Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 63

Thread: America 200 years later: sorry about that whole slavery thing

  1. #46
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    You really don't know the history of reparations for the Japanese who were interned, do you?

    The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians wasn't even established until 1980. That was what really got the ball rolling toward reparations. Also, having members of Congress who were interned who helped push the legislation through was probably the biggest factor in getting it passed. The title of the legislation was the "Civil Liberties Act of 1988." Do you think Reagan would veto something like that?

    Reparations for Japanese Americans and Aleutians have nothing to do with what happened to blacks and American Indians. What happened to them was morally repugnant and wrong, wrong, wrong. But it was legal under the law at the time. What happened to those interned was not legal. That is the difference.

    The law was passed in 1988 and afterward identification and location for those who were interned had to be done. That's why the reparation payments didn't start until then. It has nothing to do with Japan's economic status, which has to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Japan still has some pretty restrictive trade barriers. They had them back in the 80s when the law was passed. So if your belief is that we did it to appease Japan, well, then, it was a major fail and we got nothing in return. Haven't complained publicly about it either.
    You still don't get it, do you? I'm not disputing the history of the legislation. I'm disputing the U.S. motive/timing for actually agreeing to pay out the reparations.

    By the way, you contradicted your own history on the movement for Japanese reparations. Because in another post you said that the push for reparations had been going on for decades and now you're saying that the commission didn't get established until 1980 and that's what got the ball rolling toward reparations. So, which is it?

    And so because what happened to blacks and Indians was 'legal' under the law it means that the U.S. had no obligation to make amends for it? The U.S. promised the freed slaves reparations in the form of 40 acres & a mule and never gave it to them, so how is that any different from paying the reparations to those interned during the war who weren't promised reparations when they were released?

    And do you really believe that a few ex-detainees in Congress could influence the U.S. to pay out reparations to Japanese Americans, especially a Republican president? Now that is ridiculous.

    Bottom line, we can go back and forth about this all day, but your rationale makes no sense based on U.S. history. And the fact that the U.S. chose to apologize for slavery only after a person of African descent rose to the presidency lends a little more credence to the U.S. actually paying the reparations being connected to Japan's rise as an economic power.

  2. #47
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    You still don't get it, do you? I'm not disputing the history of the legislation. I'm disputing the U.S. motive/timing for actually agreeing to pay out the reparations.

    By the way, you contradicted your own history on the movement for Japanese reparations. Because in another post you said that the push for reparations had been going on for decades and now you're saying that the commission didn't get established until 1980 and that's what got the ball rolling toward reparations. So, which is it?
    I'm not contradicting myself. The movement started at least in the 60s. Some say earlier. I said that the Commission starting in 1980 was what "got the ball rolling," as in getting things happening. Movements can exist without getting things to happen the way they want! Reread my previous post.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    And so because what happened to blacks and Indians was 'legal' under the law it means that the U.S. had no obligation to make amends for it? The U.S. promised the freed slaves reparations in the form of 40 acres & a mule and never gave it to them, so how is that any different from paying the reparations to those interned during the war who weren't promised reparations when they were released?
    Reparations for Japanese Americans and Aleutians was for something specific. Their habeas corpus rights were violated. Just as Jose Padilla is suing currently suing the federal government for (alleged) abuse when he was imprisoned. There's nothing specific like that that you can claim for slavery.

    "40 acres and a mule" comes from an order issued by General Sherman. That order lost its legality when Lincoln was assassinated. It was never a law.

    You're conflating modern-day moral views of slavery and treatment of American Indians with 19th century legal standards. The two ne'er shall meet.

    Japanese Americans and Aleutians who received reparations were still living. Those who are slaves are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    And do you really believe that a few ex-detainees in Congress could influence the U.S. to pay out reparations to Japanese Americans, especially a Republican president? Now that is ridiculous.
    No, it's not. You're thinking that everyone would be automatically against a law like this, which is why you're posting like it's something impossible. The congressmen and senators such as Norm Mineta responsible for passing the bill had seniority in Congress by the time the law was passed. Seniority is everything in Congress. It's the same reason why Alaska got so much money from the federal government via earmarks when Ted Stevens was on the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. He was the ranking Republican or the Chair depending upon the point in time you examine. Seniority is everything when it comes to getting things done there.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Bottom line, we can go back and forth about this all day, but your rationale makes no sense based on U.S. history. And the fact that the U.S. chose to apologize for slavery only after a person of African descent rose to the presidency lends a little more credence to the U.S. actually paying the reparations being connected to Japan's rise as an economic power.
    No, my rationale makes sense under THE LAW. That's what it's based on. Not conflating current moral outrage with ex post facto views of the law. Congress only apologized because their collective sense of shame finally kicked in. It's the only thing that overrided sitting on their asses this time. Your "economic power" rationale makes no sense since the US would have had to gain something from Japan to make it work. No such thing ever happened.

  3. #48
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    I'm not contradicting myself. The movement started at least in the 60s. Some say earlier. I said that the Commission starting in 1980 was what "got the ball rolling," as in getting things happening. Movements can exist without getting things to happen the way they want! Reread my previous post.
    You said that the people had been pushing for it for decades, I asked why didn't they do it in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's or early 80's, and then you said that the commission formed in 1980 really got the ball rolling. You tried to make the case that it was a steady push for decades to explain the timing of the reparations, and then you changed it. So, I stand by what I said. You contradicted yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    Reparations for Japanese Americans and Aleutians was for something specific. Their habeas corpus rights were violated. Just as Jose Padilla is suing currently suing the federal government for (alleged) abuse when he was imprisoned. There's nothing specific like that that you can claim for slavery.

    "40 acres and a mule" comes from an order issued by General Sherman. That order lost its legality when Lincoln was assassinated. It was never a law.

    You're conflating modern-day moral views of slavery and treatment of American Indians with 19th century legal standards. The two ne'er shall meet.
    Really? The laws specified that slaves weren't even full human beings and weren't entitled to the same rights, which includes specific things like owning property or habeas corpus.

    And FDR signed an executive order for the internment of the Japanese Americans, which made it the 'law' at the time. Just like Bush signed executive orders authorizing torture, which made it 'legal' even though it wasn't.

    And at the time slavery and the mistreatment of the Indians were considered 'legal' but they were still opposed by people who thought both practices were wrong.

    And aren't you conflating modern moral views of Japanese internment with 1940's legal standards? Because at the time there were many Americans who happily agreed that interning the Japanese was a good idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    Japanese Americans and Aleutians who received reparations were still living. Those who are slaves are not.
    Well, according to you, if the U.S. government was so concerned with 'righting a wrong' then why didn't they offer any restitution to the freed slaves at the time? Are to the Native Americans at the time?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    No, it's not. You're thinking that everyone would be automatically against a law like this, which is why you're posting like it's something impossible. The congressmen and senators such as Norm Mineta responsible for passing the bill had seniority in Congress by the time the law was passed. Seniority is everything in Congress. It's the same reason why Alaska got so much money from the federal government via earmarks when Ted Stevens was on the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. He was the ranking Republican or the Chair depending upon the point in time you examine. Seniority is everything when it comes to getting things done there.
    No, what I'm thinking is based on U.S. history. And the U.S. does NOT have a history of openly going out of it's way to 'right the wrongs' against minority groups. And senority in Congress doesn't count for anything when getting the U.S. to suddenly cut checks for a group that it wronged. But why didn't any senior senators push it through decades earlier if they've got so much clout?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    No, my rationale makes sense under THE LAW. That's what it's based on. Not conflating current moral outrage with ex post facto views of the law. Congress only apologized because their collective sense of shame finally kicked in. It's the only thing that overrided sitting on their asses this time. Your "economic power" rationale makes no sense since the US would have had to gain something from Japan to make it work. No such thing ever happened.
    And you keep forgetting that under the executive order that FDR signed the internment was the 'law.' It was wrong, but it was still the law.

    Let's look at the timeline, at the end of slavery an order was issued for reparations, it was overturned, and then well over a century later the U.S. suddenly decides to apologize for slavery when Obama becomes president.

    But even with all of that, you still believe that it's just completely ridiculous that the U.S. choosing to pay out reparations has NOTHING to do with Japan's rise as an economic power, even though the timing matches up. I guess the timing for the apology for slavery and the reparations to the Japanese were just simple coincidences?

  4. #49
    Elite Member bychance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,299

    Default

    I agree with King.

  5. #50
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    You said that the people had been pushing for it for decades, I asked why didn't they do it in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's or early 80's, and then you said that the commission formed in 1980 really got the ball rolling. You tried to make the case that it was a steady push for decades to explain the timing of the reparations, and then you changed it. So, I stand by what I said. You contradicted yourself.
    Fine. Whatever. I know what I meant.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Really? The laws specified that slaves weren't even full human beings and weren't entitled to the same rights, which includes specific things like owning property or habeas corpus.

    And FDR signed an executive order for the internment of the Japanese Americans, which made it the 'law' at the time. Just like Bush signed executive orders authorizing torture, which made it 'legal' even though it wasn't.
    Habeas corpus can only be revoked by Congress! Reread the Constitution while you're at it. It cannot constitutionally be revoked by the president via executive order.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    And at the time slavery and the mistreatment of the Indians were considered 'legal' but they were still opposed by people who thought both practices were wrong.
    So? What does this have to do with anything? Slavery was legal once upon a time. That doesn't change whether or not I think it was immoral. There are people who are against US drug laws because they consider them to be wrong and immoral. That doesn't change them from being the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    And aren't you conflating modern moral views of Japanese internment with 1940's legal standards? Because at the time there were many Americans who happily agreed that interning the Japanese was a good idea.
    No, because the US Constitution mandates that only Congress has the authority to revoke habeas corpus. Which means that has been the law since the Constitution's ratification. Slavery was legal once upon a time under the Constitution. Then it wasn't. Not the same thing at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Well, according to you, if the U.S. government was so concerned with 'righting a wrong' then why didn't they offer any restitution to the freed slaves at the time? Are to the Native Americans at the time?
    For the slaves: Andrew Johnson and Congress decided against it. Regarding Native Americans, you need to be a bit more specific as there are multitudes of different incidents. In many instances, tribes were considered autonomous nations, which is why we signed treaties with many of them. And they were not afforded any kind of constitutional rights until those treaties were signed. All I've been stating is based on the law. Do you not understand that?

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    No, what I'm thinking is based on U.S. history. And the U.S. does NOT have a history of openly going out of it's way to 'right the wrongs' against minority groups. And senority in Congress doesn't count for anything when getting the U.S. to suddenly cut checks for a group that it wronged. But why didn't any senior senators push it through decades earlier if they've got so much clout?
    Oh really? And they apologized in 1993 for the overthrow of the Hawaiian government for what reason? Sheer frivolity?

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    And you keep forgetting that under the executive order that FDR signed the internment was the 'law.' It was wrong, but it was still the law.
    An unconstitutional executive order. As I stated above.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Let's look at the timeline, at the end of slavery an order was issued for reparations, it was overturned, and then well over a century later the U.S. suddenly decides to apologize for slavery when Obama becomes president.
    Sherman's order was not "overturned." It was no longer in effect after Lincoln was assassinated. Sherman had no legal authority beyond what the president gave him. A change in presidents means a change in his authority. It was never on par with an executive order.

    And as I said above, Congress' collective shame kicked in after Obama won the election. That's all there is to it. Bill Clinton once mentioned that there should have been an apology when he was president. It's not like it wasn't talked about for years before it happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    But even with all of that, you still believe that it's just completely ridiculous that the U.S. choosing to pay out reparations has NOTHING to do with Japan's rise as an economic power, even though the timing matches up. I guess the timing for the apology for slavery and the reparations to the Japanese were just simple coincidences?
    No, I don't believe that. There's no evidence for it. Face it King, the US government has never discriminated against minority groups equally. That's all there is to it. Just because blacks were discriminated against in one way doesn't mean the Japanese Americans are going to receive the exact same treatment.

  6. #51
    Elite Member BITTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Apocalyptic
    Posts
    26,909

    Default

    I'll take it. An apology is overdue.

  7. #52
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    Fine. Whatever. I know what I meant.

    Habeas corpus can only be revoked by Congress! Reread the Constitution while you're at it. It cannot constitutionally be revoked by the president via executive order.

    So? What does this have to do with anything? Slavery was legal once upon a time. That doesn't change whether or not I think it was immoral. There are people who are against US drug laws because they consider them to be wrong and immoral. That doesn't change them from being the law.


    No, because the US Constitution mandates that only Congress has the authority to revoke habeas corpus. Which means that has been the law since the Constitution's ratification. Slavery was legal once upon a time under the Constitution. Then it wasn't. Not the same thing at all.

    For the slaves: Andrew Johnson and Congress decided against it. Regarding Native Americans, you need to be a bit more specific as there are multitudes of different incidents. In many instances, tribes were considered autonomous nations, which is why we signed treaties with many of them. And they were not afforded any kind of constitutional rights until those treaties were signed. All I've been stating is based on the law. Do you not understand that?

    Oh really? And they apologized in 1993 for the overthrow of the Hawaiian government for what reason? Sheer frivolity?

    An unconstitutional executive order. As I stated above.

    Sherman's order was not "overturned." It was no longer in effect after Lincoln was assassinated. Sherman had no legal authority beyond what the president gave him. A change in presidents means a change in his authority. It was never on par with an executive order.

    And as I said above, Congress' collective shame kicked in after Obama won the election. That's all there is to it. Bill Clinton once mentioned that there should have been an apology when he was president. It's not like it wasn't talked about for years before it happened.

    No, I don't believe that. There's no evidence for it. Face it King, the US government has never discriminated against minority groups equally. That's all there is to it. Just because blacks were discriminated against in one way doesn't mean the Japanese Americans are going to receive the exact same treatment.
    Really? The U.S. has never discriminated against minorities in the exact same way? Wow. I never would've suspected that. At what point did I say, or imply, that the U.S. discriminated against minorities equally? Oh that's right. I didn't say it or imply it.

    You keep trying to make this an issue about habeas corpus, as if that's what it's about. Which it isn't. Slavery was considered legal at one point, but the U.S. didn't legally have the right to wipe out the Indians and steal their land. But the U.S. didn't suddenly make reparations to the Native Americans.

    The U.S. had been helping Japan out financially with post-war funding that pretty much started to taper off in the 50's. Now if the U.S. was so gung-ho to make things right with reparations then why didn't they do it at the same time that they were already helping out Japan? Why wait until the late 80's?

    The U.S. apology to Hawaii came AFTER the reparations to Japanese Americans, which goes back to my point about the U.S. not having a history of going out of it's way to 'right the wrongs' against minorities in the U.S. in relation to the Japanese reparations.

    And this isn't just about how blacks were treated. It's about how ALL minority groups were treated at one point in America. And the U.S. didn't suddenly go out of it's way to make reparations for any of them, but they suddenly felt the need to do it for Japanese Americans?

    Look, if you want to believe that the U.S. solely paid out reparations to Japanese Americans out of the kindness of it's heart, and nothing else was at play, then you believe that. It's naive, but go ahead and believe it.

  8. #53
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,255

    Default

    I'm not sure what an apology would prove but i'll accept it. If only we could help end slavery that is happening now...

  9. #54
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Really? The U.S. has never discriminated against minorities in the exact same way? Wow. I never would've suspected that. At what point did I say, or imply, that the U.S. discriminated against minorities equally? Oh that's right. I didn't say it or imply it.
    It's the basis for your entire rationale: no reparations for blacks due to slavery or Indians for everything; therefore, reparations for Japanese and Aleutian Americans MUST be due to Japan's economic status. Really, you've been inferring it from your first post
    The U.S. screwed over Native Americans, but never gave out cash reparations, same with free slaves, same with Irish immigrants who were treated like shit. The U.S. only did that because Japan was/is a major economic power, not out of any sense to set things right.
    Because if you really believe that the US government didn't discriminated equally, I have a hard time believing that you'd come up with a more nonsensical theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    You keep trying to make this an issue about habeas corpus, as if that's what it's about. Which it isn't. Slavery was considered legal at one point, but the U.S. didn't legally have the right to wipe out the Indians and steal their land. But the U.S. didn't suddenly make reparations to the Native Americans.
    Regarding the Native Americans: that's why it's called WAR. We waged war against the Native Americans. My entire argument regarding reparations for those interned has been based on the LAW. It's not even apples & oranges.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    The U.S. had been helping Japan out financially with post-war funding that pretty much started to taper off in the 50's. Now if the U.S. was so gung-ho to make things right with reparations then why didn't they do it at the same time that they were already helping out Japan? Why wait until the late 80's?
    Gee, why did the civil rights bill that LBJ signed not happen until 1964? I mean, the civil war had concluded almost a hundred years before. Guess African-Americans weren't interested in lobbying for them until the 60s...

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    The U.S. apology to Hawaii came AFTER the reparations to Japanese Americans, which goes back to my point about the U.S. not having a history of going out of it's way to 'right the wrongs' against minorities in the U.S. in relation to the Japanese reparations.
    No, it doesn't. And the fact that the apology comes after reparations for WWII means squat. Are they supposed to apologize in chronological order now?
    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    And this isn't just about how blacks were treated. It's about how ALL minority groups were treated at one point in America. And the U.S. didn't suddenly go out of it's way to make reparations for any of them, but they suddenly felt the need to do it for Japanese Americans?
    And what is IT that you're referring to? The apology for slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Look, if you want to believe that the U.S. solely paid out reparations to Japanese Americans out of the kindness of it's heart, and nothing else was at play, then you believe that. It's naive, but go ahead and believe it.
    I'm not naive. I know how bills are passed in Congress. You want to overlook and deny that so you can continue with your argument that Japanese and Aleutian Americans received reparations because of Japan's economy in the 80s. The law for reparations was restricted to American citizens and legal residents. Tying it to Japan's economy is flat out ridiculous. Find a history or political science professor who believes that notion. Really, King, you should. No one is going to buy that argument.

  10. #55
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    I mentioned the U.S. helping out Japan after WWII in relation to reparations to those interned, and you bring up the Civil Rights Bill? What does that have to do with anything? It wasn't any form of reparation or restitution.

    My entire point about the reparations to Japanese Americans coinciding with Japan's economic rise/success is more realistic than your belief that the U.S. suddenly decided to become altruistic toward a minority group that it wronged.

    Japan, which had rising trade relations with the U.S., was hitting it's peak as a true economic power in the late 80's and the U.S. suddenly agreed to pay out reparations in the late 80's. Just like Obama was sworn in as president in 2009 and the U.S. suddenly apologized for slavery in 2009. These are not coincidences. The U.S. did the right thing in both cases, but was motivated by external events.

    Fluffy, we can keep going around in circles, but this debate has gotten redundant. You believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe.

  11. #56
    Elite Member TheONe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Beantown
    Posts
    5,507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post


    Native Americans did not and do not get "reparations." They have tribal sovereignty, which is why they are allowed to self govern and have casinos. We signed treaties with them waaay back when. Treaties that we don't always honor.

    I stand corrected
    "My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable and I'm just ferocious. I want your heart. I want to eat your children. Praise be to Allah." TEAM MILEY!!

  12. #57
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    I mentioned the U.S. helping out Japan after WWII in relation to reparations to those interned, and you bring up the Civil Rights Bill? What does that have to do with anything? It wasn't any form of reparation or restitution.
    It's called sarcasm King. Regarding Japanese reparations you said:
    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    I asked why didn't they do it in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's or early 80's,
    So I asked a sarcastic question about why the civil rights movement waited until the 60s.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    Gee, why did the civil rights bill that LBJ signed not happen until 1964? I mean, the civil war had concluded almost a hundred years before. Guess African-Americans weren't interested in lobbying for them until the 60s...
    It is only fair by using your logic of why things don't happen instantaneously.Playing dumb now, are you King?

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    My entire point about the reparations to Japanese Americans coinciding with Japan's economic rise/success is more realistic than your belief that the U.S. suddenly decided to become altruistic toward a minority group that it wronged.
    Good grief, you've clearly never taken a law class. You're still conflating morality with legality. Whatever it takes for you to maintain that bizarro idea of yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Japan, which had rising trade relations with the U.S., was hitting it's peak as a true economic power in the late 80's and the U.S. suddenly agreed to pay out reparations in the late 80's. Just like Obama was sworn in as president in 2009 and the U.S. suddenly apologized for slavery in 2009. These are not coincidences. The U.S. did the right thing in both cases, but was motivated by external events.
    Of course, it couldn't have been that the current members of Congress were co-sponsors of the bill because they remembered people they knew who had been interned or had constituents that were interned or were senators of a state that had internment camps, such as Orrin Hatch who was a co-sponsor of the bill. No, that's just too damn logical. Because in the world according to you, King, issues regarding African-Americans in Congress are dictated by domestic affairs like the civil rights movement while those regarding Japanese Americans are dictated by their mother country. Your own theory is full of holes. The 1988 law specifically stipulates that only American citizens and permanent legal residents could receive payment. No Japanese living in Japan who weren't American citizens could receive such a thing.

    I've even searched the internet to see if I could find a whack-job blog post supporting your theory. Can't find anything. Like I said earlier, you should really contact a history or political science professor about your idea. I'm sure they'd love to hear it this summer while they're on their breaks. They could always use a good laugh. If you don't know where to find one, you can email the professors who run the blog Rate Your Students (rateyourstudents[at]hotmail.com). They have plenty of contacts with which to pass around your bizarro idea!

  13. #58
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    It's called sarcasm King. Regarding Japanese reparations you said:So I asked a sarcastic question about why the civil rights movement waited until the 60s. It is only fair by using your logic of why things don't happen instantaneously.Playing dumb now, are you King?

    Good grief, you've clearly never taken a law class. You're still conflating morality with legality. Whatever it takes for you to maintain that bizarro idea of yours.

    Of course, it couldn't have been that the current members of Congress were co-sponsors of the bill because they remembered people they knew who had been interned or had constituents that were interned or were senators of a state that had internment camps, such as Orrin Hatch who was a co-sponsor of the bill. No, that's just too damn logical. Because in the world according to you, King, issues regarding African-Americans in Congress are dictated by domestic affairs like the civil rights movement while those regarding Japanese Americans are dictated by their mother country. Your own theory is full of holes. The 1988 law specifically stipulates that only American citizens and permanent legal residents could receive payment. No Japanese living in Japan who weren't American citizens could receive such a thing.

    I've even searched the internet to see if I could find a whack-job blog post supporting your theory. Can't find anything. Like I said earlier, you should really contact a history or political science professor about your idea. I'm sure they'd love to hear it this summer while they're on their breaks. They could always use a good laugh. If you don't know where to find one, you can email the professors who run the blog Rate Your Students (rateyourstudents[at]hotmail.com). They have plenty of contacts with which to pass around your bizarro idea!
    Fluffy, you can continue writing posts dripping with sarcasm, which just proves that you can't effectively prove your point. And trying to constantly shift the focus to me with 'King this' and the 'King that' is not only a poor deflection tactic but a weak attempt to put me on the defensive. It's not going to work. But it just proves even moreso that you can't effectively argue your point. Which is why this debate has become redundant.

    I've pretty much remained consistent on what I'm saying, while you keep dragging everything but the kitchen sink into the debate to try and prove your point, and still failing to do so.

    And I stand by my theory because certain historical events lend some credence to it. History lends no credence to your theory, which is why you have to bring in things like the Civil Rights Act. Hell, why not bring up the U.S. giving women the right to vote? It would've made just as much sense.

    Oh, by the way, it was some of my college professors and teachers who mentioned the connection between Japan's economic rise and reparations to me back in the 90's. And based on U.S. history it had come credence, which is more than your theory does.

  14. #59
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Fluffy, you can continue writing posts dripping with sarcasm, which just proves that you can't effectively prove your point. And trying to constantly shift the focus to me with 'King this' and the 'King that' is not only a poor deflection tactic but a weak attempt to put me on the defensive. It's not going to work. But it just proves even moreso that you can't effectively argue your point. Which is why this debate has become redundant.

    I've pretty much remained consistent on what I'm saying, while you keep dragging everything but the kitchen sink into the debate to try and prove your point, and still failing to do so.

    And I stand by my theory because certain historical events lend some credence to it. History lends no credence to your theory, which is why you have to bring in things like the Civil Rights Act. Hell, why not bring up the U.S. giving women the right to vote? It would've made just as much sense.

    Oh, by the way, it was some of my college professors and teachers who mentioned the connection between Japan's economic rise and reparations to me back in the 90's. And based on U.S. history it had come credence, which is more than your theory does.
    Yeah, and you engaged in no sarcasm what so ever either. Puh-lease... I've remained pretty consistent in what I've been saying. You dragged in FDR. Indians. Slavery. You've jumped around to a bunch of different topics. All in an attempt to dispute what I was saying. Nothing which has to do with the bill passed in 1988 and the legal rationales regarding it.

    And I don't believe you on your history professors. You're bringing them up now, after how many posts? How convenient. Like I said earlier, I can't even find shit on the internet to back up your claim. And I've tried more than once. If it was so credible, why is it that nothing has been posted by history professors online? I asked earlier for something backing you up. You posted nothing.

  15. #60
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    Yeah, and you engaged in no sarcasm what so ever either. Puh-lease... I've remained pretty consistent in what I've been saying. You dragged in FDR. Indians. Slavery. You've jumped around to a bunch of different topics. All in an attempt to dispute what I was saying. Nothing which has to do with the bill passed in 1988 and the legal rationales regarding it.

    And I don't believe you on your history professors. You're bringing them up now, after how many posts? How convenient. Like I said earlier, I can't even find shit on the internet to back up your claim. And I've tried more than once. If it was so credible, why is it that nothing has been posted by history professors online? I asked earlier for something backing you up. You posted nothing.
    Oh, I freely admit that I've done my share of sarcasm, but I've tried to stay on topic with it. And how is it convienent that I mention my former professors? You're the one that threw out this idea about talking to professors as if what I was saying was so laughable. As if your belief that the U.S. would cut checks to any minority group it wronged out of pure kindness is so believable.

    And I brought up slavery since this IS a thread about slavery. And the topics morphed into the Japanese and the Indians, and you chose to make an issue about my comment about the Japanese which led to this redundant debate. And I mentioned FDR since FDR's executive order is what led to the Japanese internment.

    By the way, the U.S. apology to Hawaii that you mentioned just so happened to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the overthrow. So, once again, another example of the U.S. attempting to make amends with a minority group motivated by external factors and not out of the goodness of their heart.

    And I also studied the trade relations between the U.S. and Japan at the time as Japan neared it's economic boom of the late 80's, and there was friction over U.S. access to Japanese markets. The U.S. & Japan reached a resolution on the matter, which benefited Japan more. But it was also around the same time the U.S. agreed to pay reparations to Japanese Americans. Not a coincidence.

    And I was never disputing the motivations behind the push for reparations to Japanese Americans. My original point has been that the U.S. doesn't try to make amends with minority groups it wronged out of kindness, but motivated by external events of the time. And in the case of the Japanese Americans, Hawaii and slavery that's been shown. Because neither Japanese American reparations or the apology to Hawaii and African Americans happened in a vacuum without external events being a factor.
    Last edited by kingcap72; June 25th, 2009 at 06:37 PM.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 28th, 2009, 10:56 PM
  2. How the Republican Party has conned America for thirty years
    By Fluffy in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 9th, 2009, 02:42 PM
  3. Sex slavery: Living the American nightmare
    By celeb_2006 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 23rd, 2008, 05:13 AM
  4. NY couple convicted in slavery case
    By Chalet in forum News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 17th, 2007, 11:31 PM
  5. Replies: 17
    Last Post: February 8th, 2007, 12:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •