Are you even remotely implying that slavery was... employment? Even as a joke?
No I am not. You're inferring this.
But figuring out how to compensate and how much is a difficult task. Unless you suggest that there should be one amount for being a slave, of course, and this would be unfair against slaves who had it rougher than others. So payment must be in proportion to their efficiency, obedience and suffering.
I mean, we're saying that people profited from having slaves. I suggest we link how much reparations they'll receive to how much profit their owners made on them.
Which of course would mean we'd have to evaluate each slave individually.
I can't get past that part of your post, because if you include "how many hours [the slaves] worked" as a premise, then your muddled thought process can't possibly get any clearer, cleaner, or sane.
I'm not known to be delicate with my words - I state it exactly as I see it. I could have sugar coated it, but I am an inherently pragmatic man. And (I think) a fair one - and fairness is when you get paid individually based on your effort. Sure, there should be some kind of base sum in place for the enslavement alone. It could even be substantial. But we must go beyond that.
If you find it muddled, let me know and I'll clarify. I won't even be insulted by this baited attempt at an ad hominem attack.
What's your freedom worth?
Your life and the lives of everyone you love, and then some.
If I had to choose between you and me, I'd choose myself. I would, however, work towards your freedom.
But what you're inferring is that no price can be put on the suffering having ones freedom removed causes. I agree with this - so why even try? Or what I mean is, why should person Z be paid because person A was enslaved? And by whom? Are we talking Biblical style justice here - i.e that the sins of the grand grand grand grand mother/father is carried forth to the sons and daughters for eternity? (And thanks Adam and Eve for that deal, you bastards).
Even having said that, I stand by my initial statement - one should get paid according to ability, work load and other costs (in this case torture and slavery). Slavery alone is fine, but is just a part of the overall sum.
And to everyone who wants to sue other governments for the enslavement of their ancestors... well? GO BACK to bloody England or Sweden or Poland and sue those governments! Why are you holding the United States government responsible for the systems of other countries? How is your argument relevant?
Our arguments are relevant because it is exactly the same - the only difference is that slavery happened more recently. How can you argue that after some arbitrarily chosen time, reparation claims are void and ridiculous and still keep your credibility? That the time period in question favours your argument but not the opponents is not just a mere coincidence.
And why don't we sue? Because here the courts aren't populated by idiotic ambitious morons elected by idiots. They'll see it as what it is - a disgraceful attempt to earn a buck on the suffering of ancestors we have no emotional connection to, except "they were ancestors of mine". They should be ashamed of themselves, trying to make money on the blood of their ancestors.
But let's take you seriously for a moment, for the sake of argument. How has slavery in those other countries in those other centuries continued to disenfranchise the Danes, the Swedes, the Poles, the whatevers? Have you been to Denmark or Sweden? Can you, at a glance, differentiate between a Dane and a Swede? I've been, and I can't. How about a Pole from a German?Understand?
The Swedes are always drunk. And why do you need to visualy be able to differentiate? We can do it with language, with culture, with choice of food and music. We can use their Golly-geened passports. Outsiders may not believe it, but the cultural differences between the Scandinavian countries are quite visible. I know. I was born in Denmark, moved to Sweden and grew up there and has now moved back to Denmark. I know the sentiments on both sides and more importantly. I *understand* them.
Ethernaut, I agree completely and fully with your statement about racism in the US. I also feel that in general, being black is a disadvantage, although one that is smaller now than in the 50s (at which time there was a system of apartheit in the US).
I disagree with you regarding whether reparations are appropriate for the following reasons:
1) African Americans have higher living standards than their relatives in Africa. However tough it as been for their ancestors, it has been good for them. Same for the original European immigrants - many went through hell, but their offspring are better off.
2) It'd be hard to judge how much should be paid in reparations. There are several reasons for this. One is that it is impossible to put a price on freedom. Another one is that even if one puts an arbitrarily chosen value on freedom, the reparations would still have to be adjusted according to how much profit was made from each individual slave. After all, the argument is that profit was made on the suffering of slaves (and this is an argument I do not dispute)
3) Giving reparations to individuals who have ancestors several hundred years back who have suffered is a backwards approach. Giving money to be used on a specific race is better, but that in of it self is a form of inequality. We now have racial equality (in theory) and introducing an element of inequality will be a step backwards. Instead, it should go to an overall fund *available for all AMERICANS* so that impoverished people get a shot at an education. Why think in races instead of in PEOPLE? This in of itself is part of a racist mindset dating back to slavery itself. Let the government and idndustries pay, but let the money do good for AMERICANS, regardless of colour or religion (or lack thereof).
4) If reparations are made, the US government is entitled to substract money that has specifically been spent on trying to improve the living conditions of African Americans. I'm not talking money that's available to all Ameridcans (such as medicare, social security), but specific things. Affirmative action would also have to be somehow undone, since the US government after paying reparations owe the black community nothing.
5) All African Americans will be given a one way plane ticket to their home country, to be used if they wish.
6) I think it is unethical to try to make a buck on someone elses suffering and hiding it with big words such as "slavery" and "ancestory". It's about money more than it's about justice, because God knows things cannot be undone. The unjustifiable will not be justifiable by a payment. It will be by reconciliation, and if money is part of it some 200 years after, I sincerely question what kind of reconciliation we're talking about.
7) This is a big one: WHO should pay? The government? The government would finance it throught taxes. Taxes hit everyone. Blacks could be exempt and they wouldn't be hit. However, why would you punish an Irish immigrant arriving in 1911 for what someone else did? Would you do it purely because of his skin colour? That, my friend, would be racist. So you'd have to let the government find descendants of people who benefitted on slavery and then tax them more. Then again, is it fair to tax a hard working father of five who barely manages toget enough cash for food and rent because his ancestor, who he is blissfully ignorant of, was an utter bastard? This is just the tip of the iceberg regarding payment.
I conclude that reparations cause more injustice that it settles. It is a good thing, a good thought, but practically, it cannot be carried out in a fair manner.
