Posted: Apr 14, 2013 2:58 am
willhud9 wrote:Loren Michael wrote:willhud9 wrote:Loren Michael wrote:
African Americans getting compensation would be fair, given how they started off under slavery, then apartheid, and then were finally normalized, except for all the discrimination that still exists. Who sounds more employable, Sarah or Shaniqua? Even now, whites in America have been complaining about reverse racism in affirmative action. Fuck them and fuck that. Black people deserve better and have deserved better.
Seriously hope this is a troll comment because it reeks of stupidity. Just saying. My family never once owned slaves. My family were poor farmers. Why the hell should I pay someone with my tax dollars for an event that happened 200 years ago. I am talking about monetary compensation i.e. blacks get paid by the government because their family was slaves. I don't care about affirmative action or enforcing the 14th amendment.
I don't see what your family owning or not owning slaves has to do with anything. They contribute to the government, and the government is the responsible entity. It's the same as if someone is wrongfully convicted by my government. I didn't wrongfully convict that person. If that person gets compensation though, it comes from my government and, oops, my pocket I guess. What's your problem with that?
You should pay for that reason, and because of the aforementioned slavery, then apartheid, etc.
Because it's my fucking tax dollars. Does not matter if it was my government which did it. That's the fault of the government, not the individual people who make up the government.
If someone is wrongfully convicted by your government, you think they should get nothing, because it's your tax dollars?
Not all African Americans have ancestors that were subject to segregation or even slavery for that matter. How does the government tell which African Americans get compensation. How much compensation? Why do they get selective monetary treatment when there are literally millions of homeless and impoverished people. The entire concept is the most ludicrous concept. It would be the most complicated mess to initiate and it is unnecessary.
Should we give all women money for having a vagina instead of a penis? Because we all know 100 years ago they fought for suffrage. If you answer yes to that, well then I think this train of thought is over.
I don't think a lack of suffrage is quite on the same level as slavery. Do you? The treatment of women throughout history is terrible, and I think that societies trying to eradicate prejudice and social inequality should address that treatment and history's echoes in the present. I think that if one's interested in reparations for atrocities though, it's not hypocritical to pick a few extreme ones for one set of treatments, and less extreme ones for a different set of treatments.