The push for reparations grows....
- Thread starter DRB
- Start date
sanjuro said:
So just restrict it to the former confederate states.
neaky: :evil:
Thank you David Brent......N8 said:
How come when white people piss and moan about things they don't like they aren't told "go back to Europe"? Or Israel even...LordOpie said:
Go back to Australia.valve bouncer said:
ink:
God, I wish mate. I'm still trying to find that perfect mix of bad behaviour that's enough to get me deported but not enough to get me sent to jail.Old Man G Funk said:Go back to Australia.
Jump the fence at the imperial palace?valve bouncer said:God, I wish mate. I'm still trying to find that perfect mix of bad behaviour that's enough to get me deported but not enough to get me sent to jail.
Several times people (americans) have asked me why the Quebec french don't go "back to France".....I then remind them that technically, the french have been in quebec longer than the americans in america.....
Except those native americans...MMike said:
Oh, and mexicans.
valve bouncer said:
Because manimal's people don't rise up and tell us to.
I'm quite sure that most Americans could careless where they are as long as they aren't here.MMike said:
Now I suspect that a TON of English speakin' Canadians ask your question all the time.
You racist
MMike said:
Dude, some of his best friends are canadian.
So who's supposed to be paying the reparations? The slave owners, the slave shippers, the slave traders, the slave catchers, or the original tenants of the plantations where the slaves worked?
So is my Mom.kidwoo said:
I dont see how ANY of those people could be held liable because slavery was LEGAL. They didnt break any laws, only operated within them, so Im not quite sure anyone should have legal standing to demand money from them.fluff said:
The only thing I could see is if the govt. payed out for making "bad" decisions, but it was a different world back then, and MY tax dollars shouldnt go to that. Im only 2nd gen. american.
DRB said:
She told me she was french.
Well, I was being facetious but your response made me think about the legality of slave trading.BurlyShirley said:
First the slaves had to be captured. Probably illegal in their eyes, and possibly in their homeland. Now if we ignore that part then it still is questionable as one can only assume that whilst is was legal to then transport, trade and own these slaves, it was illegal to just randomly enslave people? So the law would have been built on the premise that slaves were effectively a sub-people. So whilst it may have been legal it was certainly immoral.
So, are there any legal precedents for retrospective action for legal yet immoral acts?
Well from my understanding, it wasnt like europeans went in and just rounded up a bunch of people to be slaves. They traded goods to african tribes who provided slaves.
Now, if africans are capturing africans, then how's it illegal on the traders' part?
Now, if africans are capturing africans, then how's it illegal on the traders' part?
She told me she liked it Greek.kidwoo said:
Slaves were often captured by other African tribes. Arabs were the mainstay of the slave trading, Europeans were doing a lot of the transporting (and the US was pretty much European in attitude and culture after all).BurlyShirley said:
As for the second question, if it's illegal to enslave people, how can it be legal to own slaves? It's a bit like stealing and owning stolen goods.
Just in case you missed it..... y'all are talking about my MOM.fluff said:
It's legal to own slaves. Says so in the Bible.
You people could avoid a lot of worry with a little reading of the good book. Man, I wish I had a couple of hot horny daughters to get me drunk right now...
You people could avoid a lot of worry with a little reading of the good book. Man, I wish I had a couple of hot horny daughters to get me drunk right now...
Ah... I thought we were talking about kidwoo's mom.. sorryDRB said:
Still, this is the fault of the lawmakers, not the people operating under the laws.fluff said:
Yup, so the state should pay.BurlyShirley said:
But the whole idea is dumb.
Be careful with that. You just let Himmler off the hook there...BurlyShirley said:
Dude, Im just saying you cant go and sue Chevy for not having seatbelts before seatbelts were required. You cant make people pay money for essentially following the law. Makes no sense. What's next?Silver said:
I agree with you. Slavery at the time was normal, accepted by most cultures, and wasn't in general frowned upon. That doesn't make it right, but at the same time, it wasn't like the slave trade was a new thing that popped up overnight that turned the conventional rules of morality around.BurlyShirley said:
Shouldn't the lawsuits be directed back to the various tribes in Africa that actually did the selling of their rivals into slavery? Or maybe include the Arabs who sold millions into bondage as well..?Silver said:
And who caused that ****hole known as Africa...yeah...okay.LordOpie said:
numerberg trials??fluff said:
in fact there is, in international law, an exemption to the retroactive application of laws, regardless of jurisdiction and local laws, for genocide, crimes against humanity and stuff like that.
you can well argue that against slavery.
But at what historical distance does that cease to apply? You can't go sueing Mongolia for the destruction caused by Ghengis Kahn.ALEXIS_DH said:
actually, genocide, crimes against humanity and stuff like that "do not prescribe", that can pretty much mean "forever", unless there is a precedent for said case where a related claim has been dropped.....BurlyShirley said:
although i believe affirmative actions is a good enough form of reparation.. its not a handout, but gives an incentive to achieving miniorities (who would otherwise have it too hard to compete, partly because their background and history) by lowering the bar, then hopefully, wealth attained by harder work will trickle down...
The Europeans....blue said: