Reparations

Quote:

False, you suggested his roots were Southern in origin and then through the use of contrast said that the north was a place where "you" also found racism

(Though King said he faced some of the most wickedly racist people in the North! Hmmmm.... )

Yeah that really looks like a statement where "I" found racism...
.....LAME - ERR!!....... (as in you are LAME and in ERR!)

Again, Stillwater was shamelessly promoting a "Southern" perspective. And if you support someone who implies, suggests or proclaims that Malcolm X's ancestors, my ancestors, black people's ancestors "OWE" the South and/or their slavemasters for being "freed" the you, too, are complicit with or promoting the same "Southern" perspective.

And if that implies that you are racist, then SOBEIT!

Now...... WHAT???

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

For those who are interested, another reparations case was thrown out of court today. The judge pointed out that the plaintiffs were not those who suffered the alleged wrongs, and that the defendants were not those who allegedly perpetrated said wrongs.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, getting reparations is going to be damned difficult.

Yes - it would have to be in the context of a general policy decision to grant them because of general wrongs, would it not, if they were ever to be paid?

0 Replies

Ah yes, but then, how would you identify to whom the payments should go? A great many people of African descent in the United States have lots of "white" blood--would one be obliged to prove their slave heritage? Would payments be on a sliding scale of demonstrable slave ancestors? What about all those walking around who are ostensibly white, but who have slave ancestors? It would be a tough sell to the Congress, at any event, and i'd warrant that middle class blacks will be no more enamoured of seeing their tax dollars spent for reparations than would their white bretheren.

0 Replies

I am happy to debate, Setanta - or rather discuss, because I am very much feeling my way on this one - and, as I said in my post about reparations in Oz, I do not feel qualified to comment on the ins and outs of the US situation - but my sense was that this was a thread to debate not the whether or not of reparations, but for pro-reparations folk to talk about how, when and who. Not that the thread has done this - my response about Oz was an attempt to start discussion on the topic (prolly hopeless!) and to begin to look at the subject for myself, since reparations will become a serious topic here if it is one now in the US.

Er, actually, your question IS a "who" question, isn't it? How dumb of me.

I have to go to work soon, but I will think on it, and try to fumble up a response for discussion. But remember, I make no claim to a deep understanding of the US situation....

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

For those who are interested, another reparations case was thrown out of court today. The judge pointed out that the plaintiffs were not those who suffered the alleged wrongs, and that the defendants were not those who allegedly perpetrated said wrongs.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, getting reparations is going to be damned difficult.

Slave reparations case dismissed
Judge protects right to amend, refile claim - CNN

Quote:

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- A federal judge Monday dismissed a lawsuit brought by descendants of slaves against corporations they say profited from slavery, saying the plaintiffs had established no clear link to the companies they targeted.

The court still left the door open for further litigation.

"Plaintiffs' attempt to bring these claims more than a century after the end of the Civil War and the formal abolition of slavery fails," U.S. District Judge Charles R. Norgle said.

He said the plaintiffs' claims "are beyond the constitutional authority of this court." And he said the suit alleged no specific connection between the plaintiffs and the companies named as defendants.

But the ruling dismissed the case "without prejudice," meaning the slave descendants seeking reparations from U.S. companies are allowed to file an amended complaint....

I agree with you conclusion but I think this decision is more of a mixed bag. It seems that the court said Congress more or less would have to address this. I'm sure there was no surprise with the "linkage" thing either. (though that is rather funny... it's not like the reparations movement is new and it is not like the court would have actually heard the case when it was within the unspecified statutes of limitations.)

I doubt if anyone is deterred. I'm sure there were plenty who thought ending slavery and segregation would be damn difficult. But I know that didn't stop those that were committed...

0 Replies

Noah,

I am not playing games with you on this thread. If through the above you are stating that you did not mean to imply that Mr. Stillwater is racist then I thank you for your clairification.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

"'Yes, Mr Malcolm X your ancestors were freed, but they still owe the US a manumission fee which we are willing to waive if you just f@ck off'). Stillwater"

Noah - are you familiar with the concept of irony?

THAT is the tone Mr Stillwater was using - ie his meaning was the direct opposite of his words - a communication tone often used to show contempt for a position in a dramatic way that makes it laughable.

To most of us it was obvious that his opinion of the quoted statement is that it is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting.

Was it actually unclear to you? If so, I trust that your misperception of Mr Stillwater's words is cleared up.

What's the matter???

You didn't catch my irony? :wink:

0 Replies

Noah, you have now inferred more than once that Mr S is a racist.

I have explained - very correctly, I believe - the nature of the mistake you made about his post.

While the accusation is of low import (in my view) because of the source, and the source's mistaken understanding - I just want to say that I am disappointed that you have not taken the opportunity to acknowledge your mistake.

You have made lots of comments about Craven's, at least, being or not being a "man" (sic). What is your view of people who do not seek to face up to their mistakes?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Noah, you have now inferred more than once that Mr S is a racist.

I have explained - very correctly, I believe - the nature of the mistake you made about his post.

While the accusation is of low import (in my view) because of the source, and the source's mistaken understanding - I just want to say that I am disappointed that you have not taken the opportunity to acknowledge your mistake.

You have made lots of comments about Craven's, at least, being or not being a "man" (sic). What is your view of people who do not seek to face up to their mistakes?

DLOWAN...

You are right! I reread Stillwater's comments and I do see the irony in them. So for that I apologize profusely!!

STILLWATER, I APOLOGIZE! (for not catching all of your irony).

However, I do still disagree with the idea of the Confederacy is the only/proper entity to seek redress... Though your point about the Wiggle Room is understood.

0 Replies

Quote:

Was it actually unclear to you? If so, I trust that your misperception of Mr Stillwater's words is cleared up.

Yes, DLOWAN, thanks to you they are. Thank you.
I appreciate that. And, again, to Mr. Stillwater, I apologize.

0 Replies

Quote:

While the accusation is of low import (in my view) because of the source, and the source's mistaken understanding

Now what is that suppose to mean?

0 Replies

Well, well done Noah!

My "considering the source" comment meant that you are wont to scatter insults around like confetti. They become less impactful, in my view, the more they are employed, and the more ridiculously so - by anyone.

0 Replies

SORRY Craven, Ive tried to stick in here and not be a noodge, I fell off the truck a few miles back and have no idea what the hells goin on here. nice try at a topic. I think debs thoughts were really good because they brought another dimension . i think ill start a gardening thread .

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Well, well done Noah!

My "considering the source" comment meant that you are wont to scatter insults around like confetti. They become less impactful, in my view, the more they are employed, and the more ridiculously so - by anyone.

My confetti of "insults" were all internal to my conversation with Craven on the AA thread. So, as I saw it, only he should take offense because they were only directed towards him and were, admittedly, petty jabs that had nothing to do with content because the exchange really wasn't about that anymore at that time IMO. It was exhausted. But it would be nice if you were that concerned about everybody's comments and insults. [Note you had nothing to say about insults and things Craven implied about me, for instance.]

Nevertheless, I have no problems admitting I am/was wrong.

Also, I never saw a question from you there on the AA thread (pg 16-20) about MLK. And if its so easy to confuse me with Noah The African simply because of my name, then perhaps irony is not solely a problem that I have. In much the same way, you like me, perhaps, made some assumptions about what you had seen before (assuming it was much of the same) even in the face of evidence presented that would contradict that.

0 Replies

I didn't take offense, as such, Noah - however, such behaviour inevitably colours our perception of people. For what it is worth, I do not think Craven insulted you at all - although he very firmly challenged the validity of your arguments.

Had I been challenging someone else in the way I challenged you about your comments to Mr S, I would quite likely have made a similar reference to the effect of the source on the seriousness with which I took the accusation (implied) of rascism. This is probably quite rude of me, so I am hoist on my own petard!

I confess I was, indeed, teasing you with the "hard to tell you apart" comment. You accuse folk of white supremacy and such fairly easily - I was - rather wickedly, I confess - and, I hope not offensively, playing with the views that I imagined YOU would imagine that I have....phew...

I am pretty naughty, I fear. Hope it caused you no offense - it was meant as a tease. However, it was worth teasing you about only because it has a basis in reality, as I think you well know! I do not think your name etc is meant to imply no connection with Noah, is it? LOL!

I am probably confused myself about on what thread - and perhaps even which Noah - I asked the question of. I have dotted the odd comment/question about on threads of his/hers and on yours, with no response from either of you - until I got feisty - so it goes.

0 Replies

Quote:

You accuse folk of white supremacy and such fairly easily

Where??

You must have me confused?

Quote:

For what it is worth, I do not think Craven insulted you at all - although he very firmly challenged the validity of your arguments.

Where?

And I dare ask if followed the whole conversation and if you really are being objective? Of course, I have my doubts...

0 Replies

LOL! Who shall be termed objective?

Though, wearily, I did follow the whole conversation.....

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

LOL! Who shall be termed objective?

Though, wearily, I did follow the whole conversation.....

Okay, so I am right to regard this:
"he very firmly challenged the validity of your arguments."
... as a figment of your imagination?

Well.... Since you say so! Laughing

(Oh and you could answer the first question.... seeing as how you followed the whole conversation. Hmmmm...... Guess that makes my comments to you there all the more pertinent. :wink: )

0 Replies

Noah,

If you subscribe to the definitions you posted in defense of the first Noah's penchant toward that accusation, your definition would, indeed, be more wide ranging and applicable at a greater frequency than it would for most. I believe you addressed this yourself saying that most of us operate under a stricter and more narrow definition of the term.

Naturally, the more inclusive the definition you operate under the greater frequency with which you will tend to apply it.

But it's tedious already, I'd rather not make this yet another discussion about Noahs calling people racists.

Since you got that whole placid pond episode behind you can we move past this one or at least take up the tangent elsewhere?

0 Replies

Quote:

Naturally, the more inclusive the definition you operate under the greater frequency with which you will tend to apply it.

The question is did I apply it... (whatever it is at this juncture)
And, sorry, the expanse of a definition has no direct correlation to the application as you would have it - aka "calling people racist"...

Besides you only charged that I "implied" it, remember?
But, anyway, as I said - sobeit!

For The Record:
I thought this was over when Stillwater said he was from Australia.
And that's actually how I think bogus name-calling should be handled, though he was perfectly right to be defensive considering... I am glad it is cleared up.

Moving on...
As I say sobeit!

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know