REPARATION for Blacks!

What is this? Africa and Black people all over the world are where we are today because of external influence that destroyed our continent and our people. We were exploited, violated, disenfranchised, marginalized. . . no other people in the human race has suffered to the extent that Black people have suffered. The Holocaust does not even come close in the scale of destruction and damages that we endured in the hands of Europeans. Today we can see the residual effect of their treachery. There should be justice for these wrongdoings. Justice include prosecutorial and reparative dimensions. There are different types of reparations. We are discussing here reparation for the damages of colonialism and slavery. That all the entities that have separately or jointly participated and were beneficiaries of the act of colonialism and enslavement of Black Africans are yet to amend these hurts and pains and damages done with savagery.

This is only a discussion and not necessarily a resolution for demand of a reparation. Let's hear your input. . . what do you feel about it?

I whole heartedly support reparations. The modalty of payment is for another discussion and people should not use the excuse of how would it be paid as an excuse of it not been workable. I feel the first thing is to establish that reparation is neccessary then the 2nd step is what is the cost, 3rd step is who are the beneficiaries and last step how it it owuld be paid.

This thread should focus first on the 1st step i think. Apart from slave trade many of africa's resources were stolen and there are still african treasures at the London museum, not forgetting ethopian treasures at british museum as well.

Okay, let's start with first step - Necessity for Reparation.

We can deduce from the innate desires and needs of mankind that his (gender implicit) nature is manifested in a duality. There is a mankind that seeks to adapt his being to the environment and nature of things around him. There is another mankind that seeks to adapt the nature of things around him in the environment to his being.

THE FIRST TYPE
This human is complacent and is able to endure prolonged hardship which he sees as a divine fate and rather than to self-initiate a solution. . .a pathway out of his suffering, he will choose instead to supplicate for an external intervention to deliver him out of the predicament. He will bear that pain continously for however long it takes for the external aid to arrive and rescue him. He has adapted himself to his problem.

This human has faith in other beings and objects outside of his own existence, regards them as aid to his survival and gives reverence to their existence and in fact is willing to be of service to them out of his innate recognition that life subsists on life.


THE SECOND TYPE
The other type has short endurance for hardship, under prolonged predicament he will derive self-help solutions and if those fail he will start to dis-integrate and then panick. His faith lies in self, if he has no solution for a problem at hand then an external help is useless. Failing to resolve the growing burden, he then reasons that ending his life ends the hardship and so he commits suicide. This human has adapted his problem to his own being.

This human has faith in his existence as the ultimate solution to survival and does not have reverence for the existence of other beings and objects beside himself and unless he can adapt them to the service of his being, their existence is of no value and they are then dispensable.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When a meeting happen between the first and the second type, there will result a Master-Slave type of relationship. This is the order of nature and creation. This is why there is no condemnation of slavery in the Holy Scriptures.

In order to discuss necessity for reparations on slavery we need to define clearly if we are grieving slavery or is it the inhuman and savagery with which the transactors conducted their trade in human traffic that we abhor.

In all of human history, except when man chooses to neglect the conscience of his soul for the benefits of his pockets, mankind has always observed the treatment of fellow beings with forbearance, not wanting to visit upon another person extreme hardship and burden on account of karma drawing retribution on one's blood and children. In that forbearance was the beginning of justice - the balance of weights!

Reparations must be approached in terms of its relevance to humane treatment and the contemporaneous customs and civility amongst the slave trading nations of that age. I would have suggested using UN charter to examine this relevance but UN was not formed in those times that the reparative damages is contingent upon.

What is this? Africa and Black people all over the world are where we are today because of external influence that destroyed our continent and our people.

Total and utter crap. Really. It's complete bullshit.
Africans are where they are today because of tribalism. Recognise that and you can make a start picking up the pieces but keep blaming others and you're part of the problem - not the solution.
Take a look at any country in Africa and you'll see that the vast majority of it's negatives have been caused by tribalism (and still are). And we can't blame that on whitey - tribalism was around long before he came along. Blaming external influences is to deny reality. The problems started at home well before whitey set foot on the continent and are still there now he's (in the most part) gone.

As I've stated elsewhere, there are major problems with reparations. Do we take into account the billions of dollars that the West has given to Africa and is still giving? And what about the African connection itself? Do we get reparations from the tribes who sold their brothers into slavery? The white-man rarely captured slaves for himself - they were delivered by their fellow Africans. If we ask for reparations from the whites, then shouldn't we also ask for reparations from our fellow Africans?
Reparations are nothing but guilt money. The West pays it now in the form of aid. Do you think that a final lump sum is the way to go? I certainly don't. If the West pays reparations and then turns the aid tap off (and it's absolved itself of guilt so why not) Africa will go down the pan quicker than you can blink.

Africans are where they are today because of tribalism

There is tribalism in every race and every continent. Why is ours different?

As I've stated elsewhere, there are major problems with reparations. Do we take into account the billions of dollars that the West has given to Africa and is still giving? And what about the African connection itself? Do we get reparations from the tribes who sold their brothers into slavery? The white-man rarely captured slaves for himself - they were delivered by their fellow Africans. If we ask for reparations from the whites, then shouldn't we also ask for reparations from our fellow Africans?

It's a dynamic discussion. We are at the beginning. I have discussed reparations with the initiators of the idea, that doesn't stop me from participating when I come across the topic. Join us and share your points as we go along.

There is tribalism in every race and every continent.  Why is ours different?

Because it's on a much larger scale. There are many more tribes in Africa who don't see eye to eye with each other.

If you take a look elsewhere on the planet, in the most part, tribalism isn't as severe. Although it still exists, it only does so in a much more watered down version.
Take a look at Europe and you'll see that even the nation state is being supplanted by the EU and they're becoming an indistinguishable mass. They don't war with each other because the main reason for warring (tribalism) has been removed. One could counter and say that they're destroying their identity but in reality, their society is evolving. In Africa, tribalism not only dictates how nations deal with each other but even how individuals within those nations interact.

It's a dynamic discussion.  We are at the beginning.  I have discussed reparations with the initiators of the idea, that doesn't stop me from participating when I come across the topic.  Join us and share your points as we go along.

I appreciate that but reparations are unworkable. You're asking for compensation for something that happened hundreds of years ago. History has over-ridden any justification, however much we would like to claim otherwise.
I'll give you an example:
Did you know that Africans enslaved the white population of Britain a couple of thousand years ago? Britain was ruled by a black Roman governer and the population were kept in check by black legionairres for hundreds of years. Does this mean that the British are entitled to reparations from Ethiopia (which is where the legionairres came from)?

And who can be prosecuted? The United States of America, which was the main slaving country didn't even exist at the time of slavery. Legally, the US isn't liable. And as given in the example above, if blacks claim reparations for slavery, why can't the whites? Are we setting a time-scale?
Who gets reparations? Africans? Why? Like I said, there were plenty of Africans who were complicit in the selling of slaves. Are they to be rewarded too? The African-Americans? Give them reparations and they have no justification to be able to call themselves Americans, it separates them from the rest of the population - and it's way too late for that as they're already a part of the fabric of US society. What is whitey going to say - "Here's the cash, now get the hell back to Africa"?

So yes, I appreciate your idea about discussing the topic, but unfortunately, there are way too many pitfalls, contradictions and unworkables for reparations ever to be an option. Slavery is a smear on mankind and to make it worse, it's still going on. The way forward is to stop it from happening now and to stop it from ever happening again.

Because it's on a much larger scale. There are many more tribes in Africa who don't see eye to eye with each other.

If you take a look elsewhere on the planet, in the most part, tribalism isn't as severe. Although it still exists, it only does so in a much more watered down version.
Take a look at Europe and you'll see that even the nation state is being supplanted by the EU and they're becoming an indistinguishable mass. They don't war with each other because the main reason for warring (tribalism) has been removed. One could counter and say that they're destroying their identity but in reality, their society is evolving. In Africa, tribalism not only dictates how nations deal with each other but even how individuals within those nations interact.

So Africa does have a unique case. Let us look at Nigeria in the way it is composed. Hausa, Ibo, Yoruba and many smaller tribal units. All these tribes are forced to live together today because of colonialism, not because of tribalism. Each tribe has indicated that it would fare better on its own as an independent sovereign nation than in a joint federation with other tribes. I acknowledge your issue with tribalism as one of the major problems, but I disagree that we are not impacted by the encounters of slavery. The sweet rewards of slavery served as incentive for Europeans to extend and legitimize their presence on our lands stretching their dominance across the continent in a wafer like arrangement across the different indigenous lands and tongues - english/french/english/french. . .then broken with a german territory before the pattern is again repeated english/french/english/french. . .


On reparation. It depends on how you look at it. If you say that British was once enslaved by Africans, then it would seem logical that British has exacted its reparation on account of its violation across Africa and instituting Crown ownership over our most precious natural resources. Beside, reparation is commonly thought of as monetary payment. Reparation is an award for damages sufferred. Award for damages can take many form - academic scholarship grant, apology and symbolic recognition and so on and so forth. I don't want to peempt the discussion. I know people have ideas and I hate to suggest what I believe they want. Read what Lagosboy said about taking it in steps.

If you say that British was once enslaved by Africans, then it would seem logical that British has exacted its reparation on account of its violation across Africa and instituting Crown ownership over our most precious natural resources.

My point exactly. The claim could be that reparations have already been claimed by both sides. Ethiopia became a rich and powerful nation with it's alliance to ancient Rome and they were the "asset strippers" of their day - exporting slaves and resources. It thus negates a large percentage of the "moral argument". We can't say "you owe us" because they could just turn around and say exactly the same.
But it's a moot point. Ethiopian enslavement of Britian is never going to be an argument that will be used as a defence of the enslavement of Africans. I'm just pointing out that if you base your claim on morality or lost resources, there is normally a counter-point.
My main critisism of the argument for reparations is simply that they are unworkable. No direct guilty party to pay them and no direct innocent party to receive them. Add to that the complications (such as the aid issue) that may arise if there was some workable plan that could get around that and it's a minefield.

but I disagree that we are not impacted by the encounters of slavery.

Hang on. I'm not claiming that slavery didn't have an impact and is something that should be overlooked or erased from the history books. What I'm saying is that we cannot blame it for the majority of Africa's woes. Without a doubt, tribalism is the over-riding factor there.

And that's where the crux of the matter is. Tribalism has to be controlled for Africa to ever be able to move forward. Globalisation of society is the only way the continent is ever going to be able to stand on it's own two feet. People have to see past being Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa, etc and then take an even further step and see past being Nigerian and look upon themselves as Africans. Only then will they be on a level pegging with the other continents. That doesn't mean we lose our identities but rather that we stop relying on those identities to dictate our interaction with others. Until then, Africans are just going to keep screwing each other - even without the white man's interference. I wish it were as easy as to be able to place the blame at someone else's feet, but the truth is that Africans have been their own worst enemies for centuries and still are. Until tribalism is pushed aside, Africans will also be their own worst enemies for the forseeable future.

Slavery itself as an institution is usually not the focus of high talk on reparation. It is the abuses that went with it. I will give you an example with what's going on in the financial market today. It is common and accepted practice to trade stocks and invest in the financial market and no one is questioning the morality and the ethics of the practice until it blew in our face and we begin to see how investment managers have swindled people and abused the trust to enrich themselves, sometimes totally wiping out many many years of family savings and livelihood. Well, in future would these victims be entitled to an award for the damages they incurred from mismanagement on Wall street? The damage is not for the institution of investment but rather for the mismanagement of the trade and the unethical practices of corporations and regulators that allowed it to happen.

This is why I sought to demarcate the institution with the ethics of the trade in an earlier post above.

Slavery itself as an institution is usually not the focus of high talk on reparation. It is the abuses that went with it.

The problem there is that you leave yourself open to accusations of generalisation and you can't make a legal claim for reparations without specifics.
In this case there were two kinds of abuse - those against the individual and those against African nations.
As I've stated, making a claim on the basis that African nations were abused has shaky foundations. Any claim is going to be countered with some of the arguments that I've previously given and then we have the problem of who pays out the cash and who receives it.

Any claim made on abuse in an individual basis is going to run into an immediate problem - the fact that the recipient of that abuse is long dead. Again, who pays, who receives?

So my question to you. Who should pay compensation and who should receive it?

Let's consider some scenarios.

scenario 1. An African owns another African as slave.

What are the guiding principles that protect the security of that slave? We will need to review the customs and traditions of the land in which the slave and his owner lived. In that land were slaves allowed liberties that were at par with that of a free person? I have heard that slaves in Africa back in those days were given hearing by the King to state their grievances against the owner. Is slavery a lifetime tenure or does it end when the contract of service expires? Is slave allowed marriage with free persons and who owns the child, the parents or the slave master?

scenario 2. An American white owns an African slave.

What securities does that slave have under the law of the land? Is he accorded same liberties as a free person, can he get audience in court to state his claims against his owner, can he draw contractual agreement with his master or is he a slave for life? Can he marry persons of free birth and does their child belong to them or to the master?


This is just a touch on the surface without going into it at length. You see, using this comparative analogy you can draw out the ethical violations and claim that as the basis for the damages.

You see, using this comparative analogy you can draw out the ethical violations and claim that as the basis for the damages.

No. There's a major problem with the comparison and that's because it's based on two different cultures, thousands of miles apart. We can't say that there are "levels" of slavery that reparation should be adjusted to accordingly. By doing that, we run the risk of giving some justification to less severe examples when the truth is that all slavery is equally as abhorrent.

And as I've already stated, some of the nations that those cultures were based in don't even exist nowadays.
You can't claim compensation from the US because the US didn't exist. You can't claim from the UN because you're then asking innocent people who had no party to slavery to pay compensation. You can't claim from individuals because they can't be held responsible for the actions of their anscestors.

Lagosboy stated earlier that modality of payment is not an issue but unfortunately it is the issue. Even if you can make a concrete claim that money is owed, you've got to have the payee and the receiver otherwise there's no legal case to answer.

Negro_Ntns:

Let's consider some scenarios.

scenario 1. An African owns another African as slave.

What are the guiding principles that protect the security of that slave? We will need to review the customs and traditions of the land in which the slave and his owner lived. In that land were slaves allowed liberties that were at par with that of a free person? I have heard that slaves in Africa back in those days were given hearing by the King to state their grievances against the owner. Is slavery a lifetime tenure or does it end when the contract of service expires? Is slave allowed marriage with free persons and who owns the child, the parents or the slave master?

scenario 2. An American white owns an African slave.

What securities does that slave have under the law of the land? Is he accorded same liberties as a free person, can he get audience in court to state his claims against his owner, can he draw contractual agreement with his master or is he a slave for life? Can he marry persons of free birth and does their child belong to them or to the master?


This is just a touch on the surface without going into it at length. You see, using this comparative analogy you can draw out the ethical violations and claim that as the basis for the damages.

how do the above address the issue of reparations?
Americans stopped owning slaves decades ago so exactly what are you driving at?

No. There's a major problem with the comparison and that's because it's based on two different cultures, thousands of miles apart. We can't say that there are "levels" of slavery that reparation should be adjusted to accordingly. By doing that, we run the risk of giving some justification to less severe examples when the truth is that all slavery is equally as abhorrent.

Slavery is abhorrent in our society today. In the past ages it was not. It was to them what securities and exchange is to us today. The vessels were insured, the crew were contracted, the cargo was insured, . . . you are talking about a vast system of international trade. The ship owner in England who lost his vessel in the storm across the Gulf of Mexico is not going to dimsiss it as a loss thousands of miles away. He will get his coverage reimbursed by the insurance company. Right? The slave cargo that went down with the ship will be reimbursed per head count. Right? So why should reparation not be accounted for in those same level of record keeping, regardless of the culture or the distance away?

And as I've already stated, some of the nations that those cultures were based in don't even exist nowadays.
You can't claim compensation from the US because the US didn't exist. You can't claim from the UN because you're then asking innocent people who had no party to slavery to pay compensation. You can't claim from individuals because they can't be held responsible for the actions of their anscestors.

US was in existence when the trans-African slave trade occurred. UN is not in the equation at all. You can claim from individuals and the estate they have inherited. If the descendant of Confederate soldiers can claim legacy of the American civil war, then he can equally be made liable for the atrocities of his ancestor in that era of American history. Beside there are corporations in America that are as old as the nation itself and were active participants in the economies of slavery. What is their involvement?

Lagosboy stated earlier that modality of payment is not an issue but unfortunately it is the issue. Even if you can make a concrete claim that money is owed, you've got to have the payee and the receiver otherwise there's no legal case to answer

True and I added that this is not a demand for reparation but a discussion to better understand. It's a mental exercise to unravel and share in understanding. I wish we could hold such discussions going forward and just dive into issues about Africa and come up with ideas for the way forward. Won't you agree?

US was in existence when the trans-African slave trade occurred. UN is not in the equation at all. You can claim from individuals and the estate they have inherited. If the descendant of Confederate soldiers can claim legacy of the American civil war, then he can equally be made liable for the atrocities of his ancestor in that era of American history.

It existed in name only when compared to the entity that exists today. As you've stated, there was the Confederacy and the Union. They were in effect, two different countries with different laws and governmental systems.
You claim that descendants are liable but this is a very, very tenuous argument. Firstly the moral aspect is questionable - punishing people for the actions of their forefathers is treading on very dangerous ground. Secondly, the practicalities of such a claim are beyond action - how do you judge which descendant should pay what? What if the descendant is someone whose forefathers only owned one slave but who is now immeasurably rich? What if the descendant is someone whose forefathers owned hundreds of slaves but who now lives in a shack by the Mississippi? How do we even know who did what? And if you claim from the US government itself to give money to Africa, you're taking taxes paid in part by the descendants of slaves!!
The variables make the question of compensation irrelevant.

But let's say that we can overcome all of that and that we have a guilty party who we can make pay. Who then do we get him to pay out to?

It existed in name only when compared to the entity that exists today. As you've stated, there was the Confederacy and the Union. They were in effect, two different countries with different laws and governmental systems.

Their existence was one. But like I said its a dynamic discussion. Wait till we get into who, when and how to discuss culpabilities.

You claim that descendants are liable but this is a very, very tenuous argument. Firstly the moral aspect is questionable - punishing people for the actions of their forefathers is treading on very dangerous ground. Secondly, the practicalities of such a claim are beyond action - how do you judge which descendant should pay what? What if the descendant is someone whose forefathers only owned one slave but who is now immeasurably rich? What if the descendant is someone whose forefathers owned hundreds of slaves but who now lives in a shack by the Mississippi? How do we even know who did what? And if you claim from the US government itself to give money to Africa, you're taking taxes paid in part by the descendants of slaves!!
The variables make the question of compensation irrelevant.

Nobody is punishing anybody. It is exacting justice against the actions of their forfathers. This belief is addressed in the US constitution and demands that people be given due process. There are people on fugitive lists for crimes committed in the 40s and I bet you if the government can find them now they will exact justice against them. If they owed money, I guarantee you IRS will levy their estate and draw the amount plus penalties and interests. Is this not true? Likewise you must exact justice against those forefathers who sought to protect the innocence of their sons and daughters but violate that of the slaves. Punishment it will be if you pack their descendants and lock them up or take them through the same tragedies that their forefathers visited upon another human. But here, thats is not the objective. The objective here is to reconcile the ethics with the obligations and see if anyone was hurt in the process. If they were, how do you heal them?

But let's say that we can overcome all of that and that we have a guilty party who we can make pay. Who then do we get him to pay out to?

Its not about guilt. Rather, it is a lesson for better understanding. We can discuss payment when we get to that point in the discussion. This is not it.

Nobody is punishing anybody. It is exacting justice against the actions of their forfathers.

Of course it's about punishment. To exact justice you've got to implicate punishment. And if you're taking money from someone because of something their forefathers did, how is this not punishing them for those earlier sins?

This belief is addressed in the US constitution and demands that people be given due process.

It's only applicable to US citizens. Africans have no rights under the US Constitution.

There are people on fugitive lists for crimes committed in the 40s and I bet you if the government can find them now they will exact justice against them

Yes, because there's the chance that they are still alive. But the slave owners of 140 years ago are dead. The comparison is irrelevant.

I guarantee you IRS will levy their estate and draw the amount plus penalties and interests.

Again, you're talking about recent history. The IRS will not levy on estates of estates which would be the case here.

Likewise you must exact justice against those forefathers who sought to protect the innocence of their sons and daughters but violate that of the slaves. unishment it will be if you pack their descendants and lock them up or take them through the same tragedies that their forefathers visited upon another human.

Then you're no better than them. But let's get one thing straight here - there are degrees of punishment and you're still advocating one. Financial forfieture for something your great great -grandfather did 140 years ago is a punishment.
But open up that can of worms and you indict the whole human race. Who doesn't have somebody in their ancestry who hasn't committed a crime for which compensation couldn't be claimed in your scenario?

But here, thats is not the objective. The objective here is to reconcile the ethics with the obligations and see if anyone was hurt in the process. If they were, how do you heal them?

You can't. Some things are beyond redemption or healing and slavery is one of those things. It's something that has to be faced, remembered, stopped from ever happening again, but it can't be reconciled in any way other than by the healing process of time.

Its not about guilt. Rather, it is a lesson for better understanding.

Again, of course it's about guilt. If there was no guilty party there would be absolutely no basis for a claim for compensation. The problem is that the guilty party is long gone. Reparations can't be made on that basis. No guilty party, no-one to claim compensation from.

[size=18pt]I support reparations for blacks![/size]

Of course it's about punishment. To exact justice you've got to implicate punishment wrongdoing. And if you're taking money from someone because of something their forefathers did, how is this not punishing them for those earlier sins imbalances?

It's only applicable to US citizens. Africans have no rights under the US Constitution

.

Exactly the point! The African slaves were not accorded US citizenship. So US has an obligation to define their presence on its soil. What were their human status?

Yes, because there's the chance that they are still alive. But the slave owners of 140 years ago are dead. The comparison is irrelevant.

I'm not talking about relevance. I am talking about legal precedence and customs of the land.

Again, you're talking about recent history. The IRS will not levy on estates of estates which would be the case here.

If you drive around the streets of America you will see companies that advertise their brand with pride of season "Established since 1801, The Pride of America". If you were established in 1801 we want to know your business back then. It is possible that you still owe wages to slaves that tilled your cotton plantation. We are not asking for money, we just want to know if you owned slaves, that's all. It's all for record keeping!

Then you're no better than them. But let's get one thing straight here - there are degrees of punishment and you're still advocating one. Financial forfieture for something your great great -grandfather did 140 years ago is a punishment.
But open up that can of worms and you indict the whole human race. Who doesn't have somebody in their ancestry who hasn't committed a crime for which compensation couldn't be claimed in your scenario?

Nobody is advocating punishment or penalty against anyone but you. You keep drawing that inferrence. Is that what you want. money? We are not discussing crime here. We are exercising imaginations and learning by way of discussion of a topic of interest. That topic happens to be Reparations. Next time it could be "Colonialism - what the white man stole". You feel me?

You can't. Some things are beyond redemption or healing and slavery is one of those things. It's something that has to be faced, remembered, stopped from ever happening again, but it can't be reconciled in any way other than by the healing process of time.

. . .or by the accelerated intervention of well intended discussions and debates.

Again, of course it's about guilt. If there was no guilty party there would be absolutely no basis for a claim for compensation. The problem is that the guilty party is long gone. Reparations can't be made on that basis. No guilty party, no-one to claim compensation from.

Guilt is a burden on the conscience. It's not just the descendants of slaves that need healing. The descendants of slave owners need it more. They need to release the guilt of self-recognition for the atrocities commited against humanity bytheir forefathers. Paying an award for the damages of those atrocities in effect become a therapy for them and they can move on in peace.

Blacks also engaged in slavery to profit from it as much as whites. Tribalism was the great hatred of those days.

But films like Alex Haley "Roots" make it look like there were no blacks capturing/kidnapping other blacks for sale to whites. So slavery started under blacks first and the slaves were transferred to whiteys grandaddy for cash. Please read Olaudah Equiano Narrative of his life in slavery. Blacks were very merciless towards one another when it came to acquiring slaves. I think it was a problem of self-hatred and greed.

Descendants of black slaves in the West today should try to acquire a reasonable measure of blackness and black native culture for the sake of a sense of self and spiritual liberation from the effects of slavery. Blacky also got demons in him thats why to this day he is one of the most troubled people on earth.

I believe that black folks love sell-outs such as slave traders and fraudulent politicians who "make it" because they wish they had the kind of cash and property these thieves have.

My brothers and sisters we are in a sorry state.