Alright, what about the Egyptians? Germans? Romans? Chinese? Africans? Or literally every power that the world has had in history with them using slaves as labor? Why is it always pointing the finger at the US for this sort of thing, as if the US is the big bad with creating slavery or whatever? In fact China I believe still has slaves, from what I've heard soo....
Oh is it because of time? Is that it? So when is the cut off period to when people stop caring then and throwing fits over it and asking for stuff because of it? Is it what, 1,000 years before it's just "oh that's how things were" and that's where it stops?
I swear this just annoying.
Originally posted by Zenwolf
Alright, what about the Egyptians? Germans? Romans? Chinese? Africans? Or literally every power that the world has had in history with them using slaves as labor? Why is it always pointing the finger at the US for this sort of thing, as if the US is the big bad with creating slavery or whatever? In fact China I believe still has slaves, from what I've heard soo....Oh is it because of time? Is that it? So when is the cut off period to when people stop caring then and throwing fits over it and asking for stuff because of it? Is it what, 1,000 years before it's just "oh that's how things were" and that's where it stops?
I swear this just annoying.
I agree with this sentiment.
I think that if a party can provide evidence that they had labor or property expropriated by another party, then that party should have to compensate the first party.
But the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff, and good luck with that.
Aside from the legitimate reparations conversation, there is also the fact that America is racially/ethnically diverse.
This diversity is an attack vector for commie agitation propaganda.
This is what I believe you're referring to in your post and the part I agree with.
Some sort of investment in black communities or even directly to black people makes sense, since especially wealthy white people have benefited from generational mistreatment and exploitation of black people. I would go further though and just advocate for more redistribution of wealth from the top to the lower classes, that will just by the nature of the racism in the system disproportionally benefit minorities and especially black people.
Originally posted by Artol
Some sort of investment in black communities or even directly to black people makes sense, since especially wealthy white people have benefited from generational mistreatment and exploitation of black people. I would go further though and just advocate for more redistribution of wealth from the top to the lower classes, that will just by the nature of the racism in the system disproportionally benefit minorities and especially black people.
Problem: making policy based race is racist. If you could create a legal structure with uniformity and equal applicability to everyone, that could still appropriate wealth to victims on the condition there is proof.
Originally posted by Blakemoremisleading, because yes everyone is descended in numbers from the same ancestors in the 9th century, you may not have any DNA left from any individual ancestor from this time.
According to QI, charlemagne was most likely to be related to everyone. Therefore, he's everyone's daddy.Better listen to him.
Honestly, universal Basic income is the best way to make everyone happy here. It means the people who have been wronged by the u.s. government ( and they absolutely have) will have the same floor as those with every advantage. You can't give back what we stole, but we can make sure the victims of the theft don't live in poverty because of us.
Tell me this, if your parents or grandparents died when you were a child due to a mining accident, or a because they were hit by a drunk driver-- do you think those responsible would owe you anything? Or would it be okay for them to say "well, they weren't the ones wronged, what's the reason they need reparations? Time?"
Last summer taught me so much about how much time HASN'T passed since the government was openly discriminatory. Rosa Parks died in 2005.
ERA was passed in the sixties. This isn't ancient history. If that drunk driver-- owes you something, reparations aren't absurd.
Originally posted by truejedi
Honestly, universal Basic income is the best way to make everyone happy here. It means the people who have been wronged by the u.s. government ( and they absolutely have) will have the same floor as those with every advantage. You can't give back what we stole, but we can make sure the victims of the theft don't live in poverty because of us.Tell me this, if your parents or grandparents died when you were a child due to a mining accident, or a because they were hit by a drunk driver-- do you think those responsible would owe you anything? Or would it be okay for them to say "well, they weren't the ones wronged, what's the reason they need reparations? Time?"
Last summer taught me so much about how much time HASN'T passed since the government was openly discriminatory. Rosa Parks is still alive.
ERA was passed in the sixties. This isn't ancient history. If that drunk driver-- owes you something, reparations aren't absurd.
I think your analogy is faulty.
The drunk driver owes you since they're directly responsible.
White people today are not guilty of slavery.
They don't have to pay.
Certain white people today still are benefiting from the slavery, and from segregation, and they should pay. Not all white people by any means, most do not meaningfully benefit from racism either. The Civil Rights leaders, especially MLK, were right not to frame this solely as a black and white issue, but one of rich and poor.
Originally posted by Artol
Certain white people today still are benefiting from the slavery, and from segregation, and they should pay. Not all white people by any means, most do not meaningfully benefit from racism either. The Civil Rights leaders, especially MLK, were right not to frame this solely as a black and white issue, but one of rich and poor.
Even if that was true, so what?
That doesn't mean they have to pay for a crime they did not commit.
To do that, is immoral.
Originally posted by Klaw
I think your analogy is faulty.The drunk driver owes you since they're directly responsible.
White people today are not guilty of slavery.
They don't have to pay.
This is why UBI is a good compromise. Irish people are white, but they were definitely discriminated against as well. It wouldn't be based entirely on race. It would simply level a playing field that has long been tilted against some more than others.
If my father is a burglar, steals your stuff, gets shot escaping, brings it home and gives it to me before he died, should you get your stuff back when the police come, or is it mine now, since I didn't take it?