Slave Trade Apology

farfromglorified

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

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?

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.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

Abuskedti

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

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.

farfromglorified

Abuskedti wrote:

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.

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 see the son of the thief did nothing to come upon or make a claim on the $20,000,000 - nothing whatsoever.

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.

as for the rest of that - just a typical example of what you do when you fear you may learn something.

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?

FinsburyParkCarrots

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

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!

cornnifer

farfromglorified wrote:

No man should apologize for the sins of his father.

like hell they shouldn't.

farfromglorified

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

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.

My apologies -- didn't realize you were just asking a question.

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!

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?

hippiemom

farfromglorified wrote:

The child of the thief, of course. Receiving an inheritance is not a crime. Stealing is.

Receiving stolen property is a crime. What's the difference? If you receive it from a dead guy, it's suddenly ok?

farfromglorified

hippiemom wrote:

Receiving stolen property is a crime.

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.

What's the difference? If you receive it from a dead guy, it's suddenly ok?

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.

farfromglorified

cornnifer wrote:

like hell they shouldn't.

Then why aren't you apologizing? Why aren't you giving back everything you have?

miller8966

I could careless about something that happened 400 years ago...

whats next? Can the Catholic church reclaim Constantinople?

hippiemom

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

If you buy a car and it turns out to have been stolen, and you're caught with it, you will lose it whether you are the one who stole it or not. The police will take it from you by force, and the fact that you committed no crime and had no knowledge of any crime being committed won't matter one bit. If someone else can prove legal ownership, you can kiss that car good-bye.

The problem with very old crimes, such as the land stolen from the natives by European settlers, is that there's not much in the way of evidence. The further problem is that the native people didn't title land to any person or group of people, and our justice system provides no way to deal with such disputes.

In the case of the art stolen from the Jew, the family may very well be able to prove rightful ownership, which would mean that the son of the person who stole and sold the art is in possession of stolen property. It's not his fault, but that doesn't change the fact that the money rightfully belongs to the estate of the deceased Jew.

If there's no clear evidence, as there sadly isn't in most of these cases, then we can't justify taking the money from the son of the alleged thief.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

The primitive idea was territorial, and that still exists, on paper. The White folks took a primitive idea and made it Law. It's ridiculous. In my opinion nobody really owns anything of this earth, yet, that is not to say I wouldn't defend my own liveable space as my own.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

The primitive idea was territorial, and that still exists, on paper. The White folks took a primitive idea and made it Law. It's ridiculous. In my opinion nobody really owns anything of this earth, yet, that is not to say I wouldn't defend my own liveable space as my own.

I completely agree with this, except that the latter half of your last sentence contradicts the former half.

farfromglorified

hippiemom wrote:

If you buy a car and it turns out to have been stolen, and you're caught with it, you will lose it whether you are the one who stole it or not. The police will take it from you by force, and the fact that you committed no crime and had no knowledge of any crime being committed won't matter one bit. If someone else can prove legal ownership, you can kiss that car good-bye.

The problem with very old crimes, such as the land stolen from the natives by European settlers, is that there's not much in the way of evidence. The further problem is that the native people didn't title land to any person or group of people, and our justice system provides no way to deal with such disputes.

In the case of the art stolen from the Jew, the family may very well be able to prove rightful ownership, which would mean that the son of the person who stole and sold the art is in possession of stolen property. It's not his fault, but that doesn't change the fact that the money rightfully belongs to the estate of the deceased Jew.

If there's no clear evidence, as there sadly isn't in most of these cases, then we can't justify taking the money from the son of the alleged thief.

I'm going to assume from this that the answer to my question is "you can't prove it". I find this answer a bit surprising. One need only to look at history to understand that all of us have indirectly benefitted in some way from the crimes of our forefathers. You live where you live because someone before you slaughtered someone else.

And if benefit is the only necessarily standard of guilt in your moral code, you must immediately return your property to the sons and daughters of the slaughtered. For all those that support such a moral code, I'll leave this thread with a simple question:

Why do you still own anything? Why have you not given it all back?

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

I completely agree with this, except that the latter half of your last sentence contradicts the former half.

There's no contradiction there. Perhaps, our philosophical differences?

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm going to assume from this that the answer to my question is "you can't prove it". I find this answer a bit surprising. One need only to look at history to understand that all of us have indirectly benefitted in some way from the crimes of our forefathers. You live where you live because someone before you slaughtered someone else.

And if benefit is the only necessarily standard of guilt in your moral code, you must immediately return your property to the sons and daughters of the slaughtered. For all those that support such a moral code, I'll leave this thread with a simple question:

Why do you still own anything? Why have you not given it all back?

Nice post. That killing thing is a bitch.

As for the here and now, we can peaceably confer about our differences, and that says something.

FinsburyParkCarrots

farfromglorified wrote:

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?

Bizarre as this might sound, I think this analogy would fit the argument for reparation exactly, if the murderer's arms be returned to the victim's children, if they were stolen from the victim's house: along with payment in compensation.

I know that sounds daft and nonsensical, but what I mean is...

What I mean is, in straight terms, we're talking about property law. Firstly, we're talking about reparation for confiscated West African lands, peoples and chattels, the details concerning which were recorded extensively by the English East India Company and equivalent private companies in Europe. Many of these records are preserved to this day, with names of all slaves and their owners meticulously documented, along with all data relating to how these slaves were used in labour.

Secondly, considering that human labour was commodified, to use a Marxian term, as a means of capitalist production, slaves' lives became property, and part of the real machinery of proto-Empire for European businessmen. Slaves and their labour became other people's property, every bit as much as the material they produced.

Their labour, as well as the money made in their transportation, created the wealth of dominant banks that thrive to this day. If you believe in capitalism, and inherited wealth, would you not like to see the sons and daughters get what the statute books (and a bit of DNA testing) show they're owed? Slave owners were compensated for their losses: why shouldn't the families of those who never received the wealth of their work?

In this sense, the issue is no longer about Blair apologising for the sins of English private companies from 1600 to the early nineteenth century, but about banks coughing up what is arguably owed to the families of slaves (and British subjects, importantly, since they were subservient to the monarch of the Realm). The problem is, have the banks actually got the stock behind the money, anymore, if such suits were pursued?


Now, going back to reborncareerist's point: what about those Africans who did deals with the slave traders. Umm, I think we'd be talking about a vaguer type of suit for personal damages here, rather than a more orthodox claim against loss of earnings? I'm not a lawyer, my brother is, but I'm just trying to think this through. I think the real issue of reparation would work on the lines of: "I can prove my great- great- great- great- etc was a slave bought by the British, and I have DNA evidence he came from such and such a place where trading was common. I have seen the statute books showing how much his labour made for certain parties. As a British subject, offered a passport and nationality as a Caribbean (originally of African descent and therefore part of the accumulated plunder of the Commonwealth), whilst under British rule and therefore automatically by right, before arriving in Britain in post-colonial times, I have a claim to inheritance, under British law."

Something like that, anyway. Someone who knows British law properly will put me right here, but I think that's how it goes.

hippiemom

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm going to assume from this that the answer to my question is "you can't prove it". I find this answer a bit surprising. One need only to look at history to understand that all of us have indirectly benefitted in some way from the crimes of our forefathers. You live where you live because someone before you slaughtered someone else.

And if benefit is the only necessarily standard of guilt in your moral code, you must immediately return your property to the sons and daughters of the slaughtered. For all those that support such a moral code, I'll leave this thread with a simple question:

Why do you still own anything? Why have you not given it all back?

Your post that I originally replied to was, "The child of the thief, of course. Receiving an inheritance is not a crime. Stealing is." What I have been discussing is crime, not my moral code, which is largely irrelevant. There are legal standards for what constitutes stolen property. You may not like them, I don't care for some of them myself, but they are the laws under which we operate. All I am saying is that if you are in possession of something that can be conclusively proven to be the private property of another, you are in possession of stolen property, and that is a crime regardless of whether you were the one who stole it. It's a legal fact, there's really no disputing it. All I am saying is that under the law, if we take stolen cars away from people who didn't steal them, we should also take the proceeds of stolen paintings away from the people who didn't steal the paintings and return them to their rightful owners.

Now, if you want to discuss how to construct a society from the bottom up that deals with property issues in a way more suitable to you, that might make for a very interesting thread, but I think it's beyond the scope of this one.

gue_barium

hippiemom wrote:

Your post that I originally replied to was, "The child of the thief, of course. Receiving an inheritance is not a crime. Stealing is." What I have been discussing is crime, not my moral code, which is largely irrelevant. There are legal standards for what constitutes stolen property. You may not like them, I don't care for some of them myself, but they are the laws under which we operate. All I am saying is that if you are in possession of something that can be conclusively proven to be the private property of another, you are in possession of stolen property, and that is a crime regardless of whether you were the one who stole it. It's a legal fact, there's really no disputing it. All I am saying is that under the law, if we take stolen cars away from people who didn't steal them, we should also take the proceeds of stolen paintings away from the people who didn't steal the paintings and return them to their rightful owners.

Now, if you want to discuss how to construct a society from the bottom up that deals with property issues in a way more suitable to you, that might make for a very interesting thread, but I think it's beyond the scope of this one.

How does this have any bearing on America today?
The Native Americans were allocated their reservations, and most are still there today.