<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The worst argument against reparations for slavery (and a qualification on arguments in its favor)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://amerikanbeat.net/2010/03/10/the-worst-argument-against-reparations-for-slavery-and-a-qualification-on-arguments-in-its-favor/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://amerikanbeat.net/2010/03/10/the-worst-argument-against-reparations-for-slavery-and-a-qualification-on-arguments-in-its-favor/</link>
	<description>cerebral. communist. hyper. analytical.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 04:03:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stacey</title>
		<link>http://amerikanbeat.net/2010/03/10/the-worst-argument-against-reparations-for-slavery-and-a-qualification-on-arguments-in-its-favor/#comment-519</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stacey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:24:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amerikanbeat.net/?p=605#comment-519</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The issue of reparations, as I see it, is intended simply and only to incite further division and strife between the various &quot;races&quot; of people.

To see what I mean, let&#039;s take a look at what you are saying. 

In law, what you are referring to is the issue of &quot;liability.&quot; Liability is not necessarily equivalent with &quot;fault,&quot; as you clearly and accurately explained. 

However, part-and-parcel with the issue of liability is the issue of &quot;proximity.&quot; For instance, a driver who rear-ends a car in front of him is liable for the damages incurred on that car. He is not liable for the injury to a child that steps in the way of the police cruiser that is responding to the accident. The issue is proximity — how far down the chain of events can one reasonably  attribute to the person who is liable?

So, let us extend your argument. If someone is liable because they are merely the direct decedents of (or ancestor to) the person(s) at fault, how far does this liability extend? Indefinitely (as you seem to assert)? 

Think, then, what manner of crimes and offenses we should ALL be liable for. Say your great-great-grandfather robbed and murdered my great-great-grandfather. Should I not be within my rights to seek reparations from you?

What if we reach back into antiquity, and speak, say, of the Greek wars, or the Franks&#039; advancement on the Bar&#039;bars. If I could demonstrate some reasonable ancestral link to the Bar&#039;bars, could I not, then, head to Frankfurt and demand of some poor German couple my &quot;ancestral home&quot;? Where does this end?

If we are to hold all generations to account for all the crimes that all of our forefathers ever committed in any place in history, we should ALL be guilty of capital murder. 

Furthermore, to hold this standard out against some, but not against others, would be a crime in itself. To say that you are due reparations from me, despite the fact that NONE of my ancestors who immigrated to America EVER owned slaves, and yet I would not be entitled to reparations from you for damages my ancestors may have endured from yours in, say, the Chicago riots, is unfair and absurd.

You need to realize that history is littered with tragedy, and seeking revenge NEVER mitigates the tragedy. It only exacerbates it. Remember that,  one man&#039;s &quot;reparations&quot; is another man&#039;s &quot;war crimes.&quot; And the cycle goes on forever...

Forgive, and move on. If you live in the past, you will ever remain a slave, though no man is your master.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The issue of reparations, as I see it, is intended simply and only to incite further division and strife between the various &#8220;races&#8221; of people.</p>
<p>To see what I mean, let&#8217;s take a look at what you are saying. </p>
<p>In law, what you are referring to is the issue of &#8220;liability.&#8221; Liability is not necessarily equivalent with &#8220;fault,&#8221; as you clearly and accurately explained. </p>
<p>However, part-and-parcel with the issue of liability is the issue of &#8220;proximity.&#8221; For instance, a driver who rear-ends a car in front of him is liable for the damages incurred on that car. He is not liable for the injury to a child that steps in the way of the police cruiser that is responding to the accident. The issue is proximity — how far down the chain of events can one reasonably  attribute to the person who is liable?</p>
<p>So, let us extend your argument. If someone is liable because they are merely the direct decedents of (or ancestor to) the person(s) at fault, how far does this liability extend? Indefinitely (as you seem to assert)? </p>
<p>Think, then, what manner of crimes and offenses we should ALL be liable for. Say your great-great-grandfather robbed and murdered my great-great-grandfather. Should I not be within my rights to seek reparations from you?</p>
<p>What if we reach back into antiquity, and speak, say, of the Greek wars, or the Franks&#8217; advancement on the Bar&#8217;bars. If I could demonstrate some reasonable ancestral link to the Bar&#8217;bars, could I not, then, head to Frankfurt and demand of some poor German couple my &#8220;ancestral home&#8221;? Where does this end?</p>
<p>If we are to hold all generations to account for all the crimes that all of our forefathers ever committed in any place in history, we should ALL be guilty of capital murder. </p>
<p>Furthermore, to hold this standard out against some, but not against others, would be a crime in itself. To say that you are due reparations from me, despite the fact that NONE of my ancestors who immigrated to America EVER owned slaves, and yet I would not be entitled to reparations from you for damages my ancestors may have endured from yours in, say, the Chicago riots, is unfair and absurd.</p>
<p>You need to realize that history is littered with tragedy, and seeking revenge NEVER mitigates the tragedy. It only exacerbates it. Remember that,  one man&#8217;s &#8220;reparations&#8221; is another man&#8217;s &#8220;war crimes.&#8221; And the cycle goes on forever&#8230;</p>
<p>Forgive, and move on. If you live in the past, you will ever remain a slave, though no man is your master.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan &#124; thesamovar</title>
		<link>http://amerikanbeat.net/2010/03/10/the-worst-argument-against-reparations-for-slavery-and-a-qualification-on-arguments-in-its-favor/#comment-455</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan &#124; thesamovar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:56:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amerikanbeat.net/?p=605#comment-455</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems to me that the reparations argument should be not even vaguely be about &#039;fault&#039; but about the fact that the West is still benefiting &lt;b&gt;today&lt;/b&gt; (by increased wealth) from the legacy of slavery. If we were not still benefiting today, then there would be no sense to the reparations argument, it would just be a historical tragedy. The same type of argument would suggest that women could demand reparations from men, and that the poor could demand reparations from the rich. The logic of reparations is essentially the logic of redistribution/socialism/communism. My thoughts on reparations in more detail &lt;a href=&quot;http://thesamovar.wordpress.com/2006/11/27/slave-trade/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that the reparations argument should be not even vaguely be about &#8216;fault&#8217; but about the fact that the West is still benefiting <b>today</b> (by increased wealth) from the legacy of slavery. If we were not still benefiting today, then there would be no sense to the reparations argument, it would just be a historical tragedy. The same type of argument would suggest that women could demand reparations from men, and that the poor could demand reparations from the rich. The logic of reparations is essentially the logic of redistribution/socialism/communism. My thoughts on reparations in more detail <a href="http://thesamovar.wordpress.com/2006/11/27/slave-trade/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

