I think the Native American population would have first dibs. Based on your reasoning, the impacted folks would be owed like, a quadrillion dollars. The only way to make up for the treatment they endured would be to cede large portions of the country to them. I think that would be unreasonable, do you?
If we can find those specific Americans who were harmed by discriminatory policies-* they can sue. *
Why do people think that when someone disagrees with them that mean they didnt hear or read the argument?
At some point in history, I’d say that all Americans have had ancestors treated poorly in some way. So let’s just print up an extra 40k for all 350 million of us and be done with it. If you don’t think this is a sound and reasonable plan, you are obviously a racist.
I’m now picturing tons of white guys saying they were harmed by affirmative action.
I would absolutely support investigating reparations to Native Americans, who have certainly been treated abominably through most of American history. As to what form it would take, I’m not sure, but exploring the idea sounds entirely reasonable to me.
No. Not when they can go online and buy stuff or travel to areas where the “good stuff” is. I’d give it at most-3-5 years. Then things would be back to where they were before.
That’s certainly a reasonable approach, and has been discussed at length in this thread. I don’t think it could cover everyone harmed (or even close to everyone harmed), though, which is why I think we should look at more than just doing nothing.
Probably because you accused me of making an argument about skin color, and I haven’t mentioned skin color at all in this thread.
Yes, $20k on California property (often in San Fransisco) which today would be worth millions.
I’m afraid your gut feel just isn’t that convincing to me. History is replete with towns who suddenly “struck gold”, whether due to resources or some local company that hit it big, and the town usually benefits quite a bit.
Why do liberals think that blacks are so dumb, it just amazes me. If you keep telling them how stupid they are and convincing them they are incapable of being responsive you are psychologically oppressing them.
If I see any liberals (or anyone at all) doing this, I’ll certainly oppose it. No idea what you’re responding to in my post, though.
No, he didn’t say black people are dumb. He said many black people lack the resources to file expensive lawsuits. And he said many black people don’t trust the legal system.
I did nothing of the sort. Just because someone quotes part of one of your posts doesnt mean everything in their post directly concerns your words.
I was making fun of the ridiculousness of the idea of reparations to present day Black Americans. Few propose such reparations would be limited to those who could prove their ancestors were slaves in the USA, thus the payments would be based on skin color.
You said to me (bolding mine):
"America did not pay 18,205,898 Asian Americans each $20000 based upon the color of their skin.
I cant believe you cant see how racist this is."
Perhaps this was a non-sequitur, and you included it in your response to my post for no good reason. But since you were responding to a post of mine, which you quoted, I took it to mean that you were trying to dispute something I said.
But arguing about the intent of posts and responses is boring, so we can move on.
When you say, “exploring”, what is meant by that? If I conclude that recompense would be more than the GDP of the country and since that’s absurd I rule it out, does that count as exploring? What is the end point of this exploration? If it’s more than what I just laid out, I’d say your idea of what is reasonable is vastly different than mine.
It means investigating damages and losses, and proposing and exploring potential serious and workable redress. If you determine that the losses are monumental, and therefore not realistic to fully compensate for, then that might be a reasonable determination. But if you conclude from that that we should therefore do nothing, then I hold that that’s an unreasonable conclusion.
We might find that the losses are utterly mind-bogglingly huge. So then we have some choices to make – do nothing? Or try and provide some compensation for real damages and wrongdoing anyway? I think the second is far more reasonable than doing nothing.
Just starting off the investigation, we took the United States from them. How much is that country worth on the open market?
Any response to post #156, Bone?
What. You didn’t like my response? I was only partly joking.
If your point is “America may owe a whole lot of damages to Native Americans”, then I agree. If your point is “America may owe a whole lot of damages to Native Americans, therefore we shouldn’t even look at it or do anything”, then I don’t.