You play semantics all you want. You know as well as I do that they are gearing up and so here comes the Dems with their plan to help blacks that they never follow through on. I said you could argue it and affirmative action, I didn't say it was rock solid. Do try and keep it between the lines. I know you and Dooz and IP love to contort viewpoints so you can insinuate thew worst possible outcome on whoever it is you are arguing with. It is horseshit.
What does it say? That current whites are subject to the history of their ancestors and that current blacks are as well. Good or bad? It makes no sense. We are so far removed from slavery that even having the discussion at this point is insulting to everyone involved.
It's all so simple when you assume the best possible outcome comes with no repercussion. Fantasy world.
The lack of respect America gets for practically ending slavery is not surprising. Do the families of men who fought for the North get reparations? They paid the ultimate sacrifice? Where is their just due?
Tell the plantation owners to [uck fay] off and make a new way in the post war world. The South was devastated and in no position to fight further, plus land distribution was already happening anyway, the ole "40 acres and a mule" being part of it. It could have continued had Johnson not given the southern planters a permissive environment to recoup their lands and reinstitute a near slave like existence with the black codes, forcing the Radical Republicans to take Reconstruction over. But, with the will to do so, there was no doubt the opportunity to provide land to former slaves in the form of the land in which they worked for years. Hell, even just require the former slave owners to give back pay to their slaves, with penalty interest, and, if they can't, seize their land as collateral. Many things could have been done, if they just had the willpower. Besides, why should the former slaves make concessions to placate the white slave owners? Why not the other way around and give the slaves what they deserved and earned? Surely, you agree there should have been massive restitution given to former slaves in the immediate post war era, right?
Not whites, the US government. The US government was responsible for paying reparations to Japanese internees, not white people. And, did you read my earlier post about this not just being about slavery, but that severe economic exploitation occurred, sanctioned by the government in many cases, for over 100 years after the end of slavery in many forms? This is way deeper and more complex than you present it. The only thing I agree with is this will never happen. Ever. I'm glad it's being discussed, though, and not swept aside, as it has been for decades upon decades.
The South essentially declared war on black people during Reconstruction anyway. It was an incredibly violent period. Why couldn't we fight for, probably the most moral fight we probably could've fought for in our history? I'm sorry, I just find this a really, really weak reasoning on so many levels. The "war" would've been over really quick, as the federal government was able to demonstrate when they decimated the Klan and paramilitary terrorist groups harassing freedmen. The policy of redistributing land was underway already and supported by a number of government and military leaders. The South was cowed and only invigorated by federal and northern indifference in the Johnson period and as the 1870s progressed. Hell, even a large number of Southerners hated the rich and politically dominant planter class. The opportunity was very much there and the north could have easily squashed any sort of resistance had they chosen to do so. Plus, again, why should the freed black slaves be forced to make concessions for the benefit and convenience of former slave owners? "Hey guys, we know it's morally wrong to give you back your land you used to enrich yourselves for generations on the backs of human bondage, but we don't want to make you too mad that you'll fight. Sorry, black people, these guys take precedence."
Where does the US government get the money? Slavery is the base for reparations, presenting anything else is mostly disingenuous. It will be swept away soon enough as 2020 will come and go before you know it and we will have to wait another 3 years to hear how Dems plan on saving blacks again.
What percentage of blacks in America get a cut? What is the cut? What percentage of whites have to foot the bill? And how much? What are the potential repercussions? Do the negatives outweigh the positives here? I don't see a net positive for America.
Greater than zero? It's one thing to conclude the money given wouldn't be enough to matter. It's another to just decide it's bad idea. Give a 5 year tax reduction to a flat rate, and call it square.
You want credit for ending slavery, a problem we created for ourselves? Hell, we were even late to the abolishment party. England banned slavery before we did. So did Mexico, Spain, Haiti, France, Denmark, Russia, Portugal, Austria, Italy, Peru, Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Netherlands...……
