The Semantics of Reparations: When dealing with a topic this polarizing in American society emotion normally trumps logic once the media sensationalizes the proponents of agenda. I believe that the logical arguments are more compelling than the emotional arguments, and deserve a day in court. But my question to America and the International community is which court and who represents the argument for or against? –
Let us begin with finding common on ground on which the majority of people will have to admit based on academic FACTS:
Chattel Slavery did exist in America /United States (Legally).
Only a small percentage of people owned slaves (Incorporated).
Slavery assisted America economically to outgrow other nations based on the economic model aiding many of America's leading corporations (families) to invest heavily in its future.
I have only listed a few facts for the basis on the topic because I'm not attempting to give a history lesson or an economic analysis of the agricultural prominence of America during slavery's peek production.
What stirs the emotions of many of those that are Pro Reparations is the knowledge they have of the suffering, and disenfranchised position slavery has placed those who are indeed decedents of slavery. The argument against reparations typically is that slavery although harsh, and in overwhelming opinion evil; the fact that America during pre-colonial, post colonial, and until the Emancipation Proclamation, and before the ratifying of the 13TH Amendment were operating under the law of the land thus making the point that there is no legal argument to bring a case for reparations.
But did slavery assist America in progressing economically, and develop a financial base for many corporations that even in today's economic picture control much of what is tangible to the existence of America domestically, and internationally? My opinion is yes but I welcome opinions to the contrary. What is seen as a stopping point for chattel slavery with the ratifying of the 13TH Amendment was merely a beginning for those that were once bonded by chains being released into a society to compete with chains that came with skin color, illiteracy, and De facto refugee status.
Here is where the SEMANTICS really become an issue of needed interpretation. Slavery officially and "legally" ended January 31, 1865. But we all know there was no magical reconciliation of those that were born into slavery. I'm not just talking about those that were the physically slaves conducting the everyday toils of a servant in bondage. I'm including those that were in the majority that were also indoctrinated into an idea of supremacy, and suffer the scars of mental ineptitude LEADING them to continue efforts to segregate and in many cases annihilate those they were conditioned to believe they were inferior.
We shall once again list a few FACTS that are common ground based on academics:
Slavery as a social concept did not end with the Emancipation Proclamation/ 13TH Amendment.
The Social Construct created by the 246 years of "legal slavery" made it impossible for former slaves to enjoy "The Rights Endowed by our Creator".
The Federal Government failed to protect its citizens from forms of domestic terrorism, and discrimination putting them at a distinct disadvantage.
Once again I have listed only a few instances because I am not attempting to give a history or sociology lesson of American society post 1865 to present.
If you follow much of what is allowed in the media about the debate for reparations you will notice that the argument presented by the media for Pro Reparations simply deals with the time period in which slavery was LEGAL. My question is what about the activities or in-activities in America after slavery was “illegal"?
In a Civil Law Suit the "Burden of Proof" rests on the defense which makes important that people understand why there is much more success in civil suits (settlements). Is it plausible that an excellent case could be made that the American Federal Government was indeed negligent in its Constitutional obligations to protect its citizens?
Once again I will give you my disclaimer that I am not attempting to give a history lesson, and in this particular instance not give a legal argument. But there are several instances in our nation's post slavery history that require some examination as it relates to negligence in protecting its citizens.
Was there a Social Construct that remained after Slavery was made illegal that was predicated on discrimination based on skin color?
Did the Federal Government pass several Civil Rights Acts pertaining to former slaves but fail to enforce these laws?
Where former slaves and their descendants relegated to second class citizenship, and put at a distinct disadvantage by organized State, County, and City governments illegally?
These are three questions that I personally believe will not withstand the Burden of Proof in a Civil Proceeding.
The passing of several Civil Rights Acts between 1865-1965 specifically designed to deal with existence of discrimination against former slaves, and their decedents is evidence of the Social Construct that exists in America based on race. The Federal Government has made progress but ultimately has many failures towards its obligation to American citizens that are GUARANTEED access to constitutional rights. The semantics of my argument are in that word "Guaranteed", remember this is a civil suit.
If it can be proven that our Federal Government has compromised it's obligation for the sake of political solitude of the majority then it can be proven that government has been negligent, and is indeed liable to some degree over the last One Hundred Years.
Your Thoughts Please..- That is all
