.
.
What the south termed "our peculiar institution" wasn't the least bit peculiar. Prior to the 19th century there were slaves all over the place. The Greek democracy in Athens had tens of thousands of slaves. Columbus enslaved Native Americans. Throughout history slaves have come in all races and colors. What were Russian serfs if not slaves?
True, African-Americans suffer greatly from discrimination to this day but let's take it easy on the reparations thing; they are far from alone. Our loose cannon in the Oval Office still feels comfortable with overt racism against whole nations. Not to mention the American judge who would not have been able to view a suit against Trump fairly because the judge is of Mexican descent. And let's keep it real: If there comes a time when awarding government money to African-Americans as reparations for slavery seems likely, who doubts this will cause anything other than greater division and racism? While some African-Americans may well deserve reparations, the discussion is academic, the point may as well be moot.

Litwitlou wrote:And let's keep it real: If there comes a time when awarding government money to African-Americans as reparations for slavery seems likely, who doubts this will cause anything other than greater division and racism? While some African-Americans may well deserve reparations, the discussion is academic, the point may as well be moot.

Yes, that is what I meant when I said I would not be proposing reparations any time soon. I do think it has been part of a healthy self-evaluation for Australia and Canada, a coming to terms with the fact that wrongs were done. So it would probably be a good idea, but the country is definitely not ready for it.

The thought keeps gnawing at me that slavery was part of the general way of doing things then. Since I would like to see a general repudiation of domination systems, whether empire or patriarchy or police impunity or Ferguson-style rip-offs of the poor, I find myself wondering if there is a way to put the issue in that context.

I mean, this may sound odd but I think Dr. King and the feminists did American culture a whole lot of good by dragging us out of a mindset in which privilege was taken for granted and assumed to be natural and eternal. Okay, the answer was blowing in the wind, but somebody had to say, "Stop now!". And then the ideals of democracy began to become reality.

Litwitlou wrote:.
.
What the south termed "our peculiar institution" wasn't the least bit peculiar. Prior to the 19th century there were slaves all over the place. The Greek democracy in Athens had tens of thousands of slaves. Columbus enslaved Native Americans. Throughout history slaves have come in all races and colors. What were Russian serfs if not slaves?

Curious about the origin of "the peculiar institution," I looked on Wikipedia. The phrase became a popular Southern euphemism for slavery mid-century. "Peculiar" was used in the sense of "distinctive, fitted to," rather than strange or odd. John C. Calhoun's contention was that slavery had become naturally integral to the culture, geography, and economy of the South.

True, African-Americans suffer greatly from discrimination to this day but let's take it easy on the reparations thing; they are far from alone. Our loose cannon in the Oval Office still feels comfortable with overt racism against whole nations. Not to mention the American judge who would not have been able to view a suit against Trump fairly because the judge is of Mexican descent. And let's keep it real: If there comes a time when awarding government money to African-Americans as reparations for slavery seems likely, who doubts this will cause anything other than greater division and racism? While some African-Americans may well deserve reparations, the discussion is academic, the point may as well be moot.

For me, it's the how of general reparations that most gets in the way of envisioning it happening. When I look at a particular instance, though, such as the controversy at Georgetown University, I become a little morally perplexed. The NY Times and other papers recently reported on the 1838 sale of 272 slaves by the Jesuit leadership of the struggling college (the Church as slaver, hard to believe). The sale was instrumental in saving the college, and of course today it is richly endowed. What to do, if anything, for the descendents of the slaves who suffered under the lash in the deep South and whose families were torn apart? Even some alumni who were not previously activist about anything believe the university is obligated to make some form of reparations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/us/g ... dants.html

DWill wrote: For me, it's the how of general reparations that most gets in the way of envisioning it happening. When I look at a particular instance, though, such as the controversy at Georgetown University, I become a little morally perplexed. The NY Times and other papers recently reported on the 1838 sale of 272 slaves by the Jesuit leadership of the struggling college (the Church as slaver, hard to believe). The sale was instrumental in saving the college, and of course today it is richly endowed. What to do, if anything, for the descendents of the slaves who suffered under the lash in the deep South and whose families were torn apart? Even some alumni who were not previously activist about anything believe the university is obligated to make some form of reparations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/us/g ... dants.html

Where is the controversy about this "particular instance" at Georgetown University? From the piece in the NY Times it seems everyone involved is interested in finding the descendants of the 272 slaves and making "some form of reparations." This is all well and good but let's bear in mind that this endeavor is undertaken by a private, and rather enlightened, institute of higher learning. Also, addressing the injustice done to 272 slaves is one thing, but finding the descendants of the 3,950,528 slaves listed in the census of 1860 is something else. And I can't think of anything that can be done for the untold number of slaves shipped to America who died with no family.

The census of 1860 shows 393,975 people or 8% of families owned slaves. Should their descendants be singled out when it comes to reparations? Why not? Because this would be too expensive and difficult? Or because it is unfair to burden the sons with the sins of the fathers? What of the approx. 620,000 Union soldiers who died in the Civil War. Should their descendants pay anything?

We have a tiger by the tail when it comes to reparations. I hope someone has a plan for its teeth.

Where is the controversy about this "particular instance" at Georgetown University? From the piece in the NY Times it seems everyone involved is interested in finding the descendants of the 272 slaves and making "some form of reparations."

Well, you're probably right that 'controversy' is the wrong word to summarize what's being discussed at Georgetown, although you'll see that that there is some controversy regarding the particulars of how the university has gone about the project and what the how it proposes to make amends.

This is all well and good but let's bear in mind that this endeavor is undertaken by a private, and rather enlightened, institute of higher learning. Also, addressing the injustice done to 272 slaves is one thing, but finding the descendants of the 3,950,528 slaves listed in the census of 1860 is something else. And I can't think of anything that can be done for the untold number of slaves shipped to America who died with no family.

Even for 272, the task is huge, both in finding these descendents and providing financial compensation, even if it is in-kind, such as scholarships. I haven't yet obtained Coates' book, so I don't know his own outlook on what reparations need to look like.

What of the approx. 620,000 Union soldiers who died in the Civil War. Should their descendants pay anything?

We have a tiger by the tail when it comes to reparations. I hope someone has a plan for its teeth.

I have nothing of value to add to the thread's topic, but I thought you might be interested in the newer estimates of CW deaths--up to 750,000 vs. the previously accepted estimate of 620,000, which was Union and Confederate combined.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/scien ... imate.html

Yes. I asked for the number of Union soldiers who died and it gave me the combined number. I should have noticed. My mistake.

How many Union soldiers were killed during the civil war?
Approximately 620,000 soldiers died from combat, accident, starvation, and disease during the Civil War. This number comes from an 1889 study of the war performed by William F. Fox and Thomas Leonard Livermore. Both men fought for the Union.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1WP ... 80&bih=633

It's no big deal, and I just thought you might be interested in the research that shows the war was even more devastating than previously known.

DWill wrote:It's no big deal, and I just thought you might be interested in the research that shows the war was even more devastating than previously known.

When I was a kid I couldn't stop reading about the Civil War. As soon as learned of it I was entranced -- as so many Civil War buffs are. I must have read a solid dozen books on it before I got to high school. I remember reading a fat volume on just Antietam and another on McClellan's Peninsula Campaign. My friend Larry and I would play "Name a Civil War Battle." If you got stumped you had to do a shot. And, of course, I watched the Ken Burns series.

At college I took a history course on the war that began with how the north was industrialized while the south was agrarian. I thought I was going to pass out. I laugh about it now but then it was like torture.

Litwitlou wrote:

DWill wrote: For me, it's the how of general reparations that most gets in the way of envisioning it happening.

addressing the injustice done to 272 slaves is one thing, but finding the descendants of the 3,950,528 slaves listed in the census of 1860 is something else. And I can't think of anything that can be done for the untold number of slaves shipped to America who died with no family.

Yes, the "how" is difficult. But it is worth remembering that the damage did not stop with slavery. At a minimum you have to go up to the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the end of Jim Crow.

I suspect it is more sensible to engage the collective issue than to attempt to identify everyone damaged by racism and compensate each of them properly. More important is to give a voice to those whose families faced murder, unlawful incarceration, and plain theft, and to otherwise symbolically acknowledge that we understand the things done were not only wrong but deeply harmful. Commissioning some drama and some public events might be a good way of achieving some of that.

Germany paid 3 billion marks to Israel, beginning with the compensation agreement in 1952. It never erased the shame of what the nation had done - ask a German today - but at least it did not leave them in the position of refusing to acknowledge the crime that was done, or arguing that it didn't harm anyone who mattered.

Litwitlou wrote:The census of 1860 shows 393,975 people or 8% of families owned slaves. Should their descendants be singled out when it comes to reparations? Why not? Because this would be too expensive and difficult? Or because it is unfair to burden the sons with the sins of the fathers? What of the approx. 620,000 Union soldiers who died in the Civil War. Should their descendants pay anything?

Germany did not carefully attempt to separate the guilty from the innocent, but acknowledged that the damage was done by a country and a people.

Litwitlou wrote:We have a tiger by the tail when it comes to reparations. I hope someone has a plan for its teeth.

You think?

Litwitlou wrote:

DWill wrote:It's no big deal, and I just thought you might be interested in the research that shows the war was even more devastating than previously known.

When I was a kid I couldn't stop reading about the Civil War. As soon as learned of it I was entranced -- as so many Civil War buffs are. I must have read a solid dozen books on it before I got to high school. I remember reading a fat volume on just Antietam and another on McClellan's Peninsula Campaign. My friend Larry and I would play "Name a Civil War Battle." If you got stumped you had to do a shot. And, of course, I watched the Ken Burns series.

At college I took a history course on the war that began with how the north was industrialized while the south was agrarian. I thought I was going to pass out. I laugh about it now but then it was like torture.

I've lived in Harpers Ferry and now live in Virginia, not far from Winchester and Antietam. I have to admit to being a relative slacker on CW knowledge, despite my nearness to so many sites. I've never gravitated that much to troop movements and battle strategies.