Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bubbalicious wrote:
So..
When are the african "nations" who captured and sold the slaves going to apologise for their actions? And why is nobody blaming them for their part in the slave trade?

Just wondering...

Probably never, because none of them exist. That map of Africa in your world Geography Text Book describes political borders that only came into existence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The United States on the other hand still exists, and has apologized for slavery, not that an apology does much good to people suffering the long term consequences.

 LordofHats wrote:

Bubbalicious wrote:
So..
When are the african "nations" who captured and sold the slaves going to apologise for their actions? And why is nobody blaming them for their part in the slave trade?

Just wondering...

Probably never, because none of them exist. That map of Africa in your world Geography Text Book describes political borders that only came into existence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The United States on the other hand still exists, and has apologized for slavery, not that an apology does much good to people suffering the long term consequences.

A lot of slavery in the USA pre-dates the USA, because it was done by British North America. It's a legal minefield!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There is a very good case to be made for apologizing to and compensating living African-Americans who suffered from segregation and Jim Crow laws in the 1960s.

But historical slavery? We've had a similar debate in Britain over the role of the British Empire and the part it played in introducing slavery to North America, and the conclusion was this: Yes, we're sorry it happened, and it was an evil, disgusting crime against humanity, but why should we be held responsible for something that happened 200 years ago. Nobody alive is to blame for what happened.

A lot of British cities were built from money made from the slave trade. The logical thing to do would be to knock them down, but I doubt if that would be a popular move.

a few of the grand buildings in england are built on that blood money
no ones called to demolish them seriously.

UK, why do we pay for 200 year old crimes?
there long dead, we never did them, take your law suit somewhere else

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There is a very good case to be made for apologizing to and compensating living African-Americans who suffered from segregation and Jim Crow laws in the 1960s.

But historical slavery? We've had a similar debate in Britain over the role of the British Empire and the part it played in introducing slavery to North America, and the conclusion was this: Yes, we're sorry it happened, and it was an evil, disgusting crime against humanity, but why should we be held responsible for something that happened 200 years ago. Nobody alive is to blame for what happened.

A lot of British cities were built from money made from the slave trade. The logical thing to do would be to knock them down, but I doubt if that would be a popular move.

a few of the grand buildings in england are built on that blood money
no ones called to demolish them seriously.

UK, why do we pay for 200 year old crimes?
there long dead, we never did them, take your law suit somewhere else

Half of Glasgow was built on the slave trade, and we've had a few SJWs, albeit a tiny minority, calling for buildings and statues to be ripped down.

Examples of street names include: Jamaica street, Virginia street, Tobacco street, and streets named after various individuals who owned most of Jamaica and other parts of the Caribbean at one time or another.

Thaere's a very good argument that says that one of the principal causes of the American revolution was Britain's abolition of slavery, which panicked the Southern slave owners...

Well if thats the case when do I get my money?

My grandparents had their farm burned down twice and had their live stock stolen and crops stolen for nearly 20+ years. My grandmother was yugoslavin and got beaten ect.

The locals of nova scotia at the time where not to friendly to those who worked hard. We are told not to talk about it but it was by native americans who hated us. Even tho my grandfather worked in the mines from 15 til 17 then was sent to ww2. Only to have them attack his wife while he was away.

So, is the UN going to pay reparations for what the Brits and all other Europeans have done to promote/extend the slave trade? What about what they did to the Incans and Aztecs? What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?

I'm not saying that slavery isn't wrong, it was a terrible vile thing that was done. But seeking justice for 200 year old crimes is not the way to unite people as human beings. Rather it's just going to alienate people further.

also going a long way to help correct the problem is to acknowledge it happened and not pull nonsense like texas did with it's school books:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/publisher-promises-revisions-after-textbook-refers-to-african-slaves-as-workers.html

Page 126, a caption in a section about immigration referred to Africans brought to American plantations between the 1500s and 1800s as “workers” rather than slaves.

Then the constant denial from the south about how the civil war had nothing at all to do with slavery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/150-years-later-schools-are-still-a-battlefield-for-interpreting-civil-war/2015/07/05/e8fbd57e-2001-11e5-bf41-c23f5d3face1_story.html

Slavery was a “side issue to the Civil War,” said Pat Hardy, a Republican board member, when the board adopted the standards in 2010. “There would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states’ rights.”

It's hard to fix a problem when so many are still denying the problem.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There is a very good case to be made for apologizing to and compensating living African-Americans who suffered from segregation and Jim Crow laws in the 1960s.

The issue is that these were state and local level laws, not official policy of the United States government, and would be up to those states and localities to apologize for. The US government has already apologized and acknowledged its role in the slave trade before that, but the Jim Crow laws were not something it had a direct hand in.

A lot of British cities were built from money made from the slave trade. The logical thing to do would be to knock them down, but I doubt if that would be a popular move.

If we tore down every city built on wealth or direct labor of slaves and serfs, most major cities on earth would have to be torn down

sirlynchmob wrote:
also going a long way to help correct the problem is to acknowledge it happened and not pull nonsense like texas did with it's school books:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/publisher-promises-revisions-after-textbook-refers-to-african-slaves-as-workers.html

Page 126, a caption in a section about immigration referred to Africans brought to American plantations between the 1500s and 1800s as “workers” rather than slaves.

Then the constant denial from the south about how the civil war had nothing at all to do with slavery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/150-years-later-schools-are-still-a-battlefield-for-interpreting-civil-war/2015/07/05/e8fbd57e-2001-11e5-bf41-c23f5d3face1_story.html

Slavery was a “side issue to the Civil War,” said Pat Hardy, a Republican board member, when the board adopted the standards in 2010. “There would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states’ rights.”

It's hard to fix a problem when so many are still denying the problem.

Texas school districts are under no requirement to use that board's approved text list. Its a meaningless entity now, but like all government bureaucracies, it can never truly die.

 Frazzled wrote:


Texas school districts are under no requirement to use that board's approved text list. Its a meaningless entity now, but like all government bureaucracies, it can never truly die.

that sounds good on paper, but we both know texas distributes those books to many other states.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Texas school districts are under no requirement to use that board's approved text list. Its a meaningless entity now, but like all government bureaucracies, it can never truly die.

that sounds good on paper, but we both know texas distributes those books to many other states.

Sorry, you are incorrect Canadian. Texas doesn't write or publish textbooks. Its doesn't "distribute" textbooks out of state. Those are private publishers and its up to the state or local school boards of each state to decide what it wants to do.

 Orlanth wrote:
I am not surprised that I am correcting a UK based poster here, this sort of brainwashing was very prevalent in the Blair years, rights, particularly the empowerment to complain were increasingly selective dependent on protected status, and in the years since it has been hard to balance this as the indoctrination runs too deep. Of course the first point of defence is to accuse anyone who critiques the new direction as 'racist', an accusation that requires very little to back it up, does not allow for a platform for defence against the accusation and makes out the accuser to be a righteous protector of society.

Please don't flatter yourself by thinking you are "correcting" me. I'm not calling it racist as a point of defence, or because I'm brainwashed (by Blair politics of all things?). I'm calling it racist because its what racist people say. If you're really so incensed by the thought that someone might care about black people getting shot, that you need to hijack the movement and make it about "not black people" then there is really no better word for it. There are, of course, some people who just misinterpreted it, and decided to voice an opinion without finding out what they were talking about, and those people are known as "stupid". While I agree that being stupid doesn't necessarily make them racist, they still have nothing of value to contribute. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who can't be bothered to inform themselves, about things they consequently don't understand.

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Texas school districts are under no requirement to use that board's approved text list. Its a meaningless entity now, but like all government bureaucracies, it can never truly die.

that sounds good on paper, but we both know texas distributes those books to many other states.

Sorry, you are incorrect Canadian. Texas doesn't write or publish textbooks. Its doesn't "distribute" textbooks out of state. Those are private publishers and its up to the state or local school boards of each state to decide what it wants to do.

my bad, so who are you voting for to be placed on the school board?
it's not like they approve the text books being that private publishers make, no wait, they do

gotta love this board member:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/06/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/
“The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel,” McLeroy told Washington Monthly. “Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”

sure the schools might not be "required" to use those books, but I'd bet money all of them do. Which also lead to the nonsense about the slave trade & the civil war making it into the text books as the texas school board wanted.

oh they've even made a documentary about it:
http://www.therevisionariesmovie.com/background.html

The Texas board of education is the most influential group of educators in the USA and they hold enormous political and financial sway over textbook publishers. They are using their influence to inject a more Christian perspective into the curriculum and the nation's textbooks. Texas is one of the nation's largest textbook markets because it is one of the few where the state decides what books schools can buy rather than leaving it up to local districts, which means publishers that get their books approved can count on millions of dollars in sales. Further, publishers craft their standard textbooks based on the requirements of the biggest buyers. As a result, the Texas board has the power to shape the textbooks that children around the country read for years to come. Varying estimates claim that between 45% and 85% of American classrooms use Texas state textbooks (Univ. of Texas Study, Keith A. Erekson).

which basically counters everything you've just said

My bad, so who are you voting for to be placed on the school board?

***My local school board? That’s my business boyo.

it's not like they approve the text books being that private publishers make, no wait, they do

***Again, that’s the state board. By law school districts can choose the materials they desire. The state board is circumvented without issue.

gotta love this board member:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/06/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/
“The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel,” McLeroy told Washington Monthly. “Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”

***My kids to college history as a replacement in high school. I have no idea what the school version looks like. I know the JR. High one (which dealt with Texas history) was not the state version. It didn’t once mention the War of Northern Aggression nor the EVILS OF YANKEEs. Sad, truly sad. 

Historically however this state board (pretyy much comprised of two people) has been a big bone of contention by those who care ad don’t like Texas looking like Hicksville (most don’t), hence why the law was passed.

sure the schools might not be "required" to use those books, but I'd bet money all of them do.

You would lose that bet. Protip, you’re literally talking about issues related to individual independent school districts, without a reference base (being Canadian). You would have to re-search in some detail to have a better understanding of how that works. I would not presume to discuss Canadian local school district policies without similar knowledge.

oh they've even made a documentary about it:
http://www.therevisionariesmovie.com/background.html
The Texas board of education is the most influential group of educators in the USA

Not now. That would be California and New York, home to your screaming lefties.

which basically counters everything you've just said

Hardly. Also how did a thread about reparations become a hit piece of Texas by a Canadian??? Canada had slaves too.

who's canadian? look at the flag bro. the term you want is american living abroad. canada also took in all those fleeing the states during your war to keep slaves. yes as being a british colony to start they also had slavery, they stopped with the brits when it was finally outlawed, and they never went to war to keep slaves.

surely any reparations should include an admission the travesty happened, the appology for it, and to not erase it from history.

You want to apologize you can to do. The government already did and hundreds of thousands lost their lives freeing a people.

Its discussed pretty heavily where I am at. Don't know about you.

Where can I sign up for my money from Canada and England for being forced out of Canada, Ireland, Scotland, and Europe. Plus the Bolsheviks for having to bail. Additionally I want bucks from Russia, Austria, and Prussia for that whole opposing Europe's rightful ruler thing...;-)

and to be technical, canada never had slaves as it became it's own nation in 1867. Unless you want to admit that it was canada and not the brits who torched your white house 1814

LOL forced out of canada? LOL how does that go?

Canada "if it's no trouble to you, would you mind leaving please?"

I can imagine how it is discussed in texas, I've seen how the south describes the war during flag gate.

sirlynchmob wrote:
and to be technical, canada never had slaves as it became it's own nation in 1867. Unless you want to admit that it was canada and not the brits who torched your white house 1814

Canada owes my family money for forcing us out to go live in swamps and eat mediocre American food until we improved the cuisine. I want my reparations in Poutain and beignets.
Also the US owes Mexico for its evilz imperialism. As a native Tejan, I should be entitled. Gimme bank!

 jreilly89 wrote:
What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?

Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.

This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.

 sebster wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?

Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.

This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.

But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel

 jreilly89 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?

Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.

This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.

But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel

And France. And Ukraine, And Denmark, And Holland, And White Russia.

Giving money to Israel doesn't help the Jewish survivors. It helps Israel.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?

Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.

This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.

But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel

And France. And Ukraine, And Denmark, And Holland, And White Russia.

Giving money to Israel doesn't help the Jewish survivors. It helps Israel.

Before this one side-tracks any discussion on the topic: Germany paid reparations to Isreal, Poland, Greece, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, the SU and others, including dismantling of its industry and confiscation of intellectual property. It's all there in a neat little wikipedia article, guys.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?

Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.

This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.

But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel

And France. And Ukraine, And Denmark, And Holland, And White Russia.

Giving money to Israel doesn't help the Jewish survivors. It helps Israel.

And England. These types of deals get sticky when it comes down to "victims of war" vs. "victims of persecution". Do the English deserve reparations for being bombed, or is that chalked up to casualties of war?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There is a very good case to be made for apologizing to and compensating living African-Americans who suffered from segregation and Jim Crow laws in the 1960s.

But historical slavery? We've had a similar debate in Britain over the role of the British Empire and the part it played in introducing slavery to North America, and the conclusion was this: Yes, we're sorry it happened, and it was an evil, disgusting crime against humanity, but why should we be held responsible for something that happened 200 years ago. Nobody alive is to blame for what happened.

A lot of British cities were built from money made from the slave trade. The logical thing to do would be to knock them down, but I doubt if that would be a popular move.

a few of the grand buildings in england are built on that blood money
no ones called to demolish them seriously.

UK, why do we pay for 200 year old crimes?
there long dead, we never did them, take your law suit somewhere else

Half of Glasgow was built on the slave trade, and we've had a few SJWs, albeit a tiny minority, calling for buildings and statues to be ripped down.

Examples of street names include: Jamaica street, Virginia street, Tobacco street, and streets named after various individuals who owned most of Jamaica and other parts of the Caribbean at one time or another.

Thaere's a very good argument that says that one of the principal causes of the American revolution was Britain's abolition of slavery, which panicked the Southern slave owners...

oh yes, recently the Rhodes issue at Oxford or Cainbridge,.

calling for statue gone etc.
the past is the past... theres gak all we can do to change it.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?

Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.

This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.

But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel

And France. And Ukraine, And Denmark, And Holland, And White Russia.

Giving money to Israel doesn't help the Jewish survivors. It helps Israel.

Before this one side-tracks any discussion on the topic: Germany paid reparations to Isreal, Poland, Greece, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, the SU and others, including dismantling of its industry and confiscation of intellectual property. It's all there in a neat little wikipedia article, guys.

Thanks

I want my tea money, with interest. Come on America, pay up.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?

Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.

This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.

But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel

And France. And Ukraine, And Denmark, And Holland, And White Russia.

Giving money to Israel doesn't help the Jewish survivors. It helps Israel.

Before this one side-tracks any discussion on the topic: Germany paid reparations to Isreal, Poland, Greece, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, the SU and others, including dismantling of its industry and confiscation of intellectual property. It's all there in a neat little wikipedia article, guys.

Cheers. Interesting discussion:

Other countries who were not recipients of Reparations:
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
UK or Commonwealth countries
Norway
Austria
Luxembourg
Belgium

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
What about What Hitler did to the Jews? Is Germany going to pay reparations to their families?

Actually West Germany signed a reparations deal in the 1950s with Israel. They paid 3 billion marks to Israel over 14 years. This money was essential to Israel developing the infrastructure and machinery it needed to become a viable state.

This should show people how reparations programs can work. You don't just hand over cash to anyone with a historic claim - you put the money in to a pool and use it to expand economic capacity, invest in infrastructure and education. It should also be the clearest example of why reparations are basically wrong headed - you don't need some kind of historic victimhood to justify that kind of investment, it is what government should be doing for everyone born in to poverty.

But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel

And France. And Ukraine, And Denmark, And Holland, And White Russia.

Giving money to Israel doesn't help the Jewish survivors. It helps Israel.

Before this one side-tracks any discussion on the topic: Germany paid reparations to Isreal, Poland, Greece, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, the SU and others, including dismantling of its industry and confiscation of intellectual property. It's all there in a neat little wikipedia article, guys.

Cheers. Interesting discussion:

Other countries who were not recipients of Reparations:
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
UK or Commonwealth countries
Norway
Austria
Luxembourg
Belgium

The Parisian Reparation Treaty - which, for some reason, has no English wikipedia article, but a long German one, shows that the UK and Denmark - among a few others - were recipients of reparations indeed. I honestly can't find out about how much of this was done in which way, because the article states that Germany wasn't a part of this treaty so it wasn't considered binding - but since Germany was, in fact, a very much beaten nation at that point, perhaps its absence is not of importance. There is a table, so maybe the fact that it's in German isn't so bad:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariser_Reparationsabkommen

The UK planned to get about 28% of all reparation claims from Germany according to this. I can't find any immediate source telling me how much of this was actually executed.

 Witzkatz wrote:
I honestly can't find out about how much of this was done in which way, because the article states that Germany wasn't a part of this treaty so it wasn't considered binding - but since Germany was, in fact, a very much beaten nation at that point, perhaps its absence is not of importance. There is a table, so maybe the fact that it's in German isn't so bad:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pariser_Reparationsabkommen

The UK planned to get about 28% of all reparation claims from Germany according to this. I can't find any immediate source telling me how much of this was actually executed.

The part I highlighted is important, and explains why even if the UN blesses off on this recommendation the US response should be to tell them to feth off. It is easy for the winning side to coerce reparations from a losing nation, especially one wracked with societal guilt over the VERY recent past. I don't think you will find the US in a similar position.

sebster wrote:I know its fun to get all outraged about the UN, but you guys are really stretching with this one. This is a single working group, writing a report that it puts up to a UN High Commissioner, who can then look to recommend it actual national working bodies, who might support it, and if they do then it would become a piece of advice that could be given to the US.

It’s the equivalent of a US government department putting together a briefing document, and then having it reported as official US policy before its even gone before the head of department.

Ouze wrote:Putting aside the fact this is less of a proposal than just a white paper

I really think this needs to be repeated for everyone's sake so it can be put into perspective before we can proceed with this topic. But given the already high level of race relation dialogue on display in this thread, I doubt it will really matter.