Because many view it as repayment and restitution for what they believe is a broken system in which discrimination against them and their forefathers have caused them a significant handicap from the onset.
This is similar to someone feeling justified in a civil court garnishing the wages of an individual to pay for child support; they may believe theft is wrong, but in that particular case this form of "legal theft" is simply rectifying a situation that was wrong in the first place.
Not saying that it's right or wrong, but it's not hard to step back and "understand" something even if you disagree with it, if one truly wants to understand it.
blaxshep said:No black family kidnapped from Africa was wealthy, in fact bringing them here gave their descendants a much better life than if they had remained in Africa.
blaxshep said:We wont mention that they were kidnapped and sold into slavery by other blacks.
Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.
Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?
ludin said:so can someone point me to someone that did this recently? if not then well it is discrimination but selective discrimination.
still doesn't make it any less wrong.
I disagree. Depends on what you mean by "recent," but it seems clear that the effects of slavery in this country are still being felt by African Americans. That seems to be the relevant factor, not proximity in time.
Josie said:Yes -- because you can't (and shouldn't have to) go back and fix the sins of your ancestors.
Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.
Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?
Why not? Seems obvious to me that you should.
I agree that (in the hypothetical situation) my descendants shouldn't go to prison or suffer some punishment. But it's not punishment of the thief to return stolen merchandise. In this case, my descendants shouldn't have everything they possess, and so some of it should be taken away. Again, that's not punishment, unless you think taking back stolen goods punishes the thief. Taking back stolen goods is not punishment for the crime, that's just putting things back the way they should be.
Punishment of a thief is prison time, hard labor, cutting off the hands, something like that. No one is saying that white people should all go to prison (well, maybe a few crazies are saying that).
ludin said:200 years ago is not relevant. the fact is none of that is done today.
ludin said:basing anything on race is discrimination.
ludin said:according to your logic I am free to open up a night club, and the first 100 people are welcome after that if you are white then you will be able to get in before others.
so you are cool with that right?
Relevance has to do with effect. If A has an effect on B, A is relevant to B. Saying that the long period of enslavement and subsequent discrimination against people of African descent in this country (discrimination that still exists, I might add) is not relevant because it happened so long ago is to ignore the definition of relevance.
please see the definition of discrimination.How so?
No, and if you think that's my logic, you don't understand my argument.
Josie said:It seems obvious to me that we shouldn't. We aren't responsible for the sins of our ancestors nor are we victims because of what happened to our ancestors.
ludin said:Not at all. If you want to file a complain the people that did it are dead but you can still file a complain I guess.
again it has nothing to do with anything now. This girl suffered discrimination due to the color of her skin. Because she is white though you give her a pass.
ludin said:please see the definition of discrimination.
ludin said:that is your argument it is ok for Texas to discriminate as long as they are discriminating against white people.
as long as it is in the name of "diversity" then it is ok to discriminate.
ludin said:you should have a problem with the night club I opened. that is the same thing that the university of texas is doing except for after 100 people allowing white people
after 100 people they are taking minorities over white people.
Beaudreax said:If you were still alive, no, it would not be fair just do nothing.
How many generations of descendants yet unborn are to be held responsible for actions taken by their predecessors, hundreds or maybe even thousands of years ago, while the descendants of those that were harmed are not held responsible for their own actions or inaction now that the laws allow them equal opportunity?
Beaudreaux said:In this country we are guaranteed by the Constitution and the law an equal opportunity, we are not, however, guaranteed an equal outcome.
Beaudreaux said:This ruling does just that - guarantees equal outcome.
Beaudreaux said:If one person meets the criteria to be given affirmative action, and the other does not, yet the one that does not has better grades, higher test scores, a more full and diverse list of extracurricular activities and awards yet is not accepted for college admittance while the other person that may have lower grades, lower test scores, and less or no items of extracurricular activities and awards yet because of affirmative action is granted admittance, then they have been given something that they did not earn, but were given by the sole fact of what they are genetically, and not who they are as a person.
Beaudreaux said:That is the very definition of discrimination. If discrimination is wrong, which it is, then it is wrong in every sense,
Beaudreaux said:including when it is used in an attempt to right an historical wrong done to long dead people by other long dead people.
Beaudreaux said:As for the current generations and why they may or may not be succeeding? Read my sig below...
Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.
Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?
Renae said:Yes. Thst is absurdist thinking.
Why do you think so?
Why do you think so?
Renae said:I don't think it I know it.
Renae said:Did my children or grandchildren harm your family? Hmmm? No. So harming them to "right" what I did is as if not more immoral then what I did originally.
Renae said:Besides how far back do we go? 1 generation? 3? 10?
Renae said:Can you prove I actually was in the wrong abd you were not foolish and lost your lands? What if you were a drunkard who gambled away your lands.... and i merely bought them. Thats how my family understood we got our wealth.
Renae said:Then what?
Hypothetical said:because the person you are asking to pay for the crimes had absolutely no control over their being... or not being... committed
Again, who is asking anyone to pay something that is rightfully theirs?
Suppose I steal your grandmother's engagement ring and give it to my son to give to his fiancee. I get caught after he's given it to her. Should she get to keep the ring, or should it be returned to you? What if I die just a day or two before my crime is discovered?
It seems to me that only one thing matters with respect to answering who keeps the ring: it is rightfully yours, not my son's fiancee's.
No one is saying (well, except maybe for some nutters) that the current generation should actually be punished for the crimes of their ancestors. But to the extent they've been enriched by those crimes, the situation is no different than the ring example, above, except in magnitude.
Yes. So they're a-okay with racial discrimination if they get something positive out of it.
Hypothetical said:what if you die a day or 2 before it's discovered.... you are talking around the subject, trying to find an analogy that fits to make it right, but its not right, and it is not justice imho.
Hypothetical said:things have been done for a long time to aid in correcting this issue, but it is time for them to end.
Hypothetical said:the fact that the ancestors of the party that was originally wronged are supposedly still feeling the impact of the wrong that was perpetrated a long time ago, now, should not be based solely on the fact that the impact is still there. It is easily evidenced that many, many ancestors of the group that was wronged are doing much better than a lot of the ancestors of the ones who did wrong, thus by all rational standards it would seem that the debt should be paid.
Hypothetical said:there is no Justice in perpetrating inequality, no matter which side it is on.
It's a pretty simple principle: if you receive something that was stolen from someone else, you don't get to keep it, even if you received it believing it was legitimate. So the ring example isn't "talking around" the subject--it goes right to the heart of the matter. It's an example of someone receiving something in a manner they believe to be legitimate, but in fact they are wrong. Their belief in the legitimacy of their property is basically irrelevant--as it should be in every case involving the same principle.
How do you decide that? Seems to me that it's time for reparations to end when the situation has equalized to pre-crime levels, and not before.
I agree, but given your apparent commitment to this principle, I'm astounded by the other parts of your position.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about now. I was talking about relevance. You said that temporal proximity has an effect on relevance. I said not so, what's important to the concept of relevance is effect.
I know the definition of "discrimination." You said that anything based on race is discrimination. Nothing about the definition of "discrimination" suggests that claim (i.e. that basing anything on race is discrimination) is true.
Not diversity. Putting things right.
Getting into college and earning a degree has the potential for a pretty profound effect on your future well-being. Getting into a nightclub...not so much. We can justify the policy with regard to who gets into college, because it can help lift someone out of a situation they should never have been in, in the first place. No such similar justification exists for the nightclub example.
Hypothetical said:and how, pray tell, do you go about determining those levels? even the entertainment of appropriately attempting to do so from a long gone era seems impossible.
Hypothetical said:I'm sure you are. it's because I believe in the equality of all of humanity and no longer seeing race as any sort of division. your solution, and in fact, the SC's decision, apparently do not subscribe to that belief, imho.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?