part? Heres a quick list of why people join gangs, notice what the least important factor is?

why do kids join gangs? (http://gangsta411.com/why_do_kids_join_gangs.htm)




I wrote a blog once should I use that as evidence as well?

This link is not evidence in any way, shape, or form.

tothelastdrop
August 10th, 2007, 05:48 PM
The black race in the United States as a whole has more opportunity than the Lower White class too move ahead through school.
.

Sorry, this racist nonesense was already dealt with.
No one (adult) is stupid enough to say such things, as it was shown before, only high school kids still do this.

RaceandHistory.com : A Look at the Myth of Reverse Racism (http://www.raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1024893033,80611,.shtml)

Your blog failed because it contained more BS than your posts here.

Youre the worst atheist Ive seen. Usually they can infer, and connect dots, but for some reason (racism) you wont do that here. Youre a bibile thumping christian when it comes to racism. A racist atheist. nice

That whole debate you had with Apok where you said the best charity was atheist, then you provided the charity.
Except one small problem, the biggest one, was christian, not atheist, and you got pwnt trying to say "no, not that charity, this one!"
Then you started digging up dirt on your OWN charity that you provided. Absolute hilarity ensued

You should have had your atheist membership revoked on the spot.

wanxtrmBANNED
August 11th, 2007, 09:40 AM
Sorry, this racist nonesense was already dealt with.
No one (adult) is stupid enough to say such things, as it was shown before, only high school kids still do this.

RaceandHistory.com : A Look at the Myth of Reverse Racism (http://www.raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1024893033,80611,.shtml)

Your blog failed because it contained more BS than your posts here.

Youre the worst atheist Ive seen. Usually they can infer, and connect dots, but for some reason (racism) you wont do that here. Youre a bibile thumping christian when it comes to racism. A racist atheist. nice

That whole debate you had with Apok where you said the best charity was atheist, then you provided the charity.
Except one small problem, the biggest one, was christian, not atheist, and you got pwnt trying to say "no, not that charity, this one!"
Then you started digging up dirt on your OWN charity that you provided. Absolute hilarity ensued

You should have had your atheist membership revoked on the spot.



For the record I will no longer debate this issue with people that are stubborn to the point that they refuse to read the entire thread before entering into a debate several weeks after it has ended.

I will not debate this issue because as I so succinctly pointed out in this case I am right.
The people whining about slavery are also the same people that are refusing to do anything with their lives ( ON THIS SITE).
I will no longer find it necessary to respond to this line of debate given that I have provided proof along with my OPs and responses, these have been responded to with biased website clips and simple minded attempts at "proof" usually resulting in no proof just web address's.

I will no longer respond to tothelastdrop because he is Gaius/ every other idiot.

Zenstone
August 11th, 2007, 08:02 PM
I guess the people "debating" this issue here don't know any black people, have never had black roommates, or worked with black professionals. Otherwise, they would not assume that the abolition of slavery instantly made everything fair and cozy for everyone. They would not forget that the civil rights struggle began in earnest within their lifetimes, or the lifetimes of their parents. (Civil Rights Movement Timeline (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html)). I think only Castle brought this up.

If reparations must be made only to survivors with defined claims of damage, then let's skip reparations for slavery and consider reparations for decades of systemic discrimination, the effects of which still burn today.

CliveStaples
August 11th, 2007, 09:16 PM
I guess the people "debating" this issue here don't know any black people, have never had black roommates, or worked with black professionals.

I do all three every day.


Otherwise, they would not assume that the abolition of slavery instantly made everything fair and cozy for everyone.

Er, what does knowing black people have to do with this?

The fact that Jim Crowe laws existed up until the mid-'60s is pretty clear proof that the Reconstruction didn't end racism.

wanxtrmBANNED
August 12th, 2007, 01:54 AM
I guess the people "debating" this issue here don't know any black people, have never had black roommates, or worked with black professionals. Otherwise, they would not assume that the abolition of slavery instantly made everything fair and cozy for everyone. They would not forget that the civil rights struggle began in earnest within their lifetimes, or the lifetimes of their parents. (Civil Rights Movement Timeline (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html)). I think only Castle brought this up.

If reparations must be made only to survivors with defined claims of damage, then let's skip reparations for slavery and consider reparations for decades of systemic discrimination, the effects of which still burn today.

I dont think you read my situation.
I am intimately involved with a wonderful black family.
My brothers wife is black, etc.

I do understand what is being said, I disagree that reparations will solve anything.

Just Me
August 12th, 2007, 03:21 AM
Once again, I have NEVER once claimed that the abolition of slavery instantly made everything fair.

There was discrimination going on after slavery, and everyone knows this.

Today in my own personal experience, it is not just the white race that is discriminating. I have found that the black race can be just as racist as the white race. Where I live the black race is just as racist if not more then the white race.

If something does not go exactly how they want, when they want, if it is with a white person what do you think they do? They play the racist card. They go to the NAACP.

At my last job I had where I was the supervisor, this one black girl that worked under me got in my face screaming at me, threatening me, threatening to damage my vehicle. My supervisor (who is also white) was not even going to reprimend her. 1 month went by and nothing had been done so I went to our mill contact and he made him fire her.(He was black)
When I got into work I was informed that she had been fired. I found a letter on my computer at work that she had typed up to the NAACP. Because I was white I am the reason she got fired. Because my supervisor is white is because she got fired. Because we are white we had our mill contact (who was over us) afraid of us because he is black.
I had never once had a problem with any of the black people I worked with. I had more trouble with the whites then I did with the blacks because they had a problem with someone so much younger then them being over them.
After that, there was only one black woman whom I did not have the first problem with. We remained real good friends. Because she remained friends with me, she caught heat from the other blacks. We were divided into a white and black group with the blacks the only ones having the trouble with anyone.

This is just ONE tiny incident.

Reparations being paid will not solve or fix anything. Just as reparations being paid to women for not having as many rights for years will not solve anything.

Zenstone
August 12th, 2007, 06:56 AM
I have found that the black race can be just as racist as the white race. Where I live the black race is just as racist if not more then the white race.
Sure. I lived for a time in the city Philadelphia, and also experienced this first-hand. Its irrelevant, though, to the question of reparations. The systemic discrimination is fact, and no one here disagrees with that.

On what basis do you, and others, claim that reparations will not solve anything? Wouldn't black-owned businesses increase? Wouldn't there be better representation in universities, as a college education becomes more attainable? Sure, lots of people will waste any reparation money, but in the long term, self-empowerment is a good thing. How does this tie into welfare? Its pretty obvious, isn't it? I'd rather my taxes go to attempting to right a wrong than blindly funding various welfare programs (the efficacy of which is also in question).
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

I dont think you read my situation.
I read as much of this thread as I could in a reasonable amount of time. I knew my post will step on someone's toes. I tried to keep my post impersonal, and not include strong accusation. I figured people who did not fit that description would reply in-kind. Consider your record corrected...your experiences lend more weight to your opinions, as they come from a position of understanding.


Er, what does knowing black people have to do with this?
Because having black acquaintances is not the same as having black friends who confide in you. Without a view into their daily lives, you only see the situation from your subjective perspective.

Just Me
August 12th, 2007, 07:01 AM
On what basis do you, and others, claim that reparations will not solve anything? Wouldn't black-owned businesses increase?
Who would you know to pay to and not to pay to? Would you pay to every member of the family who had a ancestor who was a slave or just pick one member of the family?

Wouldn't there be better representation in universities, as a college education becomes more attainable?
Again who would get the money? Every single black person?

Sure, lots of people will waste any reparation money, but in the long term, self-empowerment is a good thing. How does this tie into welfare? Its pretty obvious, isn't it? I'd rather my taxes go to attempting to right a wrong than blindly funding various welfare programs (the efficacy of which is also in question).

So if we are going to pay reparations for attempting to right a wrong, then shouldn't murder victims familys be repayed, raped victims, where would you draw the line?

Zenstone
August 12th, 2007, 07:20 AM
Who would you know to pay to and not to pay to? Would you pay to every member of the family who had a ancestor who was a slave or just pick one member of the family?
First, it must be shown that its the right thing to do. The logistics are a different issue. They would have to be argued on their own merit.

So if we are going to pay reparations for attempting to right a wrong, then shouldn't murder victims familys be repayed, raped victims, where would you draw the line?
I'm sorry, is the US government legalizing murder and rape?

Just Me
August 12th, 2007, 07:34 AM
First, it must be shown that its the right thing to do. The logistics are a different issue. They would have to be argued on their own merit.
And how might one go by doing that?
Who in a family that had an ancestor that was a slave should be the one that should get the money?

You talked about the business, their college. Surely you have some clue as to who you think should get it.


I'm sorry, is the US government legalizing murder and rape?

Ok let me rephrase then. Why not every race that had ancestors as slaves? Should blacks be the only ones?
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
I concede that last statement since we are talking about the US government about all other races.

Turtleflipper
August 12th, 2007, 07:39 AM
I'm sorry, is the US government legalizing murder and rape?

A murder victim dosen't get any worse a sentence because he killed the breadwinner of a family. He is in no way responsible for the security or finance of the ones left behind from his killing.

Zenstone
August 12th, 2007, 07:44 AM
And how might one go by doing that?
For that, I am at a complete loss. You got me there.

You talked about the business, their college. Surely you have some clue as to who you think should get it.
In general, I think if you distribute resources to thousands of people, you will see a significant percentage use it for education and entrepreneuership.

Ok let me rephrase then. Why not every race that had ancestors as slaves? Should blacks be the only ones?
You would apply reparations to right a defined injustice. If it was slavery in the US during the years XXXX - XXXX, then whatever victims (or their descendants) of the act would receive the reparations, regardless of race. The crime was race-based, but reparations are victim-based.

Just Me
August 12th, 2007, 07:46 AM
You stated here:

I'd rather my taxes go to attempting to right a wrong
Well take a murder victim, if you do not think the government should pay reparations to his family should the government pass a law where the murderers family has to pay it?

Or take a rape victim? Should the rapists family have to pay it? After all it's all to right a wrong?

Turtleflipper
August 12th, 2007, 07:50 AM
You stated here:

Well take a murder victim, if you do not think the government should pay reparations to his family should the government pass a law where the murderers family has to pay it?

Or take a rape victim? Should the rapists family have to pay it? After all it's all to right a wrong?

Lets take it to the logical conclusion and just do away with prison at all. Rape? 20,000 dollars. Murder? 60,000.

Just Me
August 12th, 2007, 07:53 AM
For that, I am at a complete loss. You got me there.
I was also.;):

In general, I think if you distribute resources to thousands of people, you will see a significant percentage use it for education and entrepreneuership.
There will also be a significant percentage that use it elsewhere and still want hand outs. Then what? They can say, well do you think x amount of money is justice for what our ancestors went through? You can't put a price on a persons head.

Zenstone
August 12th, 2007, 07:56 AM
Punative damages are not uncommon. In the case of violent crimes, they extend to those who participated in the crime, or those who benefit from the crime. If the family did not participate in it, or order it done to their benefit, then I supose they are not liable.

In the case of reparations, the government of the USA participated in slavery. Because you reap the benefits from the US government, because indeed a US citizen is part of the government, perhaps that can be argued that part of your taxes should go toward them.

I doubt I can argue that point much further, though. But in this thread I see three things being intermingled, and therefore not one will get resolved:
1. Are reparations just or unjust? Required or not required?
2. Who should pay? All taxpayers, or just some of them?
3. Once decided, how to implement the feat?

Arguments regarding #2 and #3 don't necessarily bear on #1. This is one tough issue, and I think you've exhausted me...couldn't have been exhausted by a nicer person.;):

Just Me
August 12th, 2007, 08:06 AM
Lets take it to the logical conclusion and just do away with prison at all. Rape? 20,000 dollars. Murder? 60,000.

hahaha...

Ok I knew as soon as I typed it I should had been more clear.

Ok take a rape victim. This rape victim whether it is male or female undergoes severe psychological trauma. To some victims it is to the point where it can be up to a yr or so before she/he can return to work. The rapist (if lucky is found guilty and recieves so many years in prison then released). Is the rapist recieving a few years in prison all he deserves?

Now compare this to slavery reparations. What does this have to do with the US government? Nothing correct? What does slavery have to do with the US government today?

What is the difference between the rapists family paying reparations to the victim and viewing the government today as the government in the past family who has to pay reparation for what they done?
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>



1. Are reparations just or unjust? Required or not required?
I don't think alot of us will ever agree on this..

2. Who should pay? All taxpayers, or just some of them?
This either..

3. Once decided, how to implement the feat?
Have no clue


Arguments regarding #2 and #3 don't necessarily bear on #1. This is one tough issue, and I think you've exhausted me...couldn't have been exhausted by a nicer person.;):

Thank you, I have actually enjoyed this debate with you.
I have to say you have me thinking alot.. ;):

Turtleflipper
August 12th, 2007, 08:16 AM
Ok take a rape victim. This rape victim whether it is male or female undergoes severe psychological trauma. To some victims it is to the point where it can be up to a yr or so before she/he can return to work. The rapist (if lucky is found guilty and recieves so many years in prison then released). Is the rapist recieving a few years in prison all he deserves?

He shouldn't be held accountable for the indirect result of his crime. He violated someone, and therefore he must face the consequences of that. But to make him responsible for something that happened a step removed?
Would you consider giving a rapist a lighter sentence because his victim would've been killed in an explosion at work the next day, and by harming her (lets be honest most rape victims are girls) saved her life?
Or what if the victim magically discovers "Sex is great!" after her experience, and this new-found knowledge cures her depression and prevents her suicide. Should the rapist get a medal for having helped someone find one of the great joys of life?
These are absurdist questions, but the point is, we don't reward or penalize people for things a step removed. It dosen't work, because we have no idea.


Now compare this to slavery reparations. What does this have to do with the US government? Nothing correct? What does slavery have to do with the US government today?

Nothing, we have moved beyond it.


What is the difference between the rapists family paying reparations to the victim and viewing the government today as the government in the past family who has to pay reparation for what they done?


Nothing

supercodes
August 12th, 2007, 12:46 PM
I have read the whole debate and disagree with you. Thats why I posted the links and the information I posted.;):

Sorry, I didn't see your reply! I was also working for a few days. Anyway, to answer your question.

I understand your position, and as you have seen with my debate with Clive, you'll notice that our viewpoints on the legality of slavery based on the Bill of Rights differ drastically. I say that slaves are represented by the bill of rights because they are Americans, and thus shouldn't have been legally enslaved to begin with. I believe Clive's opinion (please correct me if I am wrong Clive), is that since there are laws that state that slavery is legal, then due process does not apply to them, which in turn makes these laws and slavery completely legal.

My whole argument revolves around the bill of rights, and since I believe that slavery is illegal according to the bill of rights, then any law, federal or state, should be considered illegal since they violate the 5th amendment. Can we legally enslave white people in this country? No, despite what wanna states. We have never been able to enslave with people in the United States, and it would have been considered an abomination of their rights in court. So I ask, why are rights of white people any different than the rights of black people? I'll answer this question for you, its all because of social standards and nothing to do with the basic rights of all Americans. The government at the time, in effect, suspended the idea that slaves were equal under the bill of rights simply because they were viewed as being inferior to whites, which allowed states to make slavery laws however they wanted. Again, did the government make mention of slavery being legal, or blacks as being lower in the hierarchy of the American legal system of rights? Nope, because that would have made them look like assholes.

Slavery was allowed because of ample amounts of racism in the United States, simple as that.

CliveStaples
August 12th, 2007, 01:19 PM
I believe Clive's opinion (please correct me if I am wrong Clive), is that since there are laws that state that slavery is legal, then due process does not apply to them, which in turn makes these laws and slavery completely legal.

You are indeed wrong. My opinion is that due process does apply to slaves, but that slavery laws do not violate due process in and of themselves. A due process violation results from not following the law. Because slavery laws established a due process for the denial of liberty, the Constitution permits it (nor shall be denied of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law--i.e., with due process of the law, one may be denied life, liberty, or property).

wanxtrmBANNED
August 13th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Slavery was allowed because of ample amounts of racism in the United States, simple as that.

It was business, and for a long time due to language and cultural differences blacks were not seen as people.

Just Me
August 13th, 2007, 10:38 AM
Slavery was allowed because of ample amounts of racism in the United States, simple as that.

Let me ask you this.

Why did free black men have slaves?

Since there were slaves OWNED by black men who should pay their reparations? The white man aswell?

supercodes
August 31st, 2007, 05:23 PM
Let me ask you this.

Why did free black men have slaves?

Since there were slaves OWNED by black men who should pay their reparations? The white man aswell?

What does race have to do with it? In fact, the issue isn't about the slave owner at all, it is national responsibility for allowing it to happen. American is American.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

It was business, and for a long time due to language and cultural differences blacks were not seen as people.

It wasn't that they were not seen as being people, they were seen as being a commodity to make money off of, and this was enabled socially by rampant racism and ethnocentrism. I doubt you will find very much literature from the 19th century that claimed blacks were subhuman.

Just Me
August 31st, 2007, 06:24 PM
What does race have to do with it? In fact, the issue isn't about the slave owner at all, it is national responsibility for allowing it to happen. American is American.

So according to this, blacks will be paying their own reparations, since race has nothing to do with it?

Who would pay these reparations? If you say the govenment where will the government recieve the money to pay the reparations from? The tax payers correct???
Now will or should this include every single tax payer regardless of race, meaning blacks would have to pay for part of their own reparations, Or just the white tax payers?
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
What do you think would happen between the races IF reparations were payed?
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
I found this to be pretty interesting...

Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist Too

1. There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery

Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestors of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slave-owners in the ante-bellum United States. Are reparations to be paid by their descendants too?

2. There Is No One Group That Benefited Exclusively From Its Fruits

The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. The GNP of black America is so large that it makes the African-American community the 10th most prosperous "nation" in the world. American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.

3. Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them

Only a tiny minority of Americans ever owned slaves. This is true even for those who lived in the ante-bellum South where only one white in five was a slaveholder. Why should their descendants owe a debt? What about the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves? They gave their lives. What possible moral principle would ask them to pay (through their descendants) again?

4. America Today Is A Multi-Ethnic Nation and Most Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery

The two great waves of American immigration occurred after 1880 and then after 1960. What rationale would require Vietnamese boat people, Russian refuseniks, Iranian refugees, and Armenian victims of the Turkish persecution, Jews, Mexicans Greeks, or Polish, Hungarian, Cambodian and Korean victims of Communism, to pay reparations to American blacks?

5. The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury

The historical precedents generally invoked to justify the reparations claim are payments to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Japanese-Americans and African- American victims of racial experiments in Tuskegee, or racial outrages in Rosewood and Oklahoma City. But in each case, the recipients of reparations were the direct victims of the injustice or their immediate families. This would be the only case of reparations to people who were not immediately affected and whose sole qualification to receive reparations would be racial. As has already been pointed out, during the slavery era, many blacks were free men or slave-owners themselves, yet the reparations claimants make no distinction between the roles blacks actually played in the injustice itself. Randall Robinson's book on reparations, The Debt, which is the manifesto of the reparations movement is pointedly sub-titled "What America Owes To Blacks." If this is not racism, what is?

6. The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination

No evidence-based attempt has been made to prove that living individuals have been adversely affected by a slave system that was ended over 150 years ago. But there is plenty of evidence the hardships that occurred were hardships that individuals could and did overcome. The black middle-class in America is a prosperous community that is now larger in absolute terms than the black underclass. Does its existence not suggest that economic adversity is the result of failures of individual character rather than the lingering after-effects of racial discrimination and a slave system that ceased to exist well over a century ago? West Indian blacks in America are also descended from slaves but their average incomes are equivalent to the average incomes of whites (and nearly 25&#37; higher than the average incomes of American born blacks). How is it that slavery adversely affected one large group of descendants but not the other? How can government be expected to decide an issue that is so subjective - and yet so critical - to the case?

7. The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt To Turn African-Americans Into Victims. It Sends A Damaging Message To The African-American Community.

The renewed sense of grievance -- which is what the claim for reparations will inevitably create -- is neither a constructive nor a helpful message for black leaders to be sending to their communities and to others. To focus the social passions of African-Americans on what some Americans may have done to their ancestors fifty or a hundred and fifty years ago is to burden them with a crippling sense of victim-hood. How are the millions of refugees from tyranny and genocide who are now living in America going to receive these claims, moreover, except as demands for special treatment, an extravagant new handout that is only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others -- many less privileged than themselves?

8. Reparations To African Americans Have Already Been Paid

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) - all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances. It is said that reparations are necessary to achieve a healing between African-Americans and other Americans. If trillion dollar restitutions and a wholesale rewriting of American law (in order to accommodate racial preferences) for African-Americans is not enough to achieve a "healing," what will?

9. What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?

Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade was born, and in all societies. But in the thousand years of its existence, there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans -- created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still be slaves. If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world, and indeed one of the highest standards of living of any people in the world. They would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?

10. The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom
For all America's faults, African-Americans have an enormous stake in their country and its heritage. It is this heritage that is really under attack by the reparations movement. The reparations claim is one more assault on America, conducted by racial separatists and the political left. It is an attack not only on white Americans, but on all Americans -- especially African-Americans.

America's African-American citizens are the richest and most privileged black people alive -- a bounty that is a direct result of the heritage that is under assault. The American idea needs the support of its African-American citizens. But African-Americans also need the support of the American idea. For it is this idea that led to the principles and institutions that have set African-Americans - and all of us -- free.

Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist Too [Free Republic] (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a54b37c6b16.htm)

supercodes
August 31st, 2007, 06:26 PM
So according to this, blacks will be paying their own reparations, since race has nothing to do with it?

Who would pay these reparations? If you say the govenment where will the government recieve the money to pay the reparations from? The tax payers correct???
Now will or should this include every single tax payer regardless of race, meaning blacks would have to pay for part of their own reparations, Or just the white tax payers?
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
What do you think would happen between the races IF reparations were payed?

Ack, you added more to your post! Let me re-write this.

wanxtrmBANNED
August 31st, 2007, 06:48 PM
It wasn't that they were not seen as being people, they were seen as being a commodity to make money off of, and this was enabled socially by rampant racism and ethnocentrism. I doubt you will find very much literature from the 19th century that claimed blacks were subhuman.

However to be fair that was not just an AMERICAN thing. It was actually more a WORLD view. lol

Sorry to burst your bubble on that.
Yes they were a commodity, yes they were thought by SOME not in any way ALL to be subhuman, in fact horses sold for more.
However it is what it is, HISTORY. Unfortunate and to some degree wrong I am sure, however even the bible talks about christian SLAVES obeying their masters.

Sorry I fail to see how this means I should have to pay tax money for something neither I nor my ancestors did. (just because I am Caucasian? Please that in and of itself is racist! )

supercodes
August 31st, 2007, 07:26 PM
So according to this, blacks will be paying their own reparations, since race has nothing to do with it?

Who would pay these reparations? If you say the govenment where will the government recieve the money to pay the reparations from? The tax payers correct???

Now will or should this include every single tax payer regardless of race, meaning blacks would have to pay for part of their own reparations, Or just the white tax payers?

Being black doesn't automatically mean you have slave ancestors. I have mentioned this more than once in this thread.

The government pays reparations, reparations are extracted from taxes, therefore the people pay for reparations, and justly so. Is there the potential that families of slaves will be assisting in their own reparations? Perhaps, but they have the potential to go to college for free, or receive financial benefits when they retire, etc as a result of the reparated compensation.



What do you think would happen between the races IF reparations were payed?

I dunno, we seem fine giving Native Americans free college educations, why not families of slaves?




1. There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery

Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestors of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slave-owners in the ante-bellum United States. Are reparations to be paid by their descendants too?


Wrong, Americans are responsible. We are ultimately responsible for the actions of our government.



2. There Is No One Group That Benefited Exclusively From Its Fruits

The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. The GNP of black America is so large that it makes the African-American community the 10th most prosperous "nation" in the world. American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.


Of course Americans profited from slavery, that is the ONLY reason why it was allowed to continue! This, above anything else, is reason enough for Americans to be responsible for providing to those whom we exploited (in this case, their ancestors).



3. Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them

Only a tiny minority of Americans ever owned slaves. This is true even for those who lived in the ante-bellum South where only one white in five was a slaveholder. Why should their descendants owe a debt? What about the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves? They gave their lives. What possible moral principle would ask them to pay (through their descendants) again?


Who cares? Americans allowed slavery to continue on for years, the slave owners were merely the ones exploiting the illegal laws set forth by the states. And those 350,000 Union soldiers weren't fighting for the rights of slaves, they were fighting because they were drafted into the United States military and were ordered to attack secessionists. Yes, descendents of those who fought for the Union should have to reparations.



4. America Today Is A Multi-Ethnic Nation and Most Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery

The two great waves of American immigration occurred after 1880 and then after 1960. What rationale would require Vietnamese boat people, Russian refuseniks, Iranian refugees, and Armenian victims of the Turkish persecution, Jews, Mexicans Greeks, or Polish, Hungarian, Cambodian and Korean victims of Communism, to pay reparations to American blacks?


I don't care where you came from, when you gave that vow to become a United States citizen, you immediately take on the responsibilities as well as the benefits of being a citizen of this country, and one of those responsibilities should be to pay reparations to the ancestors of slaves.



5. The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury

The historical precedents generally invoked to justify the reparations claim are payments to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Japanese-Americans and African- American victims of racial experiments in Tuskegee, or racial outrages in Rosewood and Oklahoma City. But in each case, the recipients of reparations were the direct victims of the injustice or their immediate families. This would be the only case of reparations to people who were not immediately affected and whose sole qualification to receive reparations would be racial. As has already been pointed out, during the slavery era, many blacks were free men or slave-owners themselves, yet the reparations claimants make no distinction between the roles blacks actually played in the injustice itself. Randall Robinson's book on reparations, The Debt, which is the manifesto of the reparations movement is pointedly sub-titled "What America Owes To Blacks." If this is not racism, what is?

Wrong, Native Americans are no longer persecuted as they were in the 19th century, but Native American ancestors continue to receive reparations. Am I saying that every ancestor of American slaves here on out should receive some sort of compensation (like Native Americans)? No, this isn't about the ancestors receiving compensation, it is about righting a wrong in our history, which means coming up with some sort of final compensation for the slaves we persecuted since they no longer are alive to benefit from that reconciliation. And again, this is not about blacks, it is about slaves. Any black American who claims all blacks should receive reparations just for being black would not get support from me.



6. The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination

No evidence-based attempt has been made to prove that living individuals have been adversely affected by a slave system that was ended over 150 years ago. But there is plenty of evidence the hardships that occurred were hardships that individuals could and did overcome. The black middle-class in America is a prosperous community that is now larger in absolute terms than the black underclass. Does its existence not suggest that economic adversity is the result of failures of individual character rather than the lingering after-effects of racial discrimination and a slave system that ceased to exist well over a century ago? West Indian blacks in America are also descended from slaves but their average incomes are equivalent to the average incomes of whites (and nearly 25% higher than the average incomes of American born blacks). How is it that slavery adversely affected one large group of descendants but not the other? How can government be expected to decide an issue that is so subjective - and yet so critical - to the case?

What does the economic successes or failures of descendents have to do with reparations? Are they saying that just because you are financially dependent that all of a sudden you don't need compensation? Well, it isn't about needing anything, it is, again, about righting a wrong. Reparations don't necessarily even have to be in the form of money. This is simple. We determine those who are descendents of slaves, and if their slave ancestors were not properly compensated for their suffering, then their families get the compensation that should have been given to them. Why is this such a bad thing?



7. The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt To Turn African-Americans Into Victims. It Sends A Damaging Message To The African-American Community.

The renewed sense of grievance -- which is what the claim for reparations will inevitably create -- is neither a constructive nor a helpful message for black leaders to be sending to their communities and to others. To focus the social passions of African-Americans on what some Americans may have done to their ancestors fifty or a hundred and fifty years ago is to burden them with a crippling sense of victim-hood. How are the millions of refugees from tyranny and genocide who are now living in America going to receive these claims, moreover, except as demands for special treatment, an extravagant new handout that is only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others -- many less privileged than themselves?


Here we go with the race thing again. If some dude from the Congo who became a U.S. citizen last year thinks he deserves a part in reparations, I'd laugh in his face. The author of these points seems to be held up on race being a primary facet of this debate, and perhaps he is basing this on popular sentiment in the black community. Frankly, in my opinion, this is a simple solution, and this dude (and maybe the black comunity), should wake up and realize that.



8. Reparations To African Americans Have Already Been Paid

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) - all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances. It is said that reparations are necessary to achieve a healing between African-Americans and other Americans. If trillion dollar restitutions and a wholesale rewriting of American law (in order to accommodate racial preferences) for African-Americans is not enough to achieve a "healing," what will?


Historic racial grievances? Accomodating racial preferences? This person doesn't seem to realize that there is a BIG difference between Rosa Parks challenging to sit where she wanted on a bus, and slaves before her being forced to stay on a 200 acre Plantation because they were supposively OWNED by another human being. The United States has never even apologized for slavery let alone paid their just dues to the victims. What a crock of BS.



9. What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?

Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade was born, and in all societies. But in the thousand years of its existence, there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans -- created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still be slaves. If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world, and indeed one of the highest standards of living of any people in the world. They would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?


Ohhh okay, well then let's tell Sara that she should send a thank you letter to the White House for ending slavery in this country and giving her great great great grandfather freedom from being OWNED. Yup, this makes sense to me.



10. The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom
For all America's faults, African-Americans have an enormous stake in their country and its heritage. It is this heritage that is really under attack by the reparations movement. The reparations claim is one more assault on America, conducted by racial separatists and the political left. It is an attack not only on white Americans, but on all Americans -- especially African-Americans.

America's African-American citizens are the richest and most privileged black people alive -- a bounty that is a direct result of the heritage that is under assault. The American idea needs the support of its African-American citizens. But African-Americans also need the support of the American idea. For it is this idea that led to the principles and institutions that have set African-Americans - and all of us -- free.


*sigh*
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

However to be fair that was not just an AMERICAN thing. It was actually more a WORLD view. lol

Well actually, many nations that formerally were purveyors of slavery had abolished slavery decades before the United States did. Regardless of the world popular concensus though, this was an American issue based on the participants.



Sorry to burst your bubble on that.
Yes they were a commodity, yes they were thought by SOME not in any way ALL to be subhuman, in fact horses sold for more.
However it is what it is, HISTORY. Unfortunate and to some degree wrong I am sure, however even the bible talks about christian SLAVES obeying their masters.


Slavery was abolished in Vermont, Massachusetts, New York and some newly acquired states chose to abstain from allowing slavery in their states as well all before the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Yes, even most abolitionists believed that blacks were not equal to whites, but they, along with most Americans I am willing to bet, realized that blacks were indeed human. People merely chose to follow their racial predjudices and do nothing about the issue at hand.



Sorry I fail to see how this means I should have to pay tax money for something neither I nor my ancestors did. (just because I am Caucasian? Please that in and of itself is racist! )

Not because you are white, but because you are an American, it has nothing to do with your ancestors.

CliveStaples
September 1st, 2007, 02:26 AM
I dunno, we seem fine giving Native Americans free college educations, why not families of slaves?

I think poor, disadvantaged people should get first crack at scholarships. Race should have nothing to do with it.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

Wrong, Americans are responsible. We are ultimately responsible for the actions of our government.

No, we aren't. We are responsible for policies we vote to enact, but if some politician who got elected to stop institutionalized racism instead propagated it, the public isn't responsible for it.

And in any case, nobody living ever voted for the people who kept slavery alive and legal. So even if reparations were required from those responsible for slavery, none of them are available. You can't say to me, "These other guys owe me some money. Now you have to pay it."

Just Me
September 1st, 2007, 05:31 AM
Being black doesn't automatically mean you have slave ancestors. I have mentioned this more than once in this thread.

The government pays reparations, reparations are extracted from taxes, therefore the people pay for reparations, and justly so. Is there the potential that families of slaves will be assisting in their own reparations? Perhaps, but they have the potential to go to college for free, or receive financial benefits when they retire, etc as a result of the reparated compensation.
The ones who qualify does not already have the chance to go to college free? So a Pell Grant is based on race?
Student loans are based on race?

So are you saying that blacks who are capable of recieving finacial aid should be allowed to go to college FREE even tho they may qualify for finacial aid?



I dunno, we seem fine giving Native Americans free college educations, why not families of slaves?


Contrary to popular belief, Indians do not receive payments from the federal government simply because they have Indian blood. Funds distributed to a person of Indian descent may represent income from his/her own property collected for him/her by an agent of the United States government[/I]. Other disbursements to individuals may represent compensation for lands taken in connection with governmental projects, comparable to payments made to non-Indians for the acquisition of land for governmental purposes. Some Indian tribes receive income from the utilization of tribal timber and other reservation resources, a percentage of which may be distributed as per capita among the tribe’s members. Individual tribal members also share in the money paid to the tribes by the federal government in fulfillment of treaty obligations. Money available for payments belongs either to the tribe or to an individual and is held in trust by the federal government. In this event, the federal government issues checks in making payment to individuals or to the tribes.

Office of Indian Education Programs: Higher ED Grants (http://www.oiep.bia.edu/faqs_grantinfo.html)



Wrong, Americans are responsible. We are ultimately responsible for the actions of our government.
So I ask again... WHO should pay these reparations? All of America or just whites?



Who cares? Americans allowed slavery to continue on for years, the slave owners were merely the ones exploiting the illegal laws set forth by the states.
What illegal laws? Slavery was legal.


And those 350,000 Union soldiers weren't fighting for the rights of slaves, they were fighting because they were drafted into the United States military and were ordered to attack secessionists. Yes, descendents of those who fought for the Union should have to reparations.

So are you saying that US soldiers who are FORCED to go to war are not fighting for America?

I don't care where you came from, when you gave that vow to become a United States citizen, you immediately take on the responsibilities as well as the benefits of being a citizen of this country, and one of those responsibilities should be to pay reparations to the ancestors of slaves.
So blacks should have to pay for their own reparations, correct?




Wrong, Native Americans are no longer persecuted as they were in the 19th century, but Native American ancestors continue to receive reparations. Am I saying that every ancestor of American slaves here on out should receive some sort of compensation (like Native Americans)? No, this isn't about the ancestors receiving compensation, it is about righting a wrong in our history, which means coming up with some sort of final compensation for the slaves we persecuted since they no longer are alive to benefit from that reconciliation. And again, this is not about blacks, it is about slaves. Any black American who claims all blacks should receive reparations just for being black would not get support from me.
So again blacks should pay reparations as well? After all they are US citizens..




What does the economic successes or failures of descendents have to do with reparations? Are they saying that just because you are financially dependent that all of a sudden you don't need compensation? Well, it isn't about needing anything, it is, again, about righting a wrong. Reparations don't necessarily even have to be in the form of money. This is simple. We determine those who are descendents of slaves, and if their slave ancestors were not properly compensated for their suffering, then their families get the compensation that should have been given to them. Why is this such a bad thing?
So all the governments needs to do is say "I'm sorry"?




Here we go with the race thing again. If some dude from the Congo who became a U.S. citizen last year thinks he deserves a part in reparations, I'd laugh in his face. The author of these points seems to be held up on race being a primary facet of this debate, and perhaps he is basing this on popular sentiment in the black community. Frankly, in my opinion, this is a simple solution, and this dude (and maybe the black comunity), should wake up and realize that.
The RACE thing, as for as I have seen is what the blacks go for. If you are black you had slave ancestors and everyone of those ancestors should be payed. That is how the blacks that I have come into contact with thinks.




Historic racial grievances? Accomodating racial preferences? This person doesn't seem to realize that there is a BIG difference between Rosa Parks challenging to sit where she wanted on a bus, and slaves before her being forced to stay on a 200 acre Plantation because they were supposively OWNED by another human being. The United States has never even apologized for slavery let alone paid their just dues to the victims. What a crock of BS.

Yes some states have started apologizing for slavery... VA a southern state was the first one.. Alabama has then followed....

Ohhh okay, well then let's tell Sara that she should send a thank you letter to the White House for ending slavery in this country and giving her great great great grandfather freedom from being OWNED. Yup, this makes sense to me.

What part does not make sense to you?

10. The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom
For all America's faults, African-Americans have an enormous stake in their country and its heritage. It is this heritage that is really under attack by the reparations movement. The reparations claim is one more assault on America, conducted by racial separatists and the political left. It is an attack not only on white Americans, but on all Americans -- especially African-Americans.

America's African-American citizens are the richest and most privileged black people alive -- a bounty that is a direct result of the heritage that is under assault. The American idea needs the support of its African-American citizens. But African-Americans also need the support of the American idea. For it is this idea that led to the principles and institutions that have set African-Americans - and all of us -- free.

So do you agree or disagree?



Not because you are white, but because you are an American, it has nothing to do with your ancestors.

So again I ask, should blacks have to pay reparations?

supercodes
September 1st, 2007, 08:55 AM
I think poor, disadvantaged people should get first crack at scholarships. Race should have nothing to do with it.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>


No, we aren't. We are responsible for policies we vote to enact, but if some politician who got elected to stop institutionalized racism instead propagated it, the public isn't responsible for it.

And in any case, nobody living ever voted for the people who kept slavery alive and legal. So even if reparations were required from those responsible for slavery, none of them are available. You can't say to me, "These other guys owe me some money. Now you have to pay it."

So you believe you claim zero responsibility for the actions of the government because you have no direct control of elected officials?

Turtleflipper
September 1st, 2007, 09:05 AM
So you believe you claim zero responsibility for the actions of the government because you have no direct control of elected officials?

Not from 150 years ago

supercodes
September 1st, 2007, 09:18 AM
The ones who qualify does not already have the chance to go to college free? So a Pell Grant is based on race?
Student loans are based on race?

So are you saying that blacks who are capable of recieving finacial aid should be allowed to go to college FREE even tho they may qualify for finacial aid?

No, I am not saying that, nor did I say that free college is a definitive way of pay reparations, it is merely an idea. And, once again, grants given to blacks have nothing to do with the families of un-reparated slaves. Besides, receiving money for some of your college is much different than receiving a free trip to an accredited school you get accepted to.



Contrary to popular belief, Indians do not receive payments from the federal government simply because they have Indian blood. Funds distributed to a person of Indian descent may represent income from his/her own property collected for him/her by an agent of the United States government[/I]. Other disbursements to individuals may represent compensation for lands taken in connection with governmental projects, comparable to payments made to non-Indians for the acquisition of land for governmental purposes. Some Indian tribes receive income from the utilization of tribal timber and other reservation resources, a percentage of which may be distributed as per capita among the tribe’s members. Individual tribal members also share in the money paid to the tribes by the federal government in fulfillment of treaty obligations. Money available for payments belongs either to the tribe or to an individual and is held in trust by the federal government. In this event, the federal government issues checks in making payment to individuals or to the tribes.

Office of Indian Education Programs: Higher ED Grants (http://www.oiep.bia.edu/faqs_grantinfo.html)

Actually they are based on Indian blood:

A student must:

- Be a member of, or at least one-quarter degree Indian blood descendent of a member of an American Indian tribe who are eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States through the Bureau of Indian Affairs to Indians because of their status as Indians.

The catch is you have to be part of a tribe that has been validated by the U.S. government. Still, my point stands, we pay reparations for Native Americans, and I know this because my sister is half Penobscot Indian who has no contact with her Indian father, but she has been recognized as a member of that tribe, therefore she goes to college for free.





So I ask again... WHO should pay these reparations? All of America or just whites?


I already answered this.




What illegal laws? Slavery was legal.


I disagree, and I have shown my reasons for this.




So are you saying that US soldiers who are FORCED to go to war are not fighting for America?


Does every soldier fighting in Iraq believe in the war? No. Believing in the operation is not synonymous with believing in your country and the authority of your superiors.



So blacks should have to pay for their own reparations, correct?


It isn't based on race, so yes, blacks should pay as well as whites.



So again blacks should pay reparations as well? After all they are US citizens..


Yes maam.




So all the governments needs to do is say "I'm sorry"?


Please don't put words in my mouth, I merely just stated there are alternatives to giving reparations in the form of cash.




The RACE thing, as for as I have seen is what the blacks go for. If you are black you had slave ancestors and everyone of those ancestors should be payed. That is how the blacks that I have come into contact with thinks.


Well then blacks are in for a rude awakening. As you have proven with Native Americans, all will not receive compensation (though I personally believe all Native Americans should receive compensation), nor will all blacks, only with effected ancestors.





Yes some states have started apologizing for slavery... VA a southern state was the first one.. Alabama has then followed....


Which is a good step in the right direction, but I am speaking of the Federal government. And even if the Federal government were to apologize, this doesn't excuse them from responsibility.



What part does not make sense to you?


Oh it makes perfect sense, it is just incredibly selfish and racist.



So do you agree or disagree?

Of course I disagree with it, this is basing things on race once again, which is them expounded upon by saying the blacks in this country should be thankful for living in the richest country in the world. This is another crock of BS as it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is paying reparations for the illegal actions of this country.





So again I ask, should blacks have to pay reparations?

Answered...

Just Me
September 1st, 2007, 09:53 AM
No, I am not saying that, nor did I say that free college is a definitive way of pay reparations, it is merely an idea. And, once again, grants given to blacks have nothing to do with the families of un-reparated slaves. Besides, receiving money for some of your college is much different than receiving a free trip to an accredited school you get accepted to.

You stated here:


Perhaps, but they have the potential to go to college for free, or receive financial benefits when they retire, etc as a result of the reparated compensation.
I simply stated there is ALREADY a way for blacks who qualify to go to school free... Depending on what you take, a pell grants can pay for all of the tuition.

So the idea of blacks going to school free, is that or isn't a way to pay reparations?
Remember THEY CAN go to college free, There are about 200 different scholarships ONLY for blacks.


Actually they are based on Indian blood:

A student must:

- Be a member of, or at least one-quarter degree Indian blood descendent of a member of an American Indian tribe who are eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States through the Bureau of Indian Affairs to Indians because of their status as Indians.

The catch is you have to be part of a tribe that has been validated by the U.S. government. Still, my point stands, we pay reparations for Native Americans, and I know this because my sister is half Penobscot Indian who has no contact with her Indian father, but she has been recognized as a member of that tribe, therefore she goes to college for free.
I stated having Indian blood, does NOT automatically qualify one to go to school free...
Unless I misunderstood you, that's what would happen for blacks.. Their skin color would give them an automatically free pass into college, IF they had an ancestor who was a slave.




I disagree, and I have shown my reasons for this.

It wasn't until 1776 when slavery started becoming abolished..
1776
Society of Friends (Quakers) abolishes slavery among members.

1777
Vermont Constitution prohibits slavery.

1780
Massachusetts Constitution adopted with freedom clause interpreted as prohibiting slavery.
Pennsylvania adopts gradual emancipation, freeing slaves born after 1780 upon their 28th birthday.
Until 1776 slavery WAS legal in the US... During 1776 and afterwards is when slavery started becoming illegal little by little.


Does every soldier fighting in Iraq believe in the war? No. Believing in the operation is not synonymous with believing in your country and the authority of your superiors.

A soldier fighting in a war is no different from what you said here.. It does not matter if they believed in the war or not....

And those 350,000 Union soldiers weren't fighting for the rights of slaves, they were fighting because they were drafted into the United States military and were ordered to attack secessionists. Yes, descendents of those who fought for the Union should have to reparations.


It isn't based on race, so yes, blacks should pay as well as whites.
If reparations IS to be payed I can agree with the above.



Please don't put words in my mouth, I merely just stated there are alternatives to giving reparations in the form of cash.
Saying "I'm sorry" rights a wrong on many occasions...
If apologizing, free college, retirement, is not what you were talking about then please explain...





Well then blacks are in for a rude awakening. As you have proven with Native Americans, all will not receive compensation (though I personally believe all Native Americans should receive compensation), nor will all blacks, only with effected ancestors.
Now we are getting somewhere...
Now let me ask you this... What family member that had a ancestor that was a slave, recieve the reparations? Every single family member? A certian family member? How far down the line should it last?





Which is a good step in the right direction, but I am speaking of the Federal government. And even if the Federal government were to apologize, this doesn't excuse them from responsibility.

The Federal government today had zero to do with the government years ago. Thats like saying if my great grandfather murdered someone I will still be responsible for the crime he commited before I was even thought about..


Oh it makes perfect sense, it is just incredibly selfish and racist.

How is it racist? The soldiers who fault in the civil war were white, the leaders who was fighting to END slavery were white. The leaders who freed slaves were WHITE..

CliveStaples
September 1st, 2007, 01:17 PM
So you believe you claim zero responsibility for the actions of the government because you have no direct control of elected officials?

It depends on whether the actions of the government are in accord with the public will. A senator who gives the key "Yes" vote to banning public prayer, for instance, might not have been elected if his constituents knew he would give that vote. Additionally, not every policy a candidate endorses is supported by the constituents.


I disagree, and I have shown my reasons for this.

Slavery was neither unconstitutional (if it were, the 13th Amendment would be redundant) nor disallowed by state statutes in those states where slavery existed.

Turtleflipper
September 1st, 2007, 01:49 PM
Slavery was neither unconstitutional .

Goes against the findings of Massachusetts courts, but ok.

supercodes
September 1st, 2007, 10:30 PM
You stated here:

[quote]
I simply stated there is ALREADY a way for blacks who qualify to go to school free... Depending on what you take, a pell grants can pay for all of the tuition.

So the idea of blacks going to school free, is that or isn't a way to pay reparations?
Remember THEY CAN go to college free, There are about 200 different scholarships ONLY for blacks.


It is not about blacks being given opportunities. It has nothing to do with giving to disadvantaged minorities. You are attempting to compare what blacks have options to obtain when this issue of reparations has nothing to do with people just being black, it has to do with some of their ancestors being slaves.



I stated having Indian blood, does NOT automatically qualify one to go to school free...
Unless I misunderstood you, that's what would happen for blacks.. Their skin color would give them an automatically free pass into college, IF they had an ancestor who was a slave.


You are making this more complicated than it has to be. I stated Native Americans are given reparations, it was merely an example of this country giving back to an exploited people.




It wasn't until 1776 when slavery started becoming abolished..
1776
Society of Friends (Quakers) abolishes slavery among members.

1777
Vermont Constitution prohibits slavery.

1780
Massachusetts Constitution adopted with freedom clause interpreted as prohibiting slavery.
Pennsylvania adopts gradual emancipation, freeing slaves born after 1780 upon their 28th birthday.
Until 1776 slavery WAS legal in the US... During 1776 and afterwards is when slavery started becoming illegal little by little.


We are going to have to agree to disagree with this. I have stated ad nauseam that slavery is unconstitutional based on slaves being citizens of this country since they were born here, and any laws stating otherwise on the state level were illegal based on the bill of rights. Slavery was never brought up in the bill of rights, therefore it doesn't apply as an exception to the rule. It was an accepted tradition based on hundreds of years of ethnocentricity and racism (not to mention the absolute economic power it instilled). Another example of Constitutional rights being blatantly violated was the Butler Act which was drafted into the Tennessee Constitution, which stated:

"'... that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."

This is the famous law that landed Mr. Scopes in jail. Despite national headlines deriding this Act, and it's blatant disrespect for the seperation of church and state, it wasn't revolked until the late 1960's, and it was only revolked then because a teacher was raising another fuss about freedom of speech. Tennessee citizens believed whole heartedly in the Biblical teaching of creationism, so taking into consideration the violation of Federal law really didn't dawn on them, does that make it any less illegal? I am going to let the legality of slavery die, because it seems there will be no concensus.



A soldier fighting in a war is no different from what you said here.. It does not matter if they believed in the war or not....


You're right, it doesn't matter if they believed in the war or not, because their opinion didn't matter. Soldiers of the Union fought and died for the Union, it didn't matter what the cause was. They were pawns for politicians to do their work, as they are today. Soldiers take orders from their superiors regardless if they believe in the cause or not. It is a job, and they are/were doing their duty.





Saying "I'm sorry" rights a wrong on many occasions...
If apologizing, free college, retirement, is not what you were talking about then please explain...


Would a rapist saying sorry to his victim make everything all better? Would it mean he should walk free just because he said sorry? (Yes, the government is not a rapist, but the idea of just an apology still applies) The United States committed a grave injustice against it's people, and it still has yet to be reprimanded for it. Like I said, saying sorry is a definite start, but more would need to be done. As to the extent of what that would entail, that could leave many options. I am just listing some, it doesn't mean they should receive all of that or any of it.




Now we are getting somewhere...
Now let me ask you this... What family member that had a ancestor that was a slave, recieve the reparations? Every single family member? A certian family member? How far down the line should it last?


To the family member closest in relation to the slave? I don't know, I don't have all the answers. The point of this debate is not to become bogged down in details about how, where and to whom the reparations would be directly applied to, as long as the process is acknowledged and instituted. I believe reparations should be given to family members, but perhaps alternatives can become established.






The Federal government today had zero to do with the government years ago. Thats like saying if my great grandfather murdered someone I will still be responsible for the crime he commited before I was even thought about..


The federal government is governed by the same bill of rights today as they were in the 19th century. Who else is to blame? And you can't compare the crimes of a single individual to the responsibility of the government.



How is it racist? The soldiers who fault in the civil war were white, the leaders who was fighting to END slavery were white. The leaders who freed slaves were WHITE..

By stating whites saved the day, you are ignoring the fact that whites were the ones who enslaved these people to begin with. And you are also ignoring the brave attitudes of Frederick Douglas and other influential free blacks. Slavery was losing it's appeal and would have petered out eventually, but it was a good propaganda tool by Lincoln to make the South look bad, so he made the official emancipation, and now all of a sudden the Southern states are supposed to listen to the Federal government? Ha! As soon as the Federal government realized they couldn't milk the resources of the South anymore, they started playing hardball. You think if the South hadn't seceeded that the slaves would have been freed when they were? I wouldn't bet on it. Whites are being displayed as the great martyrs to freedom of slavery in that write up you presented to me, and that is a load of crap.

Just Me
September 2nd, 2007, 04:38 AM
Like I said, saying sorry is a definite start, but more would need to be done. As to the extent of what that would entail, that could leave many options. I am just listing some, it doesn't mean they should receive all of that or any of it.
The options you gave were:
1. Apology
2. FREE college
3. retirement.

You stated that the reparations would be payed BY the PEOPLE. Do you honestly think that if blacks were to have to pay their own reparations everything would be satisfied for them?
That is like saying " I have to help pay someone who crashed into my car".


To the family member closest in relation to the slave? I don't know, I don't have all the answers. The point of this debate is not to become bogged down in details about how, where and to whom the reparations would be directly applied to, as long as the process is acknowledged and instituted. I believe reparations should be given to family members, but perhaps alternatives can become established.

I disagree... The to whom, how, and from who are all very important in this debate.
To whom: who would recieve the reparactions? As in family members. How many of the family members would recieve this..

How: How would the reparations be payed?

From whom: who would pay these reparations? Why would a ancestor of a slave wish to pay his own reparations?


The federal government is governed by the same bill of rights today as they were in the 19th century. Who else is to blame? And you can't compare the crimes of a single individual to the responsibility of the government.

Consider this: In the 36 years since the passage of the original Civil Rights Act of 1964, trillions of dollars in federal transfer payments, welfare payments, racial job quotas, race-based federal contract set-asides, and race-based college admissions have already been paid to so-called "historically disadvantaged minorities" in the U.S.
After 36 years of preferential programs and billions of race-based payments, why haven't the so-called "disadvantaged minorities" been able to compete in American society by now? Could it possibly be due to the fact that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Kweisi Mfume preach "perpetual victimhood" to their skin-deep followers?

How much more needs to be payed?

[/quote] You think if the South hadn't seceeded that the slaves would have been freed when they were? I wouldn't bet on it. Whites are being displayed as the great martyrs to freedom of slavery in that write up you presented to me, and that is a load of crap.[/QUOTE]
1787 Slavery is made illegal in the Northwest Territory. The U.S Constitution states that Congress may not ban the slave trade until 1808.
1808 Congress bans the importation of slaves from Africa.
1820 The Missouri Compromise bans slavery north of the southern boundary of Missouri.
So you do agree what not only whites were slave owners?
If it was not for the white leaders who fault against slavery, who is the cause of slavery to end?

wanxtrmBANNED
September 2nd, 2007, 08:30 AM
Not because you are white, but because you are an American, it has nothing to do with your ancestors.

Than to be equally fair every black American would need to pay reparations as well correct?
If this is not correct than you are indeed telling me my skin color is the only reason I would be paying reparations.

Sorry reparations are a waste of time and money. It is far better to let go, grow, and live in today for tomorrow! :afro: