3/26 With regards to reparations, anyone who receives $$$ should be stripped
of citizenship and forced to return to the country of most likely
origin. These people have benefitted from coming here, despite the
trials of their ancestors. If they take the money then they need
to go back where they would've been as a condition. --dim
\_ i learned everything i know about african history from
the iron maiden album "number of the beast," so i disagree.
\_ Did we send those Japenese-Americans who were paid reparations
back to Japan?
\_ The legal aspects of this case are vastly different. The
reparations was compensation for violation of their 3rd
amendment rights. These people were FULL CITIZENS at the
time thier constitutional rights were abriged. They had
a legitmate legal claim to be compensated for illegal
search and seizure of thier property and possessions
without due process.
In the case of those asking for reparations for slavery,
the plantifs have no case since they were not guarenteed
any rights until the passage of the 13th amendment. (By
the 3/5ths compromise slaves counted as people for census
purposes but were not protected under the bill of rights).
The reparations for slavery have already been paid, in the
lives of the men and women who fought and died in the civil
war, in the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments
and in the end of segreation. That the original intent of
the founders (all men are created equal) is present in
modern america and is as prevasive nowhere else in the world
should be enough for anyone of any race. A handout cheapens
and renders impotent the Freedom and Liberty that has been
gained and defended. - !OP
\_ I'm undecided on the issue of reparations, but it's clearly
ridiculous to claim that slaves have no right to reparations
because slavery was legal at the time. Their claim is about
moral rights. -tom
\_ Moral rights? Property has no moral rights, no rights
period.
period. Yes slavery was a terrible thing, but it was
positive for any of those inititally brought
over... though you raise an interesting
point... I'd be curious to see the
statistics comparing the percentage of
people killed in, or travelling to, the US,
vs. the percentage killed in Africa during
a comparable time frame. And it is only
arguably positive for any ancestors when
you consider the conditions that most
legal when it happened. They have no claim to compensation
because the there was no crime committed. I think that
these people should get on with thier lives instead of
sitting around pretending to be perpetual victims and
childern of slaves. You are what you believe yourself
to be, if you think that you are a victim, you will be.
\_ There's no claim against a slave owner, who was
within the law. There may be a claim against the
government for enacting immoral laws. (The fact
that the government says it's legal doesn't absolve
it of its own moral responsibility). -tom
\_ Legal precident is that the just compensation
of the enactment of a immoral law is to repeal
the law in question. As the laws in question
have been repealed, there is no basis for this
suit.
\_ That's overly simplistic. It's not only
that the law was immoral, it's that it caused
damage, and a claim for damages certainly could
have merit. A claim for damage 150 years after
the fact, perhaps not. -tom
\_ [ comment about holocaust reparations being paided
dispite the holocaust being legal at the time time
inadvertently deleted, sorry ]
\_ Reparations paid by eurpoeans to other eurpoeans,
is not sufficient legal precident in the US.
I am talking about crimes commited in territory
where the Consitution is valid.
\_ Uhm, where does it say its a 3rd amendment issue?
\_ Internment was a 3rd amendment issue. JAs had a
legal claim. Slaves cannot make any legal claim
under the law as it existed when they were wronged.
\_ I misread the indenting. Nevermind. Makes sense.
\_ maybe. but that was different, it was wartime. wartime rules
are different than peacetime rules.
\_ yeah, fucking people over because it's wartime is somehow
a more outright offense then doing it peacetime. whatever.
\_ Yes, at least there was some rationale in WWII, however
cooked up, for locking up American citizens because
they were of Japanese ancestry. --Jon
and not the euro-boat-people. Think about if the
same things were committed today and you'll see some of
the flaws in your logic.
\_ There wasn't any rationale in any other cases? I'm
assuming that dim's ignorant original comment was
in regards to slavery? Are you trying to say that
there weren't countless "scientists" and philos-
ophers making justifications for why it was ok
to enslave brown people all around the globe? - rory
\_ Excuse me, but I think that if you think about it
you will find my comment enlightening. Has slavery
helped or hurt the people in question? --dim
\_ I have thought about it, and I never said your
post wasn't enlightening... It is enlightening
of the fact that you are ignorant and/or
racist. Are you really trying to argue that
slavery has had a net positive effect on
Africans brought to America? - rory
\_ It certainly was a net positive for their
descendants (they live in a prosperous society
vs whatever african shithole they originally
came from), and it may have been a net positive
for some of them (in a sense that they would
have been executed as POWs in some tribal war
otherwise, or perhaps died of malaria).
\_ wow when did david horowitz get a CSUA account? - danh
\_ It's a net negative - hundreds of years
of slavery, crappy lives up till the
the Civil Rights movement. And it is
the black people themselves who
stood up, fought for their rights, and
made better lives for themselves.
Incredible to see rightwing fuckheads
talking out of the their arses and
trying to give credit to the slave
traders for what is good in the lives
of today's African Americans.
\_ Excuse me but the civil rights movement
was a Republican agenda item. You still
have sheet/hood wearing ex-KKK members in
Congress right *now*. Thanks for adding
your biased agenda driven bit of weak
historical revisionism to the motd.
\_ Yup, Abraham Lincoln was black.
\_ That Abe was a good man doesn't
negate the fact that it was a net
negative. As for standing up for
themselves, I am referring to the
Civil Rights movement, not during
the Civil War period.
\_ Oops, sorry.
\_ Are you kidding me?? It certainly *wasn't*
positive for any of those inititally
brought over... though you raise an
interesting point... I'd be curious to
see the statistics comparing the percentage
of people killed in, or travelling to, the
US, vs. the percentage killed in Africa
during a comparable time frame. And it is
only arguably positive for any ancestors
when you consider the conditions that most
blacks were living in for the larger part
of the last century and a half... and the
fact that I'm sure that almost all brought
over were perfectly content, and that most
tribal warfare was caused by colonizing
countries anyway.
\_ The evil Westerners made the poor
africans fight each other? What, they
have no free will? Do you have a source
on this last point? People often forget
that 'people of color' can be just as
nasty as the blackest (whitest?) western
imperialist pig-dog.
\_ This is always the stupidest argument
put forth.
\_ People also often forget that
European countries. If you
disagree, feel free to go
home.
before colonization, and subsequent
"development" by former colonizers,
Africa did not consist of formal
nation-states at all, but rather
loose tribal nations. These coexisted
in relative peace (compared to how
things are now). Now you tell me
what all this "tribal warfare" is
about... - rory
(Hint: details of the arbitrary
borders imposed on the continent,
and who gets to be the recipient
of all the western development
money.)
\_ Talk to the British and their Euro
allies about the fucked up borders
created in Africa to intentionally
cause chaos and worsen tribal
warfare. This was not an American
action. We were a bunch of total
world nobodies when this all went
down. The historical revisionism
on the motd is sickening. If you
can't make a point without the
outright *lying* then you don't
have a point and should go away
and shut the fuck up. Thank you.
\_ This whole subthread is
pointless. That US is better
than African nations is
besides the point. US is
also better than all the
European and Asian countries.
If you disagree, feel free to
go home.
\_ That argument assumes the slavers knew
that the slaves would be better off in
the new world. Since tens of thousands
died enroute and tens of thousands died
at the hands of their owners, this would
be a very poor point to make.
\_ We have benefited from them being here too. Should we therefore
go back to wherever we came from?
\_ Of course we have. That is why we are paying them. Then they
need to leave. --dim
\_ You shell out my $9m and I'm outta here! Be glad to go!
\_ To, say, Nigeria? Doubt it.
\_ have you any idea what $9m can buy in NIgeria???
\_ I'm off to the slums of eastern europe where my peoples
came from... *with* my $9m bucks! Gladly. As soon as
that money clears I'm soooo out of here.
\_ No, I think dim should go back to where s/he came from, but
dim's money stays here. That's more fair.
\_ I totally agree that reparations are impractical when both the
criminals and the victims are long dead. In the case of
Japanese-American internees, it made some sense since the
the reparations were paid to actual victims. Having said that,
it's kind of funny when you see people so ready to draw a
line between themselves and the crimes committed by their
ancestors, and in the very next breadth, they want to send
other people "home" because these people's ancestors came later
then their ancestors, seemingly saying that they have more
right to be here simply because their ancestors came earlier.
\_ I only want to send the people home who want the money, not
all of the "victims". Capiche? --dim
\_ First their "home" is here. Second, then those who
"benefited", the perpetrators/benefited should leave
unless they pay. but you can argue that is all of us in
some way, even those who just arrived yesterday. However
you a very confused if you argue that their
descendants are better off. You are mixing up your idea
"of going home" with reparations. You are missing the
big picture. If their ancestors were not exploited
and perhaps let to live/work/immigrate freely they
may have been the ones running the country today
\_ hahahhahahahhah! yeah right!
\_ michael jordan, oprah
and not the euro-boat-people. In any case, you cannot
put a condition onto people because Americans are free to
live where they want to. Think about if the same
things were committed today and you'll see some
of the flaws in your logic. It does not follow.
They are not related. That said, I agree reparations
are not going to work. The only thing possibly more
un-feasible is your plan!
\_ thank you...
\_ Even if both parties were alive, the claim would be on a poor
legal footing. They're seeking reparations for something that
was legal at the time. I suspect that such reparations would
be deemed unconstitutional on an ex-post-facto basis.
\_ Doesn't matter if it was "legal at the time".
\_ Of course it does, duh. Go look up the "ex post facto"
concept. Jesus Christ some people around here are so dumb.
\_ You can argue it but ex post facto does not matter
\_ It was legal to keep innocent men behind bars
but after they are freed, they still sue.
\_ WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN????!!??!???
\_ I FEEL YOUR PAIN! I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN! I DID
NOT INHALE! IT WAS NOT AN ASPIRIN FACTORY!
\_ CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!?
\_ IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO RAISE A CHILD! |
http://csua.com/feed/