Regardless of if they owned slaves, they had representation in the government that did.

What's a greater atrocity? Enslaving millions of people and never helping after, and actively hindering them for literally a century after, or seeing a small tax increase 150 years later?

Hard to argue for the latter.

How do you know for sure that they had representation in the government? Maybe they voted for someone against slavery.

Anyway, it totally matters whether someone's ancestors owned slaves or not. It's very straightforward, if someone descended from someone who owned no slaves then they shouldn't have to pay anything.

It's not about which is worse. It's the principle of it. People who descended from non-slave owners should not have to pay reparations. I don't know why you argue against this. Do you think people should be punished for things they didn't do?

If it was actually about the principle you wouldn't have an issue with reparations lol.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.



Just to be clear, my personal opinion is we should have a robust social safety net and education system so we can facilitate a true merit-based system. I think reparations aren't bad in principal, but shouldn't be needed because of how robust our society is.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Nov 6 2021 05:22pm

What?

You are claiming "It's about the principle" for one thing and totally ignoring it for the other.

You don't get to have your cake (claim you care about principles) and eat it to (ignore it for the other case).

What did I ignore?

my god you're dumb

If a country sinned, then the country needs to rectify that. There were many Japanese who didn't fight Americans during the war. We still made the country, as a whole, pay for their crimes.

Let's try to keep it civil. I know it's a tall order for you but please try.

That's collective punishment.