In the last few days, most of the 2020 Democrat candidates spoke to Al Sharpton's group in New York. Each of them endorsed the concept of reparations for slavery. Reparations is the scheme under which the government would award cash payments to those who suffered as a result of slavery in America. This gives rise to more than a few questions, but here are some of the key ones:
1. There are no people left alive who were slaves. Slavery ended in 1865; that's 152 years ago. In fact, there are no people left alive whose parents were slaves. There are a very few who have at least one grandparent that was a slave, although most of them have grandparents who were small children when slavery was abolished. So if there are no people who actually suffered under slavery or whose close ancestors did, who is to get the benefit of reparations? Do we go to people whose great grandparents or great-great grandparents were slaves? That's pretty far back. And what if someone has one great-great grandparent who was a slave but 15 who were not? Does that person get reparations? And how does one prove that one had a great-great grandparent who was a slave? I think it's safe to say that most Americans cannot identify all of their great grandparents by name. How is the average American even know if he or she had a great-great grandparent who was a slave?
2. Because of the difficulty of establishing family links to slavery, it has been proposed that the reparations be based upon race. African Americans would get reparations. Whites would not. But that doesn't really work either. Let's use a famous person as an example: Barack Obama has a white mother and an African father. Does he pay himself reparations; you know, the white half pays the black half? Obama's father was not American. That means that although he is often called African American, he has nothing to do with slavery. In fact, one of Obama's forebears through his mother actually was a slave owner. Should he get reparations? And how about the whites who were slaves before 1865. There weren't many, but they were there. And what about the blacks who were free men prior to the Civil War. In many northern states, slavery was illegal. There were free blacks who lived in those states. Do their descendants get reparations? And then comes the key question here: if the USA actually bases payments of reparations upon race, isn't that a return to the racism that we have tried so hard to stamp out for the last 75 years? Should the color of one's skin actually be enshrined into the law as the determining factor for cash payments. Remember Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who pretended to be black and actually headed the local NAACP branch in Washington? Does she get reparations?
3. Is there to be any concept of repose? Can we finally have a statute of limitations on slavery? These are things that happened almost 200 years ago. Is it healthy for society to carry the victim status forward for descendants rather than for those who actually were involved. No one alive is responsible for anything that happened then. No one alive ought be hit with the cost of reparations. No one alive was directly or even closely affected by what happened then. No one alive ought get reparations.
So if these questions exist (and they do), why are all the Democrats lining up to go an kiss Sharpton's ring (or something else) and announcing support for such an idiot scheme as reparations? If that is the only thing we knew about these Democrat candidates, it ought to be enough to guarantee a victory for the Republicans in 2020.
1. There are no people left alive who were slaves. Slavery ended in 1865; that's 152 years ago. In fact, there are no people left alive whose parents were slaves. There are a very few who have at least one grandparent that was a slave, although most of them have grandparents who were small children when slavery was abolished. So if there are no people who actually suffered under slavery or whose close ancestors did, who is to get the benefit of reparations? Do we go to people whose great grandparents or great-great grandparents were slaves? That's pretty far back. And what if someone has one great-great grandparent who was a slave but 15 who were not? Does that person get reparations? And how does one prove that one had a great-great grandparent who was a slave? I think it's safe to say that most Americans cannot identify all of their great grandparents by name. How is the average American even know if he or she had a great-great grandparent who was a slave?
2. Because of the difficulty of establishing family links to slavery, it has been proposed that the reparations be based upon race. African Americans would get reparations. Whites would not. But that doesn't really work either. Let's use a famous person as an example: Barack Obama has a white mother and an African father. Does he pay himself reparations; you know, the white half pays the black half? Obama's father was not American. That means that although he is often called African American, he has nothing to do with slavery. In fact, one of Obama's forebears through his mother actually was a slave owner. Should he get reparations? And how about the whites who were slaves before 1865. There weren't many, but they were there. And what about the blacks who were free men prior to the Civil War. In many northern states, slavery was illegal. There were free blacks who lived in those states. Do their descendants get reparations? And then comes the key question here: if the USA actually bases payments of reparations upon race, isn't that a return to the racism that we have tried so hard to stamp out for the last 75 years? Should the color of one's skin actually be enshrined into the law as the determining factor for cash payments. Remember Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who pretended to be black and actually headed the local NAACP branch in Washington? Does she get reparations?
3. Is there to be any concept of repose? Can we finally have a statute of limitations on slavery? These are things that happened almost 200 years ago. Is it healthy for society to carry the victim status forward for descendants rather than for those who actually were involved. No one alive is responsible for anything that happened then. No one alive ought be hit with the cost of reparations. No one alive was directly or even closely affected by what happened then. No one alive ought get reparations.
So if these questions exist (and they do), why are all the Democrats lining up to go an kiss Sharpton's ring (or something else) and announcing support for such an idiot scheme as reparations? If that is the only thing we knew about these Democrat candidates, it ought to be enough to guarantee a victory for the Republicans in 2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment