Reparations for slavery: Just or unjust?

by MYOHNSEPH 43 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  MYOHNSEPH

  There's such a broad range of perception on this board, I'm curious to know what you folks think of this issue. Are contemporary decendents of black slaves in the United States justified in asking for monetary reparation for their ancestors' bondage? If you answer is in the affirmative, some related questions are:

  1. Should the fact that a great number of those paying the tab for these reparations never had ancestors who owned slaves or supported slavery or didn't even have ancestors in this country during the period of slavery, be given any consideration?

  2. Should there be a statute of limitations on how far into the past we can go to use our ancestors' abuse as a basis for material compensation or reparation?

  3. Does this issue bear any resemblance to a modern day scenario where individuals of a certain race or ethnicity or retaliated against, indiscriminately, for the reprehensible actions of a few other individuals who just happen to be of the same race or ethnicity?

  Care to comment?
• 

  Robdar

  Unjust.

  It has been too long since that time in our history. Not all blacks were slaves in this country. Besides, much blood was shed to give freedom to the slaves. Giving your life is the ultimate payment.

  Robyn
• 

  freedom96

  I think Robyn summed it up perfectly.
• 

  expatbrit

  This is a sore point with me. I put in a claim to Kent Steinhaug for some compensation about those damned Norwegian Vikings looting and pillaging in the eighth century. Strangely, he hasn't forwarded me a cheque.

  I hope he does soon, because I need the cash to pay off Englishman's claim about my Roman ancestors pilfering all the best land in Britain.

  Expatbrit
• 

  target

  you would be opening a can of worms. If the decendents of slaves should be paid, what about how women were treated? They couldn't vote, they were treated as the property of there husbands/fathers. They were abused and no one did anything about it. Shouldn't they be paid? What about all the children who were abused? Shouldn't they be paid?

  People need to look at their own lives and the opportunities that are there for them, not how their great great great grandparents were treated.

  And also, there would have to be documented proof of what happened to whom.

  It is all utter nonsense. Just people looking for a handout.

  Millie

  Edited by - target on 5 January 2003 14:54:35
• 

  teenyuck

  target, you are correct.

  I WANT MY MONEY, AND I WANT IT NOW!!

  I like handouts, I want handouts....shoot, I could use some help paying the rent and all....there also is some "nice" software I would love to purchase, however, it costs too much...."sniff" perhaps you will contribute?
• 

  czarofmischief

  My ancestors were drafted into the Union Army to fight for other people's freedom. Admittedly, the institution of slavery was perfectly legal under the constitution, but we came around. Reparations are useless.

  Every affirmative action program, every bluecoat who starved to death in Andersonville, every white abolitionist who wrote mind-altering literature is a repayment on the debt of slavery. We can't win this argument, all we can do is forgive each other and move on with our lives as equals.

  One pundit said that rparations should be paid by people who genuinely feel that they are superior to blacks. In other words, these people either deny their supremacy or pay up for being members of slave owning freakazoids.

  I think that universal health care is a much better way to spend a few billion a year.

  CZAR
• 

  DakotaRed

  I totally agree with Robyn. While slavery was unjust itself and a black mark in our history, how can money undo it? A handout is a handout, under any guise. It would be nearly impossible for them to prove they are descendants of slaves and just handing money to all of a particular race will do nothing more than broaden the hard feelings already in place, as well as place another tax burden on all, including the very ones receivng the handout.

  If we are to start reparations for what history shows was unjust, how far do we go? Should all who were drafted and sent to Vietnam receive handouts too? What about aging WW2 and WW1 veterans? All of us were denied and deprived for a period of time too. Should people born in poorer sections of the south also receive a handout? The list is endless of who could be entitled to handouts and any money received would be short lived, but the burden could go on forever.

  Although I'm probably going to get flamed for this, I am tired of reverse discrimination. Swinging the pendulum in the other direction, while it may make some feel better, has brought many segregationists back in the news and broadened the gap between the races, instead of bringing us closer. Is it really good for Blacks to ridicule whites in TV shows? Could I start and receive prominence for a National Association for the Preservation of White People? How about a United Caucasian College Fund? Any bets I would be immediately labled a racist if I did? Yet, it isn't racist to have such for Blacks.

  So called "reparations" would just add fuel to the fire and create more animosity between the races. In my opinion, that is the exact opposite of what Martin Luther King preached and died for.

  I'm all for stopping all handouts, except for those truly in need, regardless of race. I see them as ammunition to keep Socialists in power under the guise of Liberal Democrats. What is sad is to review the voting records of the parties and realize that it was Democrats that consistently voted against any and all Civil Rights legislation, yet it is they who now "champion" handouts to Blacks, while often exempting themselves from having to pay and keeping their own millions. Sounds hypocritical to me.

  A level playing field, yes. Handouts, no.

  Lew W
• 

  wasasister

  My own view is that reparations are just only when there is a direct compensation for something lost by a direct victim, or a proven heir. For example, I think it is perfectly appropriate for European banks to return funds or property stolen from Jews during WW2. If Grandma owned a diamond tiarra and the Nazis took it...give it back.

  If property was taken from Japanese-Americans during the same war, compensate them for it. If people directly lost wages or were denied what should have been rightfully theirs otherwise, pay them back.

  However, if a direct link cannot be established between those who took and those who were taken from, the compensation becomes punitive and silly.

  Wasa
• 

  Abaddon

  Obviously any compensation, if any should be paid, should be paid by all the parties responsible. This makes it a little more complicated, as it would be very hard to trace the Africans or Arabs who actually took the slaves (not many slaves were actually captured by Europeans or Americans). Then of course, due responsibility has to be bourne by those who carried the slaves. If someone can trace the shipment their ancestors came in on, then there are records of crew and companies involved, from a number of nations, Great Britain, Holland, as well as the States. Some of the people would be unable to pay, as they would be poorer than those that were claiming.

  If such compensation is paid, then indigenous people who have been disadvantaged by invaders will likely re-double their efforts to claim for compensation, or re-start claims that previously failed.

  The statute of limitations is also something to think about. If white Americans and others whose ancestors were involved in the slave trade have to pay, and all the indigenous peoples' claims are reviewed, and in light of the success of those with slave ancestors, then other even more historically distant disadvantgees will perue their claim. Those of Jewish ancesotory alone have a millenia of severe discrimination and suffering to be compensated for by anyone whose ancestor was a Christian, and all those in Britain who could prove they were Celts would be able to retire, as the invaders would have to pay them compensation too.

  Obviously the idea of compensation for sins vested upon ones ancestors, no matter how apealling on some levels, is completely ridiculous on practical levels. Even if it were paid by central government, people who had no part in the slavery would end up paying as much extra tax as those whose ancestors were involved, which is not good, especially since some of them would be just as poor as those that the money was intended for.

  What should happen is that those who are disadvantaged by reason of their recent background, the poor, should be helped to overcome the disadvantages of their background so their children will have the same opportunties as most people. Regardless of what colur they are.