|
Grex > Agora41 > #49: Black Reparations - the new legal approach. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 79 responses total. |
bhelliom
|
|
response 50 of 79:
|
Apr 2 21:09 UTC 2002 |
Great, then where the hell does that leave everyone who's half this and
half that? Does that mean I have to leave if I'm less than one-eighth
and not recognized by the tribal nation with which I claim common
ancestry?
In all seriousness, Glenda has a good point. It's very interesting how
the civil rights movement seemed to include everyone but Native
Americans.
Not that anyone else hasn't thought this already, but this, "my plight
is more serious than yours" business is bullshit. And I am sure that
most of what has been said in that direction is partially in gest.
When you come down to it how much worse is being confined to barely
farmable land and forced to wear hair and clothing differently, exposed
to disease, forced to refrain from speaking their indigenous languages
than being kidnapped, tightly or loosly (ie "less tightly) packed on
shipps for months on end, traded and sold, force to abandon ancient
religions and language. While some of the tactics were different, the
ultimate reasons behind them and the results were the same. That being
said, how can people not understand why people do these things. It's
not just about needing to "get over it." If people weren't subjected
to oppression today, it's doubtful that they would be so focused on the
past and choose to take legal action.
|
slynne
|
|
response 51 of 79:
|
Apr 2 21:35 UTC 2002 |
I think part of the reason that the African American civil rights
movement gets more media attention than the American Indian movement
has a lot to do with organization and leadership. Everyone thinks that
their own plight is more serious than other group's plights because
that is just human nature. If it is happening to you, it is more real
to you.
|
jazz
|
|
response 52 of 79:
|
Apr 3 01:13 UTC 2002 |
It's also a very large minority with immense political and economic
power simply by dint of the fact that there are so many people in it; smaller
minorities in America simply don't have as much voice in a democracy.
The term "reverse-racism" also bugs me, but I don't think that it's
just anti-affirmative-action types who use the term; partially it's a
reaction to the whacko-liberal assertion that only those in the statistical
majority can be racist. It doesn't agree with any definition that I've seen
of the word, but there are people who belive you can't be racist - no matter
what you think, say, or do - if you're not white. I usually just translate
it to "racism" in my head before applying judgement.
When it comes to focussing on the past, I think that's mostly human
nature. It's becoming increasingly hard to tell whether a failure is because
of a personal problem or because of racism; one could not be hired because
of race and never know about it because a statement will never be made to that
effect, and one can be not hired for reasons of background and inverviewing
style and believe it racism. That leaves a very murky area which people tend
to interpret as they see fit, and many seem to choose to see fault in others
before fault in themselves.
|
klg
|
|
response 53 of 79:
|
Apr 3 01:13 UTC 2002 |
re: "#43 by (slynne): Cash won't fix anything." -- It might for the
lawyers who become millionaires as a result.
|
senna
|
|
response 54 of 79:
|
Apr 3 03:51 UTC 2002 |
"Once Again" Rane has shown an astonishing ability to completely miss the
point. Should I bother explaining?
I don't know. I should probably take the chance to mention to Rane that I'm
a bit more liberal than he seems to think I come off online, but that's
because it's so much fun to tweak him for his hypocritical high-horse hubris.
Just too easy to pass up.
Let's look at a few things. First, let me use a hypothetical personal example
of what the problems could be if corporations were used as scapegoats for past
wrongs, just because they're there. Suppose Ford had to pay out significant
funds in reparation (yeah, yeah, they're not a likely target, but it's just
an example). The impact on the company results in a downsizing effort that
eventually leads to the closure of a plant and a reduction in white-collar
staff. My mother, descendent of Italian and Lebanese immigrants, loses her
job in the downsizing. My dad, if he's alive at the time, loses the insurance
he so desperately needs to combat cancer. His role in slavery and racism?
As an immigrant from Canada, with Ancestors in Canada at least back into the
early 19th century, can't take the blame. However, both are punished.
The plant, by the way? Gene Dubliewicz, third generation plant worker and
great-granchild of Polish Immigrants, also loses his job, and his family is
forced to sell the house and move to a small condo in Romulus. He naturally
sees the reparations as the direct cause of his unfortunate situation, and
angrily places blame on....
The cycle continues.
Where is the big social movement to pay reparations to Hispanic-Americans,
who for the most part are in as bad financial shape as African-Americans?
Where are the reparations for years of American exploitation of Latin America?
As mentioned, Native Americans are certainly the most striking example of the
social-goodwill movement that isn't. It *should* be meaningless, because our
society *should* be looking at a larger picture that earnestly tries to
improve the status of the millions of our brethren who are mired in low
incomes. Sympathy should be based on class rather than race, but in a heated
political climate that is far more concerned with image than with reality,
we have a long way to go.
Both political parties are, rather than acting to improve the situation as
they claim to believe, making things worse.
|
jp2
|
|
response 55 of 79:
|
Apr 3 03:51 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
senna
|
|
response 56 of 79:
|
Apr 3 04:01 UTC 2002 |
The point is discussion.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 57 of 79:
|
Apr 3 05:14 UTC 2002 |
Re #54: well, you do jump up and down and shout "kick me", and it being
around 1 April, it is hard to decline 8^}.
But I don't see what point I am missing of what you are asserting in
#54: I have no argument with paragraphs 3ff. My argument is with the
attempt to falsely tar a political class.
|
senna
|
|
response 58 of 79:
|
Apr 3 05:44 UTC 2002 |
Heh. A political class, yeah.
You're still missing it a bit. Think "symptoms." Too bad the patient doesn't
want to know what they have.
|
fitz
|
|
response 59 of 79:
|
Apr 3 11:30 UTC 2002 |
I've read a repeating argument that reparations are a problem because
employees of the defendant corporations might be downsized in order to pay
what a court awards. The moral extension of this seems to be that
compensation for damages is a wrong if non-culpable employees suffer economic
instability as a result.
Would not this reasoning suggest that awards be limited to what corporations
feel they can pay and remain in fiscal good health?
Is this a compelling reason to dismiss the suit?
|
senna
|
|
response 60 of 79:
|
Apr 3 14:02 UTC 2002 |
This is business we're talking about. If you ask them how much they can
afford to pay, they will all say "zero."
|
bdh3
|
|
response 61 of 79:
|
Apr 3 14:08 UTC 2002 |
No, the compelling legal arguement would be that the actions being
sued over were not illegal at the time they occured. Now what
judge is gonna wanna be the focus of the shitstorm that would
follow and rule that?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 62 of 79:
|
Apr 3 19:03 UTC 2002 |
More to the point, the argument in #54 paragraph 3 could apply to any lawsuit
against any corporation. Any successful lawsuit could lead to innocent
employees suffering. And ridiculous as many lawsuits are these days, it's
still better to have the ability to sue when you've been wronged.
|
fitz
|
|
response 63 of 79:
|
Apr 4 09:49 UTC 2002 |
OK, good then. Then the question is in regard to #61, that slavery was not
illegal.
Would you consider being kidnapped, held against your will and forced to labor
an injury? Even if no statute prohibits slavery, the act constitutes a tort.
If you are injured, can you seek compensation for damages? How many beatings
by managers would you take before you went running to court? Remember,
slavery is one of those situations where you don't have employment at will
principles in effect: You're not going to get a job elsewhere.
|
jp2
|
|
response 64 of 79:
|
Apr 4 14:08 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
fitz
|
|
response 65 of 79:
|
Apr 5 00:00 UTC 2002 |
At-will employment is a superfluous issue and I regret mentioning it. The
hypothetical situation is that you are a slave and your labor is against your
will. If you do not work, you are not fired--you will be forced to work.
Are you not injured?
|
jp2
|
|
response 66 of 79:
|
Apr 5 02:59 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
fitz
|
|
response 67 of 79:
|
Apr 6 15:32 UTC 2002 |
Ok. You never received a blow from that sweet master, but you've lost your
liberties and obviously wages. If ever there were a reason for making a
person a slave, it is to fully exploit the excess of the slave's labor by
paying them nothing.
Consider this: Would you feel injured if someone perpetually took your wages
right out of your hands before you could ever spend those wages either for
your family or for yourself?
Would you feel resentful that the company keeping you in slavery reaps a
benefit from your labor and thrives as you bear an unjust burden and decline?
When it is all over, the slave has nothing and the company has enhanced it
fiscal health at the slave's expense. Furthermore, whereas the slave's life
ends at some point, the excess of his labor continues, indistinguishable from
any other investment, providing resources for the company.
Would your surviving family feel robbed? Would your descendants feel cheated?
Were those companies unjustly enriched?
|
oval
|
|
response 68 of 79:
|
Apr 6 22:37 UTC 2002 |
oh shit - think I'M a slave!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 69 of 79:
|
Apr 7 03:51 UTC 2002 |
Reparations would, of course, have to be allocated in the proportions
of African (slave) and Non-African (non-slave) DNA in each recipient.
|
jp2
|
|
response 70 of 79:
|
Apr 7 07:22 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 71 of 79:
|
Apr 7 14:45 UTC 2002 |
Re #69: That would only be true if only full-blooded Africans were
slaves, which is not the case. Sally Hemmings is a counterexample.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 72 of 79:
|
Apr 7 17:29 UTC 2002 |
Then the difficulty is increased, as we must determine the exact mixture
of DNA in each potential recipient that "lived" as slave or non-slave
in the time of slavery, regardless of ethnic origin. Otherwise there
is no way to implement a reparations policy fairly.
|
brighn
|
|
response 73 of 79:
|
Apr 7 19:14 UTC 2002 |
#72> If it turns out that 40% of my ancestry owned slaves, 20% of my ancestry
were slaves, and 40% of my ancestry was independent of the entire thing, how
do I write the check, and do I get part of it back?
|
senna
|
|
response 74 of 79:
|
Apr 7 22:01 UTC 2002 |
You have to file a three page return to get it back. With waivers and family
trees attached in triplicate. Don't forget your thumbprint and photo ID,
either.
|