Quote (Black XistenZ @ Dec 19 2021 12:40am)
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.
Okay, so civil rights only got passed in the 60's. There are still plenty of families around that directly experienced it. If a family can substantiate they were discriminated against in, say, the 1960's, would you be okay with reparations then? Say they can prove they were denied a loan because they lived in a red-lined area?
That should easily match the standard you just gave of "actively and recently discriminated against"?
This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 19 2021 07:39am