Suing Cumberbatch for reparations

Follow this inane argument to its logical conclusion.

The claim is that today's blacks lost opportunities to thrive when their remote ancestors were enslaved and some brought to the New World.

OK, let's give them what they dream about: opportunity.

Hello, one way ticket to Africa.

Quote: missedhervee

Follow this inane argument to its logical conclusion.

The claim is that today's blacks lost opportunities to thrive when their remote ancestors were enslaved and some brought to the New World.

OK, let's give them what they dream about: opportunity.

Hello, one way ticket to Africa.

very Lincolnesque thinking there sir

Gandler, good argument, thanks. But you have to understand that the Left believes in confiscating assets from any wealth anywhere they can find it, on any pretense. It's like an article of faith in a religion, you can't use logic to dispel it. Keeping these people out of office the best we can is what to do, meanwhile hoping Bolshevism doesn't take hold.

Quote: odiousgambit

very Lincolnesque thinking there sir

Gandler, good argument, thanks. But you have to understand that the Left believes in confiscating assets from any wealth anywhere they can find it, on any pretense. It's like an article of faith in a religion, you can't use logic to dispel it. Keeping these people out of office the best we can is what to do, meanwhile hoping Bolshevism doesn't take hold.

Right around Christmas, I said on the other board, why do we give money to a guy standing on a street corner with a sign every day when we find people willing to work who have no arms or no legs or even blind. I have no interest in redistribution without some merit.

Harewood House is one of the great British homes built on a fortune acquired through slaving in the Babados

Actor David Harewood whose family name was taken from the slaveowners toured the home and met the current Earl.

Quote: rxwine

Right around Christmas, I said on the other board, why do we give money to a guy standing on a street corner with a sign every day when we find people willing to work who have no arms or no legs or even blind. I have no interest in redistribution without some merit.

You seem to be pretty easily convinced on matters of merit

Quote: odiousgambit

You seem to be pretty easily convinced on matters of merit

I don't mind if one can make a case they individually received little benefit in the case of doling out reparations. That may lower their debt to little or nothing.

I think the whole thing could be difficult to work out, and don't worry about it much more than the next volcano in Florida.

Quote: rxwine

No, the "of course not" is because your lineage cannot be directly traced like the Cumberbatch's. But if it could, then you should be able to make a claim.

Time is arbitrary apparently, at least if I go by the decision to how they judge how long you can prosecute someone. They've changed the statute of limitations. And it's different in different countries.

Where I would agree is, no locking anyone up for sins of the father. It's just a about reclaiming property essentially.

My lineage has been traced. I could not make a claim because Turkey would rightfully laugh me out of the country (and I never would consider such madness).

I just don't understand how people support this. This is obviously a money play by a country to extort a famous person. Again, if this was equality they would also be targeting the poor Cumberbatches who are just as morally culpable for ancestral crime by that logic. They are obviously going where the money is because they know he is the only one that can pay the 1mil.

Quote: Gandler

My lineage has been traced. I could not make a claim because Turkey would rightfully laugh me out of the country (and I never would consider such madness).

I just don't understand how people support this. This is obviously a money play by a country to extort a famous person. Again, if this was equality they would also be targeting the poor Cumberbatches who are just as morally culpable for ancestral crime by that logic. They are obviously going where the money is because they know he is the only one that can pay the 1mil.

I wasn't able to look at the article since my first look at it. So, the process being implemented may not be proper.

But this is how I'm breaking down the situation in general. First I'm looking at what we would do if all people were still alive. Can a grandson claim he is innocent and shouldn't have to pay some sort of compensation or just return property his grandfather stole? Not as far as I know. "I didn't take it" doesn't hold whether innocent or not if some judgment can be made that compensation can or should be given or property returned.

Second, does your original victims being dead morally cleanse the situation. I don't see how. It makes it more convenient to deny it, but I don't see how it corrects the wrong.

Thirdly, can you actually figure out how to fairly adjudicate what or how much should go to what party. That may end up completely different what is originally claimed.

Fourthly I'm not considering how unpopular reparations is. And I'm not considering how impractical it is. I'm just considering if someone makes someone else's family slaves, can we just declare it even after a period of time, forget it and we're all even now?

Well, as a pure moral question I don't see how.

Quote: rxwine

I'm just considering if someone makes someone else's family slaves, can we just declare it even after a period of time, forget it and we're all even now?

Yes, that's how it's been throughout history: why change?

The claimants may feel they've been denied opportunities by their ancestors being enslaved and brought to the New World; these idiots need to consider how much worse their lot in life would be had this not happened.

Hello, life in Africa...a sobering thought about living in a horrible part of the modern world.

I guess no matter where one lives it just sucks to be black.

Quote: rxwine

I wasn't able to look at the article since my first look at it. So, the process being implemented may not be proper.

But this is how I'm breaking down the situation in general. First I'm looking at what we would do if all people were still alive. Can a grandson claim he is innocent and shouldn't have to pay some sort of compensation or just return property his grandfather stole? Not as far as I know. "I didn't take it" doesn't hold whether innocent or not if some judgment can be made that compensation can or should be given or property returned.

Second, does your original victims being dead morally cleanse the situation. I don't see how. It makes it more convenient to deny it, but I don't see how it corrects the wrong.

Thirdly, can you actually figure out how to fairly adjudicate what or how much should go to what party. That may end up completely different what is originally claimed.

Fourthly I'm not considering how unpopular reparations is. And I'm not considering how impractical it is. I'm just considering if someone makes someone else's family slaves, can we just declare it even after a period of time, forget it and we're all even now?

Well, as a pure moral question I don't see how.

Your first point is where the problem lies. We are not dealing with tangible stolen property (which on its own is legally complex once crossing generational and geographical boundaries, I mean heck, just about every museum has stolen goods by that logic, it is not as simple as taking something back, sometimes this happens, but the child will never have to pay cash reparations if it is not possible). But, this case is referencing many generations removed ancestors. And, the property in question is "lost wealth" due to his family running a plantation there 200 years ago.

The original victim being dead absolutely matters. But, what matters more is the original perpetrator being dead, and the property being long gone from the family. They do not own the plantation (and have not for 200 years). I do not know who the current owner is, but he is not the one being sued (I am not sure that is even the right term, but I am just going to use it for simplicity).

If my dad drove drunk and crashed into a building causing irreparable damage (let's say he was uninsured), and died, am I alone (as the only child) responsible for the demolition and rebuilding of the structure? Of course not, at least not in any Western Country (I am sure you can find some obscure eastern examples where crimes still pass with family....) But, this is not how it works in the civilized world. Sure you can take civil action against his estate and such before it is probated, but that is the same as taking action against him (not the children, other than in the sense the children may get slightly less inheritance). Same with debt and any other legal concept (even though some banks have a history of trying to guilt trip children into paying parents debt after death and probable, but that is a separate issue without any legal ground and is sleazy collection tactics, which is essentially what is happening in this case....).

To your third point you can never fairly adjudicate history, we are relying on conflicting records from hundreds of years ago where each side has motivation to either lie or bend the truth. You are also dealing with a different time, and I don't mean socially, I mean in the context of currency that is no longer around, and labor values were far different. How can you possibly translate to modern value? (You can't)

Popularity and practicality do matter with any policy or law. If something is unpopular and essentially impossible by any reasonable metric, pushing for it is not wise.


I mean honestly what is your end game here? To go through all of human history and attempt to write every wrong ever recorded (key word there is recorded)? And, to what end? A global reset?
Just seize all wealth and property, and distribute it to the people most deserving? Seize all educational credentials and award them out based on credentialing equality? It's a fair question. And who would be doing the seizing and distributing (my guess is they will make out very well)?