If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Gary Drescher wrote: But as much as I enjoy trading English lessons, it really doesn't matter because (regardless of what you may have been implying initially) we're now in agreement that not working for it has no bearing on the deservedness of inheritance here. Right, because inheritance isn't the issue. The issue most raise is "compensation for the sins of the fathers." I'm simply against that concept for a number of reasons. This is what is fundamentally behind the problems in the middle east. I think bringing that concept to America is simply stupid and will cause untold harm to race relations going forward. That might be one of the goals of those asking for the reparations. For some, keeping the pot stirred has benefits. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Allen wrote: wrote in message ups.com... ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an ancestor did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with interest. ... I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are unjust. Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. ... Who would pay the reparations? Recall that I wrote: I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions but mostly because they are impractical, not because they are unjust. All your examples include awards from a governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves. The US Goverment permitted ownership of slaves and even arrested freed slaves and returned them to slavery. That's roughly analogous to allowing settlers to violate the treaty boundaries and then sending the calvary in to protect them. The legality of slavery makes it impractical to sue for those injustices, this differentiates it from the treaty issue. It does not make such a suit unjust. -- FF |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
wrote in message ups.com... Allen wrote: wrote in message ups.com... ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an ancestor did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with interest. ... I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are unjust. Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. ... Who would pay the reparations? Recall that I wrote: I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions but mostly because they are impractical, not because they are unjust. Yet you continue to champion the cause. All your examples include awards from a governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves. The US Goverment permitted ownership of slaves and even arrested freed slaves and returned them to slavery. That's roughly analogous to allowing settlers to violate the treaty boundaries and then sending the calvary in to protect them. The legality of slavery makes it impractical to sue for those injustices, this differentiates it from the treaty issue. It does not make such a suit unjust. So if it were not impractical you are in favor of having your tax dollars go to some group of yet to be identified persons in some yet to be determined amount? My ancestors came to the United States after he Civil War. Are we included in the payor group? I don't understand what you are trying to achieve by your stance. Allen |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Dave Stadt wrote:
That might be one of the goals of those asking for the reparations. For some, keeping the pot stirred has benefits. Yes, I believe that is the real reason. This perpetual liability idea is just too stupid to even talk about further. Matt |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
|
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Matt Whiting wrote: wrote: One of the biggest problems facing the Civil Rights movement is its success. Having dealt a death blow to the worse of the injustices it fought, the movement is has now lost focus and needs a new cause. After emancipation, Douglass championed women's suffrage. There are a lot of good causes remaining that make a lot more sense than trying to determine reparations for 100+ year old sins. Yes, that's a very big part fo the problem there are too many causes to agree on a core few. That, and reparations involve MONEY. -- FF |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Matt Whiting wrote: wrote: Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish a sound estimate of just how much money that was. But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work for it and don't deserve it. As to your "His descendants didn't work for it and don't deserve it." argument, did the descendants of those who TOOK it from him earn it, do they deserve it more? -- FF |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
|
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Matt Whiting wrote: wrote: Matt Whiting wrote: wrote: Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish a sound estimate of just how much money that was. But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work for it and don't deserve it. As to your "His descendants didn't work for it and don't deserve it." argument, did the descendants of those who TOOK it from him earn it, do they deserve it more? No. So do we agree that is not a good argument? Few families have a traceable inheritance for 8 or so generations, so trying to track this down is just dumb. Impractical was my choice of words, as youy may recall. Life isn't fair. Crap happens. Get over it. Cliche's are no substitute for rational arguement, and in this case, the practical argunments against reparations are pretty good. -- FF |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Those *dangerous* Korean War relics
Allen wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Allen wrote: wrote in message ups.com... ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an ancestor did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with interest. ... I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are unjust. Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. ... Who would pay the reparations? Recall that I wrote: I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions but mostly because they are impractical, not because they are unjust. Yet you continue to champion the cause. All your examples include awards from a governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves. The US Goverment permitted ownership of slaves and even arrested freed slaves and returned them to slavery. That's roughly analogous to allowing settlers to violate the treaty boundaries and then sending the calvary in to protect them. The legality of slavery makes it impractical to sue for those injustices, this differentiates it from the treaty issue. It does not make such a suit unjust. So if it were not impractical you are in favor of having your tax dollars go to some group of yet to be identified persons in some yet to be determined amount? Compensating the descendants of slaves for the value of the labor stolen from them would be just. Compensating Native Americans for the land stolen from their ancestors would be just. Compensating the descendants of the New Christians for the property confiscated from them in Spain would be just. And so on, marching on back to the dawn of civilization. But there is no practical way to do that while maintaining any semblance of justice. **** rolls downhill and it sucks to be at the bottom of that hill. The best we can do is promise to fair in the future, and offer compassion and assitance but most importantly opportunity for those in need regardless of how they got there. My ancestors came to the United States after he Civil War. Are we included in the payor group? Did our ancestors come to this country voluntarily? Did they implicitly agree to take responsibility for the nation's debts as then determined and as yet to be determined, when they became citizens? I don't understand what you are trying to achieve by your stance. It is a great tragedy that so many 'take a stance' because they want to achieve something. While commonplace, that's putting the cart before the horse. A 'stance' by whcih I presume you mean a statment of putative facts and premises, should always be what the taker honestly believes to be historical reality and moral principle. Then, and only then should the taker decide upon what, if anything they should try to achieve. There are many reasons why people 'take a stance' based on what they want ot achieve, rather then vice-versa, all of them bad. In some cases, they want to achieve unjust enrichment for themselves or have other illegal, or immoral goals. After all, vice shares one characteristic with virtue, each is its own reward. Some people delude them- elves into thinking that what they want to achieve is a good thing despite being unable to find a factual stance to support that. So they invent one. Others have learned that their stance is unpopular and so adopt one they do not truly believe in, but which they hope will be more persuasive. Others simply want to avoid uncomfortable truths that objectivity makes evident. That last applies here. Reparations would be just for a lot of people, but they are getting none notwithstanding. That's my stance. As to what I'm trying to achieve in this thread, I'm simply trying to answer your questions. -- FF |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fleet Air Arm Carriers and Squadrons in the Korean War | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 5th 04 02:58 AM |
(OT) TN NG 287th ACR mobilized first since Korean War: | CallsignZippo | Military Aviation | 0 | May 13th 04 06:50 AM |
North and South Korean overviews online. Your comments please !! | Frank Noort | Military Aviation | 0 | May 12th 04 08:40 PM |
US kill loss ratio versus Russian pilots in Korean War? | Rats | Military Aviation | 21 | January 26th 04 08:56 AM |
SOVIET VIEW OF THE KOREAN WAR | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 0 | December 28th 03 05:41 AM |