Slave descendants to sue Lloyd's

[Tony]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3578863.stm ...full article

Descendants of black American slaves are to sue Lloyd's of London for insuring ships used in the trade.
High-profile US lawyer Edward Fagan, who secured settlements from Swiss companies in the Nazi gold case, is taking the action for 10 plaintiffs.

He says by underwriting slave ships in the 1700-1800s the UK's oldest insurance firm played a significant role.





I found this to be pretty pathetic:

One plaintiff, Deadria Farmer-Paellman said the slave trade denied her identity.

"Today I suffer from the injury of not knowing who I am, having no nationality or ethnic group as a result of acts committed by these parties," she said.


This woman has one thing on her mind, cha-ching!!


I agree with this:


It would be hard to prove that by insuring the merchants, Lloyd's supported the trade, he said.

"It's a bit like saying the manufacturer of guns facilitated the killing."





Edit to add: The Lloyd's of London building is an architectureal gem. :)

[geni]

We take it that none of these people ever insure anything.

eddited to add. I wouder how they are planning to cope with Lloyds less than conventional structure.

[RandFan]

One plaintiff, Deadria Farmer-Paellman said the slave trade denied her identity.

"Today I suffer from the injury of not knowing who I am, having no nationality or ethnic group as a result of acts committed by these parties," she said. Money will solve that real quick.

Hey Deadria,

Mongols, Normans, Saxons, Visigoths, Turks, etc.. Ethnicities and cultures have been concurred and wiped out time and time again. History is a bitch, get over it.

People risk their lives to get here from all over the world. Many, if they are successful, count their lucky stars and call themselves American. You might consider identifying with that. Of course that won't make you rich will it?

[Elio]

Hello Tony,

Like anyone in Switzerland, I remember about Ed Fagan.

But in the case of the Swiss banks, he had a point. The banks were still holding money who belong to people assasinated in Auschwitz.

But In the case of the Lloyd's, what are the exact charges ?

Take care.

Elio.

[Tmy]

Well if she really wants to connect with her long lost culture Im sure she could find a London museam chuck full of plundered African artifacts!

[Drooper]

This would be interesting rom a legal point of view.

From my limited knowledge of Lloyds, it is a market and not a company. It is the participants in the market (known as Names) that underwrite the risk.

So the case would have to be filed against the Names who provided the service to the ship owners. Presumably all these people are dead.

[Drooper]

Actually, another thing that jumps out at me on this issue.

I saw this woman on Sky News complaining about how much mental anguish she suffers every time she looks in the mirror and remembers that her great great (possibly great again) grandparents were slaves. Obviously this "pain" is needed to establish damages.

Dreadful for them, no dispute there. But would she rather have been born and living in the Congo today, rather the America???

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Drooper
So the case would have to be filed against the Names who provided the service to the ship owners. Presumably all these people are dead. And presumably the claims died with the defendants. After all how is someone removed from the incident "harmed" 150+ years after the fact?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Drooper


. But would she rather have been born and living in the Congo today, rather the America???

How is that relevent??

Woudl you say the same thing a jew trying to reclaim nazi gold stolen from their families.

"Hey, you live in Israel. Quit your complaining, would you rather be living in a Polish ghetto?"

[Chaos]

Originally posted by geni
*snip*
eddited to add. I wouder how they are planning to cope with Lloyds less than conventional structure.

Very good question. Technically speaking, Lloyd´s is more a broker than an insurance company - and it was even more so, back then.

Lloyd´s started out as a coffee house (a café in today´s language) where ship owners who wanted to have their ships insured met with the "Names" - people who had the necessary capital to back insurance policies.

So I suppose that the lawyers would have to track down the heirs of the Names from these times.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
And presumably the claims died with the defendants. After all how is someone removed from the incident "harmed" 150+ years after the fact?

Again I point to Israel. How can people thousands of years removed after the fact now have a claim to the land of their ancestors.

Im not even agreeing with this lady, I just want to point out that old debts still are repaid in some instances.

[demon]

ZN
"After all how is someone removed from the incident "harmed" 150+ years after the fact?"

I`m so tempted to mention Biblical justifications for the theft of land here but you all know me, I won`t :p

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Tmy


How is that relevent??

Woudl you say the same thing a jew trying to reclaim nazi gold stolen from their families.

"Hey, you live in Israel. Quit your complaining, would you rather be living in a Polish ghetto?"

I understand some people lack decent logical faculties, so I will type this out slowly.

A Jew trying to reclaim assets stolen from his/her parents or grandparents would be recovering something they, personally, had been deprived of. Clear damages suffered by the plaintiff there in my book.

A 5th or 6th generation American claiming how AWFUL it is that they are not living, or dying, in a civil war ravaged sub-Saharan country doesn't really come in the same class.


I call this "rent seeking" behaviour.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy


How is that relevent??

Woudl you say the same thing a jew trying to reclaim nazi gold stolen from their families.

"Hey, you live in Israel. Quit your complaining, would you rather be living in a Polish ghetto?"

Very simple. If she wants to reconnect with her culture, let her buy a ticket to Ghana or Zambia or wherever the hell she thinks she still has some kind of cultural connection. No one's stopping her.

The fact is, Jews DON'T complain about not living in a Polish ghetto or a concentration camp, so why should we put up with a whining gold-digger complain about not living in Africa?

Has it occured to her that she would NEVER HAVE BEEN BORN if - and this is still an "if" - her ancestors were not brought to the US as slaves?

Christ, the only culture this broad is interested in is the culture of excess.

[CBL4]

Originally Posted by Tmr
How is that relevent??

Let me give you two different examples:
My grandfather was driven from czarist Russia by the anti-jewish pogroms of the 1910's. Because of this I live in the US where my family is well integrated into society and I face no persecution. I am owed nothing by the Russian government who predessor abused my ancestors and stole their property.

John Doe's grandfather, who died in the holocaust, had a life insurance policy with Swiss Insurance Company (SIC). SIC denied the policy ever existed and kept the payments. John Doe is owed the money by SIC because SIC, an existing company, refused to make a payment that they were legally obligated to make to him (or his parents) personally.

If I were so inclined I could claim that I am owed money by the German government (some of my relative were in Poland during WWII), the Spanish government (some of my relatives left during the Inquisition.) and the English government (yes some of my Jewish relatives were driven out of England in the 1800's.)

But instead I realize that I am extremely lucky to live in the US. I accept that most of my problems are my fault.

CBL

[Elio]

CBL4 :
John Doe's grandfather, who died in the holocaust, had a life insurance policy with Swiss Insurance Company (SIC). SIC denied the policy ever existed and kept the payments. John Doe is owed the money by SIC because SIC, an existing company, refused to make a payment that they were legally obligated to make to him (or his parents) personally.

To be more precise, John Dowe, fearing for his belongings, decided to put all his money in Swiss banks, thinking it would be safe.

And it was safe, indeed. It had been perfectly safe for about 60 years.

But as John Dowe was gased, his familly asked to have his money back.

The banks refused, denying to have the money in the first place, or asked for a death certificate (probably signed by Joseph Mengele...)

Take care.

Elio.

[Roadtoad]

See, this is why I think we'd be better of if just HUNG every attorney that took a case like this.

You gotta admit, they're getting more creative in how they loot the rest of us.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tmy


How is that relevent??

Woudl you say the same thing a jew trying to reclaim nazi gold stolen from their families.

"Hey, you live in Israel. Quit your complaining, would you rather be living in a Polish ghetto?" We are all decendants of someone who lost something to someone else. How many years do we suffer for those wrongs?

The question is quite relvant. She suggests that it would have been better for her had her ancestors not have been slaves. But if they had not it is very likely that most if not all dendents of those who were brought to America would be living in Africa today. And let's not forget than Slavery is still practiced there to some degree in some areas. Also many women do not have rights and some many girls have sexually mutilated as part of the culture.

And if there had been no Hitler and a holocaust many Israeli families would be living in wealth in their former home land.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tmy


Again I point to Israel.


You would have a point except they sued Swiss banks not the Medianites or the Romans or whoever the hell may have been responsible for the diaspora.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by RandFan
We are all decendants of someone who lost something to someone else. How many years do we suffer for those wrongs?

The question is quite relvant. She suggests that it would have been better for her had her ancestors not have been slaves. But if they had not it is very likely that most if not all dendents of those who were brought to America would be living in Africa today. And let's not forget than Slavery is still practiced there to some degree in some areas. Also many women do not have rights and some many girls have sexually mutilated as part of the culture.

And if there had been no Hitler and a holocaust many Israeli families would be living in wealth in their former home land.

I agree 100%, but again we're missing the critical factor: assuming she's right about her ancestors being brought to America as slaves, she would not even exist today had things been otherwise! She would not be living an idyllic Arfican life, she would never have been born.

If she's willing to concede that her conception fell out of an act of ""genocide" (figure that one out if you can), then she shouldn't be repatriated to Africa- she should be eliminated as a mistake of history.

Nota bene to knee-jerkers: I'm not serious in suggesting that she ought to be eliminated, simply pointing out how stupid these claims are when you go one little step further into the analysis.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tmy


How is that relevent??

Woudl you say the same thing a jew trying to reclaim nazi gold stolen from their families.

"Hey, you live in Israel. Quit your complaining, would you rather be living in a Polish ghetto?"
Strangely enough, out of all the responses to Tmy's post, I don't see anyone adressing the point he makes. So let's try it another way: how exactly do the benefits that Deadria Farmer-Paellman has as a modern-day US citizen in anyway ameliorate the slave trade? Would anyone care to make a similar equivocation between Israeli Jews and the Holocaust?

Anyway, the whole law suit seems futile; Lloyd's names (http://www.erisk.com/Learning/CaseStudies/ref_case_lloyds.asp) aren't exactly known for stumping up the dosh when called on to do so.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Strangely enough, out of all the responses to Tmy's post, I don't see anyone adressing the point he makes. So let's try it another way: how exactly do the benefits that Deadria Farmer-Paellman has as a modern-day US citizen in anyway ameliorate the slave trade? Would anyone care to make a similar equivocation between Israeli Jews and the Holocaust?

Anyway, the whole law suit seems futile; Lloyd's names (http://www.erisk.com/Learning/CaseStudies/ref_case_lloyds.asp) aren't exactly known for stumping up the dosh when called on to do so.

I think the point has been addressed by several people. To sue for damages, you must demonstrate damages. Otherwise there's no case.

One person cannot sue the institution of slavery, only for damages they have suffered. Several people pointed out that slavery existed in Africa then, and indeed today. And I pointed out the painfully obvious fact that she would not exist today without slavery.

I'm not defending the abomination of the practice of slavery, just observing a fundamental flaw with her reasoning. By legal standards, the redress of her grievance would result in her ceasing to exist.

[Tmy]

Ill conceed that the LLodys suit is dumb. Im talking the idea of reparations and this "count yourself lucky they were slaves" type of reply.

BUT, if this lady was a crack whore aids victim living in some Chicago slum, would she then have a case??? many seem to argue that she has no claim not because of the wrong but cause she lives in a great country.

Imagine if she went into a store to buy a lottery ticket. She is denied service cause shes black. She then goes to the next store buys a ticket, and win $1million dollars. Does she not have a right to sue store 1 for mental anguish just cause things worked out for her in the end????

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Tmy
Does she not have a right to sue store 1 for mental anguish just cause things worked out for her in the end????
Yes, she would be able to sue because she was directly affected.

Neither she or I or you should be able to sue for damages to our distant ancestors. If she has mental anguish from their slavery, it is her own or her family's fault. I try to use the pain of my ancestor to make myself a better person and change the world to prevent it from happening again.

CBL

[RandFan]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Strangely enough, out of all the responses to Tmy's post, I don't see anyone adressing the point he makes. So let's try it another way: how exactly do the benefits that Deadria Farmer-Paellman has as a modern-day US citizen in anyway ameliorate the slave trade? Who siad the benefits of Deadria ameliorate the slave trade? Diedria's benefits mitigate any (supposed) damages to Diedria. That is the only point that is being made that I can see.

Would anyone care to make a similar equivocation between Israeli Jews and the Holocaust? I'm confused, was it not Tmy who brought up the Holocaust? Wasn't he the one who tried to make a connection? I think he failed to do so. Don't you agree?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tmy
BUT, if this lady was a crack whore aids victim living in some Chicago slum, would she then have a case??? many seem to argue that she has no claim not because of the wrong but cause she lives in a great country. She doesn't have a case because the events are so old and she is so removed from the slave trade.

Imagine if she went into a store to buy a lottery ticket. She is denied service cause shes black. She then goes to the next store buys a ticket, and win $1million dollars. Does she not have a right to sue store 1 for mental anguish just cause things worked out for her in the end???? First off you are talking about 2 stores and we are talking about 1 country. You need to come up with a better example.

Next, we are not suggesting that her benefits are the reason she doesn't have a case only that the benefits mitigate any damage.

If the store in question refused to sell here a lottery ticket but later awarded her a million dollar shopping spree because she was the millionth customer then she at the very least would seem ungrateful to turn around and sue for the past error on the store even though she might have a case. The shopping spree could be seen as a mitigating factor.

In the end though we need Suddenly to give us the legal end.

RandFan

[Elio]

The question may be :

Did the Llyod's do something illegal to her or to a dead member of her family or is the Lloyd's still doing something illegal to her or dead member of her family.

Unfortunatly, slavery was not illegal then....

I really see no case, here.

Maybe that lawyer just want to buy a himself a new house... :-)

That would be a shame.... Particulary with such a sensitive subject ...

Take care.

Elio.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
See, this is why I think we'd be better of if just HUNG every attorney that took a case like this.


You mean LYNCH, don't you?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

See, this is why I think we'd be better of if just HUNG every attorney that took a case like this.

Originally posted by Luke T.


You mean LYNCH, don't you?
The two are very different, although similar.

HUNG is the guy who achieved undeserved fame for singing "She Bangs" incredibly badly on American Idol.

LYNCH was the private who undeservedly became some sort of American Idol for getting banged up after taking a wrong turn in Iraq, requiring marines to rescue her.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Tony
This woman has one thing on her mind, cha-ching!!

And the lawyers don't? Isn't this merely capitalism in operation? Isn't everybody entitled to make a buck whichever way they want as long as they aren't harming anyone else, such as, for example, the tobacco industry.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Thanz



The two are very different, although similar.

HUNG is the guy who achieved undeserved fame for singing "She Bangs" incredibly badly on American Idol.

LYNCH was the private who undeservedly became some sort of American Idol for getting banged up after taking a wrong turn in Iraq, requiring marines to rescue her.

Bitter much? If anyone deserves the venom, it's the tone deaf bastid.

I think you were trying to delineate between "hanged," which is what all lawyers should be, and "hung," which is what I am.

'Nuff said.

[Tony]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


And the lawyers don't? Isn't this merely capitalism in operation? Isn't everybody entitled to make a buck whichever way they want as long as they aren't harming anyone else, such as, for example, the tobacco industry.


Your history has shown that any reply to you would be a waste of time and effort. So i'll allow you to bask in your ignorance.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Isn't this merely capitalism in operation?

No.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Grammatron
No. :D

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Jocko


Bitter much? If anyone deserves the venom, it's the tone deaf bastid.

It was not an attack on either Mr. Hung or Ms. Lynch, but rather the idiocy of the "celebrity" culture that permeates the US.

What did Mr. Hung do that deserves such fame? People like to laugh at him and his lack of ability. Nice.

On the other hand, we have Ms. Lynch who did absolutely nothing to deserve her fame. But she is young and blond and pretty, so I guess that's enough. Without googling, how many people can name any of the real heroes, those that rescued her?

Sorry for the off topic rant. I'll step off my soapbox now.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Thanz

It was not an attack on either Mr. Hung or Ms. Lynch, but rather the idiocy of the "celebrity" culture that permeates the US.

What did Mr. Hung do that deserves such fame? People like to laugh at him and his lack of ability. Nice.

On the other hand, we have Ms. Lynch who did absolutely nothing to deserve her fame. But she is young and blond and pretty, so I guess that's enough. Without googling, how many people can name any of the real heroes, those that rescued her?

Sorry for the off topic rant. I'll step off my soapbox now. FWIW, I got it, I liked it and I agree.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Tony
Your history has shown that any reply to you would be a waste of time and effort. So i'll allow you to bask in your ignorance.

And yours doesn't?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Grammatron
No.

Depending on their financial arrangements perhaps they might be venturing some of their time as an investment against the possibility of profit from their work. Profit that would then attract taxes and be used to partly to provide employment for support staff.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Originally posted by RandFan
:D

? ;)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Depending on their financial arrangements perhaps they might be venturing some of their time as an investment against the possibility of profit from their work. Profit that would then attract taxes and be used to partly to provide employment for support staff.

I'm no economist and perhaps I could be wrong on that one, but what that lawyer is doing is not really capitalism.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Grammatron
I'm no economist and perhaps I could be wrong on that one, but what that lawyer is doing is not really capitalism.

I understand where you are coming from. Over here we do not yet have the same level of litigation as you although we tend to follow in such things in fairly short order. I understand most people prefer that we don't reach the same level of litigation and am interested that you feel the spirit of free enterprise does not or should not extend to this sort of activity.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


I understand where you are coming from. Over here we do not yet have the same level of litigation as you although we tend to follow in such things in fairly short order. I understand most people prefer that we don't reach the same level of litigation and am interested that you feel the spirit of free enterprise does not or should not extend to this sort of activity.

I prefer the level of litigation we have now to having not enough ability to litigate. Keeps people and entities in check.

[NullPointerException]

Your a fool if you think litigation is what keeps organizations in line. Litigation just forces them to keep everything secret.

[rdtjr]

I think I'd like to sue the Catholic Church in France for the persecution and flight from Europe of my French Heugenot ancestors some 400+ years ago. Hey, it made them some of the first European folks in the New World and gave my family an history and heritage I'm quite proud of... so what? I can outline a case by-which I have suffered by thinking of the lands and wealth my ancestors left behind, the hard journey to an uncivilized wilderness, the hard-scrabbled life in that wild land. It must have been very difficult... *sniff*

In fact, those ancestors are only a few more generations removed from those of the persons in the law-suit.



On another subject, I simply can't understand the animosity for Jessica Lynch. Why she is blamed for the media hype stoked by the U.S. military and Executive Branch is beyond me. Since coming back she has been somehow vilified for being involved in military action that resulted in her injury and capture. Why? Was she orchestrating all that attention during her mostly comatose days in Iraqi custody? Of course not. That was our president and our military that did all the hyping abetted enthusiastically by the press. How is that her fault?

So, what's the deal? Is it because she cashed in on the attention? I would think her an idiot if she failed to do just that. Sign the book deal, let CBS and ABC make cheesy movies get some money and move on. How many here wouldn't do the same?

Yet, she's some kind of bad person for a situation she did not create. Seriously, explain it to me.

Sorry, no intention to derail the thread here, this line of thought just bugs me every time I come across it... even when it appears in jest. Blame the gov't and media and let the girl alone.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony

Edit to add: The Lloyd's of London building is an architectureal gem. :)

And there lies the issue.

The fact is that this institution, along with many others, profited from the slave trade. Their current position in the world is a product of their involvement in the slave trade.

All of the former slave owners, traders, etc did nothing but profit. Once slavery was abolished th vast majority retained their wealth and position in society, especially in the case of corporations.

This was less so in the case of plantations.

"White western society" profited greatly from the slavery of blacks and others. The current economic position of whites all over the world is a product of the legacy of slavery. The current position of blacks in the western world as a group is certinaly also a product of this, however it does bcome impossible to claim that on the whole blacks today are ot better off in the western world than they woudl otherwise have been.

While I think that in terms of justice these companies and familes should pay, because their wealth is a product of slavery, I don't think it should be to individuals, but rather to social programs, such as scholarship funds, for blacks, etc.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Malachi151
While I think that in terms of justice these companies and familes should pay, because their wealth is a product of slavery, I don't think it should be to individuals, but rather to social programs, such as scholarship funds, for blacks, etc.
Let's pretend that this view becomes accepted (and IMHO it never will, and rightfully so), and your idea for restitution becomes law. Now, how do you define a "black" person from a legal perspective?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by WildCat
Let's pretend that this view becomes accepted (and IMHO it never will, and rightfully so), and your idea for restitution becomes law. Now, how do you define a "black" person from a legal perspective? Oh trust me. Enough lawyers can work it out. And what about blacks who do not have ancestors who were slaves? Since they are black they are suffering from the legacy of slavery right?

The world is unfair. My family had land in Nauvoo Illinois but were driven out because they were Mormon. We can't right all of the wrongs of the world. Yes, slavery was one of the most egregious of wrongs. It is tempting to want to try but how? Like I said, if there is sufficient resources and sufficient lawyers a way will be worked out.

Not everyone will be happy and there will be affluent blacks who may very well take resources away from others who are in need but hey. Let's do something so that we can all feel better about slavery.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Tmy
Ill conceed that the LLodys suit is dumb. Im talking the idea of reparations and this "count yourself lucky they were slaves" type of reply.

BUT, if this lady was a crack whore aids victim living in some Chicago slum, would she then have a case??? many seem to argue that she has no claim not because of the wrong but cause she lives in a great country.

Imagine if she went into a store to buy a lottery ticket. She is denied service cause shes black. She then goes to the next store buys a ticket, and win $1million dollars. Does she not have a right to sue store 1 for mental anguish just cause things worked out for her in the end????

I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick here.

The issue is NOt "count yourself lucky they were slaves".

The real issue here is: where are the damages suffered? Those making the suit have suffered no damages. That is why they moan so much about "mental anguish". They need to establish that they have suffered some damages in order to pursue this case.

When I stated that the contemporary anscestors of slaves are much better off than they would be otherwise, I was just pointing out that not only have they NOT suffered damages due to the treatment of their anscestors, they are in fact pretty well off - however, this is a bit of a digression.

Now, if an enslaved person was to make the case, I would agree such a suit has merit. Maybe even in the case of the son or daughter of a slave, the case could have merit (e.g. thet might have missed out on education or training due to the status of their parents).

However, being 4 or five, or maybe more generations removed from the fact precludes such a possibility of damages being suffered as a direct result of having anscestors who were slaves.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jocko


I think the point has been addressed by several people. To sue for damages, you must demonstrate damages. Otherwise there's no case.

One person cannot sue the institution of slavery, only for damages they have suffered. Several people pointed out that slavery existed in Africa then, and indeed today. And I pointed out the painfully obvious fact that she would not exist today without slavery.
None of this addresses my point.

I'm not defending the abomination of the practice of slavery, just observing a fundamental flaw with her reasoning.
This does though; thank you.
By legal standards, the redress of her grievance would result in her ceasing to exist.
How would that be, without breaking the laws of physics? Redress will not erase past events.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by BillyTK
How would that be, without breaking the laws of physics? Redress will not erase past events. I feel the same way as Jocko. This woman is not directly effected by the fact that he ancestors were slaves. She has not suffered "damages", in fact in an ironic twist she has 'benefitted' from he ancestors being slaves. I know that sounds impossible but allow me to explain. She lives a better life now in America than she would have had she been born in her 'homeland'. So what 'damages' has she suffered? The freedom of speech? The right to vote? Women's rights? Social assistance? Freedom of movement? MTV? 16,000 cable channels? Broadband internet? Advanced medical care? Cell phones?

Does she desire to live in Uganada or Nigeria instead? I am just trying to uncover the "damages" she has suffered...perhaps the only "damages" she has truely suffered is internal and not external.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by RandFan
Who siad the benefits of Deadria ameliorate the slave trade? Diedria's benefits mitigate any (supposed) damages to Diedria. That is the only point that is being made that I can see.
It has been suggested that Ms. Farmer-Paellman has benefitted from being a citizen of the US, and it has been noted that without the slave trade, she would not have been born in this position; no slave trade, no Deadria. Introducing this point to refute the legitimacy of her claim would imply that her benefits ameliorate the slave trade; person A has no claim wrt event X, as person A benefits from event X, therefore person A's benefits must offset event x. I'd hope that you would find this an unsatisfactory method of resolving such claims.

I'm confused, was it not Tmy who brought up the Holocaust?
Yes; as I noted in my previous post, I was rephrasing his questions (my exact wording was, "So let's try it another way:").
Wasn't he the one who tried to make a connection? I think he failed to do so. Don't you agree?
No; I think other posters failed to address the point he raised in their responses to his post.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by BillyTK

It has been suggested that Ms. Farmer-Paellman has benefitted from being a citizen of the US, and it has been noted that without the slave trade, she would not have been born in this position; no slave trade, no Deadria. Introducing this point to refute the legitimacy of her claim would imply that her benefits ameliorate the slave trade; person A has no claim wrt event X, as person A benefits from event X, therefore person A's benefits must offset event x. I'd hope that you would find this an unsatisfactory method of resolving such claims.

Read my post above. It is not a question of ameliorating the slave trade, only trying to establish her damages.

The point that she is better off is in fact irrelevant, but an interesting corollary.


Yes; as I noted in my previous post, I was rephrasing his questions (my exact wording was, "So let's try it another way:").

No; I think other posters failed to address the point he raised in their responses to his post.

You seem not to read other posters.

I did indeed address this straw man. Like this:


A Jew trying to reclaim assets stolen from his/her parents or grandparents would be recovering something they, personally, had been deprived of. Clear damages suffered by the plaintiff there in my book.

A 5th or 6th generation American claiming how AWFUL it is that they are not living, or dying, in a civil war ravaged sub-Saharan country doesn't really come in the same class.


It's about establishing the damages.

[iain]

I doubt that there is a single person on the planet who cannot point to some great wrong done to an ancestor, if viewed from the standpoint of modern western morality. For most people there are many wrongs done to ancestors. For most of history, people's lives have been nasty, brutish and short, to quote Calvin's feline companion.

Lloyd's of London did not break the law. It has not itself deprived these people of anything which should rightfully be theirs. Even if it had, it was such a long time ago that pursuing it is ludicrous.

Maybe some people feel upset when they remember the injustices their ancestors endured. Well, I feel upset having to look at litigious money-grabbers so maybe I should be suing them.

(I'll be launching that lawsuit with the proceeds I get from my suit for emotional distress at seeing Ms Jackson's breast).

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Malachi151


And there lies the issue.

The fact is that this institution, along with many others, profited from the slave trade. Their current position in the world is a product of their involvement in the slave trade.

All of the former slave owners, traders, etc did nothing but profit. Once slavery was abolished th vast majority retained their wealth and position in society, especially in the case of corporations.

Again, you can't apply contemporary (and in my opinion, vastly improved) social morality retroactively. The slave trade was evil, yes, but LEGAL. I see the same kind of square-peg-round-hole analysis of Huckleberry Finn in regard to its language, even though such criticism completely misses the extraordinarilly progressive thought and moral to the story.

Try this: If a hundred years from now liberalism is deemed evil and stamped out, could my descendents sue your descendents for your beliefs and actions? Or if conservatism is scrapped, should your great-great-grandkids sue mine?

Or if libertarians are stamped out, could we all sue Shanek? Hmm... maybe there's something to this after all...:D

[Tmy]

The EPA does that retro sueing thing all the time. They bust all past property owners for brownfield pollution.

[Ladewig]

The slave trade was evil, yes, but LEGAL.

I think the legality of the matter is not a major point in the matter. The Swiss bankers who held all those assets claimed for years that the law required a death certificate so their denying claims to children of customers was entirely legal.

Still the claim is outlandish. It would make more sense to find a chain manufacturer who has been in business 250 years and sue it. The slave trade could have flourished without insurance, but not without chains (at least not on a massive scale).

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy
The EPA does that retro sueing thing all the time. They bust all past property owners for brownfield pollution.

That's because brownfields REMAIN brownfields until they're cleaned up, you dingus. Slavery is dead and gone in the west, and good riddance, but mercury poisoning is forever.

[zenith-nadir]

I "Googled", (a new verb ;) ), the woman's name, "Deadria Farmer-Paellman", and came up wih this;




Slaves' Descendants Sue Firms - September 4, 2002 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34523-2002Sep3?language=printer) A flurry of legal actions promised by activist Deadria Farmer-Paellman, who in March filed a federal class action suit against Aetna Corp., which apologized for its role in insuring owners against injured and runaway slaves, and the CSX railroad company, which used slave labor to help build its rail lines.

Reuters identified the companies named or to be named in the suits as investment banks J.P Morgan Chase & Co., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Brown Brothers Harriman; insurers American International Group Inc. and Lloyd's of London; tobacco and insurance conglomerate Loews Corp.; railroad firms Union Pacific Corp. and Norfolk Southern Corp.; textile firm WestPoint Stevens Inc.; and tobacco makers R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., and Liggett Group Inc., now indirectly owned by Vector Group Ltd..
That was 2002. My question is isn't Deadria Farmer-Paellman drawing further lines of division between whites and blacks by laying the 140-year-old "crime" on living people who did'nt perpetrate it?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Jocko


That's because brownfields REMAIN brownfields until they're cleaned up, you dingus. Slavery is dead and gone in the west, and good riddance, but mercury poisoning is forever.

Yeah but it was LEGAL for them to dump at the time. LEGAL!!! LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL.

Lucky for you its not LEGAL for me to swing down to Douchebagport Conn. and kick yer arse! Justified yes, legal no.

[Tmy]

[i] That was 2002. My question is isn't Deadria Farmer-Paellman drawing further lines of division between whites and blacks by laying the 140-year-old "crime" on living people who did'nt perpetrate it? [/B]

Not "people", but "compaines". Companies that still exist.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy


Yeah but it was LEGAL for them to dump at the time. LEGAL!!! LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL.

Lucky for you its not LEGAL for me to swing down to Douchebagport Conn. and kick yer arse! Justified yes, legal no.

Timmy, I've said it before and I'll say it again:

You ignorant slut.

You can demonstrate damages from brownfield contamination. You cannot demonstrate damages from 150-year-old slave trade practices. And any time you feel like wedging your crisco-laden posterior into your badly-sprung Gremlin and want to come take a poke at me, you're welcome to try. Why not write a travelogue on all the best drive-thrus between there and here?

Know what ought to be illegal? The havoc you consistently visit upon your local Shakey's Buffet. When is someone going to speak for the fried chicken, pizza and green bean casserole, Timmy? WHO SPEAKS FOR THE BUFFET?

By the way, Timmy, I'm not really in Connecticut. Read up on Twain and you'll get it.

Er, he's the guy in my avatar.

You know, the famous American author?

Tom Sawyer? Huckleberry Finn? Life on the Mississippi?

Oh, never mind.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Tmy
Not "people", but "compaines". Companies that still exist. I was speaking metaphorically... ;) ...for companies are run by people.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I was speaking metaphorically... ;) ...for companies are run by people.

Companies themselves are an entity. If the company does somthing wrong, its on the hook. Ford cant get away with liabilty for the exploding Pinto just cause its now owned by different people. "OH that wasnt us, that was the old management. You cant punish us for what they did".

Imgaine that in reverse. "Disney, you dont have a trade mark in Mickey Mouse. That trade mark was given to the old owners. Not the new ones. Why shoud the new guys profit from what the old guys did."


Jock, thats right. You're in Florida wh all the other codger Bushites. (or is that Gunto........ FEH! Same difference.)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Drooper


Read my post above. It is not a question of ameliorating the slave trade, only trying to establish her damages.

The point that she is better off is in fact irrelevant, but an interesting corollary.
I'm glad you agree that her current situation is irrelevant to the legitimacy of her claim, although I'd hesitate to use the phrase "better off" in describing her situation. "Better off" than what? We can't 'reset the programme' so any speculation as to her situation if her ancestors hadn't been brought over to the US as slaves is just that - speculation. Equally I could speculate that if the slave trade had never happened, race would never have been the issue that it was in the US, her ancestors might have chosen to settle there anyway and been quite successful. I'd be hesitant on building a legal case on such speculation though.



You seem not to read other posters.

I did indeed address this straw man. Like this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Jew trying to reclaim assets stolen from his/her parents or grandparents would be recovering something they, personally, had been deprived of. Clear damages suffered by the plaintiff there in my book.

A 5th or 6th generation American claiming how AWFUL it is that they are not living, or dying, in a civil war ravaged sub-Saharan country doesn't really come in the same class.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read other posters quite well, thank you; I'm not too sure though that you're read my posts. Your point quoted above in no way addresses the "strawman" Tmy raised, but it does introduce some... interesting speculations about 'what might have been'; if we change the variables which brought Ms Farmer-Paellman's ancestors to the US, how confident could we be that this sub-Saharan conflict you mention would be inevitable? Or that Ms Farmer-Paellman's ancestors would have stayed there?

It's about establishing the damages.
I agree; as you said, "The point that she is better off is in fact irrelevant". So what exactly has "A 5th or 6th generation American claiming how AWFUL it is that they are not living, or dying, in a civil war ravaged sub-Saharan country" (inherent strawman in that statement noted) got to do with anything?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I read other posters quite well, thank you; I'm not too sure though that you're read my posts. Your point quoted above in no way addresses the "strawman" Tmy raised, but it does introduce some... interesting speculations about 'what might have been'; if we change the variables which brought Ms Farmer-Paellman's ancestors to the US, how confident could we be that this sub-Saharan conflict you mention would be inevitable? Or that Ms Farmer-Paellman's ancestors would have stayed there?


Re read what I wrote. It does indeed address the straw man

I may have made a mistake by introducing an unnecessary point. However, this paragraph does indeed address the straw man. Tmy stated this:

Woudl you say the same thing a jew trying to reclaim nazi gold stolen from their families.

"Hey, you live in Israel. Quit your complaining, would you rather be living in a Polish ghetto?"

By which he meant, would I say to such a Jewish family that they had no valid suit if deprived of their undisputed family assets because of their present circumstances.

My response was as follows:

A Jew trying to reclaim assets stolen from his/her parents or grandparents would be recovering something they, personally, had been deprived of. Clear damages suffered by the plaintiff there in my book.

This clearly points out that in this case there are clearly identifiable damages sufffered by the plaintiff i.e. the unlawful seizure of assets belonging to them or their parents. As such this is not even remotely an analogous example.

So we beg to differ again. Ibelieve I quite clearly responded to his claim and dismissed it to my satisfaction.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Tmy
Companies themselves are an entity. If the company does somthing wrong, its on the hook. Ford cant get away with liabilty for the exploding Pinto just cause its now owned by different people. "OH that wasnt us, that was the old management. You cant punish us for what they did".I was speaking metaphorically.. ;) ..but for the sake of arguement, so there is no statue of limitations on any event therefore I can sue Daimler Chrysler today for damages because my great grandpappy was killed in his 1928 DeSoto Six because the brakes failed and he hit a cow?

[Elio]

If a company does something illegal to you, of course you can sue the company.

But if the company did something illegal to your father, grandfather, great grandfather. How does it work ?

Technically, what does the law has to say about that ?

Take care.

Elio

[TillEulenspiegel]

There are two questions here. One is the law the other is morality. If you want to look at the issue of slavery ( which still exists in Africa) with contemporaneous eyes and call it abhorrent that's fine. I believe the discussion is about the law tho

The question of real damages here seems to be confusingly bifurcated . It based on the hurt and shame she feels when looking in the mirror and seeing her great,great grandmother's face and not knowing who she is. If she knows her grandmother and knows that she was a slave then how can she not know who she is? If she doesn't know , how can she prove standing?

She could always sue as an agent of her grandmothers estate , but again there's no standing because as someone pointed out slavery was legal at the time.

As far as I'm aware one must prove real damages to collect damages. I'm sure some judicial activist on the 9Th circuit court will light that fuse sooner or later.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a "movement" to sue the US and Companies for "Reparations" in regards to slavery, so this issue will not disappear any time soon.

Any Lawyers here?

[Elio]

Thanks for your answer TillEulenspiegel, and nice to meet you.

Where will the trial take place ?

England ? America ?

Are the charges compatible with the local laws ?

Take care.

Elio.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Well the trial about Lloyd's will probably take place in England
That's not as simple as it sounds . I heard a Lawyer at a party say something about invoking Maritime law . Remember the slaves were carried by ships. So which set of laws trumps which?

The reparations cases will probably be tried in different states with slightly different applications of various laws in the different states.

The fact the laws have precedents and history doesn't mean that the application will be any less obscure. That's why the question is academically intriguing, even tho it's moral aspect is on it's face unconscionable.
Hello and welcome to the board.

[Tmy]

I think he suitis silly and doomed to fail.There are proabbly a good dozen legal reasons to dismiss the suit. THats not really the issue Im talking bout. Im focusing on the moral justifications being brought up.

There are lots of posts dismissing her based on a rather strerotypical view of africa. That lucky for her shes in american. If she was born in African she'd be lion food or have a 2 ft long neck!!! I think someone even mentioned genital mutilation !? Truth is its impossible to know or measure what wouldve been. Its also irrelevent.

I do know one thing. If i was born in Africa I'd still have my foreskin!!!!! Now thats mental anguish for ya!!! See you in court Sisters of Mercy Hospital!!!!;)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy
I think he suitis silly and doomed to fail.There are proabbly a good dozen legal reasons to dismiss the suit. THats not really the issue Im talking bout. Im focusing on the moral justifications being brought up.

There are lots of posts dismissing her based on a rather strerotypical view of africa. That lucky for her shes in american. If she was born in African she'd be lion food or have a 2 ft long neck!!! I think someone even mentioned genital mutilation !? Truth is its impossible to know or measure what wouldve been. Its also irrelevent.

I do know one thing. If i was born in Africa I'd still have my foreskin!!!!! Now thats mental anguish for ya!!! See you in court Sisters of Mercy Hospital!!!!;)

I haven't made that comparison; all I said was that if her ancestors were really brought here as slaves, she would not have been born otherwise. That's not an opinion of cultural superiority, not conjecture at what might have been, but a solid fact.

Without slavery, she would not exist today, get it? Stick that in your moral pipe and have a few pulls.

Edited to add: Timmy, your anguish suggests that you may have had a severly nearsighted circumcisor. If that's the case, then you've got a malpractice suit, no problem. It's not your fault you got the short end of the stick.

[CBL4]

Originally Posted by Drooper
It is not a question of ameliorating the slave trade, only trying to establish her damages.

The point that she is better off is in fact irrelevant, but an interesting corollary.

So she is better off because her ancestors were slaves but she was damaged because her ancestors were slaves? I don't think that makes sense.

The reality is that blacks in the US are better off than their 13th cousins who are born in Africa. It would make more sense for blacks to pay LOL than for LOL to pay them. It would be absurdly ridiculous but just not quite as absurdly ridiculous.

CBL

[Girl 6]

I have a few comments since this has some pertinence to me.

First of all, I realize that most of you understand that slavery was a BAD thing. You also understand that much of the prosperity that the United States and other countries that have a slavery history was realized through the profits gained from slavery (and other unfortunate situations like the Asians working the railroads, etc...)

Having said all that, the unfortunate fact IS the following: slavery was legal for a long time in history. It was condoned and supported because it was legal. Just on legality terms alone, I really don't think Lloyd's or any other institution can be prosecuted.

From a moral point of view, though, there is much wrong here that needs to be set right. Many generations of African Americans ARE suffering from the "legacy" that slavery has wrought. Do not get me wrong. I don't think that it should be used as an excuse for criminal behavior or other lamentable unsocial behavior. I always roll my eyes when one of my friends starts putting out that "The Man" has kept him down, etc.

I think that societies that did condone slavery DO have to make some kind of reparation. But, NOT to any single individual. It needs to make a reparation to classes of people that have been mistreated in the past. A fund that addresses the apalling disparity of education would be a good start. A fund that addresses the needs of people that need to have child care while they work would be another good start. A recognition that perhaps, a country needs to apologize for it's past behavior is another.

Having lawyers and greedy people take advantage of perceived wrongdoings which may or may not have affected them to the better or worse will NOT address the core of this issue. All it will create is bad will and it really won't address the social wrongs that have resulted from past deeds.

I think I would be more supportive if the person and lawyer bringing about the lawsuit would propose some other way of repairing this that doesn't involve personal gain.

G6

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CBL4

So she is better off because her ancestors were slaves but she was damaged because her ancestors were slaves? I don't think that makes sense.

The reality is that blacks in the US are better off than their 13th cousins who are born in Africa. It would make more sense for blacks to pay LOL than for LOL to pay them. It would be absurdly ridiculous but just not quite as absurdly ridiculous.

CBL

I was just thinking about crazy possibilities and…could Lloyd's sue USA for damages since it abolished slavery and thus destroyed their ability to make money in that sector?

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by CBL4

So she is better off because her ancestors were slaves but she was damaged because her ancestors were slaves? I don't think that makes sense.

The reality is that blacks in the US are better off than their 13th cousins who are born in Africa. It would make more sense for blacks to pay LOL than for LOL to pay them. It would be absurdly ridiculous but just not quite as absurdly ridiculous.

CBL

I'm not sure this is relevant. You can't say whether or not a person's life would be better off here or in Africa.

The bottom line is that the ancestors of this woman and many others had no choice. Immigrants that came here to America usually came of their own volition. They DID have a choice despite the wrtched conditions they lived in or were persecuted for. They could have chosen to go somewhere else, for instance.

Choice was taken away from a class of people.

G6

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Girl 6
You also understand that much of the prosperity that the United States and other countries that have a slavery history was realized through the profits gained from slavery (and other unfortunate situations like the Asians working the railroads, etc...)
G6
I don't quite agree w/ that. It seems to me that slavery, in fact, was a detriment and a hindrance to prosperity. It was the industrial revolution and the mechanization of industry (rather than reliance on cheap human labor) that paved the way to prosperity. Per capita income was much greater in non-slave than slave states in pre-Civil War America. There are countries today that have slavery, they could hardly be called prosperous.

Even if it were legal, I doubt that any farmer would trade in his John Deere for a hundred slaves. The economic value just isn't there.

Interesting fact about railroad workers building the first trans-continental RR after the Civil War: The Irish workers (who made up the bulk of the crews building from Omaha westward) had higher death rates than the Chinese crews working east from Sacramento. Reason was the Chinese drank tea, which was obviously made from boiling water. The Irish drank water that hadn't been boiled and thus contracted many water-borne diseases. Just one thing I learned at my trip to the Golden Spike historical monument in Utah last month.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by WildCat

I don't quite agree w/ that. It seems to me that slavery, in fact, was a detriment and a hindrance to prosperity. It was the industrial revolution and the mechanization of industry (rather than reliance on cheap human labor) that paved the way to prosperity. Per capita income was much greater in non-slave than slave states in pre-Civil War America. There are countries today that have slavery, they could hardly be called prosperous.

Even if it were legal, I doubt that any farmer would trade in his John Deere for a hundred slaves. The economic value just isn't there.

Interesting fact about railroad workers building the first trans-continental RR after the Civil War: The Irish workers (who made up the bulk of the crews building from Omaha westward) had higher death rates than the Chinese crews working east from Sacramento. Reason was the Chinese drank tea, which was obviously made from boiling water. The Irish drank water that hadn't been boiled and thus contracted many water-borne diseases. Just one thing I learned at my trip to the Golden Spike historical monument in Utah last month.

I believe that John Deere's machines were introduced in the middle 1800's. By then, slavery was already 200 years old.

The fact about the railroad workers is REALLY interesting. Thanks for enlightening on that.

G6

[shuize]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had with a young college intern in my previous job about a year or so ago.

She was convinced that the United States was evil incarnate and it's history of slavery was proof of it. That being the case, I asked her how she felt about both past and current slavery in Africa. Her response really amused me. She claimed that African slavery "wasn't as bad" as the American system which was "a thousand times worse."

Since then I've had new respect for our university system.

Past American slavery: Really, really bad.

Current African slavery: Sort of bad.

Now that's quality education in action.

[Roadtoad]

Oh, for God's sake, let's get real, shall we?

Let's try this another way:

My earliest ancestor in California came from Virginia. It seems he had a habit of borrowing horses, forgetting that they were borrowed, then selling the critters. His neighbors tended to become irritable about my ancestor's activities, and decided they were going to throw him a party.

My ancestor declined to attend. He had no necktie.

No problem. Since this was to be a formal dance, they would provide one at no charge.

(See, he was thinking silk, the locals were leaning towards sisal... Oh, never mind...)

This brought my great, great, great, great grandfather to California, (in a small hurry, I might add), around 1845, we think, just in time for him to help miners who began arriving to seek their fortune in the gold fields by carrying all that heavy gold they were panning out of the rivers and streams. Of course, he had his expenses in this activity of his, (you know, Colt Peacemaker, bullets, fast horse...), so the commission he charged the miners was rather steep.

Later, of course, he decided to enter into a business relationship with Wells Fargo, (although Wells Fargo still has posters which contest the terms of same, as I found out when I was fired by Wells Fargo when I mentioned our family's past business relationship with them), one which made it possible for him to buy a mail order bride and settle down and enter into a business relationship with Charlie Crocker, Leland Stanford, Mark Hopkins and Charles Huntington. (In case you didn't know, they started the Central Pacific, then bought out the Southern Pacific. Funny, I couldn't get hired by the SP, either, nor the Union Pacific, now that they've bought out SP.)

So, let me ask you:

Should I sue the decendants of those miserable clods back in Virginia who chased out my ancestor over a misunderstanding about a horse? (Or two, or three...)

Should I sue the decendants of those rotten miners who were so ungrateful that they threatened to invite my ancestor to a dance in Placerville, CA, (aka, "Hangtown")?

Maybe I ought to sue Wells Fargo, for besmirching my ancestor's reputation in a business deal gone wrong.

Or perhaps I ought to sue the Union Pacific for the same reason.

(Think before you answer. I'm trying to say more than you think I am.)

[epepke]

Originally posted by RandFan
Oh trust me. Enough lawyers can work it out. And what about blacks who do not have ancestors who were slaves? Since they are black they are suffering from the legacy of slavery right?

Here is how it will work out, if it ever does. First off, it can't possibly work except as a class action suit. Assuming that enough lawyers can overcome the fact that Lloyd's is a brokerage house, which would be a bit tricky considering the judicial precedent on shared culpability, what will happen is that a few lawyers will get nice houses and a new RV, and every black person will get a check for 28 cents.

[Beerina]

Some may have "cha ching" on their mind, but you know what? I support suing corporations that did profit from reprehensible things that happened to be legal at the time.

We have western companies now who help China build the computer infrastructure to censor their Internet. I hope some day they take it in the chin, too. There are western companies helping Putin manage radio and TV stations as he takes them over one by one.



Why is suing such things, even long after the fact, good? For the same reason that you have to prosecute soldiers who commit massacres, disallowing "I was just following orders." It is to strike the fear of justice into people's hearts and know that some day they will be called to task.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Beerina

Why is suing such things, even long after the fact, good? For the same reason that you have to prosecute soldiers who commit massacres, disallowing "I was just following orders." It is to strike the fear of justice into people's hearts and know that some day they will be called to task.

But they AREN'T being called to task. Their innocent (in the legal and moral sense of the word) great-great-grandchildren are being called to task. Is that any more fair than the initial injustice?

Prosecuting a war criminal with blood on his hands makes total sense, but digging up Napoleon's corpse because of an Austrian lawsuit is just silly.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jocko
Prosecuting a war criminal with blood on his hands makes total sense, but digging up Napoleon's corpse because of an Austrian lawsuit is just silly. And it is silly to sue descendants of Napolean.

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Girl6
I think that societies that did condone slavery DO have to make some kind of reparation. But, NOT to any single individual. It needs to make a reparation to classes of people that have been mistreated in the past. A fund that addresses the apalling disparity of education would be a good start. A fund that addresses the needs of people that need to have child care while they work would be another good start. A recognition that perhaps, a country needs to apologize for it's past behavior is another.

I agree that the US needs to improve its education system but, if I take you literally, you seem to imply we should fix bad schools for blacks but not for whites, Latinos, Asians. This is clearly silly.

Unfortunately, much (most?) of the problems associated with bad schools are the parents fault. I live in a school district where 94% of the 1st graders did not know the alphabet. This created an impossible problem for the teachers. Better parenting is the first step to creating better schools. (BTW, the school district is majority white.)

As far as day care, the biggest reason for day care is single parents. Fixing this would be much more effective that providing daycare. Providing free day care might even backfire because it might increase the number of single parents.

I thought Clinton apologized for slavery.

CBL