Long-Term Reparations for Victim Groups Not Necessary or Warranted

Historical grievances are many and they run deep. The Blacks, the Mormons, the Mennonites and the Jews have a long history of being persecuted.

The Ku Klux Klan (the "Klan") terrorized black people, Catholics and Jews in the second half of the 19th Century and intermittently through the 20th Century. Similar violence occurred via lynchings. Non-violent but very disturbing and humiliating discrimination such as "Jim Crow" laws, residential and school segregation were the order of the day. These were upheld as the law of the land in the despicable Plessy v. Fergeson Supreme Court decision, which followed from the odious Dred Scott v. Sanford decision prior to the Civil War. There are proposals for reparations to living African-Americans. See Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act. Excerpt of Congressional preamble:

Preamble to Act said:

To address the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.

Click to expand...

See, as well, article in Duke Chronicle, an independent new journal at Duke University, Should there be reparations for African Americans?

Excerpt:

Duke Chronical article said:

Reparations for African Americans are crucial to fight white supremacy and compensate for slavery's consequences, scholars said at a town hall forum Monday, but they aren't enough.

Click to expand...

African-Americans are hardly the only group to suffer serious and crippling discrimination.

As detailed in Mormon History (link)the Mormons were driven from Palmyra, New York to Pennsylvania, to Ohio, to their own city, Nauvoo, Illinois. During that era, Joseph Smith, their leader, was murdered in jail. The Mormons then relocated, finally, to Utah. Persecution of them was abundant, and vicious.

The Mennonites fared somewhat better, but have also been persecuted. See Mennonite History Is Marked by Persecution.

The Jews' history barely needs retelling. David Nirenberg’s excellent book, Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition, reviewed here in Tablet Magazine and here in the New Republic discusses this baleful history. He explains that much of the hatred was directed at theoretical Jews by people who had never met a real one. The Pharaohnic hatred of the Jews led them to create a parallel myth to the Exodus story, to the effect that they gave the Hebrews the boot, not the other way around. The Holocaust is extremely recent and devastating. One-third of Jews were executed. Many more fled, and lost their property in the process.

The issue of reparations is a delicate one. The Jews received some compensation, by way of West Germany making some payments to the State of Israel as a result of the Holocaust. There have been settlements in some civil actions brought by victims and their immediate descendants for property plundered by the Nazis. These payments were to actual living victims of actual living persecutors. Aside from these payments by the German government to some Jews, and the Jewish State of Israel, reparations are rarely paid, for reasons I consider to be good. Not everything in life can be fair.

I come out against reparations for historical acts. Neither the victims or the perpetrators are alive. The people who suffered slavery will never be recompensed. The people who administered the lashes will never be punished for their cruelty.

The people receiving this unearned lucre have, by and large, never experienced Jim Crow, residential or educational segregation. The people paying taxes to fund the reparations have never, by and large, done anything wrong.

In short, reparations are the punishment of the blameless for the benefit of the uninjured.

Suppose I kill you, enslave your children and grandchildren, and steal all your property. I leave all that property to my progeny, along with the gains I get from the labor your children and grandchildren provided to me. Over the next five generations, my progeny flourish economically, because they had a substantial sum of property and money (which I got by stealing from you and enslaving your children and grandchildren and stealing their labor) on which to build investments, businesses, and so on. In the meantime, in the generation of your grandchildren, who I enslaved, the law came along and decided that your progeny were free from my family's enslavement of them. They are turned out into the wilderness, so to speak, free to go about their lives. They live in shanty buildings and have comparatively poor and nasty lives compared to my progeny. The next two generations inherit nothing from the previous generation, which tended to die young and live hand to mouth anyway, thanks to the circumstances my crimes imposed upon them.

Since my progeny didn't commit any crimes against yours (I did, but they didn't), my progeny should be able to keep all the increase the stolen wealth provided to them, while your progeny should be relegated to living brutish lives near the dirt? No one who is fair minded thinks that set of circumstances should be allowed to stand. To the extent possible, it should be determined how much of my progeny's wealth is due to my crime, and that sum, to the extent possible, returned to your progeny.

ashurbanipal said:

Suppose I kill you, enslave your children and grandchildren, and steal all your property. I leave all that property to my progeny, along with the gains I get from the labor your children and grandchildren provided to me. Over the next five generations, my progeny flourish economically, because they had a substantial sum of property and money (which I got by stealing from you and enslaving your children and grandchildren and stealing their labor) on which to build investments, businesses, and so on. In the meantime, in the generation of your grandchildren, who I enslaved, the law came along and decided that your progeny were free from my family's enslavement of them. They are turned out into the wilderness, so to speak, free to go about their lives. They live in shanty buildings and have comparatively poor and nasty lives compared to my progeny. The next two generations inherit nothing from the previous generation, which tended to die young and live hand to mouth anyway, thanks to the circumstances my crimes imposed upon them.

Since my progeny didn't commit any crimes against yours (I did, but they didn't), my progeny should be able to keep all the increase the stolen wealth provided to them, while your progeny should be relegated to living brutish lives near the dirt? No one who is fair minded thinks that set of circumstances should be allowed to stand. To the extent possible, it should be determined how much of my progeny's wealth is due to my crime, and that sum, to the extent possible, returned to your progeny.

Click to expand...

cool story bro but that is essentially fictional if applied today in America. For example, in my family, one part of the family lived in Kentucky and had some slaves. The son of that family ended up being a hero in the civil war-for the North. The other side of that same family lived in Boston and were leading abolitionists. Whites who have two centuries or more history in the USA often have both Union and insurrectionists in their family history.

Group rights, group debts and nonsense like reparations are anathema to concepts of innocent until proven guilty

Its not necessarily a BAD thing, either...

EDIT: Oh, lolno it was most certainly not "some compensation"

the agreement was signed in September 1952, and West Germany paid Israel a sum of 3 billion marks over the next fourteen years

Click to expand...

From 1953 to 1963, the reparations money funded around one-third of investment in Israel's electrical system, helping it to triple its capacity, and nearly half the total investment in Israel Railways, which obtained German-made rolling stock, tracks, and signaling equipment with reparations money. The reparations were also used to purchase German-made machinery for developing the water supply, oil drilling, mining equipment for use in extracting copper from the Timna Valley mines, and heavy equipment for agriculture and construction such as combines, tractors, and trucks. About 30% of the reparations money went into buying fuel, while 17% was used to purchase ships for the Israeli merchant fleet; some fifty ships including two passenger liners were purchased, and by 1961, these vessels constituted two-thirds of the Israeli merchant marine. Funds from the reparations were also used for port development; the Port of Haifa was able to obtain new cranes, including a floating crane that was named Bar Kokhba. The Bank of Israel credited the reparations for about 15% of Israel's GNP growth and the creation of 45,000 jobs during the period they were in effect.[11]

Click to expand...

ashurbanipal said:

Suppose I kill you, enslave your children and grandchildren, and steal all your property. I leave all that property to my progeny, along with the gains I get from the labor your children and grandchildren provided to me. Over the next five generations, my progeny flourish economically, because they had a substantial sum of property and money (which I got by stealing from you and enslaving your children and grandchildren and stealing their labor) on which to build investments, businesses, and so on. In the meantime, in the generation of your grandchildren, who I enslaved, the law came along and decided that your progeny were free from my family's enslavement of them. They are turned out into the wilderness, so to speak, free to go about their lives. They live in shanty buildings and have comparatively poor and nasty lives compared to my progeny. The next two generations inherit nothing from the previous generation, which tended to die young and live hand to mouth anyway, thanks to the circumstances my crimes imposed upon them.

Since my progeny didn't commit any crimes against yours (I did, but they didn't), my progeny should be able to keep all the increase the stolen wealth provided to them, while your progeny should be relegated to living brutish lives near the dirt? No one who is fair minded thinks that set of circumstances should be allowed to stand. To the extent possible, it should be determined how much of my progeny's wealth is due to my crime, and that sum, to the extent possible, returned to your progeny.

Click to expand...

I think the issue with the idea of reparations (aside from collective guilt being immoral) is that the wealth generated by slavery is already gone. Wealth typically only lasts 3 generations so any person you could trace back to rich slave owners likely had a break at some point in their family tree of coming from nothing especially considering in those days it was typical to have 5+ children so that wealth gets diluted rather quickly. There is likely not a single person in America currently living off of or possibly even helped by the fact that several generations ago their ancestors were slave owners.

The other issue is that only 20-25% of households had slaves (the average for the nation as a whole, some states had more than others) so not only would you have to determine if someone's ancestors were here during that time period and if they were here were they a slave holding family? So who do you go after for that wealth? Do you punish all white people? If so, it is highly likely you are punishing someone that is not only innocent by the fact they aren't responsible for the actions of their ancestors but for the majority you are punishing them for the actions of other people's ancestors. In virtually every way the concept of reparations is not only immoral but more likely to increase racial tensions rather than bring people together.

Abbazorkzog said:

Its not necessarily a BAD thing, either...

EDIT: Oh, lolno it was most certainly not "some compensation"

Click to expand...

the agreement was signed in September 1952, and West Germany paid Israel a sum of 3 billion marks over the next fourteen years
From 1953 to 1963, the reparations money funded around one-third of investment in Israel's electrical system, helping it to triple its capacity, and nearly half the total investment in Israel Railways, which obtained German-made rolling stock, tracks, and signaling equipment with reparations money. The reparations were also used to purchase German-made machinery for developing the water supply, oil drilling, mining equipment for use in extracting copper from the Timna Valley mines, and heavy equipment for agriculture and construction such as combines, tractors, and trucks. About 30% of the reparations money went into buying fuel, while 17% was used to purchase ships for the Israeli merchant fleet; some fifty ships including two passenger liners were purchased, and by 1961, these vessels constituted two-thirds of the Israeli merchant marine. Funds from the reparations were also used for port development; the Port of Haifa was able to obtain new cranes, including a floating crane that was named Bar Kokhba. The Bank of Israel credited the reparations for about 15% of Israel's GNP growth and the creation of 45,000 jobs during the period they were in effect.[11]

Click to expand...

I described it as "some compensation" since it was far less than the direct cost of resettlement of now-destitute displaced persons plus the value of the property plundered from both the deceased and survivors. The homes, businesses and synagogues were seized by the Nazis in Germany, France, Belgium, Norway, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, portions of Russia and to a lesser extent Denmark. The people and government to whom it was paid were direct victims and not attenuated descendants.

Nap said:

I think the issue with the idea of reparations (aside from collective guilt being immoral) is that the wealth generated by slavery is already gone. Wealth typically only lasts 3 generations so any person you could trace back to rich slave owners likely had a break at some point in their family tree of coming from nothing especially considering in those days it was typical to have 5+ children so that wealth gets diluted rather quickly. There is likely not a single person in America currently living off of or possibly even helped by the fact that several generations ago their ancestors were slave owners.

Click to expand...

Add to it the fact that many people, such as myself, are descended from immigrants that arrived after 1865. Specifically, in my case, 1896 to approximately 1910.

TurtleDude said:

cool story bro but that is essentially fictional if applied today in America.

Click to expand...

Really? I don't think so--not in its essentials. It is literally fiction in that I have not killed the poster to whom I was responding or enslaved his children or grandchildren--and I have no intention of doing so. But of course that's hardly anything to do with the point; were the situation I described actually to obtain, the fair and right thing to do would be to figure out how, and how much of, the property currently held by my progeny should be redistributed to his. The reason it would be fair is due to an obvious abstract moral principle with which the vast majority of us agree: a thief shouldn't be allowed to profit from his stolen goods. The profits, as well as the stolen goods, belong to the people from whom the thief stole.

TurtleDude said:

For example, in my family, one part of the family lived in Kentucky and had some slaves. The son of that family ended up being a hero in the civil war-for the North. The other side of that same family lived in Boston and were leading abolitionists. Whites who have two centuries or more history in the USA often have both Union and insurrectionists in their family history.

Click to expand...

None of that is relevant. What you're talking about is the complexity, after so many years, of putting things right. For that reason, if no other, I'd agree that it's very unlikely we ever will put things right. That doesn't mean that leaving them as they are is the right thing to do.

Taking merely the example of your family, how much did the slave-owning side contribute to the overall wealth that now exists in the family? How much was passed down from one generation to another, and how was it used? In practice, it would be very difficult to figure out. But that has nothing to do with whether or not it would be right to do it.

TurtleDude said:

Group rights, group debts and nonsense like reparations are anathema to concepts of innocent until proven guilty

Click to expand...

You'll have to spell this point out a little more clearly. It doesn't seem to me that I invoked group rights or debts. Not all black people currently in this country are descended from slaves. It probably is safe to say that all Indians are descended from people whose lands and property were stolen. But that they are members of some group (descended from slaves, Indians) is incidental. What was violated, and what continues to be violated, are their individual rights, and you are certainly correct that some are descended from those who are more responsible than others. At the same time, I don't think there can be much doubt that most, if not literally all, people of European descent in this country benefited in some way from either slavery or the genocide and displacement of Indians (the very fact that there are white people here in this country is sufficient proof for that).

But why would that mean that people of European descent living now are guilty? My five-times great grandchildren in the example aren't guilty. They may not even be aware that their wealth was due to my crime. That doesn't mean that removing their wealth, or as much as is determined is due to my initial crime, is not the correct thing to do. It is still the correct, and morally right, thing to do, and not a punishment to them. Taking something away from someone who never should have had it in the first place is not a punishment.

JBG said:

Historical grievances are many and they run deep. The Blacks, the Mormons, the Mennonites and the Jews have a long history of being persecuted.

The Ku Klux Klan (the "Klan") terrorized black people, Catholics and Jews in the second half of the 19th Century and intermittently through the 20th Century. Similar violence occurred via lynchings. Non-violent but very disturbing and humiliating discrimination such as "Jim Crow" laws, residential and school segregation were the order of the day. These were upheld as the law of the land in the despicable Plessy v. Fergeson Supreme Court decision, which followed from the odious Dred Scott v. Sanford decision prior to the Civil War. There are proposals for reparations to living African-Americans. See Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act. Excerpt of Congressional preamble:
See, as well, article in Duke Chronicle, an independent new journal at Duke University, Should there be reparations for African Americans?

Excerpt:
African-Americans are hardly the only group to suffer serious and crippling discrimination.

As detailed in Mormon History (link)the Mormons were driven from Palmyra, New York to Pennsylvania, to Ohio, to their own city, Nauvoo, Illinois. During that era, Joseph Smith, their leader, was murdered in jail. The Mormons then relocated, finally, to Utah. Persecution of them was abundant, and vicious.

The Mennonites fared somewhat better, but have also been persecuted. See Mennonite History Is Marked by Persecution.

The Jews' history barely needs retelling. David Nirenberg’s excellent book, Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition, reviewed here in Tablet Magazine and here in the New Republic discusses this baleful history. He explains that much of the hatred was directed at theoretical Jews by people who had never met a real one. The Pharaohnic hatred of the Jews led them to create a parallel myth to the Exodus story, to the effect that they gave the Hebrews the boot, not the other way around. The Holocaust is extremely recent and devastating. One-third of Jews were executed. Many more fled, and lost their property in the process.

The issue of reparations is a delicate one. The Jews received some compensation, by way of West Germany making some payments to the State of Israel as a result of the Holocaust. There have been settlements in some civil actions brought by victims and their immediate descendants for property plundered by the Nazis. These payments were to actual living victims of actual living persecutors. Aside from these payments by the German government to some Jews, and the Jewish State of Israel, reparations are rarely paid, for reasons I consider to be good. Not everything in life can be fair.

I come out against reparations for historical acts. Neither the victims or the perpetrators are alive. The people who suffered slavery will never be recompensed. The people who administered the lashes will never be punished for their cruelty.

The people receiving this unearned lucre have, by and large, never experienced Jim Crow, residential or educational segregation. The people paying taxes to fund the reparations have never, by and large, done anything wrong.

In short, reparations are the punishment of the blameless for the benefit of the uninjured.

Click to expand...

Reparations are for Slavery, not discrimination. In theory, certain families and the US, in general, benefited from free labor. So, they owe back-wages plus interest. That tab should be a few trillion dollars by now.

calamity said:

Reparations are for Slavery, not discrimination. In theory, certain families and the US, in general, benefited from free labor. So, they owe back-wages plus interest. That tab should be a few trillion dollars by now.

Click to expand...

Except that presents another set of problems. Blacks were on all sides of the auction block - buying, selling, and being sold. And let’s not forget that the legal precedent for chattel slavery in the colonies was set in a case brought by a black man who wanted to own another black man as personal property. There’s shared culpability here.

ashurbanipal said:

Really? I don't think so--not in its essentials. It is literally fiction in that I have not killed the poster to whom I was responding or enslaved his children or grandchildren--and I have no intention of doing so. But of course that's hardly anything to do with the point; were the situation I described actually to obtain, the fair and right thing to do would be to figure out how, and how much of, the property currently held by my progeny should be redistributed to his. The reason it would be fair is due to an obvious abstract moral principle with which the vast majority of us agree: a thief shouldn't be allowed to profit from his stolen goods. The profits, as well as the stolen goods, belong to the people from whom the thief stole.



None of that is relevant. What you're talking about is the complexity, after so many years, of putting things right. For that reason, if no other, I'd agree that it's very unlikely we ever will put things right. That doesn't mean that leaving them as they are is the right thing to do.

Taking merely the example of your family, how much did the slave-owning side contribute to the overall wealth that now exists in the family? How much was passed down from one generation to another, and how was it used? In practice, it would be very difficult to figure out. But that has nothing to do with whether or not it would be right to do it.



You'll have to spell this point out a little more clearly. It doesn't seem to me that I invoked group rights or debts. Not all black people currently in this country are descended from slaves. It probably is safe to say that all Indians are descended from people whose lands and property were stolen. But that they are members of some group (descended from slaves, Indians) is incidental. What was violated, and what continues to be violated, are their individual rights, and you are certainly correct that some are descended from those who are more responsible than others. At the same time, I don't think there can be much doubt that most, if not literally all, people of European descent in this country benefited in some way from either slavery or the genocide and displacement of Indians (the very fact that there are white people here in this country is sufficient proof for that).

But why would that mean that people of European descent living now are guilty? My five-times great grandchildren in the example aren't guilty. They may not even be aware that their wealth was due to my crime. That doesn't mean that removing their wealth, or as much as is determined is due to my initial crime, is not the correct thing to do. It is still the correct, and morally right, thing to do, and not a punishment to them. Taking something away from someone who never should have had it in the first place is not a punishment.

Click to expand...

well that is the fly in the ointment isn't it? you will never prove that issue one way or another.

calamity said:

Reparations are for Slavery, not discrimination. In theory, certain families and the US, in general, benefited from free labor. So, they owe back-wages plus interest. That tab should be a few trillion dollars by now.

Click to expand...

feel free to prove that-slavery was abhorrent but in some cases, slaveowners actually were "paying" their slaves more than employers were paying their employees. Why not collect reparations from those who actually captured people and sold them to the traders?

TurtleDude said:

feel free to prove that-slavery was abhorrent but in some cases, slaveowners actually were "paying" their slaves more than employers were paying their employees. Why not collect reparations from those who actually captured people and sold them to the traders?

Click to expand...

Because admitting that Europeans entered a slave market pre-dating their entry by nearly 1,000 years would ruin the narrative that cartoonish Europeans were running around the African continent bagging blacks.

Nap said:

I think the issue with the idea of reparations (aside from collective guilt being immoral) is that the wealth generated by slavery is already gone. Wealth typically only lasts 3 generations so any person you could trace back to rich slave owners likely had a break at some point in their family tree of coming from nothing especially considering in those days it was typical to have 5+ children so that wealth gets diluted rather quickly.

Click to expand...

You'll have to back this claim up before I'll believe it--or rather, more perspicuously, you'll have to show why it's correct to show that it's applicable. Be careful here--I think I know what you're referring to, but if so, it's not relevant in this case.

Nap said:

There is likely not a single person in America currently living off of or possibly even helped by the fact that several generations ago their ancestors were slave owners.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The land that slaves cleared in the south and on the eastern seaboard, for example, is still cleared (for the most part) and people are living there. People own the land, and profit from owning it.

Nap said:

The other issue is that only 20-25% of households had slaves (the average for the nation as a whole, some states had more than others)

Click to expand...

But everyone who purchased cotton during that time at a price that didn't reflect the cost of a wage benefitted from slavery. Ditto sugar cane. Ditto other food items. And so on.

Nap said:

so not only would you have to determine if someone's ancestors were here during that time period and if they were here were they a slave holding family? So who do you go after for that wealth? Do you punish all white people?

Click to expand...

You, like TD, are talking about the practical complexities of actually setting things right. While I agree those complexities will actually keep us from ever setting things right, that doesn't mean that things are right as they are. The OP makes a moral claim--reparations are wrong because they punish people who committed no crime. I'm pointing out that first, there clearly is a wrong that survives to this day in the form of the poverty many blacks and Indians face, and second, that it would be no punishment to take something away from people who never should have had it to begin with.

Nap said:

If so, it is highly likely you are punishing someone that is not only innocent by the fact they aren't responsible for the actions of their ancestors but for the majority you are punishing them for the actions of other people's ancestors. In virtually every way the concept of reparations is not only immoral but more likely to increase racial tensions rather than bring people together.

Click to expand...

If I unwittingly purchase a bunch of stuff--expensive stuff--from a pawn shop that turns out was stolen from you, and the police show up at my house after tracking it down to take it all back, would you listen much to me if I said "hey, I didn't steal from you. You're punishing me by taking your stuff back."

I doubt very seriously that you would. That's because taking it back from me is not a punishment. I would have recourse to go to the pawnshop and demand my money back, and they in turn could demand the money they paid from the thief they gave it to. Nothing in principle prevents us from doing such a thing today with what was stolen from individuals in minority groups. In practice, I would agree that it would be so difficult as to not be something we could feasibly do.

But that doesn't mean that people of European descent haven't benefitted from their ancestors' crimes, and similarly, that the descendents of those wronged aren't suffering undue harm from those same crimes. This is a moral argument, not a pragmatic one. I am only concerned to prevail on the moral issue. If I were today made dictator, I would not embark on a program of stripping white people of their goods and shipping them back to Europe--for pragmatic reasons, not moral ones.

Napoleon said:

Because admitting that Europeans entered a slave market pre-dating their entry by nearly 1,000 years would ruin the narrative that cartoonish Europeans were running around the African continent bagging blacks.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything?

ashurbanipal said:

What does that have to do with anything?

Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it. We’re talking about awarding money on the basis of race for an institution they both created as a legal institution and actively participated in as slavers themselves. And if you want to punish someone then you need to look to the African continent because the only reason the trans-Atlantic slave trade existed is because Africans were selling Africans.

I have just checked Wikipedia.

President Reagan in 1988 signed a bill that awarded $20,000 to each survivor of the camps where California's Japanese (both citizens and non-citizens) were interned for the duration of World War II.

Reparations were paid to 82,219 people.

I feel that this was the correct thing to do.

TurtleDude said:

well that is the fly in the ointment isn't it? you will never prove that issue one way or another.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that it never will be done, in the sense that, if I'm making a prediction about what's going to happen in the actual world, I predict things will never be set right. But I do hope to impress those who think there is a moral problem with doing so that there is no such moral problem. There are many pragmatic problems. As I said just now to another poster, if I were somehow made dictator today, I would not embark on a program of stripping goods from those who, in the moral framework I have sketched out, benefit from the crimes of their, or someone's, ancestors. I wouldn't do so not because to do so is morally wrong, but because it couldn't feasibly be determined who would owe how much to whom.

Speaking as a Mvskokee Indian, I'd be happy if people stopped thinking that black and brown people are all poor because they're lazy, or stupid, or what-have-you, and started recognizing the history and understanding it from the point of view of the people who suffer from it. And really, that's what most of my people want. We recognize we're never getting koosa back (basically, modern day Georgia and South Carolina). And I forgave, as did most of my people, long ago the crimes committed against us. All I want is for people on the other side of the equation to see things from our side for a change. And the only thing that I want to come out of that, the only practical change I want to see in the world, is for that kind of injustice to never be perpetrated again.

Napoleon said:

It has everything to do with it. We’re talking about awarding money on the basis of race for an institution they both created as a legal institution and actively participated in as slavers themselves. And if you want to punish someone then you need to look to the African continent because the only reason the trans-Atlantic slave trade existed is because Africans were selling Africans.

Click to expand...

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about sending money to people in Africa, or the moral rightness of doing so. If we were talking about paying money to black people as a race, we'd have to send money to people in Africa, the Caribbean, South India and Sri Lanka, etc. Reparations, were they to be paid, would be paid to the descendants of slaves in this and other countries. And if it were done fairly, some Africans would be contributing to those funds.

So, yeah...your point only serves to show who should be included in the group of the blameworthy. Not anything to do with the moral rectitude of making reparations.

ashurbanipal said:

You'll have to back this claim up before I'll believe it--or rather, more perspicuously, you'll have to show why it's correct to show that it's applicable. Be careful here--I think I know what you're referring to, but if so, it's not relevant in this case.



I disagree. The land that slaves cleared in the south and on the eastern seaboard, for example, is still cleared (for the most part) and people are living there. People own the land, and profit from owning it.



But everyone who purchased cotton during that time at a price that didn't reflect the cost of a wage benefitted from slavery. Ditto sugar cane. Ditto other food items. And so on.



You, like TD, are talking about the practical complexities of actually setting things right. While I agree those complexities will actually keep us from ever setting things right, that doesn't mean that things are right as they are. The OP makes a moral claim--reparations are wrong because they punish people who committed no crime. I'm pointing out that first, there clearly is a wrong that survives to this day in the form of the poverty many blacks and Indians face, and second, that it would be no punishment to take something away from people who never should have had it to begin with.



If I unwittingly purchase a bunch of stuff--expensive stuff--from a pawn shop that turns out was stolen from you, and the police show up at my house after tracking it down to take it all back, would you listen much to me if I said "hey, I didn't steal from you. You're punishing me by taking your stuff back."

I doubt very seriously that you would. That's because taking it back from me is not a punishment. I would have recourse to go to the pawnshop and demand my money back, and they in turn could demand the money they paid from the thief they gave it to. Nothing in principle prevents us from doing such a thing today with what was stolen from individuals in minority groups. In practice, I would agree that it would be so difficult as to not be something we could feasibly do.

But that doesn't mean that people of European descent haven't benefitted from their ancestors' crimes, and similarly, that the descendents of those wronged aren't suffering undue harm from those same crimes. This is a moral argument, not a pragmatic one. I am only concerned to prevail on the moral issue. If I were today made dictator, I would not embark on a program of stripping white people of their goods and shipping them back to Europe--for pragmatic reasons, not moral ones.

Click to expand...

The flaw in your premise is the mistaken belief that the actions of past generations are the reason for people currently in poverty. Millions of people of all races have come to this country and worked themselves out of poverty, blaming past indiscretions for your current predicament is simply a self fulfilling prophecy as you fall into a victim mentality. There is a simple formula that translates into escaping poverty that can be easily applied to any race and that is to graduate high school, not have kids out of wedlock, and get a job.

As far as that wealth being gone, the current economic situations in the states that were heavily leveraged on slavery is a pretty good indication. If slavery was such a profitable endeavor that created lasting wealth then Mississippi wouldn't be the poorest state in the country. As far as European descendants benefiting from it, my parents literally started with nothing (as did I) and worked our way out of poverty. Maybe none of my ancestors were slaveholders and this is why I was never afforded this "white privilege" but for the vast majority of people I know the same is true for them as well and considering 50% of households in Mississippi were slaveholders if it were such a benefit that wouldn't be the case.

ashurbanipal said:

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about sending money to people in Africa, or the moral rightness of doing so. If we were talking about paying money to black people as a race, we'd have to send money to people in Africa, the Caribbean, South India and Sri Lanka, etc. Reparations, were they to be paid, would be paid to the descendants of slaves in this and other countries. And if it were done fairly, some Africans would be contributing to those funds.

So, yeah...your point only serves to show who should be included in the group of the blameworthy. Not anything to do with the moral rectitude of making reparations.

Click to expand...

I think his point wasn't about sending money to Africa but Africa sending money to Black Americans as they were the ones that captured their ancestors and sold them into slavery.

Edit: Nvm, it seems you were agreeing with him. The way it was worded about sending money to Africa confused me.

JBG said:

I described it as "some compensation" since it was far less than the direct cost of resettlement of now-destitute displaced persons plus the value of the property plundered from both the deceased and survivors.

Click to expand...

Well yeah because it would be physically impossible to make up for what the Nazis did in material compensation (which would involve literally resurrecting 6 million+ people from the dead). A vast majority of people know this.

TurtleDude said:

feel free to prove that-slavery was abhorrent but in some cases, slaveowners actually were "paying" their slaves more than employers were paying their employees. Why not collect reparations from those who actually captured people and sold them to the traders?

Click to expand...

Lawyers don't go after people who have no money.

calamity said:

Lawyers don't go after people who have no money.

Click to expand...

well that is a good point actually but no one living today has any viable connection with anyone involved in the slave trade.

When Reagan Righted FDR's Wrong
Carl Cannon, RealClearPolitics