Birth Right and Race Reparations for Slavery

Does this include the Irish? or the Chinese? What about how the Japanese were treated here during WW2?

Oh maybe also need to include Italians...what's the cut off for feeling bad over treatment versus compensation? How badly were my ancestors needed to be treated for me to get compensation?

What about gay people? They were treated like ****. So were women to be honest.

How much of a percentage of my blood needs to be of that ancestor?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

If someone does end up implementing it, I think a flat sum should be used. Everybody gets the same amount. A pass/fail sort of approach. It should be based on the ancestor, not how many living family members there are today. So the family would get a flat sum and it would be split between them based on how many people apply. All who apply would need to prove their lineage.

I have no problem with inherited wealth at all. To be honest I find death taxes and the taking of wealth after a person dies to be wrong. If you want to tax that money, do it while the person is alive. Swooping in to steal it after they die is sleazy.

 

many blacks today are decedents of slave owners, do they deserve reparations

many whites are decedents of black slaves, do they deserve reparations

what about those that died fighting to free the slaves, do their decedents deserve reparations

 

Precisely. If we pay this generation of Blacks $6 million apiece, will not the next generation also be entitled to $6 million? I know that the San Francisco plan calls for about $200,000 a year for the next 250 years, but that might not be enough, especially when you figure in the effects of inflation.

The second fallacy is that somehow these people were cheated out a birthright inheritance. The vast majority of families never get rich and don’t have legacies to pass down to their kids. Many families get rich and then the subsequent generation loses it all.

In the small town where I grew up, there was a family who made a fortune in the 19th century. They had several farms. A son, James Ponder, was Governor of Delaware. You can find him in Wikipedia. They built at least two mansions. One of them is still standing and is the town funeral home.

A few years ago, my cousin was talking to one of the Ponder descendants. All the money was gone. Some of it had been thrown away on foolishness. Some had been taken in a divorce settlement. One thing you learn when you have money, is that maintaining it can be as hard as earning it. The more important aspect of wealth is the income it can generate and maintaining the principle. If you screw up and make the wrong investments or have a business that goes to pot, even from no fault of your own, the wealth is gone. My dad learned that hard lesson. And then then he and my mom earned it back before they died.

No one is entitled to wealth because of skin color, and no one should be barred from earning it. Everyone should be entitled to the opportunity to earn wealth, and the state should not have the right to take a huge amount of it from you. Everyone should have the chance to get a good education. That’s the only area where “reparations” should apply.

 

I am in favor of it. It is a voluntary gift from a parent to his or her child/children!!!!

This is not some hypothetical, 'Well, it turns out that my gggg-grandfather used to own 200 acres of land in rural Tennessee that today is worth $120,000,000, and he lost it in a poker game, so I'm entitled to tax the people in that county for that money because they were too stupid to not outlaw gambling!" What the hell is wrong with you that you would look at a parent gifting their child with something they chose to leave behind as an opportunity to snatch some of that gift for grifters??

When I graduated high school, my father gave me a $100 bill and told me to keep it for as long as possible, for as long as I had that one singular piece of paper, I would know that I was never broke, whatever else might be going against me in life.

In retrospect, that was kind of a weak graduation gift, and it was likely a situation where he woke up that day and said to himself, "Oh, $hit! I forgot to get my son, one of the three persons in my life that I would give my life to protect, a gift, what can I come up with right now!?!"

Still, I kept that piece of paper for at least 20 years, and I am ashamed to admit I do not know or remember where it went. Did I spend it on a drunken night on the town? Did it just get misplaced during one of many moves since that? No idea, sadly. Whatever it was, I do not remember making a choice to spend it, recklessly or otherwise.

But it was a father giving his son, his flesh and blood, a gift that was from the heart, even if it was an emergency backup plan because he didn't plan ahead. Parents want to, at least most good ones, leave their offspring something to improve their lives, no matter how insignificant compared to, say, Bill Gates kids who Bill decades ago said were going to 'only' get $10,000,000 each because he wanted them to learn the value of hard work.

While I could live multiple lifetimes on that without a day's hard work at anything, and likely would, that was no different than what he left me when he fell off his roof and broke his neck at the age of 84 by being a dumbass and working up there in the middle of the afternoon in August in Florida. But while it broke my heart, the reality is that is precisely how he would have scripted his death if he could have. He didn't leave me a lot, but considering how financially devastated my near death and subsequent disability left me, it is going to at least help us in our golden years. But also the simple fact that we own our house with no mortgage whatsoever will probably do more than anything else, because we aren't carrying that mortgage around our neck until the day we ourselves kick off the planet.

Assuming, of course, that we don't get taxed out of it with the ever-increasing rent the State demands as a mafia-like protection racket to keep what is ours to begin with.

It's more than a decade, probably two before I need to think about it, but we may, at some point, use that home as a piggy bank via a reverse mortgage that leaves my kids pretty much nothing, but... I don't have any!

Bottom line, it's a stupid, irrelevant question to the question of reparations, which are gifts from strangers to other strangers based on the centuries-old actions of long dead persons who are not parties in any way to the hypothetical government mandated transfer of wealth.

I know the left absolutely loves wealth transfers, or at least dangling the hope of that in front of people who want what 'they deserve' but they never seem to deliver, saying just give us your vote one more time, and we'll finally get it done!!! But when they involve persons unknown to each other separated by generations and centuries, the very idea is so stupid that I'm ashamed to even be speaking about it as though it were a serious idea that is ever going to happen, or even should.

If you can't see the difference, I'm not sure what else I can say to shake the stupid off.

Bye-the-bye, someone did some quick, back of the napkin math on the San Fran proposed reparations from descendants of slaves in a non-slave State, comes to a 'donation' of about $3,000,000 per person (including children) of the non-recipients. I'm actually kind of glad it's such an absolutely over the top stupid proposal that maybe, hopefully, in some dream world, put this whole idea to its grave once and for all. At the meeting they had this elderly black man, who actually seemed kind of funny, whether he meant to or not I can't say, but his message was if we (I suppose meaning white people) want black men to stop committing crimes, this was the only way.

If I said something like that, I would rightfully be tarred and feathered as a white supremacist. Then again, that is a term, like 'fascist', that has lost it's sting after years of being misused and abused when trying to apply it to circumstances that don't even fit the definitions.

The idea that a parent gifting their child something at the time of their death is anybody's business, but that parent and child is no different than when my father gifted me that $100 bill so many years ago. It was between us, and us alone, and nobody on the planet, not you, not some other stranger, and above all, not the government's place to get involved.

Period.

Do you have any additional stupid questions?

That reminds me of a bar conversation some years ago that I had with some dumb young blonde, where she said that the government should pay for people's college. She did not understand at all what I meant when I replied asking, "Why should I pay for your college debts??", and looked me like I was the stupid one and said, "Not you, silly, the government." Little did I know that a decade or two later, that insane idea would be a serious proposal by an actual President of the United States, even though he knew damn well he doesn't have that authority... It was a feel good sounds good vote buying scheme, and nothing more.

Sure, he would love to find a way to make it actually happen, but he knows Congress controls spending, and he's not Congress, and Congress is not (yet?) that f-ing stupid. Somehow, I think it will yet happen in my remaining time on this rock for this iteration.

 

We already paid for slavery with our own blood in the civil war. Family lines were lost to free them. We owe them absolutely nothing so F reparations

 

please remind me of when those "slave reparations after the war " occurred?

 

Throughout history, people have been "horribly abused". The allegation here- is that people who had nothing to do with slavery should pay people who were never slaves because it created a negative image of black people. To say that is a stretch of reason, you have to go to astronomical dimensions to begin to have an argument.

But lets say that historic black slavery somehow deserves reparations, while hundreds of other historic abuses are just- history. IF reparations are in some way appropriate, who is really to blame?

America had less than 4% of all the slaves sent from Africa to the new world. But at that time- slavery was common in much of the world; it was a legal, accepted norm, not a criminal or malicious act- and for the purpose of labor, where the slave also was fed and housed by those he labored for.

So where did this start- who actually turned a black African into a slave for sale? That would be the person who set it all in motion- where a black African was free on moment, and a slave the next.

IF that event had not happened- there would have been no slaves in the first place.

Americans did not go ashore in Africa and capture slaves. The Portuguese and Dutch traders who bought and transported slaves to the new world didn't either. No; they were customers- of a slave-trading industry in Africa- where black African people had been in the business of capturing and trading other black people for at least 1,000 years before a white person ever set foot in central Africa. Slavery had been accepted there as one of the ways of life for all that time.... and white people had nothing to do with it. This is documented, by physical evidence- for example that slaves were taken by caravan routes across the southern edge of the Sahara and sold to the people in the middle east. Archeologists have been able to show this, among other things- by the trail of bones of slaves that died along the way, and were buried in the sand. Slavery..... was an African tradition, an accepted practice and part of the culture there- long before North America or Africa ever saw a European. The new world slavery- was an extension of an long existing black slave-trading industry. Run by African blacks, selling African blacks. New customers, same business.same people.

There are still many people considered to be in slavery around the world. The continent that tops that list in numbers- is Africa, with about 9 million people in slavery.That's not the same kind of slavery as the past due to the way the organizations define it, but it does say they top the list.

We are in a time where we are ignoring uncomfortable truth and embracing emotional dodges of them. I don't know anyone who thinks slavery was right, and in fact about 600,000 Americans died in the effort to end it. It's not popular to point this out, it conflicts with the narrative that means a lot of free money to people who have never been slaves, on the premise that the quality of their lives, and the emotions they feel- are all somebody else's fault. That entire premise is fantasy; delusion. Even the consideration of the demand for reparations is a violation of common sense- and enables the ever increasing demands that people of one race, who never participated nor had any control of slavery, should pay the people of another race, who never participated or had any control of slavery, because the thought of the events of 200 years ago causes them to feel victimized. They find "racism" everywhere- the latest I've seen is a declaration by a college professor that a neat pantry is evidence of racism....
The entire concept of "reparations" is about as racist an act as one could contrive. And just as black slavery was Africa's invention, so is the concept of reparations, that the customers of their slave traders awere responsible for them being in that business. Hundreds of years before those customers existed....

 

I don't think you read the OP. That's not the argument.

Agreed. I can think of no rational argument for basing reparations on race.

Why dismiss the others? That's again not the OP.

The federal and/or state government. For enabling slavery and having the laws under which the people were legally abused and/or kept a slave. It would be restricted to what was allowed legally by the state (or done by the state itself if there were government owned slaves).

But the government here is no longer complicit. So you would have no cause of action against them.

That's the question of this thread. Need it be racist?
If it is agreed that the enslaved would be entitled to something from the government that allowed and enforced their slavery, there is precedent for inherited wealth from that point forward.

 

In my opinion- there is no case at all for reparations. Anyone responsible here for any damage is long dead, and any injured person is long dead- and the fact it's origin was black in the first place makes the argument moot. At the same time- the government and the people of America has gone to great lengths to create opportunity and make special allowances for the black population- which has mostly been met with not only ingratitude, but resentment and behavior detrimental to society- especially to their own culture- so they carry a larger burden by far in the forming of who they are today. I've been deeply and personally involved in some of the efforts to help, thus speak from actual experience, not recital of someone else's opinion. Entertaining the reparations demand only enables the victim-hood so the world owes me mindset. Nothing good will come of that. The condition of their culture is such that openly and on camera, they have said looting and theft are reparations.

If you want to be seen as a full citizen- you have to support the society you are part of. Aside from many other issues, the violence and crime produced by the black community speaks for itself.
Our black population is 13% of the nation. They commit 52% of all murders. One can make a long list of such facts.

I don't see black people wanting to be equal citizens- because they aren't willing to be, (as a group) equal citizens. The good and upstanding ones will not speak out, and without that, things just keep getting worse.

 

Descendants deserve no reparations. No one is owed anything in life. The only thing one “deserves” is what is earned.

 

here's what they can do with their freedom. WORK HARD, GET A HEAD AND SHUT THE HECK UP AND STOP CRYING

There's your freakin reparations
ENJOY!

 

If I had the resources I would work to file a class action suit against Fauci. He’s not just complicit, but the originating agent in the deaths of well over a million people. In his role he should have been protecting the country from the very type of scenario that he funded. Would you call him a mass murderer?

 

I note the irony of the fact that you ignored my prior post, but I'm not going to let you off the hook quite so easily. Why, in a world where my father can give me $100 when he was alive with no outsider's even having knowledge of it, much less any influence over it, does that change when it becomes $100,000 and it's because he had that much excess wealth when he left this mortal plane? Would it have been OK if he gave me said sum a week before he died?

Why is it any of your business, and by extension, anyone else's, including our society as represented by our government? OH, it's unfair, not everyone gets $100,000 for 'nothing', waa, waa. Well, not everyone was born smart, or strong, or with an outgoing personality, or whatever characteristics you might be envious of, either. So, what?

The $100,000 number is an example, I'm no more going to share what the real number is with you here than I am with anyone aside from my siblings and spouse in the real world, and that includes any 'authority' who thinks they have a claim on that wealth that is higher than mine. It may not even be 1/10th of that, or it may be 10,000x that, but whatever it happens to be is not relevant. It's simply not a 'transaction' you have any part in, or any business butting into the middle of.

It's not like it means his descendants are going to be eating grapes while servants tend to their every need for all of eternity, even if it happens to be enough for me and my siblings to live such a life, over time it gets spent, lost, and most importantly diluted as 3 sons become 8 grandkids, become 17 great-grandkids, 100 great-great, and so forth. 5-6 generations down the road, even if a single dime had never been spent in the interim, there's so little left to go around, it just doesn't matter. Wealth taxes itself over time. Intervening in such a way as you advocate is simply armed robbery under the guise of authority.

 

I disagree with that argument. With that said, I hope a reparations bill is passed so we can watch how it turns into a cluster ****.

 

Again, I don't think you are addressing the OP argument (whch isn't my own). The private parties responsible are long dead, but the government remains and can be held accountable. The question then is accountable to whom. If to the slave, then the question is can that entitlement be inherited and if so, how many generations. Wealth and debt being inherited is already a thing with inherited wealth. The law if you die instestate (without a will) says that your kids get your wealth. So this would be the kids of the slaves getting their entitlement, from the government, and only to the extent that the government was responsible (ie, laws allowing for or enforcing slavery).

That's making it about race, which this is going out of its way NOT to do. It isn't becuase a person is black, so it excludes any black people who immigrated after the injustice, etc and requires one to prove their family debt and birth right, etc. Helping the "black population" is race based. This wouldn't be. This would also include any non-black people whose ancestors were mistreated by the government of the country.

 

I can't wait to see that drama...lol

 

I agree. But then why do we have laws specificying that if somebody dies without a will their children (including children they didn't raise and may not even have been aware of) are entitled to inheret their wealth? They did nothing to earn it. Why do they "deserve" it?

 

If he hid knowledge he had that the vaccine was more dangerous than he led on, and the vaccine killed people, then yes. But can that be proved?

 

I'm Scottish. I want my cut, too.

 

So you want a 100% "death tax." Could please explain why the government is morally superior to every other entity on the earth and has the right to confiscate a family's property?

What about the family farm where generations have worked it and the the land is passed down from father to son. Having grown up in a rural area, I can tell you that some of the kids started working on the land before they were 10 years old. They went to high school with me. The father dies, and then the government comes along and takes it all. If you think that is right, we shall agree to disagree.

 

Some black people are descendents of black slave owners. Do they get a check?

 

Sounds like you fully absorbed The Communist Manifesto.

 

I am not interested in this derail, other than to examine what you state above and ask why it doesn't apply just as well to the ex-slave who was entitled to compensation. If you have a birth right from your parents, why don't their descendants have a birth right for the debt owed to their enslaved ancestor? How is the logic different? Is it because of the number of generations gone by?