
272 Slaves Were Sold to Save Georgetown. What Does It Owe Their Descendants? - hvo
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/us/georgetown-university-search-for-slave-descendants.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fnyregion&action=click&contentCollection=nyregion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
======
Omniusaspirer
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any of us whose ancestors didn't suffer
some sort of injustice when judged by today's standards. Most of us aren't
expecting to get paid for things that happened over 100 years before we were
born and would get laughed at if we started demanding reparations. Why is
slavery in the US viewed through this special lens where we're all supposed to
take the idea of compensation for great-great-great-great-grandchildren
seriously?

~~~
JacobJans
It's not just about the past; it is about the persistent and continual racism
that has continued, unabated, for hundreds of years.

It is incorrect to think the mistakes made over 100 years ago are no longer
connected to the realities of today.

Racism is real. It exists in the United States right now – it never went away.

Reparations isn't just about healing the old wounds of the past – its also
about closing the gaping wounds of the present.

~~~
brbsix
To make reparations (specifically of the non-voluntary sort) to one particular
group is to cause harm to another group. This should be self-evident, but we
can look at practical examples (e.g. World War I reparations which harmed both
sides).

It is really moral or worthwhile to open new wounds (notably to entirely
innocent parties) in the present in an attempt to rectify past injustice? We
don't punish the children of murderers for their parent's offenses, let alone
the descendants of their neighbors.

~~~
geofft
> We don't punish the children of murderers for their parent's offenses, let
> alone the descendants of their neighbors.

I'm not totally sure that's true, under your definition of "punish" (or at
least of "cause harm"). If a convicted murderer writes some memoirs, there are
laws that prevent them from profiting off their story, and often allow the
families of victims to sue for those profits. This applies even if the
murderer is personally unable to use that money (due to being in prison, being
on death row, etc.) and is just trying to provide for their children.

If the victims' families discover a few years later that profitable memoirs
were published, I believe they can still sue to recover that money, even if it
means taking money out of an innocent child's college fund.

~~~
brbsix
Here's a quote from the "Son of Sam law" Wikipedia page:

    
    
        In certain cases a Son of Sam law can be extended beyond the criminals themselves to include friends, neighbors, and family members of the lawbreaker who seek to profit by telling publishers and filmmakers of their relation to the criminal. In other cases, a person may not financially benefit from the sale of a story or any other mementos pertaining to the crime.
    

It goes on to say:

    
    
        With the advent of the Internet and online sales, many Son of Sam laws are now targeting the sale of so-called "murderabilia". Few courts have yet issued opinions regarding the constitutionality of many of these new laws.
    

Dumbfounded as I may be, you're clearly right on that.

~~~
geofft
So, although I agree that seems unjust at first glance, I think there's (at
least) the following good reason for it: if there was an exemption for profits
that have been transferred to a young child or other innocent relation, it
would be obviously reasonable to write those memoirs and immediately assign
your copyright interest to your child (or to their trust), which would defeat
the whole point of the law. (It might also be reasonable to engineer some
complex situation where you assign your interest to a buddy, who then helps
you out; instead of going after the vague benefit you get from the buddy, the
law just goes after the ill-gotten gains wherever they ended up.) To avoid
that situation, the law takes the position that the benefit to your child
_never should have existed in the first place_ , and it's not a harm to them
for it to disappear.

Or, as a simpler example: if I rob a bank at gunpoint and then give the money
to my children, the bank can recover that money despite it having passed out
of my hands. We don't consider that harming the children, despite them being
innocent of my crime. Even if they grew up expecting that money to be
available to them for college, it is _my_ crime and _my_ action that made that
promise to them. The money can be returned to its rightful owner, and only I
am responsible for having promised money to them that I never rightfully had.

The same thinking applies to reparations, although I readily concede that it's
much more complicated. If A gained through what we now concede is
unambiguously a violation of B's basic human rights, and A passed those gains
onto their descendants, and B passed their losses onto their descendants, A's
descendants unjustly have a slightly better station in life than they should,
and B's a slightly worse station. (Of course, defining how much better/worse
over hundreds of years is tricky, but the theoretical basis for this analysis
is sound.) To improve the situation for B's descendants, even at the possible
cost of worsening the situation for A's descendants, is just: as long as it
does not make A's descendants any worse off than they _should have_ been had
the crime never occurred, it is not a harm to them to take away a gain they
should have never had.

~~~
brbsix
> if I rob a bank at gunpoint and then give the money to my children, the bank
> can recover that money despite it having passed out of my hands.

It would help to have an expert legal opinion, but I don't believe this is
true, particularly if the sum has been spent (as any and all ill-gotten gains
from slavery would be). In civil suits, you can't replevy cash as such.

    
    
        The question of replevin becomes moot should the item in question no longer exist as an entity, i.e. if it is destroyed, or in the case of a bag of money, for instance, if the money has been spent. For this reason, the item is normally seized by the court when the action is filed and held until the decision is reached to prevent the waste of a legal action over a nonexistent object and, further, to ensure that the item in question is not destroyed, spent, etc., during the action. [0]
    

> To improve the situation for B's descendants, even at the possible cost of
> worsening the situation for A's descendants, is just: as long as it does not
> make A's descendants any worse off than they should have been had the crime
> never occurred, it is not a harm to them to take away a gain they should
> have never had.

I find this to be a terrifying prospect, particularly if it is applied
consistently (and why wouldn't it be, if it is indeed just). Great ills have
(and presumably will be perpetrated) under such justifications. There are far
too many to list, so here are just a few hypotheticals: Title to lands in the
Middle East (is X justified to seize it from Y as if it never changed hands?).
In the case of the some 16 million odd descendants of Genghis Khan, how do you
even begin to undo an empire?. Did they benefit from their status or did they
suffer as children borne out of rape (or whatever the case may be)? Do we also
attempt to undo past injustices when they result in far greater benefit to the
descendants of victims than would have been received in the absence of
victimization (e.g. descendants of American slaves enjoying a significantly
higher standard of living versus had they been born, or not born as the case
may be, in Africa)? Many of these reparation scenarios, (specifically if they
effectively "take away a gain they should have never had"), resign people to
death.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replevin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replevin)

------
nickodell
Why only provide reparations to the descendants of the slaves that were sold?
It's not like Georgetown freed the slaves that it didn't sell.

------
adelaidesj
There is no current United States citizen whose entire group continues to
experience the effects of the historic slavery intentionally practiced by
primarily European descent persons on African descent persons. The most
economically physically ill European descent individual is better off than the
African descent individual with economic and medical challenges. That is a
statistical reality.

Completing the telling of the story of our shared history would likely alter
the thinking and comments several have written, which seem to say, "get over
it," or "I"m innocent, I wasn't there." The reality is nothing would please me
more than to live in a country where "over it" was the climate and current
behaviors and practices reflected a more complete knowledge of United States
history.

That world wide slavery is a reality still, is an indication we are not ready
to not have that be the case. That is an indictment of all humanity.

------
powera
This seems purely like a tax on being an old organization.

~~~
LyndsySimon
Taxes are imposed by force - it doesn't sound like anyone is forcing GU to act
here.

I'm _completely_ opposed to the idea of enforced "reparations", but a
University voluntarily building a monument to honor a specific group of people
it feels it harmed improperly and perhaps establishing a scholarship fund for
their descendants seems like a reasonable and honorable thing to do.

------
brandonmenc
Free tuition. (for starters.)

------
kauffj
Nothing.

------
toomanythings2
In the 1700s, some Europeans clubbed one of my relatives to death. Where's my
money?

~~~
markdown
He was a murderer and a rapist who got what he deserved. You don't get any
money.

~~~
iofj
I'm sure that by current legal standards, that statement is very much not
true.

