Slave Trade Apology
andych
Posts: 130
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6185176.stm?ls
As a democratic liberal (so to speak) i`m finding this news story a little difficult to deal with.As a scotsman i`m thinking of filing suit against the British government for over 400 years of oppression..i mean,where does this stop?
opinions?
As a democratic liberal (so to speak) i`m finding this news story a little difficult to deal with.As a scotsman i`m thinking of filing suit against the British government for over 400 years of oppression..i mean,where does this stop?
opinions?
dead head
Bern 13/9/06
Bern 13/9/06
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I wonder... If a man steals a collection of priceless art - say from a Jewish family in Germany during WWII - sells the art for $20,000,000 and promptly dies..
The jewish family had a surviving child - and the thief had a child
which child should get the $20,000,000 sitting in the dead mans bank account?
Most of the time the art has to be given back to the jewish owner's children. I don't think they would ask for the money though. There were a lot of cases where paintings had to be given back to the families of their former owners in the last years. Klimt and Schiele paintings made a lot of noise in that regard lately.
They love you so badly for sharing their sorrow, so pick up that guitar and go break a heart - Kris Kristofferson
The child of the thief, of course. Receiving an inheritance is not a crime. Stealing is.
or in this case the sins of a great-great-grandfather.
There has been no accusation of a crime against the thief's son. Simply a claim for the ill gotten gains.
You cannot seek justice against a man in the absence of a crime. If his gains were "ill-gotten", then a crime happened. In your example, there was no such crime since receiving an inheritence is not a crime.
you confuse yourself so easily. A crime did happen. It was not committed by the son. Do you feel inheritance is somehow sacred? The 20,000,000 was earned by the Jewish family, not by the family of the thief.
Really? Let's see who's confused.
Yep.
Yep.
Nope. I simply feel that it is not a crime.
Really? What did they do to earn it?
But should Lloyd's of London - a bank that founded its fortunes on the Middle Passage - pay substantial reparations to people, who can be proven to be direct ancestors of those slaves listed in the annals of slave trade? If so, and if one thinks about the rate of inflation, every individual claimant would stand to earn millions. It'd be in the best interest of the banks to say, "We're not responsible for what our fathers did". What are your thoughts on this? I'm thinking about British cases here, rather than American ones, but the situation is similar.
are you dizzy? hmmm What did they do to earn it? Well, I don't know it was hypothetical.. perhaps they created the art.. perhaps they earned money and purchaced the art - perhaps it was inherited? again you bring up irrelevant points.
The art belonged to the jewish familiy and it was stolen. If it is found - it should be returned - and if money was made from its sale - that money should be returned to the owner.
I know you are not interested in discussing this -
if I stole your bicycle and gave it to a stranger - the stranger now has a stolen bicycle -
I realize these are simple examples - and the issue of reparations are far more complicated.
However, crimes were committed. You sit in money that was earned through unthinkable crimes included torture - and the abduction of people - children were stolen from families and sold - and you and I wallow in the riches - though I realize you refuse to see how you have benefitted from the work of those before you...
there is certainly a beef - we have inherited riches from horrible crimes.. its tough to undo.. but there is no question there is a wrong that has been done and the decendents of the criminals play in the plunder with a grin and ridicule the decendants of the victims...
Its very ugly and very complicated - however, any attempt to address this issue - even if only for understanding or learning - can not be wrong - no matter how it may make you feel.
What would possibly be the advantage in doing this? If this were science (its not, but bear with me), the onus would be on the people making these sorts of suggestions to highlight the upside. Its not appropriate to throw this stuff out there and then demand that the critics disprove its worth.
Read Dr Robert Beckford, on this, because he's one of the most vocal people claiming that reparation is the most important way to achieve racial equality, and redress post-slavery black poverty, crime, poor education and social disadvantage:
http://www.blink.org.uk/print.asp?key=8719
http://www.diverse.tv/programme.aspx?id=76
http://www.uscanada.bham.ac.uk/news/empire.htm
I will read this stuff, thank you.
I will read the others, though.
EDIT: Note the tape depicted in the second link: "African Chiefs Helped in Slave Trade". Maybe some of the proceeds should come from THEIR ancestors as well?
don't be silly. An attempt would only include rational discussions negotiations and perhaps a solution. When I say attempt - I really only mean the recognition that it is indeed a fact that America was built in large part on stolen and abused labor - and the wealth is disproportionately distributed among the decendants of the perpetrators of the crime.
I don't say that it would be reasonable for all white people to pay a fine into a pot that is distributed among blacks. But recognizing this fact - discussing it - and even hopeing for some way to try and make a correction is not a bad thing
in fact I don't think the black community is asking for a handout. They are just looking for some leveling... They began the american dream late and with some serious handicaps.
Maybe in the name of recovery and repentance - some serious efforts can be undertaken to help disadvantaged americans - with race not even an issue - but only as a gesture of understanding by the people that have been blessed by the success of America.
Our poor are entitled to some breaks - some mentoring - and some preparation for them to have a go at existing opportunities.
Not at all.
Umm...you brought up the fact that they "earned" it, not me.
You seem to be confusing revenge or ethics with justice. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's ethics.
Justice is a process of dealing with men as they are. You are proposing stealing $20M from a man who committed no crime. That would make you the criminal.
I'm curious -- why are you not proposing that the purchaser of the paintings return them??? He stands on exactly the same moral ground as the son of the thief.
I'll demonstrate the simple error in your logic by extending your analogy a bit. Let's say that it was discovered that the painter stole the paint he used. Would you be proposing then that the $20M be returned to the paint store?
You keep using the word "owned", but unfortunately you've destroyed its meaning. By expropriating $20M from a man who committed no crime other than to be related to a criminal, you've stated that ownership belongs to only he who is strong enough to hold onto something and, in effect, put yourself in bed with the dead thief whose tactics you're pretending to reject.
If you actually believed in the moral code you're proposing, you would have returned it all. The sad part of your code is that you want me to return what I earned instead and hope no one will notice you.
It's completely easy to undo, under your code. Give everything you own to the next black person you see. Feel free to steal it right back though since your code allows that as well. Just don't expect to hold onto it for long.
Any attempt? Then I propose that we the living all be hanged at daybreak and our property redistributed to the bottom of the sea. I'm sure that will serve appropriate "justice" for the crimes of the dead.
God no! If there were men or women directly involved in those crimes while working for Lloyd's of London, justice can be served on those men. But there is no justice in punishing those who had no involvement in the crime -- that's just a double injustice.
Look, some of you guys are forgetting something very important about crime: it requires a morality applied to both a criminal and to a victim. There is no morality to the simple act of benefit or losing. If a man kills his wife during an argument, but then misses her and does not benefit from her murder, it does not make him less of a criminal. If a man robs a bank and is then robbed on his way out the door and ends up losing money, it does not make him less of a criminal. You're trying to attach moral implications to the simple act of benefitting or losing, and that's like trying to assign a morality to a spreadsheet. It makes no sense.
Nicely stated. I agree.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
The purchaser of the stolen art paid $20,000,000 now has art... if he could be found that would be nice - he could get his money back and the owners their art.
you see the son of the thief did nothing to come upon or make a claim on the $20,000,000 - nothing whatsoever.
as for the rest of that - just a typical example of what you do when you fear you may learn something.
Ethically, yes. The correct ethical response is for the son to the return the money to the purchaser and for the purchaser to return the paintings to the victims.
From the standpoint of justice, however, you're entirely wrong.
You're entirely right, the son of thief did not earn the $20,000,000. Here's the problem: neither did the people you're attempting to return it to. They earned paintings that were then stolen by the only criminal in the example who is now long dead.
What am I afraid of learning? That thieving the son of a thief somehow is the correct way to reject theivery? Want to start a blood fued while we're at it?
No no. There's no insomnia on my part, because I'm only trying to enrich the debate by pinpointing differing attitudes towards the origins and causes of crime culture, and their possible relationship with the legacy of colonialism and slavery. I didn't say I agreed with the viewpoint I discussed: I just wanted to venture this view, as another side of the debate.
Now, there has been a questioning of the extent of social factors in the cause of crime, and it's this that makes the ethics of criminology far from clear cut. In straightforward legal terms, the perpetrator of an act is accountable: otherwise they sound like Mark Foley, trying to excuse his wrongdoings by blaming some Catholic priest from thirty years ago, and by association, the Catholic church. But when lawyers get involved, and civil suits fly, the arguments regarding issues of culpability get abstract and murky.
Just saying, in sum, it's something for legal brains and ponderers of ethics to play with, while the bankers sweat a little!
My apologies -- didn't realize you were just asking a question.
I don't really understand these "social factors" arguments. Of course "social factors" contribute to the decisions of criminals. That doesn't eliminate the accountability of the criminal, however, nor does it have any relation to the process of justice. Crimes are choices based on faulty moralities. A "social factor" is not a choice nor does it have a morality.
Building a justice system around "social factors" is no different than building a justice system around body parts. Are we going to just start putting the axe murderer's arms in jail?
Then give back your land back to the nearest Indian. Give back any tax dollar you've ever benefited from greater than what you paid in. If that's your moral code, do it now.
The difference is that stealing -- the wanton rejection of ownership by force -- is a crime. You're seeking justice against a man who did not commit the crime. Ironically, the justice many here is proposing is the exact same thing as the crime.
Then why aren't you apologizing? Why aren't you giving back everything you have?