Slave Descendants Try to Revive Lawsuit

No need to yell. After all, it is only a discussion--despite the fact that I edit profusely.

In a way, this topic does deal with the reparations issue. Unfortunately, the cries against reparations has made it so. So besides the lawsuit, the discussions of reparations are also of import not because of me--but because of others. Be that as it may, it is possible to integrate the two despite the original post.

Simularly, there was a lawsuit in 2003 made by a group of descendants which filed a case against 1,000 corporations that have made money off of the institution. In that law suit, they did not ask for individual monetary settlements; instead, they asked for the money awarded to be put in a fund that would provide programs for the entire community.

It is not the same case, but the arguments can be gleaned from the editorial made about it. This is the 2003 case, not the one in the OP:

Viewpoint: Reparations lawsuit has greater implications

As U.S. foreign relations remain uneasy in the face of war, U.S. domestic race relations seem to be just as rocky. At the end of February, black-American descendants of slavery filed a class-action lawsuit against approximately 1,000 corporations for contributing to slavery and therefore indirectly causing the current state of the black population - some of the corporations include JP Morgan Chase, FleetBoston and various tobacco, railroad and insurance companies.

The plaintiffs want reparations, but not in the traditional monetary form. No individual in the suit wants a check in his/her mailbox. Instead, they request that any money awarded be placed in a general fund to improve the current conditions that place blacks in the lowest percentile in almost every facet of everyday life. Along with the obvious legal consequences of such a lawsuit, the plaintiffs hope that the case will affirm corporate accountability for slavery and lead to an investigation of the specific financial aspects of slavery.

[...]

Given the motivation behind the lawsuit, the inevitable question arises: Is this lawsuit justified? To answer this, we need to consider two points. First, consider the proposed goal of the lawsuit: the community fund. The fact that the plaintiffs do not want individual, monetary reparations but benefits for the entire black population indicates a higher goal. This makes the lawsuit not a selfish, money-grubbing ploy but a noble endeavor by a minority group trying to face the stagnation and malaise evident in its community.

Second, consider the legal history of reparations. In the past, blacks have targeted the federal government for reparations, a plot that was obviously flawed. With 35 million blacks in America, the issue of federal reparations is sticky to say the least. Yet, by targeting corporations and showing a close relationship between slavery and corporate financial benefit, the plaintiffs greatly increased their chances. In addition, looking at the Jewish population who suffered unfathomable atrocities during World War II, they have also been successful in gaining reparations. In 2000, the German government and many German companies laid out billions for Holocaust survivors. Granted, the German government is decidedly more liberal, but private companies gave money as well.

I hope that seeing the similarities in this lawsuit, finally there will be some comments of note.



[edit on 29-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Fiverz
My great great great grandfather and grandmother were slaves to a southern plantation owner in the late 1800s

Hi Fiverz..not to lessen the situation with your family but might I ask how many generations of your family were enslaved? How many decades did it encompass?


Pie

posted by Fiverz

I want to offer my insight . . I am a white Lithuanian and I strongly disagree with the idea of reparations. My reason for this line of thinking is much different than you'd think. My g-g-g-grandfather and grandmother were slaves to a southern plantation owner in the late 1800s (I have historical documentation . . if anyone would like proof I can scan these documents and provide them, even though it would destroy any relative anonymity I have on these boards due to my family name being on them). [Edited by Don W]

No need for that, Mr Fiverz. OTOH, I do want you to clarify your “ . . late 1800s . . “ reference because you mention later they escaped in 1869. Mid-1800s. You are implying - if I read you correctly - that white people from Poland and Lithuania were “captured” by white plantation owners in west Tennessee, then were held captive and forced to do labor on his land as slaves - no pay - until they escaped.

Legal slavery ended in Tennessee on Jan. 1, 1863, with the Emancipation Proclamation. Regardless, slavery finally ended everywhere in America on Dec. 6, 1865, with the official adoption of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution. Now that was all done in Washington, DC about 900 miles from Memphis, TN. 4 or 5 days by train. Along west Tennessee’s Delta region, 25-50 miles deep along both sides of the Mississippi River - most white folks remained a law unto themselves as related to race relations, despite laws and rules to the contrary emanating from W-DC or Nashville. That remained true until the late 1960s, early 1970s.

So I have no problem believing your recounting of the episode. I merely want to clarify that they - your ancestors - were white and were “captured” and not bought and sold at a recognized slave market. As contrasted with the indentured servant, which would usually be for 5 to 7 years of labor in exchange for the passage across the Atlantic. Those contracts were often bought and sold, legally. Can you help me, Mr Fiverz?

The point is . . I have never once thought about asking for reparations for my slave ancestors. Not once. It's not my right to bring up issues that I did not experience in my lifetime with people who did not foster them. [Edited by Don W]

You sound like a “good European.” Not meant unkindly, but only to demonstrate we see a large gap in what “Europeans” see as proper and what “Americans” see as proper. We are a litiginous society. We take our grievances to court. That is our way of life. Europeans are more docile, more community oriented whereas Americans are more individualistic. You might say more “self centered.”

posted by Astronemer70

One misconception I read repeatedly throughout this thread is that America was built on the backs of black slaves. That is simply not even close to being true. Blacks have always comprised a very small percentage of the population of this country and most of them were used in the southern states because that's where most of the agriculture was and where slaves could be used most effectively. [Edited by Don W]

It is my belief that the slaves were about 40% of the population of the 11 states of the Confederacy, called the Old South sometimes. I’ve messed up my computer and I cannot read the fine print that has the number of slaves and white in each state. Those states are VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, TN, MS, AL, LA, TX and AR. (The 12th and 13th stars in the Stars and Bars represent KY and MO.) The link below will take you to the census numbers.

www.sonofthesouth.net...

So, just to set the record straight, let me say that blacks have probably done less to build this country than any other ethnic group in America. [Edited by Don W]

And a great big thank you, Mr A70. Hey, are you now that sure you are not being TOO generous? I mean, you tell like you see it, blinders and all!


Note: The 1860 census gave these numbers: Slaves, 3,953,760. Total non-slave, 27,489,561, grand total US pop., 31,443,321. (WVa was included in VA.)

For general reference to slavery in the United States, see also
fisher.lib.virginia.edu...

For insights into the civil war, see this website
www.civil-war.net...


[edit on 9/29/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by ceci2006
I'm sorry for misconstruing your words. I scan the posts like anyone else and sometimes, I make mistakes. That's why I edit. I am not playing games but, because I am a heavy editor a lot of people would think that less of me.

Fair enough, but scanning is one thing...specifically misrepresenting the statements of others is quite another... If you're going to comment on the specific statements made by someone, I would think it incumbent of you to actually read those statements.

Originally posted by ceci2006
But, yes, I do think that opposing reparations minimalizes the experiences of slavery regarding African Americans.

Again, reparations are not at issue in the subject lawsuit.

The issue of reparations is altogether a different matter...one I do not necessarily have a position on yet.

Originally posted by ceci2006
By that, I mean that by saying that Blacks are owed nothing, people are in effect dismissing the harsh treatment, death and other vagaries African-American suffered immensely.

The problem is not that Blacks are "owed" for such injustices, the problem lies with who you intend "pays" for what is owed. Forcing those who had nothing to do with such injustices to pay for those who were responsible makes no sense. Help me understand why you think it does.

Originally posted by ceci2006
By saying no to reparations, it is in effect for Blacks the same way it might be construed as denying the Holocaust for Jews.

No it is not. Denying the existence of slavery would be the same as denying the Holocaust. Denying financial compensation of the one is not equal to denying the actual event of the other.

Is your logic always this fuzzy?

Originally posted by ceci2006
By not having any form of apology made by a government that has enslaved, tortured, killed, taken away your belongs, made laws and endorsed the violent actions of others is rather a slap in the face.

What delusional victim-hood are you living under? "Any form" of apology is not the same as the specific form of financial apology you advocate in connection with the subject lawsuit.

Originally posted by ceci2006
To have other Americans rape and treat your relatives as chattel and have no apology for it is more of the same.

Again, to be clear. I am horrified and appalled by that history, but why am *I* required to give you anything more than that? Taking my property in consequence of the deplorable actions of others is equally unjust.

Originally posted by ceci2006
The worst of it is that people do not want to face the ugly part of slavery.

Some may not, but MOST do.

I feel sorry for you that your pain so thoroughly clouds your objectivity, judgment and fundemental notion of fairness.

Originally posted by ceci2006
They can say what they want and write it off by saying that Blacks do not get anything for their suffering. At the same time, the same mistreatment and disrespect goes on to this day--even in this thread.

Then why is your focus not on those examples? Do you not see how supporting the unjust attempt represented by the subject lawsuit dilutes attention from the very real present day examples you mention?

Talk about the injustice of TODAY and you have my attention. BLAME me for the injustices perpetrated by others in the past and you have my opposition. Now, why would you want to do that? Simple enough for you?

Originally posted by ceci2006
That's why I also asked what people would suggest in place for reparations.

As I've already indicated, "reparations" are altogether a different matter from the subject lawsuit. If you want to talk about that, I would think it more appropriate in another thread.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Because the ugliness of the past cannot be ignored.

Nor should it be. But opposing this lawsuit does not ignore the past.

Originally posted by ceci2006
And there is an entire race of people who continue to be brutalized by the ignorance and hatred that continues because of the legacy of slavery.

I don't think it's quite that simple, but I don't suppose you will change your opinion. You seem firmly married to the notion of victim-hood. I wonder how you think that helpful to the cause against the injustices of today?

:shk:

[edit on 29-9-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by ceci2006
In a way, this topic does deal with the reparations issue.

No, it doesn't.

This thread is about a civil lawsuit seeking to hold accountable certain businesses for the injustices committed by historical PREDECESSORS.

The issue of reparations is a completely different matter.

Reparations are not a different matter. Or else, what would you call the lawsuit using the bigger picture?

However, I have said below why I felt this was the case. So, don't take it out against me. Rail at everyone.

It is not fuzzy logic. Certainly by what I've posted, it is not delusional. And no, my comprehension of your comments is not bad. I just think we see this topic quite differently. I am okay with that:

Originally quoted by ceci2006
In a way, this topic does deal with the reparations issue. Unfortunately, the cries against reparations has made it so. So besides the lawsuit, the discussions of reparations are also of import not because of me--but because of others. Be that as it may, it is possible to integrate the two despite the original post.

Other than that, all I have to say is this:

1)The lawsuit is against the corporations that have financially benefitted from slavery. That is not targeted at a race of people. It is targeted against Big Business. In this way, the lawsuit makes the point that slavery was not only wrong, the people who were tortured by the instution were financially taken advantage of. So how do the descendents of slavery recoup the losses of "payment" denied? The people perpetrating the system died, but the companies did not.

Since the companies exist today, is there anything wrong with suing them for past acts that have willfully engaged in the mistreatment of a segment of people?

2)Dismissing the lawsuit diminishes slavery experienced by Blacks by saying that their ancestors went through the brutality of institutional racism for nothing. Not to mention the fact that the companies are still making money and have not made any restitution in the past for their participation in slavery. That means everything experienced by those who have died and been brutalized in the past mean nothing to the companies. The companies can go on about their business and forget what they did to get to this point. Should they forget what they did and chalk it up as another day of business?

Or should they be a present-day and historical example of how the government and big business can perpetrate crimes of inhumanity and be taken to court to air out the grieviances made? Would you rather these descendants not get their day in court and present evidence that might eventually add a lot of insights about the participation of these companies and what they did during the times of slavery?


It's not about the money. It's about justice. And that does not have anything to do with the victim mentality. It is getting Big Business to come to terms how they made their money and remained complicit with a system of institutionalized racism in the past and the present.

However, I would also like to add that the effects of slavery are still felt today. You and others may not realize it. But these acts are systemically felt in subtle ways in terms of the law, education, social practices as well as ettiquette between races. These systemtic actions result in racism that isn't as blatant as the past, but still hurtful and humiliating just the same. It even lingers throughout the treatment of this subject matter in terms of cultural experience. And sometimes, the cultural experience can overlook the most essential parts of why such a lawsuit is needed.

But nevertheless, loam, you have a right to say what you did. And I accept it. But never was it a perception dictating the right thing to do.


[edit on 29-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by donwhite
No need for that, Mr Fiverz. OTOH, I do want you to clarify your “ . . late 1800s . . “ reference because you mention later they escaped in 1869. Mid-1800s. You are implying - if I read you correctly - that white people from Poland and Lithuania were “captured” by white plantation owners in west Tennessee, held captive and forced to labor on his land as slaves, until they escaped.

Legal slavery ended in Tennessee on Jan. 1, 1863, with the Emancipation Proclamation. Regardless, slavery finally ended everywhere in America on Dec. 6, 1865, with the official adoption of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution. Now that was all done in Washington, DC about 900 miles from Memphis, TN. 4 or 5 days by train. Along west Tennessee’s Delta region, 25-50 miles deep along both sides of the Mississippi River - most white folks remained a law unto themselves as related to race relations, despite laws and rules to the contrary emanating frm W-DC or Nashville. That remained true until the late 1960s, early 1970s.

So I have no problem believing your recounting of the episode. I merely want to clarify that they - your ancestors - were white and were “captured” and not bought and sold at a recognized slave market. As contrasted with the indentured servant, which would usually be for 5 to 7 years of labor in exchange for the passage across the Atlantic. Those contracts were often bought and sold, legally. Can you help me, Mr Fiverz?

I'm sorry I meant mid-1800s ... they escaped in the late 1800s.

The rest is almost correct. I honestly do not know the exact dates of their capture but I would estimate to be around 1830 to 1840. The documentation was of the sale of my great great great grandparents from the white owner to the black owner in 1854 I believe (I need to check with my relatives for the exact date on that). So they were sold to the second owner after being captured by the first one.

Your documentation about Tennessee is exactly what I found in my research. My thinking always was that since there was a black plantation owner with at least some white slaves that they got skipped over (or indeed it was a "backwoods" thing).

I'll give a call to my relatives tomorrow and post back with accurate dates and the location of that second plantation.

You sound like a “good European.” Not meant unkindly, but only to demonstrate we see a large gap in what “Europeans” see as proper and what “Americans” see as proper. We are a litiginous society. We take our grievances to court. That is our way of life. Europeans are more docile, more community oriented whereas Americans are more individualistic. You might say more “self centered.”

I don't quite understand exactly what you are saying here but my friends and family all have similar views on the issue (although possibly for different reasons). I don't see it as an American, European, or even African issue. It's a human rights issue and EVERYONE should see it that way. I personally don't think money will solve anything. If I was treated in that matter and then learned when I'm on my deathbed that my grandchildren would get paid something for my suffering it honestly would not make me any happier. That's like telling family members of Holocaust victims "here's 50 bucks, sorry for forcing your great grandfather to work 18 hour days breaking rocks." Overdramatic, sure, but you see my point. To me that's an insult, not a gift.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Hi Fiverz..not to lessen the situation with your family but might I ask how many generations of your family were enslaved? How many decades did it encompass?


Pie

Just the one to my knowledge ... and as I said in my last post above this I don't know the exact number of years and I'll post back with that tomorrow. I know there were other Polish families who had multiple generations in slavery there (I assume from being born on the plantation?).

Most of this knowledge is from talking with my grandparents back in high school (I did a report on slavery ... all are now deceased) so it's all from memory. I know my uncle has the documents that I referred to in my previous post and he's who I will contact tomorrow.

To get back on track with the topic of the thread, I'm curious to see not only more people's opinions on the subject, but the REASONING behind their opinions (did they have relatives in slavery, how much have they researched the topic, etc).

What were the second plantation owners like? Did they make your relatives "jump the broom"? Did they breed your relatives? Was anyone a slave mistress? Were they subject to the Fugitive Slave act? Were they whipped and made to live in dark, dank slave quarters? Were they sold on the auction block? Was their family separated between plantations? And did they have to walk to the second plantation in chains while the overseer looked on? How did they address the Master and Mistress of the plantation (after all there was a strict code of conduct enforced by Jim Crow between blacks and whites)?

Were they buried with black slaves in the segregated cemeteries? Or were they buried with other whites?

And how did the Blacks get the money to have a plantation of their own? And how did it survive in the face of the Ante-Bellum South and in Reconstruction? After all, Rosewood was burned down, not to mention other settlements of self-sustaining freedmen. There had to be someone out there who didn't like the fact that Blacks were in the South running a plantation.

I'm sorry if these questions offend you, but I am curious what exactly would they do to White slaves. If the treatment of Black slaves were bad enough, I'm sure your relatives have horrific stories that were passed down in the family.

Wow, you could almost be like Alex Hayley.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
What were the second plantation owners like? Did they make your relatives "jump the broom"? Did they breed your relatives? Was anyone a slave mistress? Were they subject to the Fugitive Slave act? Were they whipped and made to live in dark, dank slave quarters? Were they sold on the auction block? Was their family separated between plantations? And did they have to walk to the second plantation in chains while the overseer looked on?

And how did the Blacks get the money to have a plantation of their own? And how did it survive in the face of the Ante-Bellum South and in Reconstruction? After all, Rosewood was burned down, not to mention other settlements of self-sustaining freedmen. There had to be someone out there who didn't like the fact that Blacks were in the South running a plantation.

I'm sorry if these questions offend you, but I am curious what exactly would they do to White slaves. If the treatment of Black slaves were bad enough, I'm sure that they have horrific stories to tell.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by ceci2006]

I assume you are directing this post towards me.

The only details I can recall hearing about were that it was horrific (beatings, whippings, ridiculous living conditions, etc) and they tried to escape every day of their lives (keep in mind this was my grandparents relating information about a previous generation).

I don't know if it was an auction, outright sale, or exchange for goods. The document my uncle has will probably say.

Also I should clarify that I don't know for sure that the second person who purchased my relatives was an owner or not ... I know he was wealthy and owned land and I might have just made the connection in my head. I'll clarify tomorrow if I can find that info.

For those that don't believe there were white slaves and black owners do these google searches:

white+slaves+in+the+south
black+plantation+owners+in+the+south

There's a few good sites in each search with documented evidence.

These aren't sites that have to do with "revisionist history" are they?

But yes, I believe that there were white slaves. I never said that I didn't. But what has been historically documented were the ones in indentured servitude. That is quite different than the conditions Blacks had to endure in terms of slavery.

I also wonder whether the laws about Blacks applied to the White slaves? After all, if a Black slave tried to escape they were either carted back to the plantation or used as a deterrent to the other slaves (such as hanging, shooting, etc.).

I mean, did your relatives have any spirituals? Were they not allowed to read? Were they not allowed to congregate for fear of an "uprising"?

However, you were saying that they "escaped" the plantation. Which means that they could disappear into white society and pass for being free. That is quite different from Black slaves who had to use the underground railroad.

Or did your relatives use the underground railroad to escape?

I look forward to your news. I am quite fascinated by this because there aren't any slave narratives out there regarding Whites.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
I think it does.

Forgive me for willingly devolving the discussion by replying with an infantile response.............No it doesn't.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Since the companies exist today, is there anything wrong with suing them for past acts that have willfully engaged in the mistreatment of a segment of people?

This is a convenient fiction, but hardly representative of the truth. Treating the business entities of today in the subject lawsuit as being precisely the same entities of the past is flatly wrong.

Let me ask you a few questions... How many commercial loans do you think these banks currently provide to Black owned businesses? How many residential mortgages? ...car loans? ...credit cards? ...student loans? How many current Black shareholders, managers, employees, clients, and vendors do you think these banks and insurance companies have? What other Black families and communities are dependent upon these precise banks and insurers in question?

Are you saying they should also pay? ...that they too are responsible?

What you advocate is a far cry from holding businesses accountable for their wrongdoing.

Like I said in a previous post, are you suggesting it would make sense for me to hold you financially accountable for the death of my grandmother simply because the previous owner of your vehicle intentionally ran her over with it?

This is nothing more than a mass redistribution of wealth scheme poorly clothed by assertions made in the "interest of racial justice." The real winners will be the plaintiffs lawyers and the real losers will be everyone else- black and white alike.

Originally posted by ceci2006
It's not about the money. It's about justice. And that does not have anything to do with the victim mentality. It is getting Big Business to come to terms how they made their money and remained complicit with a system of institutionalized racism in the past and the present.

It's unfortunate you fail to see how it is precisely the victim mentality. Your view permits the very outcomes I describe above- all because you wish to hold a name accountable for the distant past. Show me a single shareholder ...executive ...manager ...or employee of the subject businesses today who were directly responsible for the injustices of slavery.

The fact of the matter is that the only thing left of those businesses of the past is their name and their assets.

Play the business fiction game all you want, it will not invalidate the outcome I describe.

And, btw, who will be responsible for that?

Originally posted by ceci2006
These aren't sites that have to do with "revisionist history" are they?

But yes, I believe that there were white slaves. I never said that I didn't. But what has been historically documented were the ones in indentured servitude. That is quite different than the conditions Blacks had to endure in terms of slavery.

Oh it wasn't directed towards you, I just meant in general people tend to say "Wha???" when they read that.

It was definitely NOT indentured servitude. From what my grandparents told me they had no rights whatsoever, no way of leaving, and were sold for life to the second "owner". And at any rate saying that person X was treated "more humane" than person Y because they got straw to sleep on and only got whipped weekly instead of daily is ludicrous. Mistreatment is mistreatment no matter whether you were laboring at Auschwitz or in Alabama.

Originally posted by ceci2006
I also wonder whether the laws about Blacks applied to the White slaves? After all, if a Black slave tried to escape they were either carted back to the plantation or used as a deterrent to the other slaves (such as hanging, shooting, etc.).

However, you were saying that they "escaped" the plantation. Which means that they could disappear into white society and pass for being free. That is quite different from Black slaves who had to use the underground railroad.

Or did your relatives use the underground railroad to escape?

I do not know the details about their escape or how whites were dealt with. I would imagine that since they did not escape until 1869 it wouldn't have been too hard to blend in, you are correct.

I have to hit the sack for a few hours (it's almost 6 AM here) but I will post the conversation with my uncle sometime later this evening.

loam, I've written before on this board that I would like "restitution" made to slaves through the form of a very distinct and meaningful apology. It's the time for atonement and not for money.

So no, it is not the victim mentality for me. I would rather have people know the truth about slavery and its effects. I would also have people pay the descendents of slaves with more respect than their government and Big Business afforded them in life. They were shut out of partaking the riches the United States generated up until forty-two years ago by laws, violence and other socially endorsed acts.

I would also like this atonement to help in making race-relations better for everyone. But people aren't ready. If such an outcry was produced over a lawsuit, what do you think might happen when slavery is truly addressed by this country?

And if this lawsuit wakes people up, then put it in the court. Or else, what you get is another instance of history written off like it has in this thread and ridiculed by others.

And if this lawsuit does not provide a wake-up call for America to deal with the issue of slavery, I do not know what will.

So I ask, what in place of the lawsuit do you suggest should be done in terms of atonement of the past?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yes, Fiverz, mistreatment is mistreatment. But there are still differences that you can't see.

Did your relatives have to pay poll taxes? How did they fare in the times of segregation? Did they have to deal with the grandfather clause? Did your relatives have to drink from the "Coloreds Only" fountain because of their humble beginnings?

If they did, I would be quite surprised. If they didn't, well, it seems they benefitted from a system my relatives did not.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by ceci2006]

Addressing your edit:

Originally posted by ceci2006
However, I would also like to add that the effects of slavery are still felt today.

I agree that is true.

Originally posted by ceci2006
...But these acts are systemically felt in subtle ways in terms of the law, education, social practices as well as ettiquette between races. These systemtic actions result in racism that isn't as blatant as the past, but still hurtful and humiliating just the same.

That is different from holding someone accountable for actions committed by others in the distant past. Show me present day examples of what you describe and sue on those examples...not the nonsense represented by the subject lawsuit.

Originally posted by ceci2006
It even lingers throughout the treatment of this subject matter in terms of cultural experience. And sometimes, the cultural experience can overlook the most essential parts of why such a lawsuit is needed.

Once again, I can understand prosecuting a case against ACTUAL wrong-doers. The subject lawsuit does not do that.

Originally posted by ceci2006
So I ask, what in place of the lawsuit do you suggest should be done in terms of atonement of the past?

I don't have that answer.

But I do know that the theory of this lawsuit is not it. It does not accomplish what you suggest it should. Its only practical effect will be to hurt innocent people (black and white) to the financial advantage of a very small few...

How would that represent atonement?

Slavery is a crime against humanity....and unfortunately also a universally shared human experience. It existed in Africa long before the arrival of Europeans...and in fact, has been present in nearly every human society in history.

I would suggest that rather than seeking "atonement" for the injustices of the past perpetrated by those who are no longer around to account for them, that you instead focus on the present day injustices and pursue those accordingly.

Wouldn't that be a slightly more effective strategy?

posted by Fiverz

“ . . I meant [captured in the] mid-1800s . . they escaped in the late 1800s.

I do not know the exact dates of their capture but I would estimate to be around 1830 to 1840. The sale of my g-g-g-grandparents from the white owner to the black owner was in 1854 I believe. My thinking always was that since there was a black plantation owner with at least some white slaves that they got skipped over or indeed it was a "backwoods" thing. [Edited by Don W]

Norwest Mississippi and south west Tennessee form a generally flat region that is frequently flooded by the Mississippi River. The rich deposits like the River Nile, make the land especially fertile. Cotton and tobacco, two more popular crops in the 19th century, both quickly deplete the soil, so this region was ideally suited to both crops. It should go without saying that cheap labor is the key to financial success in farming. Slaves provided that until the 1860s. Following the South’s counter-revolution as represented by the terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan, whites reasserted dominance over the newly freed blacks and ushered in the blasphemous era we call Jim Crow. That continued in that region until the very late 1960s and even until the mid-1970s and the while people there are not yet fully “reconstructed” in 2006, IMO.

"The most distinctive region in the state's varied topography is the Mississippi Delta, a flat alluvial plain between the Mississippi and the Yazoo rivers in the western part of the state." From www.answers.com...

I have two questions, Mr F, that if you will answer, will help me to better understand your family’s history. 1) Was you family “white” or not? 2) Was you family indentured or not? Are you familiar with the meaning of “indentured” as I use it?

I don't quite understand what you are saying here but my friends and family have similar views on the issue although possibly for different reasons. I don't see it as an American, European, or even African issue.

No, I’m saying, it is my impression that people of European culture tend to be more accepting and more resigned to what may well be inevitable. Americans OTOH, are not willing to accept the past as a mold for the future. We have little history - barely 400 years here. And don't forget, we are descended from people who did not like it over there. Where European culture goes back at least to the late Roman era c. 500 AD. That’s all. Critics might express it as “Europeans are more law abiding but Americans will tolerate large amounts of violence and often cheer the lawbreakers.”

It's a human rights issue and EVERYONE should see it that way. I personally don't think money will solve anything. If I was treated in that matter and then learned when I'm on my deathbed that my grandchildren would get paid something for my suffering it honestly would not make me any happier. That's like telling family members of Holocaust victims "here's 50 bucks, sorry for forcing your great grandfather to work 18 hour days breaking rocks." Over dramatic, sure, but you see my point. To me that's an insult, not a gift.

And on that score - a human rights issue - you are exactly right. Thanks for the nice exchange, Fiverz.


[edit on 9/29/2006 by donwhite]

"History is what it is and can not be changed" Ok, so my question to you is...who actually wrote our history books? and from there who provided them with there information? Just something to question.

Others to be sued..............

The Romans
The Mongoloids
That damn caveman clan


It's lawsuits like this that waste tax payer money. It's not right and it's not fair.

The individuals who bring these waste of time/tax payer money should be put into slavery to remind them just how ell they had it.

That or bring back slavery......I could use someone to do my laundry and dishes.

If decendents of slaves believe they are due reparations I submit that my great grandparents (X 3-4) should be recompensed for being forced to free their slaves after spending their hard earned money on them. Taking inflation into account I expect that their descendents are due MILLION$!

Question: Are descendents of slaves going to go after descendents of tribes in Africa who traded their own people to spanish slave traders?

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]