Should the US pay reparations to African-Americans? (Part III) - Page 23 - Political Forum

MysticPhD · 09-19-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeT

You didn't specify if the damages were awarded for monetary loss or for ill treatment--you're entire argument was based on your erroneous belief that inheritors couldn't sue for reparations based on what their ancestors lost.

Wrong! They cannot inherit ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT AN ASSET!!! There is no generic precedent for awarding reparations to descendants who were not harmed UNLESS they are direct descendants with known assets due to them, i.e., wages or accounts.

Quote:

That was your argument. Changing your argument now does not mean the evidence I offered is 'wrong' or 'faulty' or doesn't disprove your original argument.

You are free to interpet it that way if you wish . . . but my assertion has always been there is no GENERIC precedent for awarding "non-inheritable damages", i.e. loss of liberty, bad treatment, servile status . . . whatever! ASSETS have always been inheritable . . . but a direct line of descent must be validated for them.

Quote:

Second: You have gotten my argument wrong. I have always advocated, from the beginning, that slavery gave birth to segregation, both of which are equally actionable offenses. The U.S. government widened the scope of the damage they inflicted when, upon abolishing slavery, they enacted and supported segregation--through deed. It is for this reason that all blacks (who's grandparents were American citizens, as I have stated numerous times) are due a special compensation for those special deeds that the U.S. government specifically, and especially targeted them with.

And they have been granted same with the Civil Rights Acts and Affirmative Action, etc.

Quote:

I asked you before: what would a "generic" reparations fix look like in your book, since this is what you advocate in place of "specific" reparations.

I had answered . . . but apparently you missed it or didn't wish to consider it. Affordable education as far as their abilities will carry them in whatever institutions (not just academic) their abilities will qualify them for . . . even if it requires government subsidy. Affordable healthcare, even if it requires government subsidy. Affordable housing, even if it requires government subsidy. In short, all kinds of help to help THEM raise their status and quality of life . . . but no handouts.

Quote:

That is merely your opinion, unsupported by the evidence and refuted by precedent. It can be calculated. Recipients can be validated.

As a social scientist, it has more weight than JUST my opinion.

Quote:

As to it being racist--that's your opinion only and again, it's unsupported by precedent. It is no more racist to give Japanese Americans reparations for their internment in concentration camps than it is to give African-Americans reparations for slavery and segregation.

Actually, it is. The internees were actual vicitms of the abuse . . . not centuries removed so-called descendants based on racial identification only.

Quote:

As to it making race relations in America worse--again, your opinion only. You have no proof of this, have offere no evidence that shows the Japenese Americans were more susceptible to racial attack than before reparations were paid. You have no proof that the Jewish who were awarded the Swiss accounts or the wages of slave-labor their ancestore performed, were more susceptible to racial attack than before reparations were paid.

Because they were NOT paid as generic "Jews"(not ALL Jews received reparations) . . . they had to establish specific lineage and entitlement to the ASSETS.

Quote:

You have not offered proof or evidence of any of your positions, while evidence and precedent has actually refuted much of your opinion.

Nothing you have presented thus far does that!

Quote:

I think it's time that you either put your proof and evidence where your assertions are, or you simply concede that you're holding steadfast to your opinions despite any evidence or proof or precedent that refutes that opinion.

There is no evidence or proof or precedent that refutes my opinion.

MikeT · 09-19-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Wrong! They cannot inherit ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT AN ASSET!!! There is no generic precedent for awarding reparations to descendants who were not harmed UNLESS they are direct descendants with known assets due to them, i.e., wages or accounts. You are free to interpet it that way if you wish . . . but my assertion has always been there is no GENERIC precedent for awarding "non-inheritable damages", i.e. loss of liberty, bad treatment, servile status . . . whatever! ASSETS have always been inheritable . . . but a direct line of descent must be validated for them.

Then why do you have any issue at all with the precedent I cited? What is it about the awarding of wages to the descendents of slaves that has you arguing so heatedly against me?

As I said, you changed your argument, as I evidenced.

You're also the one that introduced the need for a 'generic' fix to slavery and segregation, not me--so I fail to see why you're harping about using the term "generic" above. It was your assertion, not mine.

[quote]And they have been granted same with the Civil Rights Acts and Affirmative Action, etc. I had answered . . . but apparently you missed it or didn't wish to consider it. Affordable education as far as their abilities will carry them in whatever institutions (not just academic) their abilities will qualify them for . . . even if it requires government subsidy. Affordable healthcare, even if it requires government subsidy. Affordable housing, even if it requires government subsidy. In short, all kinds of help to help THEM raise their status and quality of life . . . but no handouts.[/quotes]

You mean--they shouldn't get handouts like the Japanese Americans did? Or the Native Americans did? They should just try to take part in the programs set up for poor people?

What if the descendents of slaves don't qualify for that aid?

Do they still deserve some form of reparations?

Or is it only if they're so impoverished?

Do we base the current financial the descendents are in as a measure of whether or not reparations should be paid? Or do we base our assessment of whether or not reparations should be paid based on what financial damages were inflicted because of federal wrong-doing?

Which is justice? If a rich man get's his car stolen, are we just to say "The thief probably needed it more than you did" and leave it at that?

Quote:

As a social scientist, it has more weight than JUST my opinion.

I don't care if your President or the Pope, your opinion has less weight than fact and evidence.

Quote:

Actually, it is. The internees were actual vicitms of the abuse . . . not centuries removed so-called descendants based on racial identification only.

Not quite centuries. And on the slavery issue, there has been little talk of awarding every black person money--it has almost always been about direct descendents. When discussion segregation, or adding that into the mix, that's when the idea of awarding the majority blacks reparations comes in.

I think you're confusing the arguments. I also think it's rather interesting that you ignored my: Every black American who's grandparents were U.S. citizens statement.

Why did you do that?

Quote:

Because they were NOT paid as generic "Jews"(not ALL Jews received reparations) . . . they had to establish specific lineage and entitlement to the ASSETS. Nothing you have presented thus far does that! There is no evidence or proof or precedent that refutes my opinion.

Maybe you don't think so... but again, that's your opinion.

I would like to see some evidence and proof that does support your opinion.

That would move the discussion a whole lot further, imho.

plporter · 09-21-2007, 12:02 AM

Generally speaking, I think most would agree that blacks do deserve reparations for slavery. As mentioned before, Native Americans, Jews, and Asians all recieved compensation, so why not for blacks (especially when the damage done to blacks was in exchange for the enhancement of the country)? I personally believe this is because America contains and will always contain a resentment towards African Americans. This is partially acredited to the plethora of negative stereotypes given to blacks. In addition, I believe that the resentment is based on a deeper level of shame. America (as an entity), can never escape its horrific past where slavery was not only accepted but prided. To try and turn their head to the fact by not attempting to address and "make right" the issue is a reaction of avoidance. I really think that a claim of "a failing economy" is merely an excuse (a lame one might I add) to further disregard the situation. Really, we barely got affirmative action and look at all of the hell we catch over that.