[Knight Templar]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not really claiming anything, especially about Indians. I am saying why African Americans are filing for reparations from the governement, and why they could have legal and moral grounds for receiving them, as they are.

You brought up Indians, which for a number of reasons, in addition to my relatively uneducated guesses, are an entirely seperate case with different circumstances. History and the way government's relationship with them now would seem to agree.

Also, something relevant: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6432157.stm

[karajorma]

Notice that the story you have posted is people complaining about what was actually done to them not to their ancestors. If black people were suing the government for stuff that happened under segregation I'd have no problem with it, same as I don't have with these Norwegian people suing the government.

However once you leave actual harm done to you personally by actions taken while you were alive you get into a whole different ball game. Cause where do you draw the line? Can the poorer white people in America sue the UK for the religious repression that caused them to flee the UK? Can the descendants of the Christans burned by the Romans sue them?

[Knight Templar]

Don't ask me, ask the US Judiciary.

It'd stand to reason though that if your government legally oppressed your grandfather through segregation, substantially diminishing the quality of his life, culture and community, which proceeds to affect his people's, and by relation, your status in society - then that same government decides some decades later that it was actually in error, you'd probably be a little "peeved" and expect something in return more than some words.

Racism doesn't end at a single person or with a single generation. I think you're missing the fact that a lot of the people looking for compensation have on some level or another, found themselves affected ("harmed") personally by it. In fact, I'd say that that's the reason they're looking for compensation. If they hadn't been harmed by it, they probably wouldn't be looking for anything in the first place.

[Nuclear1]

Alright kids, so what have we learned today?

Affirmative action is reverse racism.

No matter the wrong, no minority or oppressed group should seek to punish the descendants of the racists for the sins of the father.

Both of the above do little to amend past discrimination, but only remind people in a very inappropriate way of how certain groups' ancestors were treated.

[Ulala]

Affirmative action is basically good racism.

[karajorma]

Supposedly. I tend to think that some of the ways it's applied do more harm than good.

Don't ask me, ask the US Judiciary.

It'd stand to reason though that if your government legally oppressed your grandfather through segregation, substantially diminishing the quality of his life, culture and community, which proceeds to affect his people's, and by relation, your status in society - then that same government decides some decades later that it was actually in error, you'd probably be a little "peeved" and expect something in return more than some words.

Racism doesn't end at a single person or with a single generation. I think you're missing the fact that a lot of the people looking for compensation have on some level or another, found themselves affected ("harmed") personally by it. In fact, I'd say that that's the reason they're looking for compensation. If they hadn't been harmed by it, they probably wouldn't be looking for anything in the first place.

But everyone can look back on something that happened in their past and say that their life would be better if that hadn't happened. It's nonsensical to say this happened to my grandparents and my life is **** because of it.


But okay. Give it your best shot. What do you think should be done to redress this supposed injustice then? Go ahead.