|
Grex > Agora41 > #49: Black Reparations - the new legal approach. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 79 responses total. |
senna
|
|
response 25 of 79:
| 
Apr 2 03:59 UTC 2002 |
Good question. Let's see if the legal system wants to try.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 26 of 79:
|
Apr 2 04:30 UTC 2002 |
Re #8: My mother's father was a share-cropper, too.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 27 of 79:
|
Apr 2 06:29 UTC 2002 |
Re #23: excuse me, I am a white liberal and I have NOT defended reparations.
You injure your arguments by telling lies.
|
senna
|
|
response 28 of 79:
|
Apr 2 07:02 UTC 2002 |
Uh, I never said that all white liberals support reparations. The language
is metaphoric.
You sound like leeron, by the way. :)
|
bru
|
|
response 29 of 79:
|
Apr 2 13:05 UTC 2002 |
And I have met a few white liberals who support reparations.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 30 of 79:
|
Apr 2 15:22 UTC 2002 |
At least senna was using the old "trick" of trying to insult "liberals"
by insinuation. I don't understand why illiberals don't realize that
being liberal is a matter of intense pride, and those trying to use
the term as an insult are only talking to each other, not realizing
how dumb they sound.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 31 of 79:
|
Apr 2 15:50 UTC 2002 |
Please let's not go barking up that tree. It's really not worth it. There's
a real issue here, and it's not how to describe Rane's political affiliation.
<devil's advocate>
A lot of people have essentially said "all the slaveholders are dead --
why should their ancestors pay?" But there's another way of looking at
it. This lawsuit isn't targetting individuals, and it isn't targetting
the government -- it's targetting corporations. And a corporation, as a
single legal unit, can be held liable for its actions even when no
individual can be found to lay the blame on. What's wrong with that?
</devil's advocate>
|
oval
|
|
response 32 of 79:
|
Apr 2 16:36 UTC 2002 |
i personally support reparations, but not in the form of money or reverse
racism. i fail to see how those could be considered 'reparations'.
|
jp2
|
|
response 33 of 79:
|
Apr 2 16:39 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 34 of 79:
|
Apr 2 17:26 UTC 2002 |
Re #30:
http://www.non-sequitur.com/index.php3?previous=1&inday=11&inmonth=3&inyear
=2002
|
brighn
|
|
response 35 of 79:
|
Apr 2 18:18 UTC 2002 |
Rane, I'm siding with senna on his language here. He referred to "white
liberal defences" which I interpreted as "defenses by white liberals," i.e.,
those white liberals who defend reparations. I thought he was referring to
a subset of white liberals, not white liberals in toto.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 36 of 79:
|
Apr 2 18:52 UTC 2002 |
Then he needed to insert "some" in the description. That, of course, makes
the statement rather pointless, as "some" of all pollitical persuasion
support or object to reparations.
Re #32: we can talk about "reparations" unless there is a definition. I
thought the definition was cash. Let's make the definition cash.
|
oval
|
|
response 37 of 79:
|
Apr 2 18:54 UTC 2002 |
ok, we can make it cash - but how the hell does that fix anything?
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 38 of 79:
|
Apr 2 19:21 UTC 2002 |
"Reverse racism" does not exist. It's a silly political ploy that's
being touted by Anti-Affirmitive action groups and many others. Racism
is racism.
By far the best apology or manner of "reparations" that one could give
to groups that have suffered under oppression of any kind is to learn
why these things happen and work against it happening again. It may
sound basic, but sometimes the basics make the most sense. It's
unfortunate that this is likely not to happen within our lifetime.
|
brighn
|
|
response 39 of 79:
|
Apr 2 19:32 UTC 2002 |
#36> the "white liberal" was an adjective. Adj+Noun does not imply that all
Adjs are Nouns, or that the Nouns in question apply to all Adjs. Consider:
"white rap music sounds commercialized"... that doesn't mean that all whites
listen to/make rap music, it means that the rap music which is listened
to/made by those whites who listen to rap music sounds commercialized.
the implication is that defenses which are made by those white liberals who
make defenses about reparations are qualitatively different from defenses made
by other people who make defenses about reparations.
For instance, I could write, "Religious Right arguments against abortion are
steeped in religion, a clear violation of Church and State." I'm not saying
that all Religious Right people are pro-life, I'm saying that those who are
and who make arguments against abortion rely on religious arguments which are
irrelevant in a secular state. I'm implying that there are some anti-abortion
arguments, made by non-Religious Right people, which are not based on
religious arguments which are irrelevant in a secular state.
So I continue to disagree with you, Rane.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 40 of 79:
|
Apr 2 19:33 UTC 2002 |
This did happen, at least at one level. Stavery was abolished, so they
all gained their personal freedom. If what came afterward were universal
recognition of individual rights and no discrimination, I doubt there
would be any call for reparations now. The reparations issue seems to
be a demand for reparation for *current* oppressions, but using arguments
based in historical oppression.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 79:
|
Apr 2 19:39 UTC 2002 |
#39 slipped in.
|
brighn
|
|
response 42 of 79:
|
Apr 2 19:40 UTC 2002 |
Because current oppression is nearly impossible to quantify, and therefore
sue on.
(Stavery? People used to use other people as walking sticks? ;} )
|
slynne
|
|
response 43 of 79:
|
Apr 2 19:57 UTC 2002 |
Cash wont fix anything. I am not sure how I feel about reparations
beyond that it seems very very impractical to even try to figure out
who owes whom what although as a white person who obviously wont
benefit from any such lawsuit and as one who likely wouldnt be hurt by
any such lawsuit, I mostly feel indifferent to the idea. Hey, if folks
want to sue, let them. It doesnt mean that they will win and win or
lose a lot of important questions will be answered. The process itself
is valuable.
|
jp2
|
|
response 44 of 79:
|
Apr 2 20:02 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
oval
|
|
response 45 of 79:
|
Apr 2 20:07 UTC 2002 |
did the jews sue IBM?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 79:
|
Apr 2 20:12 UTC 2002 |
There was indentured servitude at one time. That mostly involved white
people, but for all practical purposes some slaves were in effect
indentured servers and treated extremely well, especially in wealthy
circles. I wonder if any of them lost their jobs because of abolition
of slavery? They could sue the descendents of Lincoln for that.
|
glenda
|
|
response 47 of 79:
|
Apr 2 20:23 UTC 2002 |
Maybe I should demand reparation and demand that you all go home and give my
people back the lands you stole from them. Not only were their lands taken
but their children were forcibly put into boarding schools far from home where
they were punished if they tried to speak their native language. Their hair
was cut, they were forced to wear different clothing. Every thing that
reminded them of who they were and where they came from was removed.
As late as 1976 Native American women were involuntarily sterilized. Women
were told that their babies had died at birth and the children were adopted
out.
This is not centuries removed from today. It is still going on. Most Native
Americans still live on Reservations (a sort of imprisonment). They are more
often the victums of hate crimes then other ethnic groups. There are Native
American leaders being held as political prisoners in US prisons. Yet you
almost never see anything about any of it in the media.
|
slynne
|
|
response 48 of 79:
|
Apr 2 20:30 UTC 2002 |
I think most Native Americans will want to keep a close eye on the
outcome of this case.
|
oval
|
|
response 49 of 79:
|
Apr 2 20:33 UTC 2002 |
maybe even all 17 of them.
|