Should white people feel guility?

[Guest]

What we should not forget is the following points:

How much profit did we (westerners) make by the slaves, how much profit did they make for us?
What would be the interest rates that we would charge?
Will we “repay our debts”? That is, give the above money to organizations etc. that work against the injustices that have their roots in the days of slave-trade?

And i am not talking of the situation inside the US, but of all western countries. We still employ de-facto slaves, and do not care. We made up our first wealth on cost of slaves, and now that we are rich, give credits to the countries we exploited before and let them pay the interest (our interest is more important than wether their people get food or not)…

I don’t know wether we should feel guilty, but whoever (of us westerners) uses words like “fairness” or “same chance” should be aware that he/she is in a highly favored position, on cost of continents like South America, Africa and large parts of Asia.

[Field Marshal]

You can expand the original question of this post to include whether or not the German people of today should feel guilty for the sins of the Nazi’s. The Nazi’s deemed my Slavic brothers in Central and Eastern Europe “sub-human” and planned them to be directed to the death/labor camps after the Jews. Do I hold that against the present day German - certainly NOT !

[Yanny]

Yet Germans are still forced to pay Reperations.

[Jazz]

I guess my question about Germany playing reperations would be, are they paying those who were placed in camps and survived? Or are they paying the people who were not there but are decendents of those who were?

[waraxis]

I believe it’s to those who survived the camps. But I thought I heard that Germany also paid the country of Isreal. Does anybody know about the latter??

[Janus1]

i dont think the germans should have to pay reparations, if for no other reason then it wasnt all germans who did this to jews, it was the nazis. and i dont think people today owe any reparations for slavery. we cant hold the people of today responsible for the actions of their ancestors that they never even could have met

[Guest]

Germany paid Israel, and those who did forced labor.
Will the US pay the people who sit in Guantanamo and Diego Garcia?
One of the released (as he was finally found innocent) was promised 2000$ but received only 100$.

@ waraxis: There is a difference between “feeling guilty” and “holding s.th. against s.o.”
I agree with not feeling that much guilt. I more feel responsible, and take up that responsibility.

[Guest]

@Janus1:

…and i dont think people today owe any reparations for slavery. we cant hold the people of today responsible for the actions of their ancestors that they never even could have met

But, you would take the wealth/money of your ancestors’ heritage. Even if that money is blood money.

[Janus1]

my ancestors didnt own slaves. the first ones arrived in the US well after slavery ended, and were either too poor in Europe to have owned slaves, or werent alive while slavery was practiced in Europe (I have researched my family true, I know with as much certainty as can be possible that no one in my family ever owned a slave). Now I take it you didnt specifically mean me, but simply referred to me as an example. so ill answer your question anyway. I think the only people that have any claim to reparations are those who were slaves, and only of their former owners. but since they are all dead by now, their are no due reparations. That is not to say people cant give money on their own, feeling guilt, but it cant be something they are forced to do, as they have no responsibility. Aside from not having been alive to affect the situation in any way, so many things have happened between slavery and today, that even if someones ancestors made wealth from slavery, that money may not have any affect today. The people could be poor today, or wealthy by other means, their money did not necessarily come to them from their ancestors. Not to mention, I would say that most likely every one on earth, or close to it, has at least one person in their ancestry that once did something terrible to someone else and got money for it. should we hold them responsible too? of course not. and its not really blood money, because generally that applies to money for a murder, or assasination

[Jazz]

I too find myself in agreement with Janus1, must be something in the water :wink:

My mothers half of the family came to America from eastern europe in the 1930’s. My fathers side of the family I dont really know, I have seen my family name “schneider” in the service of the Union army in the civil war, however i think my last name in Germany (where my paps family was) is kinda like smith or Jones here.

I digress, should those who decended from my mothers side of the family pay for something that took place nearly 100 years prior to their arrival in the country?

[Janus1]

should those who decended from my mothers side of the family pay for something that took place nearly 100 years prior to their arrival in the country?

Of course they shouldn’t. Should they feel bad that it took place? Absolutely, everyone should feel bad it took place, but it shouldn’t rule your life. And if you want to contribute money to a Black rights group, or if you want to pay reparations, you can go ahead, but to make people is just shameful.

[Guest]

@Janus1:

my ancestors didnt own slaves…. Now I take it you didnt specifically mean me, but simply referred to me as an example.

Yes, and … if you follow the logic of neo-liberlism… your family will have profited as well form the slaves, as that made goods cheaper which your family then was able to afford.
How can you be innocent if you buy the stuff that slaves have produced?

…I think the only people that have any claim to reparations are those who were slaves, and only of their former owners. but since they are all dead by now, their are no due reparations.

here i disagree. If your dad accumulates debts, the banks will make sure that they get the money upon his death of his descendants. Why should this hold true for more or less every part of our lives except where human rights are and have been violated?
For the “former owners”: See above. The german industry then would not have had to pay any reparations to the forced laborers, as these were “owned” by the SS, which run a “rent-a-slave” at that time. So, the industry rented the laborers for minimum prices, but never “owned” them.
If you profit from slave labor, you should pay for it. No matter wether you are on the producer or consumer side.

That is not to say people cant give money on their own, feeling guilt, but it cant be something they are forced to do, as they have no responsibility. Aside from not having been alive to affect the situation in any way, so many things have happened between slavery and today,

… like what?
Look up “sweat shops” or “sweatshops” in google. In german there is a term “debt-menial”, describing the situation of people like in … was it “Grapes of wrath”?..
This again is commonplace, everywhere in the third world.
So, there is de-facto slavery. We don’t see it, we profit from it. We as consumers and especially the producers should pay for it.
But, breaking human rights seems to be not a crime as long as there is profit adn “shareholder value” behind it.

that even if someones ancestors made wealth from slavery, that money may not have any affect today. The people could be poor today, or wealthy by other means, their money did not necessarily come to them from their ancestors. Not to mention, I would say that most likely every one on earth, or close to it, has at least one person in their ancestry that once did something terrible to someone else and got money for it. should we hold them responsible too? of course not. and its not really blood money, because generally that applies to money for a murder, or assasination

I strongly disagree.
First, the term blood money no longer refers to murder etc. only.
Second: we as the western societies profited of slaves, some cooperations and individuals still profit from it.
Sure, people could be poor today. But how to become wealthy another way, with explicitly not profiting from the stoeln wealth of your society? That is pretty important: i can become rich with clean hands, just by “out-sourcing” the dirty jobs.
For the individual guilt: i cannot let that count. Because it was not an individual doing something to another individual. At least, the one doing it didn’t see his victim as an individual, but as part of a mass (in the case of slavery). And slavery is not the only exploitation we have done, we stole all the ressources, human work-power was only one of them.
Germany had very few colonies, most of the “slaves” were natives. Still, we profited a lot from the cheap rubber that we bought of the English,
we profited of the cheap products that were produced by slaves elsewere.
No western society has clean hands, as the economies of us have been interweaved for quite some time. How else would an idea like Merkantilism would have risen, if the economies were independant in the first place??

And remember, i am not talking of US slavery only, but of western societies.

@Jazz:

I digress, should those who decended from my mothers side of the family pay for something that took place nearly 100 years prior to their arrival in the country … Absolutely, everyone should feel bad it took place…

It still takes place. It is getting worse. Do we pay or feel bad for it today, now, at this instant ???

[Janus1]

if you follow the logic of neo-liberlism

I dont follow the logic of neo-liberalism, I would say it is not logic at all

How can you be innocent if you buy the stuff that slaves have produced?

See now, thats just absurd.
First of all, I have never bought anything a slave produced
Second of all, like you said, slave made products were cheaper, not only because of that, but also because they were domestic goods, and did not have tariffs (this is within the US of course). are you going to make poor people buy more expensive goods?

If your dad accumulates debts, the banks will make sure that they get the money upon his death of his descendants

this is not the same as making descendants of slave owners pay reparations. The main difference being, that its not the same institution collecting from different debtors, its a different one. Its not like the scenario you said, where the dad died, but the bank is still there, its the dad died, and the bank died, and someone who used to work at the bank is trying to collect the money. To use a crude example, has anyone ever seen Family Guy? In one episode, a white man (the main character) discovers he has a black ancestor that used to be a slave. He also discovers that his inlaws are the decendants of his ancestor’s owners. He makes them pay him for this. Does he deserve any money for that?

If you profit from slave labor, you should pay for it. No matter wether you are on the producer or consumer side.

Ah, does that include the African tribes that “worked” for slave traders by providing them with slaves in exchange for liquor, and trinkets, and such? Does that mean they should pay reparations as well? or does it not apply to the slave trade?

so many things have happened between slavery and today,

… like what?

Its called a complete sentence Falk, why dont you read the full sentence before replying to a part of it, as the second part contains my point, the part you responded to applies to it.

This again is commonplace, everywhere in the third world.
So, there is de-facto slavery. We don’t see it, we profit from it. We as consumers and especially the producers should pay for it.
But, breaking human rights seems to be not a crime as long as there is profit adn “shareholder value” behind it.

This is unrelated to making people pay reparations for slavery, it has no relevance. Notice you said third world, as in, thats where the producers are, since we agree they should pay, go after them. I disagree with you that consumers should pay, but thats the foundation of this argument. you also use the word profit. If the term consumer is used, this applies also to people who buy, say, Nikes which are made in sweatshops, then you are saying that they profit from this, which is not true, they save money perhaps, something entirely different (but with the price of nikes, they may not actually be transferring these savings onto the consumers.)

First, the term blood money no longer refers to murder etc. only.

……? is that it? thats all you have to say on that? what a good argument, simply saying what i said is no longer true, youve convinced me.

we as the western societies profited of slaves, some cooperations and individuals still profit from it.

Name some. give me some examples of these, and also, are we talking about the slavery that was conducted up till the 13th amendment? Or the “slavery” that is being conducted today, in which case, that is irrelevant

Sure, people could be poor today.

Dont tell me you are disputing the fact that people are poor? please dont tell me that

But how to become wealthy another way, with explicitly not profiting from the stoeln wealth of your society?

this is logic along the same lines as saying “how to drink without drinking the same water as dinosaurs did?” thats ridiculous. and its my society now? you can take it, and criticize it all you want, but dont call it mine.

Because it was not an individual doing something to another individual.

By that logic, individuals should not have to repay individuals, because it was not an individual doing something to another individual, another difference in your dad’s debts to the bank scenario

No western society has clean hands, as the economies of us have been interweaved for quite some time.

No society on earth has clean hands. Every economy is interweaved, its a global economy. Western economies have effects on Eastern economies, and vice versa. Eastern economies also have their own evils to worry about

[Guest]

@Janus1:

How can you be innocent if you buy the stuff that slaves have produced?

See now, thats just absurd.
First of all, I have never bought anything a slave produced

We seem to differ in the defintion of slaves. I seem to have a broader definition. By that, for example, Hasbro (employing inhumanely cheap workforce) produces by slaves (IMO). Thus, if you own a game of A&A which was produced after -say- 1991, then IMO you own a slave produced good. There is much more we could look at. You mentioned Nike, thus you don’t own Nikes then? Can you be sure that nothing you own is “clean” and not produced in sweatshops (which for me equivalents slavery)?

Second of all, like you said, slave made products were cheaper, not only because of that, but also because they were domestic goods, and did not have tariffs (this is within the US of course). are you going to make poor people buy more expensive goods?

Slave made products are still cheaper, but not at all for domestic use. Tariffs are more or less non-existant, except for things that non-western countries could produce and export to us (that is: food).
And yes: i would like to make poor people buy more expensive goods, if and only that means that the production costs are more than 30% of the sale price and the money goes to the producing workers to allow them a humane living.

If your dad accumulates debts, the banks will make sure that they get the money upon his death of his descendants

… The main difference being, that its not the same institution collecting from different debtors, its a different one. Its not like the scenario you said, where the dad died, but the bank is still there, its the dad died, and the bank died, and someone who used to work at the bank is trying to collect the money.

The only problem with that: banks don’t die. They may be bought, merged or whatever, but the debt account will live forever! Try it, your grandkids will love you for that…

If you profit from slave labor, you should pay for it. No matter wether you are on the producer or consumer side.

Ah, does that include the African tribes that “worked” for slave traders by providing them with slaves in exchange for liquor, and trinkets, and such? Does that mean they should pay reparations as well? or does it not apply to the slave trade?

They should pay. Relatively to how much they profited, and if you compare that to how much we profited, it will be neglectable. A trinket against a grown mans workpower….

so many things have happened between slavery and today,

… like what?

Its called a complete sentence Falk, why dont you read the full sentence before replying to a part of it, as the second part contains my point, the part you responded to applies to it.

I will repeat the sentence of you:
“Aside from not having been alive to affect the situation in any way, so many things have happened between slavery and today, that even if someones ancestors made wealth from slavery, that money may not have any affect today”

Nothing explains the difference between “between slavery and today”. I see your point (and went on to that in the following notion of my previous posting). My question still stands:
What happened between then and now? If i accepted that there was a “then and now”, i would accept that there is no slavery in the world anymore.
How would you call working in the sweatshops? I call it slavery, because that term fits best.

This again is commonplace, everywhere in the third world.
So, there is de-facto slavery. We don’t see it, we profit from it. We as consumers and especially the producers should pay for it.
But, breaking human rights seems to be not a crime as long as there is profit adn “shareholder value” behind it.

This is unrelated to making people pay reparations for slavery, it has no relevance.

WHAT ???
Existing slavery is unrelated to the point wether we should pay reparations for slavery?

Please, explain that. I can not follow you at all here.

Notice you said third world, as in, thats where the producers are, since we agree they should pay, go after them. I disagree with you that consumers should pay, but thats the foundation of this argument. you also use the word profit. If the term consumer is used, this applies also to people who buy, say, Nikes which are made in sweatshops, then you are saying that they profit from this, which is not true, they save money perhaps, something entirely different (but with the price of nikes, they may not actually be transferring these savings onto the consumers.)

this leaves me speechless.
Janus, do you mind reading? When did you do your economics course?
I think i could give you the titles of a handful of good books, or explain seperately, when i have more time.

Just think of that: Who produces, who is the one that the sweatshops work for? Third world people? First world corporations? Second: “to save money” is “to profit”. But agreed, the consumer usually profits less than the coorporation.

First, the term blood money no longer refers to murder etc. only.

……? is that it? thats all you have to say on that? what a good argument, simply saying what i said is no longer true, youve convinced me.

Just as convincing as your line: “and its not really blood money, because generally that applies to money for a murder, or assasination”

What a convincing argument, simply saying what is true. ;)

we as the western societies profited of slaves, some cooperations and individuals still profit from it.

Name some. give me some examples of these, and also, are we talking about the slavery that was conducted up till the 13th amendment? Or the “slavery” that is being conducted today, in which case, that is irrelevant

Slavery today is not irrelevant. And i could give you a bucketful of examples for modern slavery. For the western societies that profited from slaves, it is pretty easy: all.
You probably agree that the US economy has profited from slaves. Thus the countries that could import these wares have profited (“saved money”), these probably were mainly the English and the French.
Everyone who had islands in the Carribean with slave labor (on sugar etc.) profited, everyone who controlled countries which sold slaves profited (as the slave ships otherwise would not have come, and these ships needed fresh food and stuff for the long trip). Thus the Dutch as great trading nation have profited. The Spanish and Portugese have profited in their colonies. The Germans and all other nations have profited from the cheap riches that were shipped to Europe, that they otherwise could not have afforded.
Short: The whole western society has profited from that old-time slavery and slave-trade.

Sure, people could be poor today.

Dont tell me you are disputing the fact that people are poor? please dont tell me that

Let me quote you once more:
“The people could be poor today,…”
If you cannot relate my line to this, your line, of your previous posting, then i must doubt that you understand anything i write otherwise.

But how to become wealthy another way, with explicitly not profiting from the stoeln wealth of your society?

this is logic along the same lines as saying “how to drink without drinking the same water as dinosaurs did?” thats ridiculous. and its my society now? you can take it, and criticize it all you want, but dont call it mine.

Seems like you ignored the “explicitly” i put in there.
The “your” in front of society was a mistake of me. Replace it with his/her/its/ones if you please. Still, you as citizen of the US are member of a societey (which i called the western society) which massively profited from slavery. I am a member of that society also, everyone here is.

Because it was not an individual doing something to another individual.

By that logic, individuals should not have to repay individuals, because it was not an individual doing something to another individual, another difference in your dad’s debts to the bank scenario

You now seem to misunderstand on purpose i fear, and quote me out-of-context even worse than i did in my former posting(which you accused me severely of).
Do not accuse me of quoting out of context again, when
(a) i refer to the point you made in the following paragraph and address a minor point that you also made
(b) you quote one line out of a paragraph (which i think is saying something completely different).
If you think you have not understood what i mean, i am willing to explain in detail: The point was that the society profited, and although single persons might have lost their riches since then, the profit has by no means made its way back to whereever the salves came from. Thus, the profit still is “with us”, though probably not traceable to a single person.
That is a difference to your (IMO flawed) example and comparison to face-to-face crimes. Slaves had no faces, the ones who profited (and the ones who received the interest) have no faces.

No western society has clean hands, as the economies of us have been interweaved for quite some time.

No society on earth has clean hands. Every economy is interweaved, its a global economy. Western economies have effects on Eastern economies, and vice versa. Eastern economies also have their own evils to worry about

Now nowadays is acceptable and not irrelvant? You talk of “now”, when i obviously talk of the past (Merkantilism!) ? I used past the words “colonies”, mostly past tense for the verbs, and you did not notice that i was not talking of today?

Janus, would you mind not to attack me such bluntly and unrefined next time?

[edited several times to reduce the sharpness and aggressiveness]

[MistaBiggs]

I don’t mind buying a slave-made product …. it’s not like I research everything that I buy. Even if I knew something was slave-made … my decision on whether or not to buy it would not be influenced by this criteria. My main criteria would be the quality and price of the good. I’m American (I didn’t say white – although I am), but that doesn’t mean that I buy only American goods … screw that! I buy the cheapest stuff that I can find (as long as it’s quality is up to standards) … where it comes from, I really don’t care.

It’s like this:

If I had an option of buying a Mercedes for say $40,000 from a dealership or buying the same Mercedes from a “slave-made” dealership for $30,000 … guess which one I’m buying?

I’ll even get me a license plate that reads “SLAVMADE”.

[Janus1]

Ok, first of all, Mista Biggs, thats just shameful. Im like you, I dont research everything I buy, so something I own could be “slave” made, I will acknowledge that Falk, but I wouldnt knowingly buy something that was “slave” made.

Ok, on to the point.

We seem to differ in the defintion of slaves. I seem to have a broader definition.

I think the problem is not that, but that you keep referring to today, which IMO is unrelated to the question of whether we pay reparations to the descendants of former slaves, that was the topic, and the basis of my argument, if it is the same for you, than thats why we are differing so much, because you seem to be arguing about something different.

Can you be sure that nothing you own is “clean” and not produced in sweatshops

No Falk, I cant be sure. Like I already said, something could be slave made that I own, but I buy from brand names, that to the extent of my knowledge, dont use “slave” labor, and if I knew something was “slave” made, I wouldnt buy it.

Slave made products are still cheaper, but not at all for domestic use. Tariffs are more or less non-existant, except for things that non-western countries could produce and export to us (that is: food).

Ok, here, you are either talking about today, or need to brush up on your history.

The only problem with that: banks don’t die. They may be bought, merged or whatever, but the debt account will live forever! Try it, your grandkids will love you for that…

I fear I am going to lose my temper with this one, Its an analogy. You said bank in the scenario you used, so I am just clarifying. Of course banks dont die, but people do. You decided to akin the former slaves to the bank, but they die, even if the bank does not. unlike a son, grandson, etc, owing a debt to a bank from the father, they would not (IMO) owe a debt to a son, grandson, of a person the father owed a debt to, you either missed that, or ignored it, or something.

Nothing explains the difference between “between slavery and today”. I see your point (and went on to that in the following notion of my previous posting). My question still stands:
What happened between then and now? If i accepted that there was a “then and now”, i would accept that there is no slavery in the world anymore.
How would you call working in the sweatshops? I call it slavery, because that term fits best.

Again, I think you do not understand what I am saying. The things happening between then and now (if you dispute that there was a then and now, I will shoot you) are referring to the money, not the slavery. I was commenting on the transfership of money that invariably goes on.

WHAT ???
Existing slavery is unrelated to the point wether we should pay reparations for slavery?

Please, explain that. I can not follow you at all here.

Existing slavery of today, as you call it (im not going to argue that here, as it is mostly a question of semantics), is not included in the question of should we make people pay reparations to the descendants of slaves. when thinking about the past, you do not include the present, as it has no impact on it, rather, you do it the other way. the existing slavery of today, is a seperate matter.

Just think of that: Who produces, who is the one that the sweatshops work for? Third world people? First world corporations?

A simple misspeak on my part (i dont know if thats a word, but you get the point)

Second: “to save money” is “to profit”.

I would disagree with you on that, but i wont fight it.

and its not really blood money, because generally that applies to money for a murder, or assasination"

the difference being that mine is a complete thought, saying what it applies to, while yours simply disputes mine, without supplying what it does include now (and yes, i realize that grammatically, yours is also a complete thought)

Slavery today is not irrelevant.

Wrong

And i could give you a bucketful of examples for modern slavery. For the western societies that profited from slaves, it is pretty easy: all.

Im not asking for examples of western societies, im asking for examples of corporations and individuals

Seems like you ignored the “explicitly” i put in there.

Well then maybe I am missing something, but I fail to see how that changes it

Thus, the profit still is “with us”, though probably not traceable to a single person.

The descendants of former slaves also being a part of this society, the profit would then affect them as well, why pay reparations?

Slaves had no faces, the ones who profited (and the ones who received the interest) have no faces.

then again, how can you justify making individuals pay reparations to individuals, if there is no face?

You talk of “now”,

I talk of now? I TALK OF NOW?!? You are mentioning the slavery of today, I keep saying it has no relevance, when I talk of now, it is because you have

when i obviously talk of the past (Merkantilism!)

You mentioned it once

I used past the words “colonies”, mostly past tense for the verbs, and you did not notice that i was not talking of today?

If everything you said was about past slavery, then you seriously did not do a good job of getting your point across, because most of your argument seemed to consist of today

[EmuGod]

@waraxis:

I believe it’s to those who survived the camps. But I thought I heard that Germany also paid the country of Isreal. Does anybody know about the latter??

Germany did pay Israel, but all of that money went into Holocaust related programs such as Holocaust museums. Some countries still refuse to pay for their participation in the Holocaust. Austria is the best example. The Austrians welcomed the Nazis during the Anschluss with chocolates and cigars and aided the Nazis in killing Jews. Austria claims it was an occupied country and therefore has no obligation to pay, despite the fact that its people gladly helped out.

[Guest]

@Janus1:

I think the problem is not that, but that you keep referring to today, which IMO is unrelated to the question of whether we pay reparations to the descendants of former slaves, that was the topic, and the basis of my argument, if it is the same for you, than thats why we are differing so much, because you seem to be arguing about something different.

The topic is “should white people feel guilty” related to sins of the past. So, instead of talking of slavery (which is mentioned as an example, other “sins” like the various genocides and exploitations are part of that topic. Be honest to yourself: if i had changed to that (without mentioning that they actually are part of the topic), would you have taken them as on topic? I don’t want to know the answer, just answer it honestly for yourself, about an hour after your’ve read this.

The question of reparations itself is slightly off-topic, one could claim, as the question was about the admittance of guilt. It actually is a poor sign that such an admittance is made equal to pay money.

So, when you say:
“the question of whether we pay reparations to the descendants of former slaves, that was the topic”
you are wrong and should not try to blame others for further extending the question. And i honestly didn’t see that you blame D:S for mentioning Colin Powell.

… and if I knew something was “slave” made, I wouldnt buy it.

Fair enough.

…are…are … could produce …

Ok, here, you are either talking about today, or need to brush up on your history.

You either want to still blame me that i am off-topic, or you should go to the dentist twice a year.

The only problem with that: banks don’t die. They may be bought, merged or whatever, but the debt account will live forever! Try it, your grandkids will love you for that…

I fear I am going to lose my temper with this one, Its an analogy.

Yes, it absolutely is. Did it ever cross your mind what my “example of the habit of banks” is?
For losing your temper: you’ve lost it in the previous posting already IMO and lost it here again.

Nothing explains the difference between “between slavery and today”. I see your point (and went on to that in the following notion of my previous posting). … What happened between then and now? If i accepted that there was a “then and now”, i would accept that there is no slavery in the world anymore.
How would you call working in the sweatshops? I call it slavery, because that term fits best.

Again, I think you do not understand what I am saying. The things happening between then and now (if you dispute that there was a then and now, I will shoot you) are referring to the money, not the slavery. I was commenting on the transfership of money that invariably goes on.

Then make yourself clearer please. This above was an answer directed at and only at your “complete sentence” answer.
The point you are attacking i covered already. Look up my second last posting. You on the other hand ignore my clarification of the question and the question it seems.
I attack that you put slavery as a “happened in the past only” fact.

And i will not continue this part of the thread, as you have given an implicit answer to the question.

Existing slavery of today, as you call it (im not going to argue that here, as it is mostly a question of semantics), is not included in the question of should we make people pay reparations to the descendants of slaves. when thinking about the past, you do not include the present, as it has no impact on it, rather, you do it the other way. the existing slavery of today, is a seperate matter.

I do not think so at all. I as white feel guilty not only of the sins in the past, but of the sins of today also. The sins which we should not let happen out of our historic knowledge.
If i didn’t feel guilty of the past (on the other hand), then i still could (though need not) feel guilty of what happens today.
The “off topic”-ness of “slavery in our days” is extremely small, i would not put more off-topic than talking of reparations only.

A simple misspeak on my part (i dont know if thats a word, but you get the point)

ok.

Slavery today is not irrelevant.

Wrong

No, you are wrong …
how long do you think should we continue with that?

And i could give you a bucketful of examples for modern slavery. For the western societies that profited from slaves, it is pretty easy: all.

Im not asking for examples of western societies, im asking for examples of corporations and individuals

Ok, for modern slavery of corporations and individuals, that will take some time to write down, so i will first finish this post and then send a second.

If everything you said was about past slavery, then you seriously did not do a good job of getting your point across, because most of your argument seemed to consist of today

Of course not everything. That’s what paragraphs are for.

[edited for better readability]

[Guest]

modern slave holders or directly profiting form that:

• Swiss banks, like the one that still has the wealth of Mobutu and did not give that back to Congo/Zaire, keep the money of Sani Abachas (Nigeria), Jen-Claude Duvalier (Haiti), Marcos (Philippines). Some of these banks are located at the Paradeplatz in Zurich or the Rue de la Corraterie in Geneva.
  Names given in my source are: United Bank of Switzerland, Crédit Suisse First Boston.
  Persons working there: Ken Moelis, Marc Ospel
• Lansana Conté of the Republic of Guinea, and those who buy Aluminium from Guinea
• Idriss Déby and Hissène Habré of Tchad, and all who use the oil of the Doba fields
• Paul Biya of Kamerun (where the oil of the Doba fields is brought to by a pipeline, from where it is then loaded on ships)
• Fode Sankhoi, Charles Taylor, Blaise Campaore, Gnassimbé Eyadadéma, Jonas Savimbi et.al. and all who bought and buy so called “blood diamonds”
• Walt Disney in general and head Michael Eisner
• Marc Rich (found guilty of racketeering in 1983, swiss authorities never extradited him, was pardoned in Januar 2001)

This list does not include otherwise amoral or other “highly profitable” corporations and individuals.

It is taken from the first 83 pages of the 290 pages of Jean Ziegler’s “Les nouveaux Maîtres du Monde et ceux qui leur résistant”. He is from Switzerland, former Minister and now working for the UN.

If you want more, the more interesting sections are later in the book. I would recommend to read it. I will expand the list when i find more time.

A very interesting link given in his book:
www.nlcnet.org

[Janus1]

all i hear is “blah, blah, blah, im a dirty tramp”