30-03-2002 07:29									#151
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I actually read the whole thread, so just a few things.

The Holocaust thing is out of place, the Zion movement started long before uncle Adolph shows up to slaughter Jews.

Also, the Holocaust was about murder, slavery is something that has been with humanity from the begining, and still exsists today, in, you guessed it, Africa.

Reperations are nonsense for obvious reasons, first of which:

It was legal, and you therefore can't sue someone for doing somthing that is leagal, whether you agree with it's morality or not.
Secondly, can anyone produce a single person alive today who was a black slave?
You can't collect damages on something done to an ancestor, it's inane, it's like me telling a Turk he owes me because the Ottomans held Greece for centuries.
It just doesn't hold water.
Third, prove damages, if you can somehow produce a way around the first two arguments.
Despite what people argue, Black slavery was 99 percent agrucultural, in the Southern US.
The people who owned those slaves lost the US civil war, and lost heavily, so you would have to tract down their decendents.
And why should they have to pay anything?
If your great grandfather stole Guy, should we hold you to blame?
Of course not.

The real problem is a generation of Black leaders that have been preaching reperations, and other nonsense like "Blacks built this country, the whites own you everything", this kind of bullsh1t is what caused all this.
There is no reason on this earth why I should have to pay someone because there ancestor was a slave.
So was mine, in Greece, and many others.

Are blacks better off by slavery?
Nope.

Africa isn't all bad, only parts, other areas are quite prosperous, but the feeling of being owed something is quite strong there.

This whole argument is bull from all sides.

Oh, and David, Orange is right about you, your own posting proves it.

PS: It's a damn shame people didn't didn't listen to Ben Franklin, he wanted an anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution.
If they had only listened....

	30-03-2002 07:39									#152
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer The problem is, better off compared to what? People in Africa today? Yes. Other people in American today? No. And what if slavery had never happened? Are blacks better off compared to how they would be if slavery had never happened, and had immigrated as most other ethnic groups have? No.

That's where I disagree. They're better off than people in Africa, and they're better off than how they would have been if never been AMERICAN slaves. The truth is, they would have been slaves somewhere else, or even domestic slaves, or they would have died of disease, or they would have died in religious wars which were and are still common in Africa. I don't see how you could prove that as a race, African Americans are worse off than Africans. Does that justify slavery though? Not on your life

	30-03-2002 08:12									#153
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Lancer A POW that wasn't sold as a slave would be tortured to death. Is he better off being sold as a slave? Put yourself in his place Guynemer. Sure, living as a slave would be very bad, but wouldn't it be better than being tortured to death?

Not generally true. Most PoWs were enslaved within African society. Like white slaves in Europe, Black slaves in Africa weren't treated all that badly. American slavery and Old World slavery were two very different beasts (we are excepting East Asia in this argument).

Some things to consider.

The world would be a completely different place had there been no American slavery. Slavery was necessary for the sugar plantations of the Carribean. Slavery on tobacco, indigo, and cotton created the wealth that England (and later the US) used to prime the pumps of capitalist economy. No slavery, and maybe industrialism would have taken another hundred or so years.

England and France and the Netherands might not have had the wealth to break the Spanish Empire, so maybe all of Europe would be united under a Hapsburg monarchy.

Black people wouldn't exist at all, since Black people are a African-European mix.

No slavery, no American Civil War, and the weapons advances that allowed Europe to conquer the rest of the world in the later half of the 19th Century may not have happened.

Without stealing 10 to 100 million people from the continent of Africa, maybe Africa would have been able to resit the European invasions, which are by far and away the most important reasons for the state of Africa today.

Okay, so, if slavery hadn't happened, Black people wouldn't exist, and existence is better than non-existence.

But it's not an argument against reperations.

	30-03-2002 08:19									#154
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by orange That's where I disagree. They're better off than people in Africa, and they're better off than how they would have been if never been AMERICAN slaves. The truth is, they would have been slaves somewhere else, or even domestic slaves, or they would have died of disease, or they would have died in religious wars which were and are still common in Africa. I don't see how you could prove that as a race, African Americans are worse off than Africans. Does that justify slavery though? Not on your life

Dammit Orange, we're talking about MY suppositions here, not yours. They would have been slaves somewhere else, etc? Che covers this pretty well. Frankly, I don't think it matters. American blacks would be in a much better state if slavery had never existed. Would there be as many black Americans? Possibly not; hard to say, actually. But they'd be a lot better off.

	30-03-2002 08:21									#155
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer Frankly, I don't think it matters. American blacks would be in a much better state if slavery had never existed. Would there be as many black Americans? Possibly not; hard to say, actually. But they'd be a lot better off.

Well of COURSE they'd be better off in America if slavery never existed. I didn't think we had to state that!

	30-03-2002 08:25									#156
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara England and France and the Netherands might not have had the wealth to break the Spanish Empire, so maybe all of Europe would be united under a Hapsburg monarchy.

I agree with you up until you said this. Spain was crumbling with or without the rise of France and England. They didn't allow their own country to grow, they didn't allow industry to grow in their own country. This was their fault, not the fault of French British and Dutch pressure. All of Europe under a Hapsburg Monarchy - not a chance.

quote: Black people wouldn't exist at all, since Black people are a African-European mix.

Eh?

quote: No slavery, no American Civil War, and the weapons advances that allowed Europe to conquer the rest of the world in the later half of the 19th Century may not have happened.

I honestly don't think that, on a grand scale, the Civil war led to that many advancements...at least...not enough that the world wouldn't have caught up. Though I do agree the civil war wouldn't have happened.

quote: Without stealing 10 to 100 million people from the continent of Africa, maybe Africa would have been able to resit the European invasions, which are by far and away the most important reasons for the state of Africa today.

Though I agree with the last sentence, the first is probably inaccurate. They lost because they were out teched, not because they were out massed.

	30-03-2002 08:29									#157
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by orange Well of COURSE they'd be better off in America if slavery never existed. I didn't think we had to state that!

Bloody hell man, that was my entire point! That saying they were better off because of slavery was absolute nonsense, because black Americans would have much higher status had slavery never existed. (Just as Jews would be far better off without the Holocaust. As many have pointed out, they might have gotten Israel anyway.)

Dig? We okay now, bro?

	30-03-2002 08:30									#158
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by orange Though I agree with the last sentence, the first is probably inaccurate. They lost because they were out teched, not because they were out massed.

Hey outmassing someone lets you outtech them...

At least it works that way in Civ.

	30-03-2002 08:32									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer Hey outmassing someone lets you outtech them... At least it works that way in Civ.

	30-03-2002 08:41									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer Bloody hell man, that was my entire point! That saying they were better off because of slavery was absolute nonsense, because black Americans would have much higher status had slavery never existed.

Yeah, those non-existent black americans...



Okay, I have to stop replying to this thread....

	30-03-2002 08:41									#161
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer Bloody hell man, that was my entire point! That saying they were better off because of slavery was absolute nonsense, because black Americans would have much higher status had slavery never existed. (Just as Jews would be far better off without the Holocaust. As many have pointed out, they might have gotten Israel anyway.) Dig? We okay now, bro?

Ok, but assuming they weren't brought over as slaves, they wouldn't have been 'brought over' at all, and they would have been in Africa - where NOW they are worse off than African Americans are NOW.

If an African simply came to the US assuming slavery never existed, then of course African Americans in the US would be better off than they were under the real history where slavery existed.

But we're only 'okay' when you admit that you lost the Iroquois debates! Face it, your partner was Ribannah...I mean seriously now...

	30-03-2002 10:40									#162
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by orange But we're only 'okay' when you admit that you lost the Iroquois debates! Face it, your partner was Ribannah...I mean seriously now...

Bugger off. If you'll consult the transcripts, you'll note that I disavowed her tactics and extremist stance, while still defending the right of the Iroquois to be included in Civ3.

SUCCESSFULLY defending, I should say.

	30-03-2002 10:42									#163
	Suffering from ads?

And, again, I should state that immigration from Africa is quite high now... there's no reason to think that, without slavery, such immigration could have started earlier, and those immigrants would have been regarded as other immigrant groups to the US--shitty, but still better than slaves.

	30-03-2002 11:11									#164
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

orange-

You know what? I'm sick of this. If it offends you for me to post and argue for my opinion, I'll make it real easy. I just won't. If you would rather insult someone you don't know than carry on civilized discussion, than I'll have no further part in it.

My position on this issue is well-known, and unrefuted - certainly not by orange.

Since I have nothing more to add to it, I'll just drop it.

Some of what you said really did piss me off, just so you know.

Whatever.

	30-03-2002 12:09									#165
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd orange- You know what? I'm sick of this. If it offends you for me to post and argue for my opinion, I'll make it real easy. I just won't.

Whine whine, that's not what I'm 'offended' by at all. I've listened to a lot more of the liberal pacifist junk than just what you spout. And while I may not agree with it, I'll always debate it with a cool head. What I get pissed off at is when you slap one of your little "i've been robbed" catch phrases to everything. If you're against taxation, fine. If you're against welfare, fine. If you're against war, fine. I don't care. But when you come on here and say "the blacks have stolen enough of my money through welfare and taxes" I'm going to get damn pissed, and yeah, I'm going to call you a selfish prat. Don't like it - I don't care!

quote: If you would rather insult someone you don't know than carry on civilized discussion, than I'll have no further part in it.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm insulting a screen. You can take what I say to heart, you can take what I say with a grain of salt. Truth is - I won't know, and in the long run I probably won't care. When I see stuff that is just outright offensive and selfish, I'm going to call you on it, despite whether or not you think it's just 'defending your beliefs' You quickly forget that we're in agreement on this issue almost 100%, yet you feel the need to add **** that is first of all untrue, and second of all and more importantly - hurts the feelings of an entire set of people. I'll support my beliefs in any civilized debate, but I'll fight fire with fire when you go offending people, whether it's me you're offending or not.

quote: My position on this issue is well-known, and unrefuted - certainly not by orange.

Maybe that's because I agree with your position?

quote: Some of what you said really did piss me off, just so you know.

Likewise. Else why would I come off the way I did?

	30-03-2002 12:22									#166
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

dumb

	30-03-2002 12:29									#167
	Remove this text

This whole thing has careened beyond all usefullness. The original thread was about people suing corporations for wages never paid to their ancestors. Thus any discussion as to whether people would have been better off if their ancestors had remained in Africa rather than carried off on slave ships was not really a germain argument in this particular case, though it might be in a general reperations argument.

Guynemeyer then made two mistakes. He misrepresents what at least most of the people who brought up this argument actually said by restating it as "Blacks ought to be thankful for slavery..", and he compounds this by making a terrible analogy and demanding that people defend it.

The result is a stupid thread, which I dutifully read hoping to learn something. Oh well. Btw I was disgusted by some of the things said on the other thread (and to a lesser extent on this one), so I understand why Guy was pi$$ed off. It's OK IMO to have different values than other people, and even to hold strong opinions about those differences and say them, (this is only a 'brainer' for PC types who believe that only certain types of values can be discussed). One should be more careful however in moving a values argument into the realm of criticizing a culture / ethnicity which has a wide variety of viewpoints on the same value by reducing them to stick figures who only embody the value you particularly disagree with, and when the terminology used to describe these people is the same whether you are talking about a culture / ethnicity or a racial distinction you are going to offend someone. Argue your intellectual point (if you have one), but leave the offensive (if not outright racist) stereotyping off these forums.

	30-03-2002 13:36									#168
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 I actually read the whole thread, so just a few things. The Holocaust thing is out of place, the Zion movement started long before uncle Adolph shows up to slaughter Jews. Also, the Holocaust was about murder, slavery is something that has been with humanity from the begining, and still exsists today, in, you guessed it, Africa. Reperations are nonsense for obvious reasons, first of which: It was legal, and you therefore can't sue someone for doing somthing that is leagal, whether you agree with it's morality or not. Secondly, can anyone produce a single person alive today who was a black slave? You can't collect damages on something done to an ancestor, it's inane, it's like me telling a Turk he owes me because the Ottomans held Greece for centuries. It just doesn't hold water. Third, prove damages, if you can somehow produce a way around the first two arguments. Despite what people argue, Black slavery was 99 percent agrucultural, in the Southern US. The people who owned those slaves lost the US civil war, and lost heavily, so you would have to tract down their decendents. And why should they have to pay anything? If your great grandfather stole Guy, should we hold you to blame? Of course not. The real problem is a generation of Black leaders that have been preaching reperations, and other nonsense like "Blacks built this country, the whites own you everything", this kind of bullsh1t is what caused all this. There is no reason on this earth why I should have to pay someone because there ancestor was a slave. So was mine, in Greece, and many others. Are blacks better off by slavery? Nope. Africa isn't all bad, only parts, other areas are quite prosperous, but the feeling of being owed something is quite strong there. This whole argument is bull from all sides. Oh, and David, Orange is right about you, your own posting proves it. PS: It's a damn shame people didn't didn't listen to Ben Franklin, he wanted an anti-slavery clause in the US Constitution. If they had only listened....

I support the concept of slavery reparations, but this is the first real intelligent counter-argument against mine in this entire thread. I cannot believe some of you guys simply ignored Chri's arguments.

He has caused me to rethink my arguments, and perhaps after I think about his counter-arguments, I can better form my own arguments in favor of slavery reparations, or I might change my position on it after considering his counter-arguments.

Chris, thanks for the only intelligent arguments against my position.

	30-03-2002 13:40									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Would a more pertinent case be made for living blacks sueing for their reduced civil liberties under 20th century segregation?

	30-03-2002 14:00									#170
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Good point, Bugs.

How about blacks suing for damages that resulted from the Jim Crow laws, segregation, disnfranchisement, sharecropping, and the legal system of lynching??

If slavery reparations is not legitimate, then maybe those that Bugs mentioned, and the ones I listed above, could be grounds for legitimate cases for reparations.

	30-03-2002 14:02									#171
	Suffering from ads?

MrFun - taking nothing away from Chris's argument...

isn't that what we've been saying all along?

I mean, you said that what he said really made you rethink your position, but i've seen it all said before, some of it even from me.

	30-03-2002 14:07									#172
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Orange, nothing personal against you -- I do not hate you here on Apolyton.

Maybe it's my fault -- maybe I did not see the similar things you have said that Chris said.

But also one thing that was definitely intelligent about Chri's arguments. He avoided using the irrelvant "better off here than Africa" argument and was still able to provide good counter-arguments.

But anyway, now maybe we can move our discussion to what Bugs and I have most recently posted about. Read our last posts and see what you think, either way.

	30-03-2002 14:14									#173
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny Would a more pertinent case be made for living blacks sueing for their reduced civil liberties under 20th century segregation?

Absolutely, though the government typically has immunity to lawsuits which seek monetary damages. There is probably some room for lawsuits, though it's likely that they will only be allowed to move forward against private parties which were in violation of the law at the time of the tort.

	30-03-2002 14:16									#174
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Sikander, so you agree with the points that Bugs have made, and the points I have made??

That reparations are possible for these crimes against humanity:

1) Jim Crow laws

2) legal lynching

3) segregation

4) disfranchisement

5) sharecropping

	30-03-2002 14:34									#175
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Sikander, so you agree with the points that Bugs have made, and the points I have made?? That reparations are possible for these crimes against humanity: 1) Jim Crow laws 2) legal lynching 3) segregation 4) disfranchisement 5) sharecropping

No, I'm talking about the model used in the recent suit where people are suing for monetary damages for specific instances wrongdoing. Remember that:

1) The government has immunity from monetary damages in almost every instance.

2) Legal behaviors (like segregation of hotels or other Jim Crow type rules etc.) at the time of the alleged tort are very unlikely to be sustained in the courts.

3) If lynching was ever legal in the U.S. it was so long ago that no one remotely associated with it can be a party to a lawsuit.

4) Sharecropping was (and is) not only legal, but wasn't even a race specific abuse. To the extent that anyone can make a lawsuit stick regarding sharecropping then obviously so can black sharecroppers, but this can't be seen at all in the light of a civil rights issue.

5) Disenfranchisement is too vague a notion to stand up as a tort, though perhaps as a civil rights lawsuit you could successfully claim it.

A lot of what's actionable has already been covered over the last 30 years by a fairly large number of civil rights suits.

	30-03-2002 14:41									#176
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Sharecropping is not a crime against humanity... in fact it can be a very intelligent economic arrangement.

You can either a)Tenant Farm, where the tenant farmer owns a rent, certain amount of money (or crop), to the landlord. In this case all risk is the tenants. b)Hire farmers, where farmers are payed a wage by the landowner and he collects the crop. All the risk is here held by the landowner. c)Sharecropping, where a certain percentage of crop is given to the landowner. The risk is shared here (and isn't too far off from tenant farming).

So explain... what is Sharecropping a crime at all?

--

And yes any reperations are illegal in the US under the Constitution (no ex post facto law... since slavery and Jim Crow was, presumably, legal).

	30-03-2002 22:52									#177
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sikander No, I'm talking about the model used in the recent suit where people are suing for monetary damages for specific instances wrongdoing. Remember that: 1) The government has immunity from monetary damages in almost every instance. 2) Legal behaviors (like segregation of hotels or other Jim Crow type rules etc.) at the time of the alleged tort are very unlikely to be sustained in the courts. 3) If lynching was ever legal in the U.S. it was so long ago that no one remotely associated with it can be a party to a lawsuit. 4) Sharecropping was (and is) not only legal, but wasn't even a race specific abuse. To the extent that anyone can make a lawsuit stick regarding sharecropping then obviously so can black sharecroppers, but this can't be seen at all in the light of a civil rights issue. 5) Disenfranchisement is too vague a notion to stand up as a tort, though perhaps as a civil rights lawsuit you could successfully claim it. A lot of what's actionable has already been covered over the last 30 years by a fairly large number of civil rights suits.

Ok, since sharecropping was more of a racially-based exploitation system that was semi-slavery, it's not really a crime against humanity. Leave that one out.

As for lynching, that was legal in the United States until the 1940's after World War II. No federal anti-lynching laws were passed until after World War II, I believe.

So since the Holocaust was legal under Nazi Germany at the time, that means that the Jews had no right to reparations -- those who survived the Holocaust??

	30-03-2002 23:09									#178
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by orange Spain was crumbling with or without the rise of France and England. They didn't allow their own country to grow, they didn't allow industry to grow in their own country.

Yes, but empires can last quite a long time if no one's strong enough to knock them over. In the case of a crumbling Spain, it was only seen as crumbling in a context in which NorthWes Europe was surging forward, based on profits created in large part through slavery and the slave trade. No slaver = no trade = no profits = no capital for economic take off.

quote: eh?

Black Americans have quite a bit of European blood in them. Master liked to have his ways with the slaves, and Mistress liked to get her a little Mandingo. All you have to do is look at the many, many hues of Black America to realize that they aren't all African.

quote: I honestly don't think that, on a grand scale, the Civil war led to that many advancements...at least...not enough that the world wouldn't have caught up.

The Gatling Gun and the repeating rifle are at least two of the innovations that came out of this war.

[q]Though I agree with the last sentence, the first is probably inaccurate. They lost because they were out teched, not because they were out massed. [/QUOTE]

China was out-teched, but they managed to stay independent, in part because of their mass. (But also because of the United States.) Even one of the most advanced countries in the world, Japan, couldn't conquer a divided and waring China.

However, the point remains that without the African slave trade, the world would be completely different in ways which we cannot fathom.

	30-03-2002 23:28									#179
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Yes, but empires can last quite a long time if no one's strong enough to knock them over. In the case of a crumbling Spain, it was only seen as crumbling in a context in which NorthWes Europe was surging forward, based on profits created in large part through slavery and the slave trade. No slaver = no trade = no profits = no capital for economic take off.

I don't think slavery profited mainland England much if at all. Their money was in the coal mines. In the Carribbean sure...but not mainland Europe, and I still don't think that wealth was so great that it toppled Spanish power. Spain was on a natural decline....it had no way of controlling any of its new world territory anymore.

quote: Black Americans have quite a bit of European blood in them. Master liked to have his ways with the slaves, and Mistress liked to get her a little Mandingo. All you have to do is look at the many, many hues of Black America to realize that they aren't all African.

While I do agree that yes, that happened, realize that all Africans are not the same hue to begin with. People from Zimbabwe have a different hue then those in the Sudan, and those in Zaire have a different hue from those in Senegal. I don't think that has differing hues can show that almost all African Americans have a tough of European in them.....though I don't disagree that there are those that do.

quote: The Gatling Gun and the repeating rifle are at least two of the innovations that came out of this war.

Yes, two of many...but don't you think that they would have come along soon after, if not during the Civil War?

quote: China was out-teched, but they managed to stay independent, in part because of their mass. (But also because of the United States.) Even one of the most advanced countries in the world, Japan, couldn't conquer a divided and waring China.

Define independent. They had their ports robbed from them from different Euro powers. They weren't entirely dominated, no, but they certainly weren't 100% independent either. Look at Britain and India. Also - Japan could have easily conquered China without Britain and the United States (if you're talking WW2), and really, they did. At least, the only part of China that really mattered

quote: However, the point remains that without the African slave trade, the world would be completely different in ways which we cannot fathom.

agreed

	31-03-2002 00:34									#180
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Ok, since sharecropping was more of a racially-based exploitation system that was semi-slavery, it's not really a crime against humanity. Leave that one out. As for lynching, that was legal in the United States until the 1940's after World War II. No federal anti-lynching laws were passed until after World War II, I believe. So since the Holocaust was legal under Nazi Germany at the time, that means that the Jews had no right to reparations -- those who survived the Holocaust??

Does anyone want to answer my question about the Holocaust being legal under Nazi Germany in relation to reparations to Holocaust survivors??