I noticed an uptick lately in the number of articles being written on the subject of the payment of reparations to African Americans for the "legacy" of slavery. It's a rather silly idea, but as of now it seems to be taken quite seriously by the major Democrat candidates. The idea is that after 80 years of slavery being legal in the USA, the descendants of those enslaved are owed reparations from the government.
This raises all sorts of questions.
1. Who gets paid reparations? Is it only African Americans? There were slaves who were not black prior to the civil war. The numbers were small, but should that matter?
What about African Americans whose ancestors came here after the end of slavery? Should the children of immigrants who came to the USA from Haiti in 1964 qualify for payments? Neither the children nor their parents are descended from slaves; do they get money?
What about mixed race people? Barack Obama is descended, for example, from a family that included slave owners on his mother's side and from an African who never really lived much in the USA on the other side. Is he barred from getting reparations? If he gets them, does he have to pay them to himself to atone for his mother's family history?
If only some mixed race people get reparations, will there be a test to determine who gets cash? How will that be done?
2. Who pays the reparations?
Will there be a special tax paid to fund these reparations? Under what reasoning would people whose families came here after the end of slavery pay towards reparations. For example, my ancestors only got to the USA in the period between 1900 and 1920. Should I have to pay for the reparations?
What if someone has one great great grandparent who was here in 1860 but none of the others were? Should that person who is one-eighth descended from someone here during slavery have to pay for the reparations? Does he or she get a 7/8 discount? What if that great-great-grandparent was a soldier in the Union army during the Civil War who lost his life in the fight against slavery? Should that soldier's descendants pay reparations?
3. Why are reparations appropriate more than 150 years after the end of slavery? No one from that era or their children are still alive. Can't the past be the past?
If these reparations are appropriate, should there be other reparations set up? Should Catholics have to pay reparations to Muslims because of the Crusades? Should Muslims have to pay reparations to Catholics because of the Muslim conquest of many Christian areas in the eighth through the elevenths centuries? Should Britain have to pay reparations to the USA because of mistreatment of colonists prior to American independence?
The reality is that these questions make clear just how idiotic an idea reparations truly are. People should spend their time trying to improve their own lives without blaming others for their shortcomings.
It seems pretty clear to me. Any candidate who seriously pushes for reparations is going to lose.
This raises all sorts of questions.
1. Who gets paid reparations? Is it only African Americans? There were slaves who were not black prior to the civil war. The numbers were small, but should that matter?
What about African Americans whose ancestors came here after the end of slavery? Should the children of immigrants who came to the USA from Haiti in 1964 qualify for payments? Neither the children nor their parents are descended from slaves; do they get money?
What about mixed race people? Barack Obama is descended, for example, from a family that included slave owners on his mother's side and from an African who never really lived much in the USA on the other side. Is he barred from getting reparations? If he gets them, does he have to pay them to himself to atone for his mother's family history?
If only some mixed race people get reparations, will there be a test to determine who gets cash? How will that be done?
2. Who pays the reparations?
Will there be a special tax paid to fund these reparations? Under what reasoning would people whose families came here after the end of slavery pay towards reparations. For example, my ancestors only got to the USA in the period between 1900 and 1920. Should I have to pay for the reparations?
What if someone has one great great grandparent who was here in 1860 but none of the others were? Should that person who is one-eighth descended from someone here during slavery have to pay for the reparations? Does he or she get a 7/8 discount? What if that great-great-grandparent was a soldier in the Union army during the Civil War who lost his life in the fight against slavery? Should that soldier's descendants pay reparations?
3. Why are reparations appropriate more than 150 years after the end of slavery? No one from that era or their children are still alive. Can't the past be the past?
If these reparations are appropriate, should there be other reparations set up? Should Catholics have to pay reparations to Muslims because of the Crusades? Should Muslims have to pay reparations to Catholics because of the Muslim conquest of many Christian areas in the eighth through the elevenths centuries? Should Britain have to pay reparations to the USA because of mistreatment of colonists prior to American independence?
The reality is that these questions make clear just how idiotic an idea reparations truly are. People should spend their time trying to improve their own lives without blaming others for their shortcomings.
It seems pretty clear to me. Any candidate who seriously pushes for reparations is going to lose.
No comments:
Post a Comment