A clever lawyer recently filed class action suit against three US
corporations.  The theory is that all 35Million blacks in the US
represent a class that was 'damaged' by the actions of the those
companies vis-a-vi slavery in the past.  One railroad, one bank, 
and one insurance company are the test case targets.  This gets
around the 'sovereign immunity' that the US government has and
is simply the 'jesse' (jackson, not james, at least james had
the honesty to hold someone up using a pistol) approach done on
a national level and larger scale.

Like many clever lawyer tricks it sounds reasonable on the surface
to many.  Ignoring the obvious legal problems what do you think?

79 responses total.

I wonder if I, on the basis of one of my remote ancestors who was of 
the Mound People of the British Isles, can sue the British government 
for reparations because the Mound People were displaced by the Angles, 
Saxons and Jutes.  I still feel their pain.  It seems reasonable to me 
to assume that what should have been my traditional way of life, living 
as an aborigine on a hill near where Windsor Castle is now, was 
disrupted.

Ahem.

I think it's preposterous to sue anyone because some of your great-
grandparents suffered.

It'll be interesting to watch.  Ask folks whether blacks should be a big
pile of money as preparations for slavery, and i'd guess that a large
majority would say "hell no!"; ask folks how long after somebody robbed 
THEM blind and used 'em as slave labor it'd be before the robber/slaver
legally owned his ill-gotten gains and they or their heirs had no rights
to it, and a large majority would say "not even after hell froze over".

Obviously, the two sentiments don't fit together outside of a "might
makes right / because I can get away with it" morality. 

For even more legal fun, there's all the Native American issues....

I'm curious about which companies have been targeted.  I think I heard
something about an insurance company that sold policies and then denied
claims; if fraud could be proved, and specific victims identified, suit would
be reasonable.

Certifying a class should be very difficult in this instance.

        Well, there really is theft occuring here;  I'm sure that there are
white families which are now rich because of the slave trade hundreds of
years after, and I'm positive that there are black families that are poor.
Problem is, reperations at this point are likely to cause so much chaos by
forcefully moving money, that they stand a good chance of doing much more
harm than good, and that most reperation schemes would charge the descendants
of a Northern war hero or a recent Korean immagrant the same as a
slave-holder.

My mother used the occurrence of a particular slave's name in several
different documents to link branches of her family through four states, so
it would seem that I am the decendant of a slave-owner.  I'm not rich; I
certainly couldn't support the descendents of that slave today (assuming
George had any).  From other documents, I suspect that slave didn't live much
more poorly than the rest of the family, so I don't know that you could
convince me reparations are even necessary, in his case.

The people involved are all dead.  The real world beckons.

Ah the clever tricks a lawyer can pull.

Watch me pull all the money out of your pockets.

Hm.  Legal and money arguments aside, there are still social problems today
which were caused by slavery.  The African slave trade took people away from
their culture, forbade them their religion, and broke up families.  That's
not too many generations ago, either, and if you count such opressive
practices as share-cropping it's even less.

There are still problems caused by the breaking of treaties for 
American Indians, too.  Some descendants of Japanese-American families 
could make a case for an ongoing loss stemming from their round-up and 
incarceration from WW II.  Irish people were a second class at the turn 
of the 20th century.  If this lawsuit goes through, there's no telling 
where it will end.  We're probably all entitled to reparations for 
something or another.

It's impossible to correct wrongs to one's remote ancestors.  Also, 
it's unfair to target just a few companies.  The entire civilization 
had these problems; these companies were just living in the times in 
which they existed, just as we all do.

#2> Explain, then,  why many blacks are indifferent, and even opposed, to such
legal actions.

#0> These lawsuits are unmitigated bullshit. It's been over a hundred years.
There are many blacks who, because they immigrated, were not victims. There
are many whites who, becuase they immigrated, or weren't rich themselves, were
not guilty (only a portion of people owned slaves, after all).

I do not believe any reparations are due for slavery to those living today.
What is due is a social climate that does not discriminate on the basis
of ancestry. 

Such a social climate will not be attained through capricious lawsuits. Such
lawsuits will not serve to "educate," they will serve to driv ethe racial
wedge in deeper through bitterness.

I would not be surprised. But, given the social climate, and how long it
has been discriminatory, it is not surprising that some radical actions
are taken by some. It has a little of the flavor of the Palestinian
frustration. Can you understand some of the oppressed striking out
in not very rational ways, given the provocations?

I can empathize, but I can't sympathize. I could sympathize if nothing had
changed, socially, in the last 150 years. But blacks have made a *lot* of
progress. Recall this is coming in the wake (unintentional) of blacks winning
both Best Actor Oscars. Our Secretary of State is black. This Olympics saw
the first time a black received a gold in the Winter Olympics, and she was
American. Yes, it's a slow change, and Detroiters more than most can see the
continued impact of racism, with a still-clear line between black
neighborhoods and white ones. But these lawsuits are capricious and
counterproductive.

        There's still a - much less slightly - stacked deck, however, due to
the institution of slavery in the past.  The change here is that nowadays we
expect an unstacked deck, a condition which has never existed throughout
recorded history, and are looking to redress the wrongs of the past that quite
simply weren't wrong when they were committed. 

        If we do redress this wrong, however, let's be fair about it and
redress other wrongs, such as the economic discrimination visited upon the
Chinese and Irish, and those families that lost potential wage-earners due
to having to fight the South.

Re #14: you named a few "poster cases" of blacks in high places.  Now, how
about the other 25,000,000, or so. Every black that is not hired because
of his color cancels one Colin Powell. 

Of course the lawsuits are "capricious and counterproductive". But
desperate people do despeerate things. It is the same with the
Palestinians, although not yet at that scale, and at least through the
legal systgem.

#16> Does every white that is not hired because of thier color cancel on
Geroge Bush? Under Affirmative Action, many whites get passed over for job
that they're more qualified for for less-qualified blacks.
 
And where *does* it end? Can I sue businesses throughout Europe for
capitalizing from the Inquisition?
 
Let's just sue God because life isn't fair. I'll be his lawyer, and Rane can
show due shock when He actually shows up in court. ;}

I don't know the full list of companies involved.  I seem to recall the 
ralroad CSX (used to be the "Chessie System") being one of them.  
There's also an insurance company that used to provide insurance to 
slaveholders for the value of their slaves.

The problem is that American culture has been sharply defined by the 
black-white issue.  That is the reason why this mention 
of "reparations" usually conjures up black Americans pushing for 
compensation for past wrongs.  While it is true that other groups have 
suffered under a repressive system--coolies from East and South Asia 
being a prime example and one of the closest examples to slavery that 
you could get--few other groups--in the US, that is--where stolen from 
their homes, and, as Scott has mentioned, stripped of their identity. 
And, yes, a few people touted as examples of greatness in no way 
compensates for the number of those struggling day by day.  Quite 
frankly I think most would be a lot happier if the Colin Powells were a 
lot more commonplace.

Having said that, there's certainly no way to redress what took place-- 
no price would be high enough if you take into account what happened 
and what consequences people suffer because of what occurred.  Putting 
a price on it cheapens it, for lack of a better way to put it.  And 
this national attention on such an issue tends to make some assume that 
every black person out there is pushing to receive reparations of some 
sort for the "wrong done to their ancestors."  Those that are suing 
are, for the most part, those that have the luxury to bitch and 
complain about their supposed lot in life, and how it is due to the 
actions of those long dead.  Those folks should pay more attention to 
the problems in their communities, give back to those that made them 
who they are, work to improve the neighborhoods they grew up in, rather 
than try to make a statement.  It is extremely doubtful that my 
ancestors, one of whom was the inspiration for Uncle Tom's Cabin, were 
hardly interested in suing for monetary compensation or even passage 
home.  Survival was much more important.  Ancestors of blacks in this 
country are the ones who deserve compensation, not the host of us in 
the here and now.

Another rhetorical question: Are there any plans to sue the companies that
actually *SOLD* the slaves, wholesale? Those "companies" were primarily
Africans selling their POWs. Until those seeking reparations are willing to
go after the producers of the goods, fellow blacks, I'll doubt their sincerity
in actually correcting a wrong, unbiasedly.

Very interesting observation there, brighn.  Makes a lot of sense.

hear hear

If we want to right all wrongs, where do we start?  Where do we stop?  How
do we decide what's a "wrong?"

Perhaps we should analyze every African American's bloodline to determine if
they'd be better off if they had stayed in Africa.  Do we need to go to these
lengths to clarify what the effects are and aren't?  Do we need to keep
perpetuating this bullshit separation of races?

Honestly, white liberal defenses of reparations are everything that is wrong
with the liberal mindset today.  A vacuous promotion of "righting wrongs"
without any real thoughts to what will solve problems and improve life in the
HERE and NOW.  "Ooh, here's an idea, let's help those unfortunate black people
by giving reparations for the wrongs done to their ancestors."  Pat yourselves
on the back and drink some Green tea in a nice suburban cafe and congratulate
yourselves on "doing your part" to help the little guy, while the problems
not only continue but increase as the gulf that divides races in our society
grows.  

The causes for today's social problems are far, far too complex for anyone
who actually takes a good look at the situation to believe that piecemeal
bandages will solve anything. 

This is completely illogical.  C'mon, think about it for a second.  If African
Americans are entitled to reparations for actions that are generations in the
past, shouldn't Jews be entitled to reparations for the Holocaust?  Would we
bill the German government, since it was Germany (sort of) that murdered so
many?  Or perhaps we should bill American industries that did business with
the Nazi government, take money away from American companies and American
workers, some of whom are owed reparations for ancestors lost in the war that
stopped the holocaust.  Let's bill the auto companies, one of whose founders
was a noted anti-semite, and then let them bill France, who is greatly
indebted to them for their considerable material support to the war effort.

Better yet, let's just scrap this whole idea and let the races fight it out.
Everyone would get chance to extract a penalty from those who have wronged
them. It's certainly the best strategy in Israel, so why not here?

        I'm really not sure how to compare the experience of an Irish man
forced by grinding poverty to choose between sailing to America on a coffin
ship or starvation and an African man captured in battle and sold by another
tribe to the Triangle trade.  I'm really not.  How do you attach a differing
dollar amount to that?

Good question.  Let's see if the legal system wants to try.

Re #8:  My mother's father was a share-cropper, too.

Re #23: excuse me, I am a white liberal and I have NOT defended reparations.
You injure your arguments by telling lies.

Uh, I never said that all white liberals support reparations.  The language
is metaphoric.

You sound like leeron, by the way. :)

And I have met a few white liberals who support reparations.

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. 

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>

i personally support reparations, but not in the form of money or reverse
racism. i fail to see how those could be considered 'reparations'.

This response has been erased.

Re #30:

http://www.non-sequitur.com/index.php3?previous=1&inday=11&inmonth=3&inyear
=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.

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.

ok, we can make it cash - but how the hell does that fix anything?

"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.

#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.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss