reparations

[billy rubin]

in america there is currently some support for making financial reparations for past social injustices. things like cash payments to descendants of american slaves.

the argument is that while nobody claims that current black people were ever directly harmed by being enslaved, that the culture imposed on them and the social disadvantages they suffered as a result of being descendants of slaves requires the active efforts of todays society to correct.

opponents claim that nobody is due anything for injustices that were inflicted on other people years or centuries ago, and certainly that living people shouldnt pay for things that they disavow and were never a part of.

the idea seemingly can be expanded. i am a citizen of the cherokee nation on my fathers side, and a member of the chickasaws on my mothers. does anybody owe me anything?

what is your opinion?

there are other related questions. i was reminded of this by the british discussion over the kohinoor diamond, whether it should be returned and to who.

[Tom62]

I'm still waiting for the Romans, the Vikings, the French,  the Spanish and the Germans to pay me money for their historical wrongdoings.

[billy rubin]

thats exactly the point. especially the spanish, for you

take me, fr example. the europeans attacked the chickasaws as far back as lasalle's expedition up the mississippi some 350? years ago. then th eunited states stole their lands and frced them to oklahoma.

i have genetic connection to those people, but i do not think i have experienced any hardships due to that original theft and persecution.

but there are living people in oklahoma right now who grew up experiencing hardship because of the results of that persecution. i am sympathetic to assisting them to overcome the current results.

but i am also eligible for assistance, and i dont deserve any. how do we parse that, and what do we owe the inheritors of persection?

tom, you mentioned the vikings and the romans. an excellent point. what is the statute of limitations on this stuff?

as an aside, its not any of my business, but i think charles would do well to give the kohinoor diamond back to the descendants of whoever victoria took it from. there are lots of bad imagery in hanging on to it, and lots of good press available in giving it back to the indians and washing his hands of it. but im not sure that anybody in a position to do it would agree with my assessment.

[Tank]

There is a lot of stuff in museums around the UK that should go back where it came from.

[billy rubin]

not just tbere.

ive been in museaums in east berlin thst shkuld hsve been repatriated.

but then east berlin no longer exists so what the hell

[Tom62]

The idea of reparations isn't bad. Problem however is where to draw the (historical) line and how to decide who gets what, how much needs to be paid and by whom. The complexity is just enormous. People have been enslaved from all races and by different groups of people throughout the entire human history.

I assume that if we are talking about reparations, it means reparations for the African slave trade. Africa had a long slavery tradition. Many nations such as the Bono State, Ashanti of present-day Ghana and the Yoruba of present-day Nigeria were involved in slave-trading. Groups such as the Imbangala of Angola and the Nyamwezi of Tanzania would serve as intermediaries or roving bands, waging war on African states to capture people for export as slaves. Some  historians have estimated that of the Africans captured and then sold as slaves to the New World in the Atlantic slave trade, around 90% were enslaved by fellow Africans who sold them to European traders. So if reparations have to be paid then it should, in my opinion, be done by the descendants of these African slave traders.

[Asmodean]

what is your opinion?

opponents claim that nobody is due anything for injustices that were inflicted on other people years or centuries ago, and certainly that living people shouldnt pay for things that they disavow and were never a part of.

It's this, in so many words. Either you, as a functioning adult, are responsible for your actions - or you are not. If you are, they are your responsibility. Not your aunt's, nor your grandkids'. If you are not - then we can talk about reparations, in which case, do let us also come up with a sum "we" collectively "owe" Great Britain for their efforts in ending the practice.

My opinion is best summed up as follows; if I have been wronged by you, then I have a claim against you. My children may also have a claim against you, should they have been wronged by your wronging of me. However, neither I nor my children have any claim whatsoever against your mom, your cat or your best friend's girlfriend unless they were involved in the deed.

That said, on a personal note, slavery may be wrong in most of the world today, but it was not so for most of human history. I, for one, am hesitant to pass moral judgement on the aeons past from my top of Mount Current Year.

[Tom62]

^I fully agree with the message above.

[billy rubin]

in california in tbe ladt century black peoplr's property was often taken tnrough eminent domain preferentially for roads and recreational facilities for white people. wasnt anything they did tbemselves.

the claims are against municipalities, which dtill exist and still use the land..

theres also the american GI bill, which subsidized college education for white veterans, but often excluded black veterans.

and the government exclusion of black farmers from agricultural loans and payment programs.

the.offending entities were governments, and the stgument is thst the governments are liable.

[Icarus]

The black community has come a long way in the last 50 years. There is still some difficulty in certain places, mainly in the south, but not exclusively in the south. White supremacy is still alive and well in too many minds.

And then there are the Jews who are the victims of much discrimination,even hatred. Are the Germans obligated to award reparations to the Jewish community?

I am with Billy in sympathy for the native Americans. We arrived on their land without invitation. We then declared them savages and took their land away from them by force. In fact we have awarded them some isolated reparations in the form of mineral rights. We have also allowed them to set up Casinos so to take our white mans money. That is working well for some, but not all of them.

[billy rubin]

it worked great for the san carlos apaches. i used to drive tbrough tbe reservation on highway 50. junk houses and hogans, cars ovrturned to get at the suspension parts, people aimlessly walking down the highways, trash blowing and caught in the fencelines. no money, no opportunities, drugs and alcohol.

last time i went there it was transformed. clean, de junked, people had jobs, all because of this huge casino they built.

it was a plus for tjem.

[Asmodean]

the claims are against municipalities, which dtill exist and still use the land..

This may situationally make a difference, but my overall argument is still the same;

If I were not alive to partake in the government - or too young or too disabled to legally do it (For example through voting) then no action of that government can be my responsibility.

[billy rubin]

if you were the inheritor of a vast fortune which was discovered to have been stolen, are you under an obligation to return it?

or can you keep the inheritance because you were not the one who stole it?

[Asmodean]

if you were the inheritor of a vast fortune which was discovered to have been stolen, are you under an obligation to return it?

It depends. For instance, if you inherit land which came into your family's possession as a result of military occupation in the "age of conquest," then no. If you inherit a million bucks in a duffle bag from your dad, who stole it from a still-open bank, then yes.

There are multiple facets to this, but the first question to ask should be, "was the original acquisition of X the result of a crime in the context of said acquisition?" If the answer is "no," then there is no problem. If the answer is "yes," then it may deserve further examination, but that does not automatically invoke a different outcome.

To put it in terms demonstrative hypothetical extremes, let us say that my society grants me the ability to take whatever I please and call it my own. I take your stuff. I don't owe you anything for it - it's mine now. My own. My preciousssss. By the same token, whoever inherits it does not owe any of it to your descendants. Why? Because I acquired it within the socially acceptable norms of the time.

Now, let us say I did, in fact, what passes for theft by contemporary standards, but then was granted my loot by the society within the domain of which said theft occurred. Well, then my claim to it, while not legitimate at first, was legitimised down the line, bringing us back to mine now.

It's a bit unpolished, I know, but I hope the underlying argument makes sense. It has to do with the legitimacy of claims and counter-claims, the arbiter for which is the society in whose domain they take place. It is worth noting, however, that I do not equate "society" with "government" here beyond the latter being an arm to exercise the will of the former. Thus, whether the king is the country is not particularly relevant.

[billy rubin]

so in your view right and wrong are solely determined by current culture?

in other words, putins invasion of ukraine is completely justified because most russians think so?

i avoid that dilemma by denying the existence of right and wrong in the first place.