You realize that if there were a black "right winger populist protectionist" type, that the GOP would vote for that person over any Democrat, right?

Do you think the government should be able to kidnap and kill innocent American people and not be held liable?

Please give me your answer first, then I'll tell you if I agree with you or not.

Have a grateful day!

So when equally qualified, those with a preferred skin colour or background will be chosen?

I never said that. Didn't bother reading the rest of your post.

A government cannot be held liable for anything. And most of the kidnapping (maybe all) was done before there even was a US government. Maybe you should ask the UK for reparations.

But in reality, people kidnapped and killed slaves. The US government never did either. And all of those terrible people are long dead.

What if the US govt can be held liable? Slavery existed and was going on until 1860s and a bit beyond.

I am almost positive the govt can be held liable in civil court, so let’s assume they can

How would that change your position?

What? Of course it can. People sue governments all the time.


Um, there was plenty of slavery going on under the auspices of the US government. It was quite a thing back then.

Cool? That's not an argument against restitution.

Yes, the government did enable the continuation of slavery. You asked about kidnapping and killing, which they did not do.

Not sure if you're saying the government can be held liable in civil court in general, or for slavery.
But it doesn't seem like you're giving me any information that would have any chance in changing my position, so maybe I'm missing something.

I don't think the government should be held liable for something done by dead people, whether it can be or not. Because "the government" can't pay anything. People are the ones who would pay reparations. People who were not even alive when slavery existed.

I assure you the government can and does pay people every single day. It's a thing governments can do!

So you think that the government should be able to hurt people and not pay for it as long as the people that did the hurting while working for the government are dead

Is that correct?


Regarding kidnapping and killing- moving someone and keeping them somewhere against their will is kidnapping and is a federal crime. You can make someone move from one room to another under duress and it’s kidnapping

Do you think the slaves were there voluntarily?

Also as an aside, do you believe in small or large government and do you follow the teaching of Jesus Christ at all?

You understand that slavery typically involves kidnapping, right? Like, slaves didn't choose to live on the plantations.

One example from my own country would be our treatment of indigenous people, specifically residential schools, where indigenous children were taken away from their families to be "civilized" by the white man. The last one was closed in 1996, which means there are people in their 40s that went through that system. Even if we assume the worst of it ended in the 70s, that still means there are thousands of indigenous people in their 60s that went through the trauma, and others in their 30s and 40s that were raised by those same people. I won't get into the details, but the legacy of those residential schools is trauma, mental health issues, drug and alcohol addiction, serious lack of trust of schools, police, and government, and more. As a result of that and other racist policies of the past, to this day indigenous graduation rates in our schools are substantially below others - and that's just one way this legacy manifests itself. If we were to now simply say that we live in a colour blind society, and we treat everyone the same, we would have no programs specifically targeting indigenous students to close that gap, and it would take many generations to resolve. Schools are only one place where this legacy manifests itself, which I chose to highlight because I'm involved in the school system here.

That's just one example, in one country, where a racist system that's been removed for more than 25 years, and started winding down 40+ years ago, still has an impact today. Even if racism was well and truly a thing of the past (it isn't), that doesn't mean we can ignore the impact it has for subsequent generations.

And that's not even considering the fact that racism and discrimination still exists, legal or not. The first example that comes to mind is policing in the US and Canada, and I'd be surprised if that weren't the case elsewhere. It might be a small number of police that are racist, but as long as that behaviour is tolerated, it poisons the well.

Of course, when that's what is needed. Welcome to the 2020s, when organizations that serve the entire community want to ensure that their leadership reflects said community.

Anyone in favor of another civil war should advocate for reparations for decedents of slaves.

Many years ago, the government gave reparation payments to Japanese- Americans who were forced into "internment camps" during WWII. Of course, the recepients were actual victims of this clear violation of civil rights.

Sure. Are you buying into the CV narrative that these views are all or none?

The GOP loves a Clarence Thomas type who, once in the club, will argue that many of the very means that help get them into the club should not exist, thus slowing others like them getting into the club.

Thomas is the guy who said this "'I've heard the word diversity quite a few times and I don't have a clue what it means,..." during the affirmative action case.

Those in power love them some Clarence Thomas types.

Did the government own the plantations? Was the government itself buying and selling slaves?

Should the government be sued by those dying from cigarette smoking because they allow the sale of cigarettes?

Well, I suppose it does when people insist that it's "racist" to attempt to ensure there is diversity in leadership and that there are more equitable outcomes for everyone.

No idea. How could we possibly determine such a thing?

Decades ago, I used to wonder the same thing about Indigenous people in Canada. Why can't we just sign treaties, settle on a dollar figure, and then not have to worry about this seemingly never-ending need to consult, fund programs, and have no cost certainty? And while I've come to understand the issues much better (while still having much to learn), I get the mindset - it's so much simpler and cleaner to be able to say that on date X, we can put an end to it all. But when you think about it in the context of government's role in social services, that mindset doesn't make sense. If we believe in government having a role in ensuring that all people have access to medical care and education, that there should be assistance available for the disabled, those injured in service, those who can't find work, we don't tend to ask when those programs will no longer be needed. That's not to say these are the same thing, but to show the difference in thinking about the programs. If we think this is a legitimate role of the government, our concerns shouldn't be about when we can end these programs so we don't have to pay for them, but when we can end them because the problem no longer exists - it should be the same for programs to address racial, gender, or sexual orientation inequities.

Yes, I'm sure this is a trigger for a lot of racists. Oh well. I'm certainly not prepared to give up on goals of a more equitable world because it's making racists mad.

Sure. I don't see an ideal world as one where we can precisely map the racial, cultural, gender, sexual orientation makeup of our community to the makeup of the leadership in every workplace. But right now, we're not even close in many sectors. I think we need to be a lot closer before we ask when it ends.

But you did suggest that choosing from those groups would not be merit based.

This is "quite correct" (as Mr. Spock used to say).

Slavery did not end in the US until either 1942 or 1963 depending on how you define it.


Alfred Irving the final slave freed in the USA ..... in September 1942


Black People Were Enslaved in the US Until as Recently as 1963


And that is not a semantic argument as the forms of 'slavery' that followed the official abolition were generally considered worse in every way to the 'again' enslaved by another name.

So you’re saying the people that are victims or racism today are victims of the racist people in charge today , since it can’t be from the past.

Is that correct?

Sort of.

If anyone can prove in a court of law that the U. S. government has victimized them in some way, then they should receive restitution.

But a blanket reparation payment for someone alive today based solely on the fact that their decendents were brought here as slaves is a different kettle of squid.

Not solely on the idea that they were kidnapped here, brought is not an accurate word


But there is another idea, it’s the idea of a country that resists tyranny and practices freedom for all men. We call it the constitution

never did either?
if it was facilitated by numerous state laws, so the government allowed it and took part in it. so they did it.

and of course if you are pro slavery as a state, then you might as well have kidnapped slaves yourself. you made that system work and caused more kidnappings along the way. becuase the slaves didnt just come freely, they were kidnapped. your logic doesn't make any sense to me.


"Was the US Constitution pro slavery?
The Constitution was a pro-slavery document because of the ⅗ clause and it enabled slavery. Prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, the United States Constitution did not merely allow slavery: the document protected slavery.
https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu › cgi
Pro-Slavery Rhetoric in the Constitution"

Fair enough. I thought my phrasing "brought here as slaves" (emphasis added) implied them coming here against their will (i.e. they were kidnapped).