Black People : Are Black folks the only folks looking for reparations??...!!

NNQueen said:
In an effort to bring this discussion back to the main point of the thread and away from personal attacks, I'd like to ask Sister Indya precisely why she believes that descendants should not benefit from any injustices or genocidal treatment experienced by their ancestors? I believe this is the very point that Brother James continues make. If descendants can inherit assets then why not liabilities. If you inherit an asset, you were not the original creator of that asset and would it be in error to submit here that many of today's wealthiest white people are descendants of former slave owners? I'm trying to understand the sister's logic when it comes to modern African Americans and what makes US so different than any other group of people that have managed to benefit from reparations when they weren't directly involved?

Peace,
Queenie :spinstar:

I really don't know of any other group whos descendents got reparations. Japanesse have been mentioned, but the only people given compensation in their case there the actual people who were in the internment camps.

The Japanesse were given $20,000 for each person who was intered. If the person who was intered had passed away the money didn't go to the decendents since they weren't intered.

Indians have been mentioned as having compensation because they can have gambling. Indians on reservations are a soverinity, which means they make the rules on the reservations. The indians are following treates. No one has given me an example that stands up to investigation.

You ask " if decendents can inherit assets then why not liabilities". Because this is a slippery slope. If my ancestor was a thief should I have to pay off the decendents of the man my ancestor stole from? This wouldn't be fair since I wasn't the one who stole. I would be affraid this would set a president with shifty lawyers and everyone would have something new to sue over.

We've come so far in the last 60 yrs with the civil rights movement and the ACLU. We have laws against discrimination, we can sue NOW the people who do things to us personnally. Why go backwards?

Respectfully, Indya
 
indya said:
I really don't know of any other group whos descendents got reparations. Japanesse have been mentioned, but the only people given compensation in their case there the actual people who were in the internment camps.

The Japanesse were given $20,000 for each person who was intered. If the person who was intered had passed away the money didn't go to the decendents since they weren't intered.

Indians have been mentioned as having compensation because they can have gambling. Indians on reservations are a soverinity, which means they make the rules on the reservations. The indians are following treates. No one has given me an example that stands up to investigation.

You ask " if decendents can inherit assets then why not liabilities". Because this is a slippery slope. If my ancestor was a thief should I have to pay off the decendents of the man my ancestor stole from? This wouldn't be fair since I wasn't the one who stole. I would be affraid this would set a president with shifty lawyers and everyone would have something new to sue over.

We've come so far in the last 60 yrs with the civil rights movement and the ACLU. We have laws against discrimination, we can sue NOW the people who do things to us personnally. Why go backwards?

Respectfully, Indya


If you stole something from another person, and got wealthy because of it, and your descendents are in possession of that ill gotten wealth, then the honorable thing to do would be to return it to the rightful heirs.
 
indya said:
I really don't know of any other group whos descendents got reparations. Japanesse have been mentioned, but the only people given compensation in their case there the actual people who were in the internment camps.

The Japanesse were given $20,000 for each person who was intered. If the person who was intered had passed away the money didn't go to the decendents since they weren't intered.

Indians have been mentioned as having compensation because they can have gambling. Indians on reservations are a soverinity, which means they make the rules on the reservations. The indians are following treates. No one has given me an example that stands up to investigation.

You ask " if decendents can inherit assets then why not liabilities". Because this is a slippery slope. If my ancestor was a thief should I have to pay off the decendents of the man my ancestor stole from? This wouldn't be fair since I wasn't the one who stole. I would be affraid this would set a president with shifty lawyers and everyone would have something new to sue over.

We've come so far in the last 60 yrs with the civil rights movement and the ACLU. We have laws against discrimination, we can sue NOW the people who do things to us personnally. Why go backwards?

Respectfully, Indya


Sister Indya, I don't quite understand what you mean when you ask, "why go backwards?" Every piece of litigation is based on something that has already happened which would make it part of our past. Something was done (past) to injure someone or cause harm and therefore, people seek justice through the legal system which often includes reparations for their pain, suffering and back wages.

Class action lawsuits in my opinion are very relevant in that sometimes there are conditions common to many people, but not every one of those people has to file the lawsuit in order to benefit from any justice that is served. If there are enough similarities between the plaintiff(s) and others similarly situated, then the outcome of the legal decision will (as it should) impact everyone. Did slavery only affect one African or were all Africans stereotyped and grouped together in the same melting pot and did the legal system at least allow for them being treated the same no matter who they were or where they were?

Should African Americans continue to suffer just because the "system" is prejudiced against them and doesn't want to compensate them for what they've suffered?

Do you have any idea how much slavery (unpaid labor) has helped to boost the American economy and that the very foundation of this nation is thriving today because of it? How can we logically separate from our past when America wants to keep silent about it's ugly past and what was done to us? When the rules of the game were created to limit you, then you have no choice but to play the cards that you've been dealt.

Why should African Americans be silent about the past? Why are we the only ones that should confine our battles to today's turf and not those that are deeply rooted in our past that continue to affect us today? I'm just trying to understand this because it seems that no matter what the African American does to heal from an ugly American history, there will always be those who try to shut us down and hold us back by making it seem WRONG for us to get paid for the wrong that was done to us. And it's not like something isn't owed to us. We ARE the descendents of our ancestors and if for no other reason, we should fight their battles to return their honor because they're no longer here to fight for themselves!

Queenie :spinstar:
 
if i go to the bank and take out a thirty year mortgage it is my debt.
suppose i die after five years leaving 25 more years left.
is that debt wiped away because my children did not personaly enter into it? no.
either the heirs have to continue paying that mortgage or the bank will throw then out of the house.
the death of the original debtor does not eliminate the debt.
the debt continues and must be addressed.

i want my god damnn forty acres and my mule! :flamet:
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top