Those *dangerous* Korean War relics

Allen wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an ancestor
did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army
during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with
interest.

...

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. ...

Who would pay the reparations?

Recall that I wrote:

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly because they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

All your examples include awards from a
governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.

The US Goverment permitted ownership of slaves and even arrested
freed slaves and returned them to slavery. That's roughly analogous

to allowing settlers to violate the treaty boundaries and then
sending
the calvary in to protect them.

The legality of slavery makes it impractical to sue for those
injustices,
this differentiates it from the treaty issue. It does not make such a

suit unjust.

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...

Allen wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an ancestor
did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army
during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with
interest.

...

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. ...

Who would pay the reparations?

Recall that I wrote:

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly because they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

Yet you continue to champion the cause.

All your examples include awards from a
governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.

The US Goverment permitted ownership of slaves and even arrested
freed slaves and returned them to slavery. That's roughly analogous

to allowing settlers to violate the treaty boundaries and then
sending the calvary in to protect them.

The legality of slavery makes it impractical to sue for those
injustices, this differentiates it from the treaty issue. It does not
make such a
suit unjust.

So if it were not impractical you are in favor of having your tax dollars go
to some group of yet to be identified persons in some yet to be determined
amount? My ancestors came to the United States after he Civil War. Are we
included in the payor group?

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve by your stance.

Allen

Allen wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Allen wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an ancestor
did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army
during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with
interest.

...

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. ...

Who would pay the reparations?

Recall that I wrote:

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly because they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

Yet you continue to champion the cause.

All your examples include awards from a
governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.

The US Goverment permitted ownership of slaves and even arrested
freed slaves and returned them to slavery. That's roughly analogous

to allowing settlers to violate the treaty boundaries and then
sending the calvary in to protect them.

The legality of slavery makes it impractical to sue for those
injustices, this differentiates it from the treaty issue. It does not
make such a
suit unjust.

So if it were not impractical you are in favor of having your tax dollars go
to some group of yet to be identified persons in some yet to be determined
amount?

Compensating the descendants of slaves for the value of the labor
stolen from them would be just. Compensating Native Americans
for the land stolen from their ancestors would be just. Compensating
the descendants of the New Christians for the property confiscated
from them in Spain would be just. And so on, marching on back
to the dawn of civilization. But there is no practical way to do
that while maintaining any semblance of justice. **** rolls
downhill and it sucks to be at the bottom of that hill.

The best we can do is promise to fair in the future, and offer
compassion and assitance but most importantly opportunity
for those in need regardless of how they got there.

My ancestors came to the United States after he Civil War. Are we
included in the payor group?

Did our ancestors come to this country voluntarily? Did they
implicitly agree to take responsibility for the nation's debts
as then determined and as yet to be determined, when they
became citizens?


I don't understand what you are trying to achieve by your stance.


It is a great tragedy that so many 'take a stance' because
they want to achieve something. While commonplace, that's
putting the cart before the horse. A 'stance' by whcih I presume
you mean a statment of putative facts and premises, should
always be what the taker honestly believes to be historical
reality and moral principle. Then, and only then should
the taker decide upon what, if anything they should try to
achieve.

There are many reasons why people 'take a stance' based
on what they want ot achieve, rather then vice-versa, all
of them bad. In some cases, they want to achieve
unjust enrichment for themselves or have other illegal, or
immoral goals. After all, vice shares one characteristic with
virtue, each is its own reward. Some people delude them-
elves into thinking that what they want to achieve is a
good thing despite being unable to find a factual stance to
support that. So they invent one. Others have learned that
their stance is unpopular and so adopt one they do not
truly believe in, but which they hope will be more persuasive.
Others simply want to avoid uncomfortable truths that
objectivity makes evident.

That last applies here. Reparations would be just for
a lot of people, but they are getting none notwithstanding.
That's my stance.

As to what I'm trying to achieve in this thread,
I'm simply trying to answer your questions.

--

FF