Reparations are Unconstitutional!

When and if those persons are shown to exist, their descendants should have some financial culpability for the illegal profits of their ancestors during that time period.

Ahem....not in MY book. What the (%*#&@( are you thinking? Let's just think about where that leads. My greatgrandpa bought land from your ancestor at a price way below the worth.....You could claim he was cheated and I would be held responsible. Completely ridiculous you say? Requiring descendents to pay back a debt they did not incur is insane. Now, if it is a living reletive that passes away and you recieve a direct benefit, then you must make good on any debts against that persons name. But we are talking about people who never met the CHILDREN of the people commiting the crime. How far back can you demand reparations?

I would end up paying for this somehow even though I (and my forebearers) had nothing to do with it. Goverment pays out....that's my tax dollar. Individuals pay out.....it will affect thier buisnesses, spending ability etc etc.

The problems of the black community will not be solved with a little cash. ti's too far gone for that. The effects are not going to change the lives dramatically for the better. Reparations are wrong. It's been publicly announced..."we are sorry" "slavery is wrong" etc etc and it is crammed down our throats nonstop that to demean a black person is to be racist and evil. (even though they might just be a jerk in their own right)

Sigh. give it up already. I got nothing from my predecessors except a tendency of obesity and heart problems. I'm not complaining about the involuntary servitude my original immigrant ancestors had to pay. I got a job, saved some money and tried to better myself, by myself. No whining about how someone was mean to my daddy back in the day.

When and if those persons are shown to exist, their descendants should have some financial culpability for the illegal profits of their ancestors during that time period.

Sorry, the sins of the father are not the sins of the son.  I totally agree with lifehappens on that account!

And check your article here:

http://gideon-macleish.joeuser.com/articleComments.asp?AID=112513

this disgusting practice is being done by race baiters and race haters such as jesse {gimmee money to shut me up} Jackson, AL { i need another cadillac} sharpton to continue to make the blacks think they are somehow less than... and should be paid,I will not give one thin dime to anyone that thinks the burden there great grandfather and grandmother caried somehow entitles them to get paid.

Hmmm, Moderateman, how do you feel about Switzerland repaying the assets seized from Jews during WWII? How about Germany paying for the slave labor used to start their auto factories? You think Porsche, Volkswagon and Audi should get away with what they did? These companies delayed justice, should we just say "Okay, you win?"

Ah, more current issues. In the above cases, the suits were brought by survivors or their immediate relatives. But not all the reparations suits are related to slavery in the US. How about the Tulsa Riot of 1921? A whole neighborhood was destroyed, 150 people killed and property stolen. The National Guard helped the looters.

Murders were committed in the US in recent times and the states turned a blind eye. They deserve civil penalties.

Hmmm, Moderateman, how do you feel about Switzerland repaying the assets seized from Jews during WWII? How about Germany paying for the slave labor used to start their auto factories? You think Porsche, Volkswagon and Audi should get away with what they did?

2 Different issues. 

Switzerland?  That was stolen and can be proven.

Germany, and their slave labor?  Sorry, that goes back to the reparations.  Unfortunately, they are going to be forced to.  But under the law at the time, they did nothing wrong.

Judge the rulers, not the ruled. And I know I am going to get a poop full for that.  But sorry. Life is a set of rules.  Retroactive application of new rules is never in order.

" Hmmm, Moderateman, how do you feel about Switzerland repaying the assets seized from Jews during WWII?

If the Jews in question are alive, or they have undisputed heirs, of course they should to hand it over.

How about Germany paying for the slave labor used to start their auto factories?

If the government enslaved the people, and that government is still in power, then the government has an obligation to make good for the crime in question. If the current government can't be held criminally liable for the historic act, I find it difficult to understand how they could be found civally liable just to make a symbolic gesture.

You think Porsche, Volkswagon and Audi should get away with what they did? These companies delayed justice, should we just say "Okay, you win?"

"Companies" are made up of people. People who aren't party to a crime shouldn't be held responsible for the crime. If you punish the modern Porsche, you aren't punishing an entity, you are taking assetts and income away from people NOW, who had nothing to do with slave labor.

The Nazi government in question ceased to be, and a new one replaced it. If there are executives alive in Germany that are criminally or civilly liable for their acts during WW2, fine, do whatever the law allows to them. To punish a business, though, is to punish everyone that works for it, the vast majority of which probably weren't even alive during WW2.

In terms of the US government, did it own slaves? Did the government put them in chains, did it ship them here? Unless the wrongs were committed by the government, I don't understand how the I am liable, being a single unit of the government in question as a represented, tax-paying citizen.

So, people who never took part in any act of slavery will be giving money to people who were never slaves...

When they demand reparations, they are simply knocking on your door, and asking you to give them money because of what happened 150 years ago. If anyone here feels personally responsible for slavery, feel free to pony up out of your own account. Taking the accumulated money of taxpayers who had no part in slavery, though, is simple theft.

The people who call for reparations for slavery are theives, grifters, leeches who want to continue squeezing a system that showed weakness to them out of misplaced guilt. People who have done something wrong should feel guilty. The rest of us owe them nothing.

P.S. If you want to blame anyone on the Right for this, we should start with Darling Ronnie Reagan who paid money to Japanese who were interned during WW2. People who want reparations for slavery always cite that example.

Again, I don't think what was done to the Japanese was right, even though the leaders in question had their ways of validating it. Perhaps had they taken the reparations by raising taxes on people who were alive and citizens of the US while the internment was going on, it might have made sense. Punitively punishing people who weren't even alive at the time seems crass, and just an evil to cover a separate one.

Sorry, the sins of the father are not the sins of the son.

Your Bible claims different.

But, in reference to the article, is there actually any legitimate movement afoot to award reparations to the descendants of slaves?  Is it a real issue?  The modern 'civil rights' movement has pretty much shot itself in the foot over the past couple of decades, and this idea of reparations is pretty much dead on arrival.  The constitutionality of the idea is a moot point, but it serves two purposes:  the first purpose being to keep black folks thinking that they are owed something; the second being to give reactionary crackers something to bitch about. 

Personally, I'm more concerned about the current state of wage-slavery in this country, which is something that affects humans of all skin tones. 

Reply By: Larry KupermanPosted: Wednesday, April 19, 2006Hmmm, Moderateman, how do you feel about Switzerland repaying the assets seized from Jews during

apples and oranges larry..

Your Bible claims different.

Sorry, you have me confused with others.  Better get your bible thumpers in order, and your religious bigotry better informed.

"But, in reference to the article, is there actually any legitimate movement afoot to award reparations to the descendants of slaves? Is it a real issue? The modern 'civil rights' movement has pretty much shot itself in the foot over the past couple of decades, and this idea of reparations is pretty much dead on arrival. "

I spent a couple of hours watching the "state of the black union" deal they have every year when it was aired on CSPAN. About every notable 'leader' in the movement was there, there were legislators, there were academics, there were the activists, there was even Harry Belafonte, who I found to be pretty impressive, believe it or not.

I heard a lot promoting reparations, and I heard next-to-nothing opposing the idea. The feeling I got was that reparations are due, but it is futile to expect them from the apathetic/fatcats/white devils, etc. (label dependant on the ideas of the folks in question.)

Maybe someone can pull up polls on it, but my take is that it is a widely accepted belief that they are owed, but that America is too corrupt to hand them out. If anyone has proof otherwise, I'll gladly entertain it.

Movements afoot, legitimate otherwise:

Link Millions for Reparations site.

Link Farmer-Paellmann suit.

The thing that is often misunderstood about reparations is that they are not primarily PUNITITIVE, they are to REPAIR an injustice.
I feel of two minds about this, however, I do enjoy debating with BakerStreet and the others here.

A corporation is defined as "a legal person that exists quite separately from the natural persons who work with and for it." So, if a corporation steals or benefits from theft, including theft of services, and that corporation continues to exist, it is as if the thief himself was being asked to make repairs for their actions. In many cases, townships and even states are incorporated entities.

Tell me this, if a person is not allowed to keep the fruits of a crime and a government or other incorporated entity is a legal person, then doesn't it follow....?

And BakerStreet, when money is involved, no heir is ever undisputed.

But my main question is this:  is there a legitimate movement for reparations?  Are there bills in congress?  Yes, of course black leaders are talking about them, but who are these black leaders?  Jesse Jackson?  Al Sharpton?  Louis Farrakhan?  Those names are the most prominent and also the biggest jokes within the civil rights movement as it is today.

Harry Belafonte?  You're scared of the "Banana Boat Song" guy?  You think he's going to make some sort of difference on this issue?  Didn't we just spend an entire election cycle talking about how celebrities make poor spokesmen for politics?  Michael Moore and Tim Robbins didn't make any difference in 2004 and they were talking about current issues -- so is Harry Belafonte, a has-been, going to make any difference talking about an issue that isn't current, won't be current, and has never really been current?  The only groups this issue matters to are militant blacks, who have seen their fortunes fade and decline with the rise of people like Tookie Williams, and militant whites, who haven't seen their fortunes increase in the last 50 years at all.  The David Duke crowd is bitching about reparations, not any sane conservative.  Al Sharpton is bitching about reparations, not any sane liberal.

Who are these leaders, legislators, and activists?  Cynthia McKinney?  The Rainbow Coalition?  Who are the academics?  Noam Chomsky?  They've all been marginalized, don't you see?  This issue has been most effectively marginalized.  It doesn't really matter if I'm for reparations or not for them (I'm actually not for them).  Reparations had their last bit media hurrah when Dave Chappelle made fun of them on his Comedy Central show about 2 years ago.  This isn't a real issue anymore, if it ever was.

As for Dr. Guy's Bible, he might be able to explain Deuteronomy better than me.  The book, does, in fact, make a contradiction of itself.  In Deuternomomy 5:9, it speaks of disobedience to God being visited on "the third and fourth generation."  Later on, in Deuteronomy 24:16, it says that fathers shall not be put to death for the sins of their sons, nor sons for the sins of their fathers.  He can, therefore, have it both ways -- those sins deemed worthy can be punished up to the fourth generation, but those not deemed so will not be upon anybody's head but the sinner.  If there's a different Bible I should use, then point me to it, friend.

This isn't a real issue.  It's an issue that comes about because white people get scared that there are people of another skin tone that might supplant them.  With all the worries over immigration today, it's no wonder that some scared crackers are fearful of being held accountable for the crimes of their race. 

Of course, if the Libertarians are correct, then any and all people who exist in this country are free to use its goods and service without government regulation.  The government that regulates any human is an oppressive, anti-Libertarian government.  No reparations, and no breaks for white people, either.  That is, of course, if one is a true Libertarian.

Cheers.

"A corporation is defined as "a legal person that exists quite separately from the natural persons who work with and for it.

Troublingly, though, it is also a business owned by stockholders who WILL be punitively effected whether or not the result is intended this way. Feel free to point out how you can punish a "Corporate Entity" without the collateral damage to the people who own and run it. Besides people, what is there?

Let's say you sued a company because your grandfather was, say, accused of stealing, and the result was his career was ruined, and he lived as a low-end workman the rest of his life. You find proof that he didn't actually steal anything. Could anyone here imagine, for half a second, a civil court paying YOU?

What's your argument? That your life isn't nearly what it should be because your father didn't start off with the economic prosperity he should have, and therefore neither did you? That seems to be the crux of the argument for paying people who were never slaves. No one can say whether the grandfather would have invested it poorly, gambled it away, etc. Heck, he might not have even left it to his son.

In addition, it is a "Your grandfather hit my grandfather with a brick, so now I get to hit you with a brick" mentality. That doesn't smooth anything over, it creates new wounds. Jews in Germany sue for huge sums, German stockholders and employees suffer, and low and behold... another reason to be mad at the Jews.

This doesn't help anything. If someone is sitting there with proof their stuff was stolen and is sitting somewhere else, then by all means they deserve it. If someone was abused by another living person, then they should seek restitution for their suffering. You can't soothe the dead by profiting off of their suffering.

I think it is cute how Myrrander has to use the snide "you're a big chicken" thing over and over when he wants to pan people who are justifiably miffed. Sure, reparations are silly, but lets focus on you for being frightened of Harry Belefonte. If I didn't know better I'd call that testosterone... but I do...

Lol... Noam Chomsky? Errr... is there anyone whiter than Noam Comsky? The person I had in mind when I said that was Cornel West.

Cornel Says:



"Only a white man could call Noam Chomsky a 'black academic'!"

(Fear his funky kungfu skills)

while i'm also unsure whether there's some recent event inspired gid's article, i gotta say i'm all in favor of recapturing all reparations paid to families of anyone other than emergency personnel who died in the wtc attack on 911 (survivors of pentagon military personnel shoulda received whatever compensation due the families of any other combat casualties).

i didn't fly those planes. i didn't employ any of the victims. even if i did, why should i--or you or anyone else except their insurers--have to pay their families millions in reparations, especially millions in presumed lost earning. for all i know, half of em were a day away from degenerate crack addiction.

i thought chomsky was a lot older...and yet that looks like a recent photo.

The Libertarian party has come out against reparations, which may be the source of Gideon's complaint. Reparations are NOT a punitive measure, so Ex Post Facto arguments are not applicable. No one is suggesting arresting and bringing to trial some old Southener who owned slaves "legally" before the Civil War, as far as I know. The "Unconstitutional" argument is specious in this instance.

Here's an article explaining Ex Post Facto for anyone who wants to learn more: Link

However, reparations have long been a part of American policy. Allowing Native Americans to run casinos on land given them (given BACK to them might be more accurate) is an example of positive reparations. The US is currently paying reparations to the families of Japanese Americans for losses that occured during World War II.

At the end of the Civil War, land was ceded to slaves. Remember the "40 acres and a mule" lesson from history? Much of this land was stolen shortly thereafter.

Here is a good article on reparations for slavery that is, I think, fairly unbiased: Link

BakerStreet, your argument about who owns corporations that benefitted from illegal acts doesn't hold water for me. It smacks of "We stole it fair and square, now we get to keep it." If shareholders invest in a company that engaged in immoral practices (I think slave labor would get consensus as being "immoral") then they may have to pay. Johns-Manville sold the US Government asbestos for the Liberty ships of World War II, poisoning thousands of men who volunteered to work on those ships. Company documents showed that they knew it would cause cancer and asbestosis for anyone that worked with it. A court found them liable forty years later. Yes, some innocent shareholders suffered a loss in stock value. But the debt to the families of the men that the company killed outweighed the loss in stock value. Thats what courts do, they mete justice.

If I steal your money (or land or property) and hold on to it for forty years or two hundred years or whatever, the original wealth and accumulated interest should still be yours.

Ahem....not in MY book.

If someone broke the law AFTER slavery was repealed, then their estates SHOULD be liable for that law breaking, in my opinion. Obviously, someone's not going to go after $25 from Farmer Joe's estate, but if a large corporation made sizable profits AFTER the repeal of slavery because the law was broken, that corporation should not be above responsibility for their actions, provided the descendants filing can PROVE that their DIRECT LINE ancestor worked for that corporation during that time period.

Reparations are NOT a punitive measure, so Ex Post Facto arguments are not applicable.

Actually, ex pos facto laws HAVE been held to apply to certain civil cases as well, Kupe.

However, reparations have long been a part of American policy. Allowing Native Americans to run casinos on land given them (given BACK to them might be more accurate) is an example of positive reparations. The US is currently paying reparations to the families of Japanese Americans for losses that occurred during World War II.

Actually Larry I think you'll find that we do not allow them to run casinos. They basically are a nation unto themselves including having their own law enforcement. This much I do know. Regular law enforcement is not even allowed on the reservation unless they have been asked to come. And as far as the Japanese go....I think you'll find we're only paying those that were here in America that suffered losses when we unceremoniously dumped them into the camps.

...and there's a supreme difference between paying people who are wronged, and paying the grandchildren of people who are wronged who haven't been wronged. The people asking for reparations haven't done any unpaid labor, and there's no way in a court of law you could prove that your state would be any better had your great, great grandfather not been a slave.

Kupe's opinion is one that is pretty widely held, but I think making more victims is counterproductive. There's a basic need to right wrongs, even when there's no way to ever really compensate for them. That need can become so great that you are willing to do harm to innocent people to accomplish it.

I have no doubt you can point to numerous instances where people were willing to punitively fine people who are guilty of nothing, and I am sure there are a lot of people who would feel comfortable taking their money from them. I'm not one, and I don't believe for a second that anything is served by stealing more money in the name of the original evil. Two wrongs do not make a right.

To bang on and on on the idea that this isn't punitive is silly. Of course it is punative. Slaves weren't owed wages, and owning them was legal. The only possible reason for this is to "correct" an imbalance in wealth, taking wealth away from person x, who doesn't deserve it, and giving it to person y, who does.

If you don't think it is punitive, consider someone walking up to you on the street, showing you a check your great, great, great grandfather bounced, then seizing the money from you. It's idiotic. If we aren't liable for the debt, then the only possible reason to ask us to pay it is for moral reasons.

To take money from us, when there is no possible way of showing a legitimate, quantifiable debt, in the name of a moral statement because of a previous wrong, is punitive. Under every other standard there would be no way we'd owe anything at all.