*Could* A Slave Sue for Reparations?

[noiretextatique]

Please tell me how 3/5ths of a person could compel corporations or any government to pay reparations for her enslavement?
The slaves are dead, but can anyone convince me that those people had a chance in hell of receiving reparations in their lifetime? How about their children...or their grandchildren?
I tell you now...you will never convince me.

Here's the bottom line of the issue, imho:

Do people who were enslaved deserve reparations? If so, why shouldn't their decendants sue on their behalf, given that other forms of institutionalized racism limited the ability of their children, and their grandchildren to do so?

Hypocrisy, thy name is AmeriKKKa.

[noiretextatique]

1. waiting...

for a discussion that goes to the heart and the truth of this matter.

[radwriter0555]

9. The truth of the matter is that NO GOVERNMENT is named as a defendant

in the suit.

So who gives a flying crap if some ancient corporation is sued over archaic practices?

I believe that the descendants of slaves are indeed owed monetary compensation for the crimes committed against their ancestors, absolutely.

But I also am just watching from afar to see how it all plays out since it has nothing to do with my money, my ancestors, my corporations or holdings in such. I find it almost interesting.

But not quite.

[noiretextatique]

12. i find it very interesting, actually

and it think it will prove to be about a lot more than you think.

[DrWeird]

2. Nope.

Neither could their ancestors until about thirty years ago or so.

There's plenty of good reason to sue for the Jim Crow laws and there are still a lot of victims alive.

But I expect nothing will happen until they are all dead, and then all the racists and their apologists will say, "but you can't sue, since it happened a long time ago and all the victims are dead."

[strategery blunder]

5. Which is why I think they should sue over Jim Crow instead of slavery

nt

[DoNotRefill]

3. Unless there's legislation enabling reparations....

they're never going to happen.

Most suits in court would be quickly dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. 140 years is too long for a cause of action to survive. You've also got "corruption of blood" issues going on. You can't hold descendants liable for the actions of their ancestors.

[noiretextatique]

6. what about the victims?

is there a statute of limitations on genocide?

[forgethell]

8. I'd say

that 100 years would be about the top limit. By then everybody would be dead. Victims & victimizers alike. I'm not sure, but don't they hold unsolved murders cases open that long? Seems like I read that somewhere.

In any case, politically it just ain't gonna happen.

[DoNotRefill]

11. There's no statute of limitations on murder...

and they don't go back and "close" unsolved murders. But it's a practical impossibility to get a conviction in a murder case that's over 100 years old. While cases like "Jack the Ripper" are still technically open, it's not an ongoing investigation, if you know what I mean.

[forgethell]

47. I stand corrected n/t

[NoMoreRedInk]

54. That's the criminal statute of limitations. Reparations would be a civil.

matter and they have different limitation lengths. Most are 1 year, but some are more.

[DoNotRefill]

10. At least one problem...

is that both the victims and the wrongdoers are all long dead. If the actual people involved were still alive, you certainly could go after them for things like crimes against humanity. But go after their descendants? I doubt very seriously that it would work, or that it SHOULD work.

I know that there's a lot of sentiment that we should relax the SoLs in "just this one case", since it was so outrageous. Unfortunately, that one case is also called "precedent". Barring legislation, I don't see the courts overturning several hundred years of black-letter common law.

[noiretextatique]

15. like the laws that made slavery and jim crow possible and legal?

as i recall, those laws were in effect for a long time...they were overturned also.

[DoNotRefill]

18. How were those laws overturned?

Slavery wasn't outlawed in the courts, remember Scott v. Sanford? It took the 13th Amendment to outlaw slavery.

Similarly, Jim Crow was outlawed based upon the reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. Jim Crow was a complete abrogation of the 14th Amendment, which was allowed to stand for a disturbingly long time. But the root of disposing of Jim Crow was the 14th Amendment, not a judicial ruling. Somebody on the courts finally actually sat down and READ the 14th Amendment.

Barring some form of legislation allowing the Statute of Limitations to be relaxed in this case, there's no legal root to base such a decision on.

[noiretextatique]

19. the point is...eventually there was change

if it takes a constitutional amendment...then so be it. i can't argue technical legal issues (cause i don't know them), and i don't think they are relevant. as to the statute of limitations issue, i think it speaks to the heart of the matter. should the decendants of slaves be penalized because the rules, laws, traditions, etc. prevented their foreparents from suing themselves? it seems to me that this is the crux of the matter.

[DoNotRefill]

21. If there's enabling legislation....

then my main legal problem with reparations disappears.

Other issues remain. For example, would African-Americans who emmigrated after slavery ended be eligible? What happens to the descendants of pre-war free African-Americans? How about African-Americans that are white? Would white Americans who emmigrated to the US after slavery and Jim Crow ended be held liable? If there were reparations, what would happen to Affirmative Action?

You say:
"i can't argue technical legal issues (cause i don't know them), and i don't think they are relevant. as to the statute of limitations issue, i think it speaks to the heart of the matter."

The SoL issue is very much a "technical legal issue", and, as you say, it goes to the heart of the matter. As such, it's VERY relevant. some would say it's dispositive.

[noiretextatique]

23. i think i addressed it

SOL, that is. it's because america was too damn racist...that's why it's take this long for the suits to be filed.

as to the other issues...the case in question is brought by people who used DNA to establish their relationship to specific slaves, so those issues are not relevant to this case.

affirmative action...are you folks serious with this? affirmative action is DEAD...it's in its death throes as we speak. and, 30-40 years of the affirmative action medicine did not cure hundreds of years of the ailment.

[DoNotRefill]

25. OK...DNA....

doesn't that get into the corruption of blood issue? Remember, the Constitution mentions that corruption of blood is a "no-go", even in the most severe cases, like treason.

It's unconscionable to punish descendants for the acts of their ancestors. Such actions were one of the root justifications for slavery back then, that the slaves were "Children of Hamm," guilty of some ancient sin that passed to them through their bloodlines. How is demanding reparations from the descendants of slavers any different? It's just a matter of "yoking" a different group.

If my great grandfather was a plumber who installed lead pipes (which used to be the standard pipes used by plumbers), should I be liable from the descendants of the people who he worked for if they got lead poisoning from the pipes?

[noiretextatique]

26. what's unconscionable

is that slavery was allowed to happen in the first place. what's unconscionable is that this country remained so racist for so long, that a suit like this couldn't be file until hundreds of years after the crime. what's conscionable is the countinued disparities that are swept under the rug as unrelated to the original unconscionable act, and instead are allowed to continue.
what's unconscionable is that we are still having this discussion.

[DoNotRefill]

28. Hindsight is 20/20...

and do two wrongs make a right? Because that's what you're talking about....committing a wrong now to right an old wrong.

[noiretextatique]

33. two wrongs don't make a right

but i don't perceive of reparations as a "wrong." and i do think some punitive and corrective measure is called for to correct the several wrongs that helped create this issue. it's important to correct past wrongs...so that the lesson is finally learned. i hope this case, and others like it, will bring to light continued, and existing issues...and a discussion of exactly who is responsible. it would be unconscionable to place the responsibility for lingering problems on people who are dead.

[pnb]

57. Punitive measures?

The whole point of punitive measures is to punish the perpetrator, which is impossible at this point. Even in a situation with actual defendents suing a corporation for actions during slavery times, it is the clients/customers/employees, etc., of that company who will suffer...people who did no wrong.

And who are you trying to teach a lesson to? And what is the lesson anyway? That slavery was wrong? I don't think that that's a lesson many people need to be taught.

I'm sorry but this post really makes it sound like you just want a concrete official perpetrator of the sins of the past and it doesn't necessarily matter if that/those perpetrator(s) is actually guily or not. It would be just as unconscionable to place responsibilty on innocent people just because they happen to be alive.

[noiretextatique]

60. did you happen to read any of the other posts in this thread?

the concrete, official prepertrator is: the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...NOW. the lesson...you cannot PRETEND the past doesn't explain what happened 100 years ago, 50 years ago...and NOW.

the lesson: ignoring a problem will not make it go away.

[pnb]

68. Perhaps

Although based on some other posts in this thread, I thought we were leaning more towards the current possible case involving defendents suing insurance companies...in which case your explanation of the perpetrator would make that case completely frivolous.

Based on what you said though, how does reparations address the problems you mention? You say ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Very true. But how would this address the problem and solve it.

Ignoring a sore throat will not make it go away but deciding to address it by getting an oil change for your car will not make it go away either. Action just for the sake of action is not only a waste of time but can create even more problems.

[noiretextatique]

69. action for the sake of action...

is not necessarily a solution. as to how reparations will solve current problems...i suppose that's something that will is to be determined. we've had other discussions here that offered some possible solutions, e.g., extra funding for school districts with predominantly black populations. one thing for sure...DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING guarantees NOTHING but a continuation of persistent problems.

[ret5hd]

4. to those who say it is too far in the past...

or that the current day beneficiaries of past slavery are too distantly removed from the act:

if someone steals your car (rather than your life and labor), how many times must it be sold to make the car "clean"? Or, how long must it remain in my garage before I can claim it as mine (or my grandchildrens)?

The way i understand it, it doesn't matter how many times it is sold, or how long i (or my descendants) sit on it, if the police recover it, it is yours (or your descendants).

I have even seen it claimed here that the debt was paid in full with the blood of soldiers. If a police officer is killed in the recovery of your stolen car, does the thief get to keep your car?

Or are you saying that property rights trump all?

[skeptic9]

40. Harm from slavery is NOT all in the past. In fact, FINANCIAL harm ...

... has been growing and accumulating and getting worse every year. Look at racial disparities in wealth, even among families with similar incomes.

Over hundreds of years, generations of African-Americans had little or nothing in the way of discretionary income, savings, land, property, etc. to hand down to the next generation. A major reason is that generations of family members had the fruit of ALL their labor stolen from them at gunpoint. While every other kind of family in America was owning and developing land and accumulating family assets, African-Americans were falling farther and farther behind.

But one thing lawyers know how to do is trace financial assets, even over hundreds of years. Large corporations have records going back to their earliest history. If reparations specialists such as Charles Ogletree (of Harvard Law School) get discovery in a high-profile court case, you can bet really ugly corporate behavior will be revealed to the world, and claims for damages will be proved.

(Dalton Conley's book, "Being Black, Living in the Red: Race, Wealth, and Social Policy in America" starts off with a good discussion of racial wealth disparities. He cites 1994 statistics on a 7 to 1 wealth advantage of Caucasian-Americans over African-Americans and traces it directly to GENERATIONS of slavery and Jim Crow. An excerpt is at http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0520216733/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-3190799-2035919 )

Even before the recent Bush Jobless "Recovery", More recent statistics put the disparity at ELEVEN TO ONE and growing! And its roots can be traced directly to slavery.

So no one should believe anyone who says the victims of slavery are long-dead.

[noiretextatique]

41. thanks so much for this contribution

you've said this far better than i have. generational capital is the term i used for this...and it does explain why the economic disparties are so persistent.

[bleedingheart]

7. my answers

"Do people who were enslaved deserve reparations? " Yes

"If so, why shouldn't their decendants sue on their behalf, given that other forms of institutionalized racism limited the ability of their children, and their grandchildren to do so?"

I wouldn't hold my breath and would receiving those reparations be worth creating a greater divide in society?
If everyone agreed to give all descendents a lump sum would it make all the problems go away?

I don't know the answers but my family's lands were taken and they were the property/serfs of Czarist Russia and some left their country and others did not perhaps achieve their greater ambitions...should I receive compensation?

When will it be time to move onward and upward toward true social justice?

[noiretextatique]

14. why would receiving reparations "CREATE a greater divide..."

in society? perhaps it would inflame an EXISTING divide, but it certainly would not CREATE something that doesn't already exists.

and again, i would ask you: why?

i think your question about your family is a legal one. but...if you're asking me if your family's tragedy negates other families' tragedies...i would say: no.

"When will it be time to move onward and upward toward true social justice?"

i would like you to answer that question, and tell me why you are asking it.

[bleedingheart]

44. answers

I think it would create a greater divide because unfortunately there are a lot of people who haven't given this issue much thought (unfortunate but true) who would most likely side with the corporations as they would not want to pay higher prices for goods and services in order to pay for a crime that was technically "legal" at the time it occurred.
(It's not that I feel that way but I know it would happen)

As to social justice, personally I think the greater crime today is that a disproportionate number of african americans are in jail and that unemployment rates, mortality (infant as well as adult) rates are all higher ...that is the greater crime and it is happening right now. Would that money from reparations help this problem?

[noiretextatique]

46. it's all connected, no?

as some of us are arguing in this thread, and have been arguing in others. i.e., that current conditions are a the direct result of past conditions.
i find it interesting that some identify more with corporations and slaveowners than with the people who suffered because of them. they have always existed...and we have always trimuphed over them...eventually. this time will be no different.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. Being of a Buddhist leaning...

I believe it would be in the best interest of us ALL to go back and right the multitude of wrongs done to those on whose backs this country was built.

It is simply the right thing to do, and I feel it cleans the karmic slate -- at least a little bit.

I feel some sort of reparation is in order for descendents of those kidnapped and enslaved here, just as I feel all treaties and contracts made with Native tribes should be finally honored by the government.

As to how this would be done -- what criteria would be used to establish damage done and how it would be remedied -- I am still very up in the air about and open to solutions.

[IronLionZion]

24. and we could give back all the land to the Indians

:eyes: and who is going to pay for reparations? My family wasn't in America back then so how am I responsible for what some dead white guys did?

[noiretextatique]

27. unless you are one of the corporations

named in the lawsuits filed on behalf of the slaves found in NYC...you don't have to worry about paying :eyes: and yeah...the indians should get their land back too.

[DoNotRefill]

29. Riiiiight.......

Just like the tobacco settlements hurt the tobacco industry, which simply raised prices to recoup their losses. :shrug:

[noiretextatique]

34. you don't HAVE to smoke

and why do consumers tolerate that practice?

[IronLionZion]

31. I say deport anyone who is not an indian

especially whites.

[noiretextatique]

35. LOL...unfortunately, that's not a workable solution

that group feels most "entitled" to be here, for one thing.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

32. Not necessarily land...

I believe it is high time the government honor the contracts they signed with tribes. Does that mean handing back Oklahoma to the native tribes? No, not necessarily. "Reparations", in the case of descendents of slaves, and honoring treaties, in the case of native tribes could mean a variety of remedies, from financial to educational.

BTW, one side of my family wasn't in the country when all this took place either (the other side was sitting on a reservation), but I would still have no problem paying my share of any finacial remedy from descendents of slavery that would be required.

Because it is the right thing to do.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. This can get so convoluted...

that I kind of wish it would just go away.

No one can deny the horror of slavery, or the lingering effects it still has on Black Americans. But, just what are the damages 21st Century Black Americans are claiming.

Will Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas get checks? Will multiracial people get partial checks? What's Tiger Woods getting out of this? Mariah Carey?

Who pays for the checks to Haitian immigrants descended from slaves, or Hispanic Americans who had a slave ancestor under Spanish rule?

Can it be legitimately argued that after all of the social legislation over the years that a black kid in grad school is owed reparations?

What about the freedmen and ex-slaves who got their 40 acres and a mule? The Black cowboys and businessmen of the old West where your color was secondary to your just being there to work?

I don't argue with anyone who claims that slavery was vastly worse than what any other immigrant group went through, not in the least that it was involuntary and not "immigration," but where do reparations for past evils stop?

(One might note in passing that we're not all that big on giving back Indian lands and money we stole, and one might argue that present day Native Americans without big casinos or mineral royalties are probably in worse shape than present day Black Americans.)

[noiretextatique]

17. speak for yourself

"One might note in passing that we're not all that big on giving back Indian lands and money we stole, and one might argue that present day Native Americans without big casinos or mineral royalties are probably in worse shape than present day Black Americans."

i don't agree with you...at all.

as to your questions: the plantiffs will have to prove their cases, whomever they are. the issues you bring up may or may not be relevant to come cases, but in the case in question, they aren't.

[TreasonousBastard]

45. Here's just one...

site mentioning the dire straits Native Americans are in.

http://aidtac.ruralinstitute.umt.edu/

I have no interest in a pissing contest over who is more oppressed or who should get more assistance, or what caused the present problems. I do, however, see overly dwelling on past evils as counterproductive, since they cannot possibly be corrected.

Whatever the past, it is the past, and it is the present situatiom that must be dealt with.

[noiretextatique]

48. the past informs the present

it's totally false to think otherwise. indians and african-americans are in the state they are in...because of the past. until and when americans stop DENYING that reality...how on earth CAN WE deal with the present? there is an entire industry (the bell curve, etc) devoted to placing the blame for current inequities and disparities on people vs. facing up to institutionalization of disparity and inequity. it's not only tolerated...it's accepted as the natural state of things.
that's the message i hear when i hear "forget the past"...forget about institutionalized inequites...and benefits.
denial of the past...is denial of the present...and the future.

[MadHound]

20. I gave you the answers to your questions in the other thread

And yet you refuse to acknowledge them. Nor will you answer the other questions I posted for you. Why is that? Are the answers ones you don't wish to hear? Are my questions too close to the bone?

[noiretextatique]

22. your questions are irrelevant

but i did answer them. you are saying basically that black people had a sliver of a window to sue during reconstruction, and since they didn't...:shrug: but as to why no suits were brought during that period...or since, until now...i don't think you've ever answered that question.
please...you aren't upsetting me...in the least.

[buddhamama]

30. to answer to your first question

could a slave sue NO!

do slave deserve reparations Yes!
should their descendent's be able to sue Yes!
"Freedom" on the books read well for America but,
any educated person knows that is about as far as Freedom went for former Slaves. 'We' abolished slavery then set about to counter "Freedom" by institutionalizing Injustice.

[Heyo]

36. I say this...

Tell ya what....

I'll give ya a million dollars for every year that you were a slave...

And, and additional 10,000 of my own money for every slave I ever owned.

That should solve it.

Heyo

[noiretextatique]

37. first of all...this isn't about "you" or "me"

it's about a case pending in NY state. any comments on the case, my questions related to reparations, or the issue that aren't related to "YOU?" hint: the tendency to personalize and tivialize issues related to race, and america's abyssmal racial history is a tiresome avoidance tactic that does nothing to address the issue at hand. as i mentioned to someone else, unless you are one of the corporations named in the suit, *YOU* won't be found liable for any damages.
:argh:

why do so many of YOU think reparations is about YOU?

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. while the corporations being sued

may be the same (or ones that bought) corporations that were functioning during the slave trade, I'd think the plaintiffs' problem may be that the corporations did not buy, ship or own slaves themselves (does that go for R.J. Reynolds too? I'm not sure - would they or their predecessor companies have owned plantations?)

Doing business with criminals does not automatically make you guilty of conspiring with them. The corporations may say that they were no different than shipbuilders, port operators, iron manufacturers or anyone else who bought or sold something from slave owners.

The suit against Lloyd's of London has added complications: international law, and Lloyd's is a unique institution in British law: it is really (or was, until recently - financial problems caused some restructuring of it) a collection of individuals who are liable for any losses it incurs (the individuals can go bankrupt if they face too many claims - their liability is unlimited). This may affect the responsibility of present Lloyd's members for past members' acts.

[noiretextatique]

39. they won't win the case

of that i am certain. but i do think bringing the case will open up discussion of all the issues related to the slave trade, slavery in the americas, jim crow, and so on. i think that discussion will prove to be more valuable than the case itself.

[dpibel]

42. A partial answer to the statute of limitation issue

Statutes of limitation are not absolute. For instance, the statute on a minor's claim is frequently tolled until the minor reaches the age of majority, plus the normal limitation period.

Another common tolling provision (which I believe is applicable here) is continuing course of action. If, for instance, you are being defrauded by your accountant, and you do not find that out for ten years, you are entitled to recover for all the fraud, even though 7/10 of it may have occurred outside the normal statute of limitation for that type of claim.

The institutional racism which followed slavery (and which continues to this day -- cf., comparisons of wages and, more importantly, wealth) is part and parcel of slavery and the attitudes it fostered.

Those who blithely argue "I didn't own slaves, and neither did my daddy or my granddaddy" are blind to the wonders of white privilege. Absent a societal assumption that Blacks are inferior, which was an essential part of slavery, and which continue up to the present, there would not be the provable differences in status, income, and wealth.

It's really kind of hard to argue rationally that we should let bygones be bygones when the effects continue.

Perhaps direct reparations is not the best way to address the problem. But the last try at some sort of acknowledgement and correction--affirmative action--met with, and continues to meet with, great anguished howls from the majority, which bridles at having its privilege impinged upon. "It's not faaayyyyyer!" they cry, "Sure, Blacks were oppressed for hundreds of years, but now we have labored under the oppressive yoke of affirmative action for, lo, these 25 years. Save us from this unbearable burden!"

Note also that the most common formulation is to treat reparations as a matter of punishment. For many, compensation is not the same as punishment. If you're injured in a car accident and recover damages, that's not about punishing the other driver; it's about compensating you for your injuries. Spare me the punitive damages argument--you don't get punitive damages in a car accident case. In fact, contrary to tort reform propaganda, punitive damages awards are extremely rare, and are associated with egregious, usually intentional, harm.

[noiretextatique]

43. reparations as punishment

personally...i'm all for it, but i do think that issue underlies the most common objection, i.e., the *i will have to pay for my ancestors* objection. as to your other comments :toast:

[texastoast]

49. A lesson to be learned

Sins of the fathers will be visited on the sons.

Nothing has proven itself more than this statement. True with the Greeks and true with our nation today.

Why does it take so long (if ever) to learn such a simple lesson?

[polazarus]

50. I will present a few questions to ponder...

Disclaimer: I am just posting the questions to add to the debate. I am not attacking anyone or trying to disrupt. I have seen many get tomb stoned from here so that is why I am stating this disclaimer. Furthermore, the questions below may or may not reflect my opinion. Oh, slavery is wrong, the south was wrong, and add anything else that you believe was wrong about that period here...
*********************************************************************
Low poster protection area.

**********************************************************************


How can you prove that a company directly profited from slave labor when most of the slaves worked on plantations that are no longer in existence? (Slave labor produced mostly the raw materials that were shipped to the north and taxed, which is one of the points of contention that led to the civil war)

*** France, Spain, and other European countries purchased the goods that were manufactured here in the states back then. (Are we to sue those import companies as well?)

What US companies are we talking about?


What ever happened to forgiveness in this country? After all, America had a blood bath over this issue. A lot of people died so that slaves could be free. Do the Soldiers families that fought on the northern side get a check too?

FYI Point of Interest
The 3/5 Th's clause had to do with taxation and representation. It was a pretty good debate. Check it out. You may be surprised what you find in there. (Not all white people are racist even though nothing I could say or do would change some DUers minds)


http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0711.htm

I love history!

[noiretextatique]

51. answers to your questions

How can you prove that a company directly profited from slave labor when most of the slaves worked on plantations that are no longer in existence? (Slave labor produced mostly the raw materials that were shipped to the north and taxed, which is one of the points of contention that led to the civil war)

i suppose we will find out when the plantiffs present their case

*** France, Spain, and other European countries purchased the goods that were manufactured here in the states back then. (Are we to sue those import companies as well?)

i think it would make more sense to pursue the manufacturers vs. the purchasers, don't you

What US companies are we talking about?

there was another thread with an article about the NYC case...sorry i don't have time to track it down...try google

What ever happened to forgiveness in this country? After all, America had a blood bath over this issue. A lot of people died so that slaves could be free. Do the Soldiers families that fought on the northern side get a check too?

who has asked for "forgiveness?" a sitting senator recently waxed nostalgic about the good old days of jim crow...and then he asked for forgiveness :eyes: millions of africans died on the way to the americas, who knows how many more died during slavery, not to mention jim crow...so, regarding the soldiers (some of whom were slaves also)...let's call us even there...ok?

FYI Point of Interest
The 3/5 Th's clause had to do with taxation and representation. It was a pretty good debate. Check it out. You may be surprised what you find in there. (Not all white people are racist even though nothing I could say or do would change some DUers minds)

i'm glad you know that not all white people are racist, and i hope you include yourself in that number. i am familiar with the debate...and i believe my point still stands. slaves were considerd little more than chattel, and as such, had no rights that white people need respect or acknowledge. little changed in that regard until fairly recently in US history, and as some have mentioned, disparities in just about every measurable aspect of life persist to this very day.
another word about forgiveness...i think it's something black people are expert in...if not, the rage is destructive. this is not a question of 'forgiveness' but one of RESPONSIBILITY.

[polazarus]

52. My rebuttal

The people of the United States of America took ultimate responsibility for the social injustice of slavery. They fought and died on many battlefields to rid the country of slavery. The sad part about the whole deal is that many southerners died as well for the rich Southern aristocracy. The Cival War was a rich Mans war.




Besides,
White people will be the primary people profiting from this case. So should we sue the suer's who are making a profit off of the slave case?

See the white guy, that is the lawyer in the CLASS ACTION suit.. In class action suits the law firm gets most of any settlement.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0328/p02s01-usju.html


Here is a good site to read... Has a lot of historically accurate information.

http://afroamhistory.about.com/

My last opinion is it is just another lawyer trying to make a fast buck.

[noiretextatique]

56. some of those americans who fought that was were slaves

who could not enjoy the benefits of full citzenship in this country...neither could their children, or their granchildren, etc.

you seem to be the only person here stuck on black/white issue in terms of who benefits. personally, i think the lawyer trying the case should be paid for his work, regardless of his race.

i doubt the plantiffs in this case went to all the trouble to established a genetic link to their slave ancestors just to get a white guy rich :eyes:

thanks for the link to the history site...please read it.

[polazarus]

63. I do... most of it is a review

You start out on one side of the debate you got to stick with it? right. (just kidding)


Anyway I do see your point of view and I posted that link as an offering of peace. Where I live now, race is not really an issue like it was back down south. I believe that the best way to correct the past is to not pass the garbage to the next Generation which is what I practice.

Anyway,

I enjoyed discussing this with you. Take care.

[noiretextatique]

64. likewise...and my mind is made up, for the most

not that i think reparations will be paid. but...i do think this case, and others like it, will raise some important questions...finally.
and i think the debate will be an interesting one, and one that will hopefully shed some light on the vestiges of institutional racism that are still problematic. personally...i think this is the best the plantiffs in any of these cases can hope for at the current time.
and i agree...the best way to end the madness is not to pass the old attitudes to the next generation, and i see a lot of progress in that regard.
however, even that has done little to stop race being used *sucessfully* as a political divide and conquer tool.
i hope the reparations debate will shed some light on that issue as well.
thank you for the conversation too :hi:

[sam sarrha]

53. Slaves were being sold in Senegal in Dakar while W was there to visit

the old slave quarters on the island of Gorai,.. the Arabs steal the Moors children and sell them in open slave markets ON THE STREET.. in Dakar, hasn't changed since i was there in 1973 in the peace corps.

you can have them sued and stop it .... go for it

[NoMoreRedInk]

55. How much are you personally willing to pay?****

nm

[noiretextatique]

58. well...since i am not being sued and neither are you

your question is irrelevant, isn't it? in the NY case, corporations are the defendants. as i mentioned previously, i find it interesting that so many think reparations, in general, and this case in particular, is about taking money of out their wallets...i mean YOUR wallet.
perhaps this mindset is a part of the problem?

[noiretextatique]

59. dupe

[David Zephyr]

61. Great Thread, Noiretblu.

I thank you for keeping this issue alive!

You know I am an advocate of reparations for the descendants of American slaves and have tried to weigh in on most all the threads here at the DU on this subject.

It's very simple: If the U.S. Government can toss away $1 Billion a week in Iraq on the willful whim of a single President, then this nation can and must, once and for all, right its two greatest wrongs and pay reparations to the descendants all African slaves brought to America and to the descendants of all African-American slaves born here into slavery and to all the descendants of Native Americans tribes.

This nation was not founded on God and morality, as the common self-serving myth goes.

This nation was founded and built on the theft of lands from the natives and a 500 year holocaust against them and their children, along with the enslaving, exploitation, abuse and systematic murder of Africans and African-Americans for nothing less than mercenary gain and accumulation of wealth.

Saying, "we're sorry," will never be enough.

Reparation for property and for unpaid labor, never mind cruelty and wrongful death, would be a good beginning point, though.

[noiretextatique]

67. thanks for your input, DZ

of course, i agree. not that i think it will ever happen, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have happened. per my original post in this thread, there is no question in my mind that the reason reparations will never be paid to the descendants of slaves...is the same reason as why they weren't paid to former slaves.
as i mentioned in another thread, it's interesting that race tends to unite some, regardless of political ideologies and parties. not true of black conservatives, for example, who are indistinguishable from white conservatives on many issues related to race. of course there are a few exceptions, most notably, rice and powell support affirmative action. but as my dear friend tinoire notes: it's a "safe" position for them to hold, given their party's position on the issue.
peace, my friend...and trust all is well with you and yours :hi:

[Ysabel]

62. i think we should all just divy up everything equally...

everybody all do it - everybody agree to it - and all do it...

toss everything into a big pile - whoever has more - be willling to give it up - whoever has less - give that up too - divide the pile up equally - the whole world...

all be satisfied with all then - no more - no less - no more fighting about any of it ever again...

[noiretextatique]

65. if this was the plan

reparations would not be an issue. but...i'm onboard with the general concept. as a minimal first step, we need to make sure every child has a quality education, and of course, that is not the case now.

[Ysabel]

66. yes...

i agree...