doi no way i will ever check any thing like that cause CNN knows best
DOCTORS GETTING KICKBACKS FROM BIG PHARMA
https://www.bitchute.com/video/btdqpIiLoImg/

There's so many things wrong with this comparison:

• The total sum necessary to pay reparations to Japanese Americans was magnitudes smaller than what would be needed to make up for the effects of slavery. It was possible to pay these reparations to the comparatively small number of affected persons without having to massively redistribute wealth from everyone else.
  
• The persons affected by this racially questionable policy were still alive. By contrast, all currently living black and brown who are younger than 60 have spent their entire life in a society without explicit, law-enshrined discrimination. The equivalent to the reparations for the victims of Japanese internment would be reparations to recently freed slaves back in 1865.
  
• The reparations for Japanese were limited to the financial side of things. Current progressive activists demand more than just reparations, they also demand government action to force a rise in representation/power/status of black and brown people. Policies which introduce status threat tend to be politically radioactive.
  
• The delineation was very easy and clear-cut for Japanese internment, but would be highly complicated and produce new injustices in today's situation. Would an African immigrant who came to the U.S. in 2010 be eligible for these reparations? What about one who came in 1985? Likewise, why should white or Asian or potentially even hispanic immigrants have to pay for these reparations?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 19 2021 12:24am

You didn't answer the question. Do you consider it racism to give reparations to the interned Japanese?

If the interned had died, would you consider it racism to give it to their kids?

This isn't about making a 1:1 comparison to black reparations for slavery. If you are against "racism now to correct racism in the past" then id think both would be unacceptable.

I don't consider it racist for the state to restitute persons it has actively and recently discriminated against.

However, I consider it racist to expect the whites of today to pay for reparations, or voluntarily give up status, just because some (not even all!) of their grand-grand-grand-grandparents enslaved or legally discriminated against the grand-grand-grand-grandparents of today's blacks. Segmenting society into "oppressors" and "oppressed" solely based on the color of people's skin, rather than their behavior or the content of their character, flies in the face of Martin Luther King's ideal and is textbook racism.





But go ahead, good luck winning public opinion over for the CRT (or CRT-adjacent if you insist) perspective that "a colorblind society is not good enough, state-mediated discrimination on racial grounds is needed to achieve racial justice".
Someone as intelligent as you should be able to see that this position is both ethically absurd and politically toxic as fuck.

only one ever owns slave is the elites and they can be any color. "restitution" is just a elitist scam, anyone fall for it is just an elitist tool.

Another chud bites the dust.
https://komonews.com/news/local/washington-senator-doug-ericksen-dies-at-52

Doing corrupt shit in El Salvador & Cambodia as a State Senator and crying to get the emergency use monoclonal antibodies to treat the disease he decried as fake and opposed vaccines & public health measures to combat.

Yeah restitution was an elitist scam because it was the slave holders that got restitutions while the slaves got Jim Crow.

nobody ever heard of either one of them. ................could i get a Q update?

yup slave holders elitists make out like a literal bandit because they have enough chumps that will follow them

Fake news