This is one of the most insane ideas I have ever heard of. The whole concept of "give me", "handouts", "government owes me", etc is a large part of why people don't succed. The concept that instead of working for something I deserve a handout because 'x' is asinine.

Reparations is a good example.

The idea that we are supposed to punish people that didn't do anything in order to reward someone who wasn't harmed is beyond insane and quite illegal.

Plus, the idea to punish/reward someone for engaging in legal activities is just flabergasting. Slavery was legal, how do we justify punishing people (again, who didn't engage in the activity) for legal actions?

What's next? Perhaps women can sue because they were denied the right to vote as were people who didn't own land so there is another group and their descendants who can sue for reparations.

When I was a teenager I work for something like 3.75 an hour -something an hour, far below the current minimum wage that is downright criminal!

People used to be forced to work 60+hours with no overtime, that too is now against the law, guess their descendants can sue as well? Children used to be forced to work in unsafe factories which is now illegal, can they sue as well?

There are a ton of things that are now against the law that used to be acceptable. Can people be rewarded for having descendants who lived under different laws that today?

Also, despite what people like "reverend" Jackson would have us believe, slavery was not invented by George Washington. Slavery has been around for the last few 100's of thousands of years. I would venture to say that we are ALL descendants of slaves. Does that mean we all get to sue someone for reparations?

Slavery is horrible to modern people, yes.
Humanity has grown and matured and advanced technically and now see slavery as abhorent and Evil. That doesn't mean that anyone should be rewarded because their ancestors were enslaved.

What if humanity grows even more, lets say.. PETA takes over the world and having pets is outlawed. Several generations goes by and reparations are suggeseted for animals. They try to charge people who have never had pets, who the mere idea of having pets is just as Evil as slavery and use that money as a handout to animals who have never known the life of a pet.

I am NOT trying to compare having a pet with slavery. I am merely pointing out that the concept of punishing your descendants because you engaged in a legal and acceptable activity is insane and criminal

Yes, today we not rightfully hold slavery to be Evil, unfortunately in the past humanity didn't see that and there were even times when slavery was neccessary

The sad but horrible truth is that unfortunately without modern technology civilization would be impossible without slavery of one sort or another.

There is simply no way to feed the population levels needed and to enable specialization without slavery of some kind (peasants, slaves, sharecroppers, etc, etc, etc).

No, there is no way to justify "reparations". Especially when you no one today was harmed, no one today engaged in the activity, and the activity was legal.

Hmm, touchy subject.

I do find it amusing that you use the PC term "African-American" and then begin a post which most of them would probably find pretty offensive. :)

I do think that we are all obligated to right past wrongs, even to a people in a general. We are all affected indirectly by the harm/gain that happened to our ancestors.

I'm a grandchild of Holocaust survivors. My wife is as well. All of our grandparents' families were killed and their property was stolen by the Nazi government. In fact my wife wouldn't even be alive if the Holocaust hadn't happened because her grandfather had another family before the war that was killed off entirely (wife and five children).

They were forced to work in labor and death camps at no wage.

Property typically passes through inheritance. When ancestors die, the property passes to their descendants. Does this mean that my grandparents have no right to ask the German government for back wages? Does this mean, I, as my grandfathers heir, have no right to ask the government for back wages owed to my family, or for our family property back?

Yes, enslaving black people was legal at the time. But so was killing Jews in 1942. It's the government that defines what is and isn't legal and the government is very rarely morally right. If we have an opportunity to right past wrongs, what's the harm?

Just a note - I removed this link from the "news" section. As that would allow it to split into two conversations (in news and here). Please don't submit forum threads to the news area (the articles section will address this when it's ready).

When the articles section comes out, the conversation will be the same on both pages.

This is truly a Gordian Knot. I agree that it's OK to right past wrongs, but the problem is how to go about it without harming the people of the present who had no hand in the past wrong. Clearly Jews deserve justice (however you define justice), but so do ethnic races all through the world. Peoples have been persecuted throughout the world and throughout history. Where do you start? How far back in history do you go to draw the line and say so-called-reparations start here, but not for injustices before this date? Affirmative Action, while extremely flawed, was more of a step in the right direction than just giving away free money. And it only addressed social reform in America. How do you establish something like this globally, for Jews, Slavs, Africans, and countless others? 2many makes some valid points, but how do you find that middle ground (if there is one)? This is one sticky problem and I sure don't have an answer. All I can do is ask more questions.

Agreed. There are a million questions one can have about this but if you follow them through far enough there are always ethical problems in reaching an answer.
Its not even easy to see who should be handling such matters anyway. The courts? Governments? This country? That country?
The few remaining souls that went through it? A truly perplexing situation.

Im a firm believer that if someobody harms me that person gets punished. Not his brother or friends. If that person is no longer available for punishment for some reason. Its over.

But then as Jax said -



I cant argue with that even if its not how I see things. Perfectly fair.

Jax, I don't see how any of my post would be offensive to african-americans. I am merely pointing out that

1) punishing people who didn't do anything and rewarding people who weren't harmed is illogical

2) If you want to start down that road, every single one of us have had bad things done to our ancestors. Do we all sue for damages?

3) I am also pointing out the ugly truth that slavery was a necessary evil. Slavery comes in many forms. As mentioned it is almost impossible to produce everything that is needed for a society, for civilization to flourish unless you use modern technology. That is my understanding and belief. I do not "know" this for a fact and am welcome to views that may show I am wrong in this regard. I am saying that as evil as slavery was and is, the fact that it was a requirement combined with the fact that every single person has ancestors who were slaves invalidates the argument for reparations.

Not everyone had ancestors that had to suffer the Holocaust. What was done to the Jewish people and the other groups in the Holocaust was not neccesary. That is something different

If we allow people to sue for legal actions where does it stop. I brought up points showing where it would be just as logical for people to sue because their ancestors were denied the rights and legal protections that are taken for granted today.


The only harm is the inequity in it. Why single out one group to say what happened to your ancestors was wrong here is a bunch of money which we've taken from people who also have had bad things done to their ancestors and hadn't done anything wrong, but that doesn't count.

One type of resitution to Jewish families really bothers me. This is where people who purchased paintings and other belongings legally and fairly had to return them to the descendants of the Jewish family who had them confiscated in the war. Yes it was horrible and evil, yet it was legal. Why should the end user, the person who bought it legally have to loose out because generations ago a foreign government took the possessions of one of its citizens.

If we do that, then they should have to research the entire chain of ownership. If we say someone has to give up their legally owned property because it was immorally taken, than what about the people the Jewish owner bought it from? And the person before him and before him and before him, etc, etc. If we can prove that generations before the Jewish family's ancestor bought it, it was confiscated by some other government office should the Jewish family have to give it up?
Would it have been fair to take it from the Jewish owner not because the Nazi's were soul-less pigs, but because some previous owner had it taken from him legally yet immorally?

Again this is an example of someone who did nothing wrong, whose ancestors had nothing to do with the Holocaust, whose country did not operate the death camps, yet he has to give up his property.

Again, extrapolate that idea to everything else. What if the 'x' anyone owns was lost by an owner in a immoral action does that mean that generations later a descendant can sue to have that item back?

If a person happens to have a physical or mental problem caused by medicine taken by a family member generations earlier, should that person not be cared for and just accept it because the problem was caused generations ago? Or should that person be granted a boost to make up for the quality of life that has been lost?

I know its a different question but its on the same sliding scale. Like TomP said 'where do you draw the line'

Ethically this is a problem that cannot be solved except for hope that we can deal with it properly as and when it happens.

Sometimes it will be just to give help/aid/handouts, other times it will be wrong.
But there will never be a definite answer.

Interesting topic. I do know that I was born in 1968 and I've never owned a slave or killed a Jew. I feel remorse in my soul for things my country and other contries have done to individuals in the past. I am trying to save money for my daughters future while at the same time supporting illegal immigrants (I live in Arizona) and other government sponsored wastes of tax dollars. If I had anything left in the kitty I'd give it to a Worthy cause of my choice! :) Sorry all... but my crime was being born! :(

My High School sweetheart was of German descent. Her Mom told me the story of how she got out of Germany hidden in a wagon before the Wall was put up. She made a life for herself and never asked for help or felt like she was owed anthing by anybody.

Here's another twist. I was born in Africa and when things turned sour in Zimbabwe I was persecuted for the things that had been done to them generations ago...is that right?

Ooh I like that. (Not the situation of course)
But it does slightly point to what I was saying earlier -



Each case is its own with its own ethics. So again I say. There is no definite answer regarding this subject.

Oh, I definitely agree that individual descendants shouldn't be held accountable (i.e. persecuted) for the sins of their ancestors, as in Ziaphra's case.

Because a government is a surviving entity, unlike a single individual which dies, it can be held accountable for actions that have happened generations ago even by different people in the government.

Think of it like this: If a person commits murder when he's 18, and is caught when he's 99, should he not be held accountable? Government is like that - it doesn't die even if it's individual people do.

But the government doesn't exist. It is like a corporation. Sure legally a corporation is an entity seperate from the officers even if all the officers is the same person. Same as the government, it doesn't truely exist as a seperate living entity.

There is no "Government" that can pay, even if we assume for the moment that they should pay.

Governments may not "die" but that is because they are not alive in the first place.

How would the "government" even make payments?

"individual descendants shouldn't be held accountable" and are innocent of any wrongdoing legal or moral that as citizens pay the hand-out via taxes to people whose ancestors had something wrong done to them. (Which again gets us into the fact that every single one of us have had ancestors that had immoral as well as illegal actions done against them.)

In the case of slavery, it would be hard to hold a national government liable. But in the case of what Germany did to the Jews, you can very certainly hold Germany responsible for what past German leaders did in the name of the country.

Yes, my argument is about slavery, based partially on the fact that every single one of us have had ancestors who were slaves.

Obviously what the Jews, homosexuals, and the Gypsies had to suffer was unique unto them.

Slavery, as I theorized, was a necessary evil required due to a lack of technolgy needed to produce enough food.

The horrors of the Holocaust was not necessary and can not be justified that way.

As I mentioned I can see a case being made for money to them. However I don't agree with taking material goods away from people who purchased it legally just because the owner for 60 years ago had it confiscated. (Discussed more above)


I guess a lot of it has to do with the amount of time. Obviously the government of Truman is the same as the government of Bush. Is the government of Washington the same government of Bush? Is the government of Blair the same government as William the Conqueror?

Good and tricky question. One I don't have an easy answer to.

As far as suing governments go, you do have the problem in determing "same" government.
For instance is the government of today's Germany responsible for the actions of East Germany's actions. Both happened in Germany. If Germany was to change its name to Billy's Land would they argue that they are no longer "Germany"?

Then as you mentioned how far back do you go?
Is today's "German" government responsible for the actions of the Merovingian kings of Gaul who conquered german tribes back in the 7th century.

Are they reponsible for the actions of the Frankish empire, Pippin, Charlemagne, Duke Henry of Saxony, Otto the great, the government of the Holy Roman Empire of Germany, and the rest that my second-rate american education has failed to drill into my mind, all of who ruled Germany or the lands that became Germany.

Definitly hard to determine in a fair and equitable manner

On a whole different track but similar to the idea that the government should pay for actions done by previous governments what about the immense evils done to untold millions of people under orders from the Catholic church? Same argument could be made that the Church of today is the same as the church of yesteryear. Hell, it is a much stronger argument that the today's church is the same as the church of 2000 years ago.

Can everyone whose ancestors who were harmed by the Catholic church sue the church for damages? Do they also deserve payment? Also it is well known that the Catholic church had tremendous secular control over European countries so maybe the people that were harmed by those countries can sue the Church as well since ultimly the Church was calling the shots.

Something I never thought of, but the argument follows if we assume that governments are responsible for previous actions. Yet the idea would surely be laughed at.

Very well orated debate going on here! I shouldn't have ever thrown in my 2 cents! I'm not a good debater :) I do have a question about Native Americans and my family roots. I am 1/16 Cherokee Indian, should a good law-suit against the government arise am I entitled to a 1/16 cut of the compensation for suffering my Great-Great-Grandmother would have gotten? :)

I have to repeat what I have already said in that there is no definite answer.

2many I admire your use of language and you make a very good point. But in making that point you have just veered into asking a variety of other questions which kind of proves what ive been saying all along.
This is just one of those illusive subjects that goes on and on if you want it to so im not going to comment anymore.

Great thread though. Cheers. :)

I can't agree with that. I'm just too close to the South, and I've got too many Southern relatives to buy that. Many plantations didn't even produce food, they grew cotton or tobacco. Plantation owners in this country didn't own slaves to put food on the table- they owned slaves to produce wealth for their families. Wealth that many of those families lost during the Civil War, but that many others have held onto for generations. Down around here we call that "Old Money". You get a little lower and they call it "Society", and if you actually earned a penny of your family's money, honey, you don't qualify.

Incidently, you'd be surprised at how strong the resentment still is for some Southerners. They'll talk on and on about how rich they'd be today if the War hadn't ruined their great grandaddy's farms.

(disclaimer: Please note my use of the word "some" in the above paragraph. It is a qualifier used to indicate that I am not refering to all Southern people.)




So if someone steals my car, and you buy it from them, and give it to your kid... I don't have a right to ask for my car back? I can't agree with that either.

The items they bought "legally" were stolen goods. When you buy stolen goods you don't have any right to them. Want your money back? Sue the thieves.

As for the issues of time you bring up... you are throwing in some mighty extreme examples there. I'm sure you are aware that there are still living Holocaust survivors, still living blacks who remember what it was like to be a sharecropper, the children of displaced slaves? Still (presumed) living Nazi war criminals who have not yet been caught? That was never five minutes just now.

As far as the government goes... we are all government. As we change, it changes. Ultimately, we have to decide what and who we are responsible for.

But they weren't "stolen goods". They were goods that were taken legally. They may have been taken immorally, but they were taken nevertheless.

My point is if we allow that, than how far back do we go? I would venture to say that somewhere in the chain of ownership of some 400 year old painting someone had it taken from them by an immoral law.


A better analogy is if the state passed a law that 80 year old are not allowed to drive and confiscated some woman's car, than sold it to someone who sold it to some, etc. 60 years later the law is changed when we realize that it is prejudiced and morally wrong. Does that mean that the person has to give back the car to the previous owner? There are no "thieves" to sue. No one stole it..[/quote]



The examples may be extreme but they are valid. Every single one of us have had ancestors who were wronged (some more recent than the 1800's. Every single one of us have had ancestors who were slaves.

The idea of singling out the Afrian-Americans' ancestors is illogical and only because it is so easy to make the EvilWhiteMan feel guilty for past transgretions.

Than also, which government should pay?

England since they were the ruling government at first?

Portugal for bringing the first slaves to the Americas and being the main supplier?

Various countries in Africa for selling the slaves to the Portugese?

etc etc etc

If people think that they are slaves they will never be free. If people think that they are owed something from the system or their society just by being born, they will never learn how to make their own way and become prosperous.

Even if this wacked-out idea ever took place, out of the illusion of being "fair" the only "fair" way to carry this out would be to prove ansestory. If someone is half of african decent (who were slaves) and half of european decent...shouldent they be collecting half the money they should be paying out half the money? And what of those african americans who immigrated to america after the civil war, and their ansestors were never slaves to white americans? And what of the americans who just immigrated to america recently?

I can't believe this thread is still alive. I've read everything here. I'm addicted to oil!!! Who do I sue?

p.s. WheresMySanity, You make a good point...just have to dig deeper into history before making a blanket statement like that.:{)}

Without reading any portion of this thread I will comment anyway.


I will give the black man his reperations when the men give me reperations to pay for treating my gender as property in the past.