Question:
who thinks the ****** need to be paid retribution for something that happened 150 years ago?
bumpercardemon
2006-02-11 21:27:23 UTC
who thinks the ****** need to be paid retribution for something that happened 150 years ago?
Seven answers:
.45 Peacemaker
2006-02-11 21:36:48 UTC
Then are we going to pay back the Irish, what about Indians? No. There comes a point where you have to just move forward and forget the evil done to your forefathers
John C
2006-02-12 06:04:13 UTC
Well, you did not provide any context on that. So I will have to take a wild guess as to what you are talking about.



First of all, "retribution" is defined as "punishment". I assume you don't mean that but the opposite, which would be some form of "compensation". I think the word you ment to say is "restitution".



If you are refering to slavery in the United States, that happened just the before the Civil War - which was fought about 140-145 years ago, in the 1860s. No one from that period is still alive. Many people died fighting it - it had a number of very bloody battles where staggering numbers of people died. A lot of people died specifically to end slavery.



Slavery was, of course, unjust. It was also cruel. The limit of cruelty involved depended on who was involved but it is hard to imagine what it was like no matter what.



Entire generations in the U.S. were forced to live as slaves without the rights that all human beings were entitled to then or are entitled to now.



Slavery was also a big problem in Africa. Unlike the United States, there is still a slave trade in some parts of Africa today. Slavery in Africa also predated slavery in the U.S. as well. That does not excuse the immorality of it. After all, two wrongs do not make a right!



The U.S. has done a lot of reform as a form of restitution for the wrongs of the period before the civil war and up through the civil rights movement of the 1960s.



Institutions are forbidden from descriminating in the United States, though descrimination to make things "more fair" is tolerated if not outright encouraged. The idea is that eventually, things will level out.



Now, not all people of African descent had ancestors that were ever in the United States during the period where descrimination and racism ran rampant. So, restitution for them would hardly seem called for - in no way did what went on there here affect them or their families.



I guess theoretically they would be less entitled to "restitution" in the formal sense, than someone whose family had lived in the US and been taken advantage of for generations. After all, someone else acrued the wealth from the latters' labors instead of it being collected and handed down .



However, it is hard enough to keep track of who is here now. So, there is no way to give people more or less benefits based on where relatives of theirs were a century and a half ago or more.



These days, I think most people want to make this a great country to live in and the world a nice place for everyone to live in.



Anyway, I hope that explains what restitution is being made to the group of people you are talking about. I hope that you do not envision any form of retribution being due to anyone for their race, which is after all just ancestry.
BubbaGump
2006-02-12 19:33:18 UTC
Well, what will I get from my great-great-grandfather of the Comanche nation who lost his living and lands to the United States? And what about my ancestors in the US who were indentured servants for 7 years? I could go on about other ancestors who unjustly were imprisoned and exiled from Europe. History belongs just where it is. In the past.



If I deprive you of freedom, I owe you something. If my father deprived you of something, he owes you. I do not. The idea that the US government, which is the government of all its citizens owes one portion of its population for a wrong suffered by its ancestors is not supportable. Recently, the Japanese survivors of the US internment camps during WWII were compensated by the USG. That is fair. To file a claim on the behalf of ancestors that may or may not have existed (some African Americans had no slave ancestors; my wife is one) is ludicrous.
kobacker59
2006-02-12 22:03:21 UTC
I believe they are owed recompense. Things that happened 150 short years ago still have a huge effect today. Children certainly were affected, so were their grand children & great-grandchildren etc. Heck, it's only been 50 years since we started school integration. So much damage will be hard to ever fully compensate.
Riiken Ultima
2006-02-12 07:29:04 UTC
In my opinion, when slavery was abolished, the U.S. definetly owed the African-Americans something. I think by now, however, we have paid our debt to the minorities. Now, companies will hire underqualified minorities just to make themselves look good. So, in a way, if we didn't have such huge Affirmative Action programs, if would be more fair to all people (majority and minority), because our workers would all be qualified to do their jobs, which means better products, services, etc.
MrCool1978
2006-02-12 14:36:44 UTC
If we pay back money to the Blacks then guess whoelse is gonna be owed money from several Countries.



The British would own the Irish, and Egypt would owe the Jews money (cause Egypt enslaved Ancient Israel).



We could go on and on about who enslaved who.



Let's move on please.
conundrum_dragon
2006-02-12 05:33:56 UTC
If they show me an Afracan-Amreican today who was acually a slave and treated that why. I will give him all the retibution he can take. Since none are slaves now no. But that is only one oppinion


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...