Head of NAACP in WA lied about her race.

[jamil]

I'm keeping it in the context of Black Americans. I just asking if you have a general "neutral" definition of what the word reparations; meaning it could be widely applied to a number of different examples (i.e. Japanese, Native Americans, Jewish people, victims of experimentation, etc)

Can you accept the definition below?

rep·a·ra·tion
ˌrepəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun

• the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged.

I’ve moved a little on this. I think if it’s an act perpetrated by the government then the government would be responsible for reparations to the people it harmed. But not to people indirectly harmed in perpetuity.

So, Japanese and their immediate families harmed by the internment, yes. Reparations. Germany owed Jews and their families directly affected by the holocaust reparations. People directly affected by government experiments...reparations. And so on. What should have happened after the slaves were freed, was an integration plan, which sought to educate former slaves, and give them a start at freedom-figuratively 40 acres and a mule. That would be the part that was owed. None of those people are alive today who are owed reparations for the government’s role in slavery. Talk of reparations today is a non-starter. You can’t bring dead people back to pay them what is owed. Debts of wrongs wrought can’t be perpetual across generations.

I didn’t do it. You didn’t suffer it. Even though we’re both affected by it many generations later.

 

[Kutnupe14]

To be clear, I'm not defending the institution of slavery and all that it entailed. It was certainly a dark period in our nation's history (and has been acknowledged as such). How far do we go back though (for any group that has been mistreated)? Is there a "statute of limitations" so to speak, or should the reparations (to any group) go on in perpetuity?

I know. I'm clear you aren't the type.
And as far as "how far do we go back," concerning mistreated people, it should probably rest with still living persons; despite the impossibility of them ever having a realistic chance of ever receiving such reparations.
For the record, I do not believe in reparations for a variety of reasons. First, a payout is a justification, secondly it would create more strife, and third, it would bankrupt the country. I will say this, however, based on our agreed upon definition. There are still people who would fit the criteria to receive reparations.

 

[Expat]

I wonder if people of Celtic bloodlines can get some reparations from those nasty Anglo-Saxons and Normands?
First we were caught up in their multiple invasions, then the clearings....

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I know. I'm clear you aren't the type.
And as far as "how far do we go back," concerning mistreated people, it should probably rest with still living persons; despite the impossibility of them ever having a realistic chance of ever receiving such reparations.
For the record, I do not believe in reparations for a variety of reasons. First, a payout is a justification, secondly it would create more strife, and third, it would bankrupt the country. I will say this, however, based on our agreed upon definition. There are still people who would fit the criteria to receive reparations.

Agreed. And it sounds like we are more in agreement about this in general than not.

 

[Birds Away]

I wonder if people of Celtic bloodlines can get some reparations from those nasty Anglo-Saxons and Normands?
First we were caught up in their multiple invasions, then the clearings....

I had the same thought about the Christians and the Lions. Those Italians got some 'splaining to do.

 

[jamil]

I know. I'm clear you aren't the type.
And as far as "how far do we go back," concerning mistreated people, it should probably rest with still living persons; despite the impossibility of them ever having a realistic chance of ever receiving such reparations.
For the record, I do not believe in reparations for a variety of reasons. First, a payout is a justification, secondly it would create more strife, and third, it would bankrupt the country. I will say this, however, based on our agreed upon definition. There are still people who would fit the criteria to receive reparations.

There are no living slaves, nor immediate family members. Reparations can’t be generationally perpetual.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Agreed. And it sounds like we are more in agreement about this in general than not.

I wonder...
There are still plenty of people alive who, by law, were subject to:
-not being able to vote
-could not testify in court
-not being able serve on a jury
-not being judged by a jury of their peers
-unable to purchase homes in certain places
-could not go to certain hospitals
-could not go to certain schools
-could not enter certain businesses
-could not work certain jobs
-were required to give their seats up
-could not marry whom they loved
-could not attend state colleges
-could not obtain loans

Now go back to our agreed upon definition, and the issue of me pointing out the above, if you have one.

 

[jamil]

I had the same thought about the Christians and the Lions. Those Italians got some 'splaining to do.

This is a good illustration of why it can’t be generationally perpetual. Yes. The Romans [GLOCK]ed over the Christians. It’s one in a filled history of unjust treatment of people. Later generations having to pay for the sins of their fathers would perpetuate injustice.

 

[Expat]

I had the same thought about the Christians and the Lions. Those Italians got some 'splaining to do.

Well those Romans invaded us up there in Briton too... more reparations owed. Thanks BA... we can work out a finder's fee once I get my check.

 

[jamil]

I wonder...
There are still plenty of people alive who, by law, were subject to:
-not being able to vote
-could not testify in court
-not being able serve on a jury
-not being judged by a jury of their peers
-unable to purchase homes in certain places
-could not go to certain hospitals
-could not go to certain schools
-could not enter certain businesses
-could not work certain jobs
-were required to give their seats up
-could not marry whom they loved
-could not attend state colleges
-could not obtain loans

Now go back to our agreed upon definition, and the issue of me pointing out the above, if you have one.

Are there still people alive who owe that debt? I’m okay with making them pay for the ones still alive who had to live through it.

It’s unjust to make next generations pay for it.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Growing up I was Forced to mow the yard,work in the garden,wash the station wagon and EAT LIVER.Dad wore a belt and knew how to use it.Save my place in line.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Are there still people alive who owe that debt? I’m okay with making them pay for the ones still alive who had to live through it.

It’s unjust to make next generations pay for it.

So you disagreed with the Japanese-American internment camp prisoners (1942-46) getting reparations? Also the survivors of the Tuskegee Experiment (1932-72), where the government infected black people with diseases, unbeknownst to them, to see how the the diseases worked on people? I assure you the money paid to them, came from later generations.

 

[jamil]

So you disagreed with the Japanese-American internment camp prisoners (1942-46) getting reparations? Also the survivors of the Tuskegee Experiment (1932-72), where the government infected black people with diseases, unbeknownst to them, to see how the the diseases worked on people? I assure you the money paid to them, came from later generations.

Already answered that in posts above.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I wonder...
There are still plenty of people alive who, by law, were subject to:
-not being able to vote
-could not testify in court
-not being able serve on a jury
-not being judged by a jury of their peers
-unable to purchase homes in certain places
-could not go to certain hospitals
-could not go to certain schools
-could not enter certain businesses
-could not work certain jobs
-were required to give their seats up
-could not marry whom they loved
-could not attend state colleges
-could not obtain loans

Now go back to our agreed upon definition, and the issue of me pointing out the above, if you have one.

Laws were changed to remedy these situations, were they not? Remember, our agreed upon definition is not limited to monetary awards, and those that are still alive that were subjected to the above are no longer subjected to it. Could not the changing of the law, improving not just the lives of those that lived through and were subject to the injustices, but for subsequent generations, be considered a form of reparation?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Already answered that in posts above.

You can see how it appears you're not being consistent right? Earlier, you said reparations were owed to both the Japanese-Americans and Holocaust victims. Are/were there still people alive that owe those debts? Given that interment reparations too place decades after the event, and Germany had a massive loss of life during WW2. Who pays those debts and why? What people are you talking about? I'm trying to lock down your perspective.

 

[Birds Away]

You ca see how it appears you're not being consistent right? Earlier, you said reparations were owed to both the Japanese-Americans and Holocaust victims. Are/were there still people alive that owe those debts? Given that interment reparations too place decades after the event, and Germany had a massive loss of life during WW2. Who pays those debts and why? What people are you talking about? I'm trying to [STRIKE]lock down your perspective[/STRIKE] maneuver you into a corner .

 

[Kutnupe14]

Laws were changed to remedy these situations, were they not? Remember, our agreed upon definition is not limited to monetary awards.

So, just so I'm clear, for people who have been victimized by government for decades, a change in law by that same government, is what you consider reparations? And for the record, I'm not addressing money. If need-be, I'm sure I can dig up plenty of instances where people who had been done wrong, received some sort of compensation, after a law they had been held to account had been changed. Should I believe that you think they should not have been entitled to something more than a change of law?

 

[jamil]

You ca see how it appears you're not being consistent right? Earlier, you said reparations were owed to both the Japanese-Americans and Holocaust victims. Are/were there still people alive that owe those debts? Given that interment reparations too place decades after the event, and Germany had a massive loss of life during WW2. Who pays those debts and why? What people are you talking about? I'm trying to lock down your perspective.

I’m saying once boths sides are dead, no reparations can justly be paid. Maybe there’s a generation of gray area. But in 2018, today’s taxpayer does not owe a debt incurred by the government, say, severa generations ago. There’s a point where it’s just too late.

 

[jamil]

I didn’t take it that he’s trying to maneuver me into a corner. I thought he was just wanted me to commit to a corner. Which I thought I already had. But I see there was some clarification necessary.

 

[Birds Away]

I didn’t take it that he’s trying to maneuver me into a corner. I thought he was just wanted me to commit to a corner. Which I thought I already had. But I see there was some clarification necessary.

Just having a little fun.