The debate "Reparations for slavery has already been paid for in blood" was started by
November 24, 2019, 8:38 am.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
jrardin12 posted 6 arguments, kbrown91 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
jrardin12, RoyDierlijk, kbrown91, HopeleSSJames3925 and 13 visitors agree.
historybuff, TheExistentialist and 6 visitors disagree.
i agree reparations are too little to late and it would be better to spend that money on poor communities... but just because you don't think it should be payed now, doesn't mean it has already been paid...
african americans have it better in the usa than perhaps any other country, and slavery in that country has been abolished for so long that nobody has been or known any1 who has been a slave so to me reparations sound silly, also will the reparations apply to white people who have had a slave ancestor in ther background?
it would be better to take money for reperations and put it towards education that could help benefit the whole lower class long term
I'm not American so I probably don't have a sophisticated enough perspective of black issues in the USA to comment. But several issues seem to also apply to the Australian aboriginal community. At the very least the "payment for past wrongs" debate comes up a lot here.
When Britain settled Australia we performed 3 main atrocities against the aboriginals. We didn't legally recognise them as humans so we claimed their land under an invalid Terra nullius claimant. We massacred entire communities that neighboured settlements. We stole their children in an attempt to wipe out their culture, now referred to as the "stolen generation".
Our reparations for those wrongs in order included (1) the overturning of the invalid Terra nullius claim and the returning of sovereignty to many aboriginal communities, (2) hundreds of millions of dollars for their small communities to do whatever they want with, and (3) a formal apology for stealing an entire generation and destroying their culture.
The question is then, is this enough? Does the government still need to pay these communities? To answer that question you need to define the goal and check if we've met it. The goal of our policy makers seems to be to equalise their quality of life with the rest of the country. The rationale is once their quality of life is equalised then the problems caused by the government and their domino effects would have been corrected for. That goal is what I assume US policy makers also have. Any other goal would be superficial.
So is the black community equal to other communities? In Australia aboriginals live 30 years less, they're 13x more likely to be unemployed, and for those that are employed they earn an average of almost 3x less. These numbers don't tell the whole story, but it's clear things are nowhere near equal so in Australia at the very least reparations must persist because the government still has a role to play in increasing the quality of life of aboriginals.
Is that the case in the USA? I can't comment on that, but what I've read seems to say that black communities are in a similar disadvantaged situation.
"They gave their lives to end slavery. Life is very important, wouldn't you say? Would you have been willing to die for slaves?"
You made the argument that because 300,000 people died, the US has repaid their debt for slavery. This is nonsense when we look at the sheer toll slavery took on human lives. Bravery, sacrifice, etc... have nothing to do with the value of 300,000 lives when compared to tens, even hundreds of millions. If blood is more precious than money and all lives are equal, then 300,000 dead soldiers (38,000 of which were black), does not pay of the millions of lives lost. That's just simple math.
"I wasn't making something equal. Jesus paid for everyone's sin....He gave His own life. The same with the Union soldiers. "
Those union soldiers weren't jesus (if he ever even existed and I don't accept the premise that he did); they didn't even really fight to end slavery. That was just a nice byproduct. The majority of historians agree that the north fought in order to preserve the union; slavery was a secondary issue.
I wasn't making something equal. Jesus paid for everyone's sin. Does that diminish what He did even though there were millions of sins committed before Him (and after Him). No He gave His own life. The same with the Union soldiers. They gave their lives to end slavery. Life is very important, wouldn't you say? Would you have been willing to die for slaves?
1.8 million slaves died on the middle passage alone
38,000 slaves died fighting in the civil war
Estimates for the total number of slaves that died during the US slave trade vary widely. Estimates are anywhere from 100-200 million. The lowest estimate that I could find find was 14 million.
So if you want to make the claim that there is an equivilancy to people dying in the civil war to people dying in the slave trade, you're still off by millions of lives.
Because don't you think that giving up a life for someone to be free is good enough? Men died to end slavery.
That only includes Union soldiers.
hundreds of thousands died to free them. Hundreds of thousands died to keep them enslaved. Why do you feel that somehow makes up for decades and centuries of torturing and murdering them?
is that including the people who died to keep slavery?
It was paid by 300,000 men.
some gave blood to free the slaves. others gave blood to keep them enslaved. both were from the same "people". either way, the result was an end of slavery, not compensation for slavery.
i dont btw support reparations, but to pretend they were already paid is revisionist excuses.
Men paid in blood which is more precious than money.
stopping beating someone up isnt the same as compensating them for the damage.
The Civil War.
What is this referring to?