Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Judge called "arrogant, racist, white judge." for refusing to write new law.

Jan 27, 2004 1:04AM PST

The judge rejected a slavery reparations lawsuit saying 'The (plaintiffs) failed to establish a direct connection with the corporations (being sued), tried to address a social evil in the wrong venue and did it much too late'. In effect, they couldn't prove their ancestors had been harmed by the people sued, it wasn't illegal at the time, and the statute of limitations has long since run out. The plaintiffs vowed to continue to attempt to file the suit.

This one really frosts me. The plaintiffs expect me to pay reparations when:

1. Most of my ancestors arrived here shortly before or after the civil war.
2. Most of the rest lived in the Northeast, and were not involved in slavery. In fact, I have not yet found any who owned slaves.
3. My great grandfather fought for the Union, and was permanently injured, in the Civil War which gave the slaves their freedom. His brother was killed in the same war.
4. Enormous treasure and effort has been expended in my own time in an effort to lift the black community out of poverty.

I think the judge should go farther. I think he should force the plaintiffs to pay the legal costs of the defendents. The case certainly does not speak well of the skills in the black legal community.

OTOH, if the plaintiffs win, maybe I can sue for my great grandfather's injury and suffering. After that, maybe I can sue Scottish and English land owners for damages suffered in the Highland Clearances. I'll have to consider all the possibilities.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:Judge called
Jan 27, 2004 2:02AM PST

That is the problem with reparations. Who should pay, and to whom?

My ancestors arrived in this country roughly 50 years after the Civil War ended, and they were fleeing their own persecution by the Russians. None of us had anything to do with slavery, companies or people who benefitted from slavery, or anything else related to slavery. This is probably true for a majority of white Americans.

Then you have to look at the present black population. Who can trace their ancestry back to slaves, whose ancestors didn't come here until after slavery had been abolished, etc. etc.

The fact that it was legal has been argued by others in this forum as a defense for it, but the Civil War demonstrated that a large number of Americans considered it immoral. Reparations could only work if specific people or companies could be identified as having owned slaves whose descendants can be positively identified.

- Collapse -
Clarification please?
Jan 27, 2004 7:47AM PST

"Reparations could only work if specific people or companies could be identified as having owned slaves whose descendants can be positively identified."

So any individual that had could be proved an ancestor owned slaves would be obligated to pay?

I have no idea if my ancestors where were in the US during the civil war, much less if they owned any slaves.

And regarding the corporations, just corporations that have descended in some form from companies, private owned or otherwise, from the slave owners?

Just asking.

roger

- Collapse -
Regarding the corporations.
Jan 27, 2004 9:53AM PST

The corporations are primarily those where a part of their predecessors did business with, or were, slave owners. For example, if an insurance company insured the value of a slave, that corporation, or any other which absorbed it, would be considered liable.

- Collapse -
Re:Clarification please?
Jan 27, 2004 11:13PM PST

I'm actually not sure whether I think it should be law or voluntary. At the least, it would be a nice gesture.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Judge called
Jan 27, 2004 10:13AM PST
Who should pay,...

Noone...
- Collapse -
What of the mixed race children today?
Jan 27, 2004 2:41AM PST

Would they pay for their white ancestors who might have owned slaves, or receive due to black ancestors who might have been slaves? Wouldn't reparations involve returning them to their original homeland? I mean if you are going to "repair" what you've done, then you would also have to "return" them.

- Collapse -
and consider the fact that the blacks were sold into slavery by blacks in their homeland
Jan 27, 2004 7:51AM PST

Then shouldn't the black families in Africa also be forced to pay compensation.
The slaves were shipped to America by a british shipping company, so some blame perhaps should be sent in their direction as well. Sad
I read that the slaves got a better living in America than they would have ever got where they came from because of persecution that they suffered there.

- Collapse -
Re:and consider the fact that the blacks were sold into slavery by blacks in their homeland
Jan 27, 2004 8:58AM PST

As far as the original slaves captured from Africa got a better living in America than in their home land, I'd be afraid that was a bit of proproganda. No evidence either way. But even with any facts that may back it up, it sounds a bit like trying to put a good face on it.

I admit I got caught up in the discussion on old Speakeasy and the argument about the legality then vs now. Some of my own posts I read later did not make me happy when I realized how much they sounded like supporting slavery rather than just arguing that the times were different and all slave owners were not horrible people.

Now I've heard a black speaker on tv saying he was glad to be born in American rather than Africa, even as a descendant of slaves. But he pointed out that didn't change what his ancestors went through just because it may ended up better for him.

But you're right I think that once you start down the road of repartitions, it becomes a real knot as to who bears what portion of any blame.

And as Bill points out, then you have to consider other groups and times. When and where do we draw the line? I'm sure I don't have the answer, even if I don't support the lawsuits and/or proposals I've read of in the past.

roger

- Collapse -
I disgust the issue Roger with my friend Sam who lived in Trinidad and is black himself
Jan 27, 2004 9:26AM PST

There were some bad slave owners at the time, and they were very vicious to the blacks, but on the other hand there were others who just wanted cheap labour, and perhaps weren't so bad.
Without documented and verified facts of all the slave's experiences it's quite difficult to draw a fair conclusion. I know I wouldn't like to.
Sam's family are all very happy with their life in Trinidad, so it's come good for them, I'm pleased to say.

- Collapse -
I thought welfare of 60's thru 80's WAS reparations. (tic)(nt)
Jan 27, 2004 12:25PM PST

.

- Collapse -
It gets worse ...
Jan 27, 2004 7:30AM PST

What about the Native Americans who were displaced by various (mostly) European land grabs?

And so forth.

The most prominent current global arguments about this are, of course, the displacement of Arabs from Israel a generation or so ago and the slave labor used by the Nazis a couple of generations ago.

At some point it simply becomes unreasonable to try to address all the inequities of history. Or, as somebody observed long ago (loosely translated): Life sucks and then you die.

- Collapse -
Re:and worser
Jan 27, 2004 2:51PM PST

just imagine, if you take it to it's ultimate (rediculous) end, you 'could' say that anyone who took sugar in their tea was guilty of "perpetuating" the slave movement...

i would say "it's time to let sleeping dogs lie", move on and live for the future....

jonah

- Collapse -
Tough question
Jan 27, 2004 3:20PM PST

Would that apply to 80+ year old suspected Nazi's too that haven't done anything of a nazi nature since the 40's?

- Collapse -
Your question needs perspective, James...
Jan 27, 2004 4:50PM PST

James the original subject was slavery in the U.S., so let's try put your question into the same perspective.
Let's assume that in 1945, that Nazi owned a company (Let's call it the Fammis Company) and he used slave labor.
Now then, slavery in the U.S. ended totally in 1865, 138 years ago. So in a similar time perspective the question would seem to be that in the year 2142, would the then living decendents of that Nazi, the then current owners of the Frammis Company and/or the then citizens of Germany be liable for reparations to the decendents of people who were used as slave labor in the Frammis Company 138 years ago.

- Collapse -
So "time" is the necessary element?
Jan 28, 2004 12:19AM PST

How much time? 50 years? 100 years? What about the "legality" of either at the time in the country it existed? I can understand "survivors" wanting recompense, but what about the children of survivors? Grandchildren? Where would the cut off point be? Maybe it all comes down to what is practical and what one can get by with?

- Collapse -
Did you mean 2083 as the year instead of 2142? (nt)
Jan 28, 2004 12:21AM PST

.

- Collapse -
No, James...
Jan 28, 2004 11:01AM PST

No James, I took 1945 as the end of Nazi Germany and added 138 years, as I called 1865 the effective end of slavery in the U.S.

- Collapse -
2142-1945=197, not 138. I don't get your math or how you mean it to apply. (nt)
Jan 28, 2004 3:30PM PST

???

- Collapse -
Basic math idea, James...
Jan 30, 2004 2:14AM PST

James, the basic idea was to give a time perspective to validity of future liability. The last time that a company in what was then Nazi Germany could have used a "slave" was in 1945, as Nazi Germany ceased to be in that year.
In 1865 the Confederacy ceased to exist, so that was the last year that a company then/there would have used "slaves".
The basic question was should companies(or the decendents of its owners) that used slaves in 1865 be held liable now, 138 years later.
To put ask a similar question about "slave" labor and later liability question about a Nazi company (or the decendents of its owners) would require that the time period for liability be considered if the time were 138 years after the end year of 1945.
Validity of liability in 2003 for actions in 1865 compared to vality of liability in 2003 for actions in 1945. Time span of 138 years later in the former vs. time span of just 58 years. To get a similar difference in time lag I thought to add 138 years to "date of last offense", so I was in error, I should have said the year 2083 to get the 138 year time lag. I math/farkled big time.

- Collapse -
They're going for more than previous slave owners,
Jan 30, 2004 2:46AM PST

they also want to sue those who did business with a slave owner. Thus, insurance companies which may have insured slaves are being sued. I don't know how much evidence the plaintiffs have.

- Collapse -
OK, got it (nt)
Jan 30, 2004 3:45AM PST

.

- Collapse -
I don't think so if the Nazi was guilty of something like murder.
Jan 27, 2004 11:04PM PST

In that case, personal guilt is involved, and the statute of limitations does not apply.

- Collapse -
I was thinking more of slavery, but...
Jan 28, 2004 12:26AM PST

...I guess since some slaves died under a whip or were killed by the owner, you could probably equate that to Nazi state sanctioned executions.

Mainly, I'm just wondering at what point the world will be allowed to rest from WWII and the things that went on 60 years ago?

I see what happened to that Ivan Demyanjuk who emigrated to the USA, and I thought that was the most shameful of recent events in American history and jurisprudence. It was a terrible mistake against a family perpetrated for political convenience, and was one thing that made me ashamed of America in that instance.

- Collapse -
I think it's ludicrous that ...
Jan 27, 2004 8:06AM PST

anyone could think that anyone else, alive today, should be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors. You might as well try to argue that Jesse James' family tree belongs in prison for all the crimes he committed. These reparation lawsuits should all be dismissed as frivilous and the plaintiffs should be ordered to pay all of the legal fees for filing these suits in the first place.

- Collapse -
Very well said and I agree that they should definitely pay for their stupidity NT
Jan 27, 2004 8:38AM PST
Sad
- Collapse -
If you don't have a supportable case, all you need to do is...
Jan 27, 2004 10:02AM PST

cry "Racist Pig!" It works every time for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. So why not follow their leadership.

dw

- Collapse -
Poor Al Sharpton, he's obviously suffered and in need of reparation payments.
Jan 27, 2004 12:30PM PST

Needs more food too! Wink

- Collapse -
Re:If you don't have a supportable case, all you need to do is...
Jan 27, 2004 12:30PM PST

and you obviously have links to both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton crying 'racist pig'?

post it please.

david williams
African Canadian

- Collapse -
I don't remember Sharpton saying "racist pig" but he's been busy with other things in past.
Jan 27, 2004 3:11PM PST
- Collapse -
You might be remembering, James...
Jan 28, 2004 12:20PM PST

James, you might remembering the Flap he had in New York with the police commissoner (Kelly).In an interview with reporters, Sharpton said "That's the sort of behavior I'd expect from a racist pig like Kelly."
Link to story (5th story down the page "Kelly says that he won't shake Sharpton's hand".):http://archives.newyorkish.net/060203/060203.htm