Skip to main content

Some suggest that they fear that if reparations are awarded that it will prevent African Americans from any future right to legal redress against discrimination.

Aside from whether you think this argument makes sense or not, would you agree to a reparations award (of an agreeable amount) if the "cost" was any future opportunity to pursue legal remedy under a race specific claim? You could sue under any race neutral Constitutional protection but any race specific laws would be removed from the books.

Thoughts?

© MBM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Perhaps it might be good to look to history for the answer.

There have been reparations for Jewish Holocaust survivores and for the Survivirs of Japanese Internment Camps during WWII.

What has been the real effects for either of these groups in pursuing civil rights claims?

Are there any examples that anybody is aware of where the payment of reparations has interfiered with any race specific legal claims?
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:

Are there any examples that anybody is aware of where the payment of reparations has interfiered with any race specific legal claims?


The argument is completely nonsensical from a legal perspective. It seems more driven by fear, than by logic or legal precedent.

That said, I'm curious about how people evaluate the trade-off.
It seems to me that any example of progress can be use as an arguement that racism is dead, and we now live in a color-blind society.

I see such arguements being made all the time right now, against Afirmative Action or whatever, even without a penny of reparations being made.

Of course, some people would add reperations to their long list of reasons that they already have. There's nothing special about a supposed backlash resulting from reperations. Every step forward does that.

quote:
"There really is no white backlash, because that gives the impression that the nation had decided it was going to solve this problem and then there was a step back because of developments in the civil rights movement. Now, the fact is that America has been backlashing on the civil rights question for centuries now... The backlash is merely the surfacing of prejudices, of hostilities, of hatreds and fears that already existed and they are just now starting to open."

- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Seventh Annual Gandhi Memorial Lecture," Howard University, Washington, D.C., (11/6/1966)
quote:
The argument is completely nonsensical from a legal perspective. It seems more driven by fear, than by logic or legal precedent.

That said, I'm curious about how people evaluate the trade-off.
One thing to note, though, is how markedly different African-Americans are regarded when compared to Jews and Japanese-Americans. Though made out of fear or other such emotions, they are hardly misplaced. There is plenty of reasons to have those "fears"/emotions. They just don't make logical sense because, legally, there really is no reason to believe that it would go down that way (i.e. written in statutes), regardless of animosity Whites, even White legislators, etc. may hold.

In even greater opposition to that emotional perspective, I refer to one of my favorite commentaries that highlight what has happened in American History with respect to the White public adjusting to new ideas/regimes:

quote:
White Perceptions [An Interview with Tim Wise]

Q: To what extent do you consider it important to frame a movement against racism in a way that affects whites' perceptions of blacks (or other races) in a positive way?

A:
Not very. At least not as the means to an ends...precisely because progress on racism has never been related to how whites felt about black people. Rather, progress has come via movement activity forcing elites to make changes, whether or not the mass of whites supported such changes. None of the civil rights acts of the 1960's were supported by the majority of whites. Neither was desegregation via the Brown v Board decision. And needless to say, neither was abolition of slavery. But interestingly, after laws were changed, more and more people (though admittedly not enough) came to accede to the new norm, and actually reduced their opposition to such laws and changes. Keep in mind, most people are conformist. They assume the laws are legitimate, and the state is legitimate. As a result, when activists force changes, over time (sometimes a very short time), most people come to at least passively accept those changes, and many even come to support them outright.
Whether you totally agree or not, it makes for a pretty compelling case.
quote:
"There really is no white backlash, because that gives the impression that the nation had decided it was going to solve this problem and then there was a step back because of developments in the civil rights movement. Now, the fact is that America has been backlashing on the civil rights question for centuries now... The backlash is merely the surfacing of prejudices, of hostilities, of hatreds and fears that already existed and they are just now starting to open."

- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Seventh Annual Gandhi Memorial Lecture," Howard University, Washington, D.C., (11/6/1966)


Thank you, Ricky!!
I'll be saving that one!
Last edited {1}
quote:
Would you agree to a reparations award (of an agreeable amount) if the "cost" was any future opportunity to pursue legal remedy under a race specific claim?

I would and could...

But that would require some conditions no Charles Krauthammer or any such "Grand Compromise" ever accounted for. Yes, it would require a reworking of the Power Relationships and Arrangements that would afford African-Americans relative Political Autonomy (see the Iraqi Democratic Model or the Native American ~ U.S. Gov't government-to-government arrangement) and move towards Ideal Reparations.
Some suggest that they fear that if reparations are awarded that it will prevent African Americans from any future right to legal redress against discrimination.

Aside from whether you think this argument makes sense or not, would you agree to a reparations award (of an agreeable amount) if the "cost" was any future opportunity to pursue legal remedy under a race specific claim? You could sue under any race neutral Constitutional protection but any race specific laws would be removed from the books.---MBM

Absolutely not!!!

Reparations is about past debt.

Satisfying that debt does nothing to give European-America a 'free ticket' to commit future violations of law on any basis, and specifically regarding violaltions based on 'race and/or color'.

No one would be so stupid as to do such a thing.

Well...maybe the NAACP.

And...the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

And...the Urban League.

And, of course, CORE

Damn!!! Would these be the folks who would sign such an agreement.

Who would do that, signing that is?

And, no, there can be no removal of law.

That would be just plain stupid.

Not even the leaders of the groups listed are that dumb.


PEACE

Jim Chester
Reparations= to repair or make whole, right, if so it must mean a wrong was done right? If so how can that wrong that was done, be corrected if the corrections means not being able to correct wrongs against a spefic race? Kind of like paying someone off for raping them then in the agreement the person raped negates any right to bring any future claims of being raped forward.
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
Reparations= to repair or make whole, right, if so it must mean a wrong was done right? If so how can that wrong that was done, be corrected if the corrections means not being able to correct wrongs against a spefic race? Kind of like paying someone off for raping them then in the agreement the person raped negates any right to bring any future claims of being raped forward.


A woman who is raped can take the rapist to civil court and ask for monetary damages. There is no pretense that the wrong has been righted by such action, and it does not preclude criminal prosecution of the rapist in criminal court.
yeah she may not feel that the wrong is righted, thats on her but under this Constitution of the US and the laws created , this is the legal recourse. Theoretically its suppose to be justice.Reparations itself isnt gonna right the wrong but it would address fundamental problems facing african people , by giving them the resources to heal themselves, if you take a mans life , you may not be able to give that man his life back or right that wrong but if you atone to the family and provide assistance to them it would go along way in helpin heal the family
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
Would you agree to a reparations award (of an agreeable amount) if the "cost" was any future opportunity to pursue legal remedy under a race specific claim?

I would and could...

But that would require some conditions no Charles Krauthammer or any such "Grand Compromise" ever accounted for. Yes, it would require a reworking of the Power Relationships and Arrangements that would afford African-Americans relative Political Autonomy (see the Iraqi Democratic Model or the Native American ~ U.S. Gov't government-to-government arrangement) and move towards Ideal Reparations.


Have you ever heard of Colombia's Law 70?
Well, I don't really know too much about the Law 70, except that I see references to it in various articles from time to time.

It's the law that outlines Afrocolombian ancestrial territorial rights in Colombia. Of course, getting a law on the books and getting the law implimented are two different things, especially in Colombia.

In my "Blacks in Colombia" thread in the "African Diaspora" folder there are several articles about Law 70. Here's a search page for the articles in that thread that contain the phrase 'Law 70".

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums?a=search&reqWo...Type=1&search=Search

A couple of years ago, while we were visiting Colombia, I purchased a huge Atlas of Colombia (for $150, but worth every penny). In it are full page maps of the black territories and indigeonous territories under Law 70 and the corresponding laws concerning indigeonous peoples.

A friend on another forum once said that he might try to translate the Law 70 into english sometime. So far as I know, there is no english translation available.

I haven't ever had the chance to read the spanish version (a much more time consuming process for me than reading english!), but here's a link to the full text of Law 70 for anybody who reads spanish and is interested, and also for reference for myself when I get a chance to read it.


http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/leyes/L0070_93.HTM
Thank you...

I looked it up... What is your take or your wife's take on how the measure has played out?

I came across one reference that talked about the oppressive violence that ensued in an effort to stop the indigenuous/Blacks from taking advantage. Another reference spelled out the politics and talked more philosophically about what the measure represented. Just wondering what either of you knew about how successful it actually is in practice and what problems you are aware of...
Well i have some good friends from Columbia and I also have a friend doing graduate work at Howard who is teaching in Columbia. From the way i understand it about 45% of the population is of African decent. The get treated terrible in Columbia, by the light skinned elite, by the indigenous population as well as those narco drug trafficers who operate in areas with high populations of Afri Columbians. Anyway one of my roommates is from Columbia and one weekend i was fortunate to meet one of the former black governors of of a black province who was forced to leave Colombia because of his outspokeness in issues concerning justice for Africans in Colombia,many have been forced off their lands and treated as second class citizen. The situations of Africans in Central and South America is one , africans in North America know little about.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Thank you...

I looked it up... What is your take or your wife's take on how the measure has played out?

I came across one reference that talked about the oppressive violence that ensued in an effort to stop the indigenuous/Blacks from taking advantage. Another reference spelled out the politics and talked more philosophically about what the measure represented. Just wondering what either of you knew about how successful it actually is in practice and what problems you are aware of...


Well, if you read the articles in my "Blacks in Colombia" thread, then you probably know about as much about it as I do. It looks like several millions of acres have been claimed under the law, but that for the most part, the law exists mainly on paper, because of the war going on. Even having collective title to land may not mean much if you find yourself displaced by paramilitaries or guerillas.

Colombia has the largest number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) of any country in America. In fact, even worldwide, Colombia ranks second only to Sudan in terms of the number of IDP's. I think that at least 2/3 of the IDP's in Colombia are Black. So huge numbers of Afrocolombians are being forced off of their ancestrial homelands (with the help of US taxpayer dollars, btw).

Nevertheless, I'd like to know more about the Law 70, and exactly how it works, because it does exist on paper, and I think that it could be very important in the future. So far as I know, it is the only law of its kind anywhere in the world, in terms of political, cultural, economic, and territorial autonomy in relation to the African Diaspora.

As for my wife, she tends to focus on more concrete and pragmatic issues, like helping her family and (very large) extended family and friends. She's rather cynical when it comes to politics, as are many Colombians (and not without good reason!).

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×