Are reparations a good idea? Well, sure - if you want to ignite a race war. Go ahead and make people who never owned a slave open their wallets for people who were never enslaved. Only a leftist could come up with such stupidity. This is a patent scam. A scheme to impose a punishment on people for the alleged "sins of their fathers" - ev…
Are reparations a good idea? Well, sure - if you want to ignite a race war. Go ahead and make people who never owned a slave open their wallets for people who were never enslaved. Only a leftist could come up with such stupidity. This is a patent scam. A scheme to impose a punishment on people for the alleged "sins of their fathers" - even if their great-grandfather was laboring in some field or factory in Europe or Asia when slavery existed in America. As such is is no different from an "attainder" - a taint of blood, which our Constitution prohibits. Along with the confiscation of property without due process and compensation. This crackpot idea should have been DOA. Let's bury it once and for all.
A race war we will surely have. That's why this nonsense won't happen. The pushback and resentment would be too severe. Any Dem supporting this would be a total idiot (they're not far from that already), and soon to be voted out. Reparations would be to them what a total abortion ban is presently to Republicans, a (very) dead albatross around their necks.
Well yes and no. Again, why should anyone not responsible have to pay? We're already $31 trillion in debt and spend more than we take in. How would this even be financed, even if it made sense. Which it doesn't.
I was thinking more on a municipal or state level. I don’t have any practical ideas about how to pay for it, but having grown up in Alabama shortly after the civil rights movement, and knowing what I know about how terrible it was for black people, I do have a great deal of sympathy for the ones who suffered actual harm under that system.
I get it. But healing doesn't involve making innocent people pay, either. It just keeps the pot boiling. And adds to the destructive grievance culture that's making things far worse.
If you agree with the concept of injustice towards black people who lived through Jim Crow, what would you suggest as an alternative to “financial” reparations? I’m referring to those still alive, with no “descendant” benefits ie. restricted to those literally directly affected.
The only way that truly makes sense is to have those who inflicted the harm provide reparations to those they directly harmed. That way, only the guilty pay.
That’s an interesting premise. I had thought of that when I commented initially. But not sure how you ascribe “guilt”. Any white person born before 1965, and still alive today? That’s 58 and older, and of course includes all retirees. I don’t know the right answer, but yours would be one of the options.
The counterpoint I would offer is the settlement for those wrongfully incarcerated. Everyone is on the hook for those.
I was thinking more specifically of the actual individuals inflicting the harm, such as the politicians, law enforcement officers, employers, CEOs, school administrators, loan officers, etc.
Addressing wrongful incarcerations - of ANY race - is always a good thing.
Financing it is the elephant in the room. Perhaps we could create an additional tax surcharge on anyone descended from a known slaveowner? But that probably still wouldn't cover it.
But it does seem fair that those who were personally harmed by Jim Crow (now an aging population) should get some kind of consideration.
Those who were harmed by Jim Crow are an aging population. As are many of the boomer liberals who think reparations are a good idea and should be paid. So who will pay for them? The boomers (like me)? Of course not. Boomers are just great idea people. We will leave it to our children and grandchildren to pay the bill.
I'll agree to reparations in exchange for one way tickets to the African nation of their choice for those accepting the payments. Simple - slavery reversed completely.
Placing guilt on descendants of slaveowner is even worse. Like a bill of attainder. Punishing innocent descendants for the sins of the fathers. Jim Crow laws didn't exist in every state, either. Plus since the 1960s we've put in place very generous (and misguided) welfare programs. None of this is easy or simple or fair. You have good intentions but as my mom would say to us "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." If the Black family and middle class hadn't been destroyed by liberal policies we'd be much farther along in our nation today.
I agree that trying to place blame on people for the "sins" of their ancestors is a bad idea. I was just suggesting that if someone MUST be made to pay, it ought to be the people who theoretically* got some kind of leg up in the world as a result of their ancestors' ownership of slaves. *I say theoretically because it's likely that you would find the descendants of slave owners among the very poor, considering what was done to the overall economy of the South by Northerners after the Civil War.
What would be more logical is to force companies that had policies that excluded black people (like the hospital that would not admit the man's mother) to pay reparations to those who are still living who were, during their lifetime, affected by those policies. That is a far more legitimate pairing of the harmers with the harmed.
I liked the idea of making the Ivy League pay damages from their endowments. Well I don't really like it but it would feel good to stick it to those hypocrites.
Are reparations a good idea? Well, sure - if you want to ignite a race war. Go ahead and make people who never owned a slave open their wallets for people who were never enslaved. Only a leftist could come up with such stupidity. This is a patent scam. A scheme to impose a punishment on people for the alleged "sins of their fathers" - even if their great-grandfather was laboring in some field or factory in Europe or Asia when slavery existed in America. As such is is no different from an "attainder" - a taint of blood, which our Constitution prohibits. Along with the confiscation of property without due process and compensation. This crackpot idea should have been DOA. Let's bury it once and for all.
A race war we will surely have. That's why this nonsense won't happen. The pushback and resentment would be too severe. Any Dem supporting this would be a total idiot (they're not far from that already), and soon to be voted out. Reparations would be to them what a total abortion ban is presently to Republicans, a (very) dead albatross around their necks.
I agree--but I’m not averse to the idea of paying reparations to those still living who were directly harmed by Jim Crow.
I agree.
Well yes and no. Again, why should anyone not responsible have to pay? We're already $31 trillion in debt and spend more than we take in. How would this even be financed, even if it made sense. Which it doesn't.
I was thinking more on a municipal or state level. I don’t have any practical ideas about how to pay for it, but having grown up in Alabama shortly after the civil rights movement, and knowing what I know about how terrible it was for black people, I do have a great deal of sympathy for the ones who suffered actual harm under that system.
I get it. But healing doesn't involve making innocent people pay, either. It just keeps the pot boiling. And adds to the destructive grievance culture that's making things far worse.
If you agree with the concept of injustice towards black people who lived through Jim Crow, what would you suggest as an alternative to “financial” reparations? I’m referring to those still alive, with no “descendant” benefits ie. restricted to those literally directly affected.
The only way that truly makes sense is to have those who inflicted the harm provide reparations to those they directly harmed. That way, only the guilty pay.
That’s an interesting premise. I had thought of that when I commented initially. But not sure how you ascribe “guilt”. Any white person born before 1965, and still alive today? That’s 58 and older, and of course includes all retirees. I don’t know the right answer, but yours would be one of the options.
The counterpoint I would offer is the settlement for those wrongfully incarcerated. Everyone is on the hook for those.
I was thinking more specifically of the actual individuals inflicting the harm, such as the politicians, law enforcement officers, employers, CEOs, school administrators, loan officers, etc.
Addressing wrongful incarcerations - of ANY race - is always a good thing.
Yes, I agree with that as well. It's a difficult and complex situation.
Financing it is the elephant in the room. Perhaps we could create an additional tax surcharge on anyone descended from a known slaveowner? But that probably still wouldn't cover it.
But it does seem fair that those who were personally harmed by Jim Crow (now an aging population) should get some kind of consideration.
Those who were harmed by Jim Crow are an aging population. As are many of the boomer liberals who think reparations are a good idea and should be paid. So who will pay for them? The boomers (like me)? Of course not. Boomers are just great idea people. We will leave it to our children and grandchildren to pay the bill.
OK you both convinced me.
I'll agree to reparations in exchange for one way tickets to the African nation of their choice for those accepting the payments. Simple - slavery reversed completely.
How many takers do you think you'll get?
Not many.
Placing guilt on descendants of slaveowner is even worse. Like a bill of attainder. Punishing innocent descendants for the sins of the fathers. Jim Crow laws didn't exist in every state, either. Plus since the 1960s we've put in place very generous (and misguided) welfare programs. None of this is easy or simple or fair. You have good intentions but as my mom would say to us "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." If the Black family and middle class hadn't been destroyed by liberal policies we'd be much farther along in our nation today.
I agree that trying to place blame on people for the "sins" of their ancestors is a bad idea. I was just suggesting that if someone MUST be made to pay, it ought to be the people who theoretically* got some kind of leg up in the world as a result of their ancestors' ownership of slaves. *I say theoretically because it's likely that you would find the descendants of slave owners among the very poor, considering what was done to the overall economy of the South by Northerners after the Civil War.
What would be more logical is to force companies that had policies that excluded black people (like the hospital that would not admit the man's mother) to pay reparations to those who are still living who were, during their lifetime, affected by those policies. That is a far more legitimate pairing of the harmers with the harmed.
I liked the idea of making the Ivy League pay damages from their endowments. Well I don't really like it but it would feel good to stick it to those hypocrites.