politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I've never been a big supporter of reparations, for several reasons:
It makes it appear that the systemic injustice of hundreds of years can be somehow made up for, tangibly, with a cash payment.
How would you determine who qualifies? To be fair about it, you would get into the same racial profiling that started which whole mess in the first place, having to force people to prove how oppressed their ancestors were in order to gain some benefit.
Some idiots would use any payments as an excuse to declare racism officially over. We paid our debt, after all.
To me, the answer to this is to continue to invest in black communities, making sure that young black people get to start out on an equal playing field with their peers from different backgrounds, and that older black people aren't totally abandoned because they couldn't get that same start. And for the government to recognize that it's totally appropriate to extend this hand to Black folks in particular, in recognition of the fact that those ancestors may not have been given a choice whether or not to come here.
Reparations aren't just a cash payment -- the article lists five different aspects of reparations, and it's very compatible with investing in Black communities. There's debate iover who should be eligible but it's not an unsolvable problem. And sure some people will use it as an excuse to declare racism's over, but the same was true when Obama got elected ... so that's not a reason not to do it!
In terms of support in general, do you support the 1988 decision by the US to pay reparations to Japanese-Americans who had been sent to internment camps?
A $20k check 35+ years later doesn't really seem like it could possibly make up for it. I suppose it's better than nothing.
But it is was a lot easier to single out who to compensate, because there was a lot less time In between and many of those people were still alive. The payments didn't go to all Japanese Americans, but only the ones who were documented as going to those camps or their heirs.
Paying formal restitutions for slavery now, 150+ years after the fact, seems meaningless. I'd much rather see that money go directly to historically black communities. Yes, you could do both, but if you just do one you're not splitting the effort.
My worry is that it would create unnecessary racist tensions. People who are in severe poverty would be extremely resentful if they didn't get assistance for not being the right race.
The cycle of poverty is a universal problem that transcends race and I believe it should be solved at the root of the problem which is intergenerational poverty and discrimination. No matter what the cause, nobody should be left behind and especially not for racial reasons.
Also agree that this many years after slavery there is nobody to directly compensate. Is less than 1% black ancestry enough? Do they do DNA tests or would they need to prove they had an ancestor who was a slave? Many don't have family historical records, I know many people who don't even know their grandparents.
What if someone is a billionaire whose family had recently immigrated as a wealthy family from Africa? Are they getting it but a homeless person of every other race gets nothing? It effectively turns into a sort of racial means testing that is divisive and overly complicated.