While I am in favor of reparations, — ToothyMaw

I suppose this means you are in favor of cash payouts of some kind to some people. To whom, how much, what for, and to what end?

I suspect that reparations are viewed by some as a kind of final payment to settle - and close - some kind of account. As such, not for the nominal recipient, but for the benefit of the payer. Would it were so simple! Reparations are usually about either a fine/punishment, or an attempt to restore the victim to some status quo ante. In the case of US black reparations payments for slavery neither appropriate nor even possible. That leaves the problem of defining a whole new purpose and how to achieve it - assuming either are possible or desirable. Not a simple subject.

To my way of thinking, Americans of African decent (and members of other minority groups in different ways) have been systematically and institutionally screwed since day one. The only reasonable accommodation that comes to mind is to mandate compensatory and complementary (i.e., that balances) access to everything that has been denied or deflected, to those who can benefit - call it extended affirmative action maybe on steroids, and to last for as long as the cause exists. Details to be worked out. And this, imo, should include criminalization of bad discrimination to include adding teeth to the laws and enforcing them.

I still think the only reasonable conclusion is to implement reparations. — ToothyMaw

I strongly disagree. For the record, I am a 72 year-old, white, liberal American. Am I correct in assuming you are also white?

According to most commonsense ideas of justice put forth in modern society, the assumption would be that reparations should be done in the absence of strong arguments against it — ToothyMaw

Presumptuous - how are you the spokesman for commonsense or justice?

since modern society treats people of color fairly, they don't deserve reparations. — ToothyMaw

Apparently most Americans think black people are treated fairly now, which is ridiculous. That's not a good reason for not paying reparations, but there are good reasons.

That one cannot draw a crisp, unambiguous causal line from the plight of a former slave to that of one of their descendants, a crack-addicted prostitute living in a ghetto for instance, is not evidence of a lack of such a line; — ToothyMaw

Outrageous. If nothing else, this statement shows the lack of seriousness of your argument. I think most black people would be angered by using crack whores as representative of their race in modern America.

Do you think you would have done better than the disproportionate number of people of color living in poverty? — ToothyMaw

No, I definitely do not. I am very fortunate to have been born middle-class and white. I have trouble enough living in the world of advantage where I currently find myself.

The legacy of slavery and the continued oppression of people of color in the United States is a blotch, and if one has any sense of justice one would want to do whatever one could to try to make it right, regardless of any perceived distance afforded by time. — ToothyMaw

It's not the distance in time that matters, it's the fact that white people don't like or trust black people now and that dislike is reflected in our laws, attitudes, customs, and traditions.

That undoubtedly includes some form of reparations. — ToothyMaw

No, it doesn't.

Now, my thoughts on reparations.

There are approximately 47 million black people in the US, including those of mixed race. How much are we going to give each of them? $10,000? That would cost a total of $470 billion dollars. How much difference would $10,000 make? Sure, it would make a big difference for many people and a very big difference for some. Would it change the racial atmosphere for the better? Would it erase the racial disadvantage? No. We'd end up back in the same world we started in with a vast well of white resentment added to what is already there.

And that's the main reason not to pay reparations - the only way to effectively address the problem is to change white people's attitudes. To give white people and black people a common purpose. Reparations will do just the opposite. We've already seen much of America kick-back against what they call "wokeness," the essence of which, as I see it, is that everything wrong is white people's fault and it's ok to treat them with contempt. Maybe that's what you call justice - give them a taste of their own medicine - but it won't work.

It's not about slavery, it's about how black people are treated now. Reparations won't work, they'll make things worse.

To my way of thinking, Americans of African decent (and members of other minority groups in different ways) have been systematically and institutionally screwed since day one. — tim wood

It's not that they've been screwed from day one, it's that they are being screwed right now.

The only reasonable accommodation that comes to mind is to mandate compensatory and complementary (i.e., that balances) access to everything that has been denied or deflected, to those who can benefit - call it extended affirmative action maybe on steroids, and to last for as long as the cause exists. — tim wood

Well, it hasn't worked so far and recently the government's ability to implement even existing affirmative action programs has been reduced by legal decisions and changes in law. I don't think there is currently any possibility of expanding it. Besides that, just like reparations, it will just increase white resentment.

The damage of the slave trade and colonisation is irreparable. Reparations are for white people's benefit, to assuage their guilt; they cannot conceivably compensate for or repair what has happened.

Consider Mrs un. Her father was an Afro-Caribbean descendant of slaves, her mother a white
woman from a slate-mining town whose ancestors were exploited by the local land-owning family who also had slaves working on a plantation in the Caribbean. Mrs un might have to pay reparations to herself. She might have to resent herself for noticing. It's maddening, literally maddening.

Well, it hasn't worked so far — T Clark

Are we speaking of what is or what should be? Reconciling the two, making the should a can and doing it, is usually a problem, but at the same time with such problems usually thought to be a solvable problem. I'm thinking you're an engineer; thus am surprised to see what seems to me a defeatist attitude. My view is that, no other issues superseding, street level equality for all is still about 150 years in the future. Four to six generations, and that because a lot of prejudice simply has to die out, along with some corollary things happening. But with a TQM approach of continual improvement, possible and doable and maybe even sooner.

I'm thinking you're an engineer; thus am surprised to see what seems to me a defeatist attitude. — tim wood

Engineers are allowed to have a defeatist attitude, we're just supposed to justify it rationally, which I think I've done.

I still think the only reasonable conclusion is to implement reparations.
— ToothyMaw

I strongly disagree. For the record, I am a 72 year-old, white, liberal American. Am I correct in assuming you are also white? — T Clark

Yes, I am also white.

That one cannot draw a crisp, unambiguous causal line from the plight of a former slave to that of one of their descendants, a crack-addicted prostitute living in a ghetto for instance, is not evidence of a lack of such a line;
— ToothyMaw

Outrageous. If nothing else, this statement shows the lack of seriousness of your argument. I think most black people would be angered by using crack whores as representative of their race in modern America. — T Clark

I am using that example to represent some of the most extreme conditions - the predicaments I alluded to in the preceding paragraph - some people of color face. I do not think that it is at all "representative of their race", as I am not trying to represent a race in my argument. And you are not really addressing that argument here. Also: do you know the meaning of the word plight?

There are approximately 47 million black people in the US, including those of mixed race. How much are we going to give each of them? $10,000? That would cost a total of $470 billion dollars. How much difference would $10,000 make? Sure, it would make a big difference for many people and a very big difference for some. Would it change the racial atmosphere for the better? Would it erase the racial disadvantage? No. We'd end up back in the same world we started in with a vast well of white resentment added to what is already there. — T Clark

For me, reparations aren't just about erasing the problem, it's about justice - due compensation. It doesn't have to fix everything; it is a goodwill gesture towards making things a little righter. If we want to change the plight of people of color - especially those who have it the worst - then we clearly do in fact have to change white people's attitudes and strip down the parts of the institutions that still disadvantage them.

give white people and black people a common purpose. — T Clark

This seems a little glib. Yes, giving people a common purpose is often times an effective way of breaking down barriers, but what about when the material disparity between two groups is the result of, and is enabled by, the agenda of the dominant group? A useful ally is not necessarily a respected comrade - or even a human being treated with a commensurate amount of dignity.

We've already seen much of America kick-back against what they call "wokeness," the essence of which, as I see it, is that everything wrong is white people's fault and it's ok to treat them with contempt. — T Clark

I think most Americans don't care much about errant social justice provided it doesn't directly affect them. And note that, nowhere in this thread, nor in my OP, has anyone expressed the sentiment that white people are responsible for everything that is wrong and should be hated. Yet you felt as if you had to invoke the spooky specter of wokeness. Strange. It's almost like it's a lazy device used to bolster insubstantial arguments.

I mean, clearly no one living today is at fault for slavery, but yeah, that kind of was white peoples' fault, wasn't it? Just not yours or mine?

Maybe that's what you call justice - give them a taste of their own medicine - but it won't work. — T Clark

No, the justice is for the people most heavily affected by slavery and continued traumas. I don't think a single white person today should suffer for the crimes of any slave masters that existed before them.

The damage of the slave trade and colonisation is irreparable. Reparations are for white people's benefit, to assuage their guilt; they cannot conceivably compensate for or repair what has happened. — unenlightened

If this were true, then why are the majority of people of color in favor of reparations? Would reparations not be giving the people who suffered the most from slavery and racist policies what they think they deserve? And would that not be more than just an attempt to assuage guilt if the intent were to provide these people such an outcome?

If this were true, then why are the majority of people of color in favor of reparations? — ToothyMaw

People tend to favour getting something for nothing. But a better remedy would be a proper education of the history of white racism, and white people taking the responsibility for that and behaving differently. That you ask this question suggests that you think some sum of money can compensate for centuries of total exploitation. There is not enough money in the world, even if every white person were bankrupted, and all their assets sold off.

Much of Washington D.C. was built by slave labor. There is some serious back-pay owed, perhaps even to the descendants of those who were forced to work on it. Apparently documents which record who worked there still exist so it is conceivable that their descendants could be found and the US treasury pays what is owed.

But beyond that it cannot go. None of the victims nor the perpetrators are alive. Restitution is impossible.

That you ask this question suggests that you think some sum of money can compensate for centuries of total exploitation. — unenlightened

First off, no, I don't believe that, and second, should we not try to compensate people at all even if it isn't nearly enough? Do you think that no reparations is the same thing as some reparations?



I was wondering when you would turn up.

Much of Washington D.C. was built by slave labor. There is some serious back-pay owed, perhaps even to the descendants of those who were forced to work on it. Apparently documents which record who worked there still exist so it is conceivable that their descendants could be found and the US treasury pays what is owed.

But beyond that it cannot go. None of the victims nor the perpetrators are alive. Restitution is impossible. — NOS4A2

Okay, consider this:

If you, and all of your family members, and all of your friends' family members, and yours and their grandparents, and yours and their grandparent's grandparents were subjected to slavery for hundreds of years, only to be abused and treated as second class citizens even after being freed, never to see a dime in compensation for virtually all of that work, would you want your descendants to be disproportionately impoverished and derided as part of a legacy you could not have possibly changed? Or would you at least want them to be compensated somewhat for the exploitation you had suffered?

I understand that no one person has occupied the space between slavery and the modern day, but I don't think we would have to guess what they would think about it if they did: people should get paid for the work they do and compensated for the serious wrongdoings they incur - even if the capacity to do so is somewhat obfuscated by time. If you see something wrong with extending reparations to people born after the initial wrongs have taken place, then I assure you that you hold important distinctions more arbitrary than that in your head.

I see no problem with an aggrieved party seeking damages and retribution from their exploiters wherever and how it can be done. Should the estates of slave-owners and the wealth that they stole still exist, perhaps that can be done. And if you feel guilty for those crimes I see no problem with you paying others reparations.

But if you’re going to implicate anyone but the guilty parties and seek damages for anyone but the victims, maybe even their descendants, you’d be attempting to correct one injustice with another.

The monolithic 'White People' and 'Black People' have entered the building. Hang on while I get the popcorn, because this is going to be a banger.

That you ask this question suggests that you think some sum of money can compensate for centuries of total exploitation.
— unenlightened

First off, no, I don't believe that, and second, should we not try to compensate people at all even if it isn't nearly enough? Do you think that no reparations is the same thing as some reparations? — ToothyMaw

No, we should not. It is offensive to suggest that it can be done. And can we maybe address the case of mixed race folk both paying and receiving reparations presumably in some amount proportional to their ethnic origins?

I am using that example to represent some of the most extreme conditions — ToothyMaw

I understand what you were trying to say, but I stand by my judgment it is insulting and demeaning.

it's about justice - due compensation. It doesn't have to fix everything; it is a goodwill gesture towards making things a little righter. If we want to change the plight of people of color - especially those who have it the worst — ToothyMaw

As I said, it won't work and it'll make things worse. We don't need justice, if that's what reparations really is. Is money to middle class black people but nothing for poor whites and Hispanics justice? We need to make things better.

This seems a little glib. — ToothyMaw

It's not glib, it's vague. I wasn't trying to provide a list of possible solutions. Here are some - Universal Basic Income, political support for labor unions, changes in tax policy, political action to get rid of racial reactionaries. Most efforts should be aimed at class differences, not racial ones. Improving workers finances won't solve the problem, but it will make it a different problem.

And note that, nowhere in this thread, nor in my OP, has anyone expressed the sentiment that white people are responsible for everything that is wrong and should be hated. Yet you felt as if you had to invoke the spooky specter of wokeness. — ToothyMaw

Wokeness isn't spooky and it isn't a term I like, but it's the term typically used these days and you know what I mean. What's the right word? If you think it isn't a real thing, then you don't really understand what's going on. Trying to make white people feel guilty gave Ron DeSantis the opening to claim that slavery benefited blacks.

And, your protestations of innocence non-withstanding, reparations is part of the same package.

I mean, clearly no one living today is at fault for slavery, but yeah, that kind of was white peoples' fault, wasn't it? Just not yours or mine? — ToothyMaw

I acknowledge my share of responsibility, not for slavery, but for the way black people and other minorities are treated today.

If you, and all of your family members, and all of your friends' family members, and yours and their grandparents, and yours and their grandparent's grandparents were subjected to slavery for hundreds of years, only to be abused and treated as second class citizens even after being freed, never to see a dime in compensation for virtually all of that work, would you want your descendants to be disproportionately impoverished and derided as part of a legacy you could not have possibly changed? Or would you at least want them to be compensated somewhat for the exploitation you had suffered? — ToothyMaw

This is another one of those presumptuous, condescending statements we were talking about. You can't set yourself up as a spokesperson for black people.

Women should be at the front of the line when it comes to reparations for righting past wrongs.

Also, the reparations money would presumably come from taxes, so my taxes will go up to give people like...Oprah and Kanye reparations?

I see no problem with an aggrieved party seeking damages and retribution from their exploiters wherever and how it can be done. — NOS4A2

This is good. But the exploiters are no longer alive, clearly.

Should the estates of slave-owners and the wealth that they stole still exist, perhaps that can be done. — NOS4A2

I think you know that I'm suggesting that our government ought to pay for these damages.

But if you’re going to implicate anyone but the guilty parties — NOS4A2

Not doing that.

First off, no, I don't believe that, and second, should we not try to compensate people at all even if it isn't nearly enough? Do you think that no reparations is the same thing as some reparations?
— ToothyMaw

No, we should not. It is offensive to suggest that it can be done. And can we maybe address the case of mixed race folk both paying and receiving reparations presumably in some amount proportional to their ethnic origins? — unenlightened

Okay, well, it remains that we can do something, even if it isn't nearly enough, if we were to just resolve to do so. In fact, I think doing nothing is far more offensive. We can't be bothered at all to, say, offer more housing grants for people so as to help uplift them because it is offensive to try to help them? What kind of backwards reasoning is that?

I am using that example to represent some of the most extreme conditions
— ToothyMaw

I understand what you were trying to say, but I stand by my judgment it is insulting and demeaning. — T Clark

What about it is insulting and demeaning? Is it offensive to acknowledge the realities of people who are systematically marginalized like "crack whores" (your words not mine)? I mean, nothing will leave you poor and marginalized like a crack addiction, and I would say this of any white person too.

As I said, it won't work and it'll make things worse. We don't need justice, if that's what reparations really is. Is money to middle class black people but nothing for poor whites and Hispanics justice? We need to make things better. — T Clark

I'm not disputing that we need to do the things you claim we need to do to make things better. I just think, as I have said before, that if we were to care to apply our standards of justice consistently, we would support reparations.

This seems a little glib.
— ToothyMaw

It's not glib, it's vague. I wasn't trying to provide a list of possible solutions. Here are some - Universal Basic Income, political support for labor unions, changes in tax policy, political action to get rid of racial reactionaries. Most efforts should be aimed at class differences, not racial ones. Improving workers finances won't solve the problem, but it will make it a different problem. — T Clark

Yes, I agree, all those things would be good.

And note that, nowhere in this thread, nor in my OP, has anyone expressed the sentiment that white people are responsible for everything that is wrong and should be hated. Yet you felt as if you had to invoke the spooky specter of wokeness.
— ToothyMaw

Wokeness isn't spooky and it isn't a term I like, but it's the term typically used these days and you know what I mean. What's the right word? If you think it isn't a real thing, then you don't really understand what's going on. Trying to make white people feel guilty gave Ron DeSantis the opening to claim that slavery benefited blacks. — T Clark

And, your protestations of innocence non-withstanding, reparations is part of the same package. — T Clark

I think that if someone can be persuaded that slavery benefited people of color at all, then they are a hopeless moron that could be persuaded of almost any right-wing bullshit regardless of the way some small number of people frame their arguments for reparations.

If you, and all of your family members, and all of your friends' family members, and yours and their grandparents, and yours and their grandparent's grandparents were subjected to slavery for hundreds of years, only to be abused and treated as second class citizens even after being freed, never to see a dime in compensation for virtually all of that work, would you want your descendants to be disproportionately impoverished and derided as part of a legacy you could not have possibly changed? Or would you at least want them to be compensated somewhat for the exploitation you had suffered?
— ToothyMaw

This is another one of those presumptuous, condescending statements we were talking about. You can't set yourself up as a spokesperson for black people. — T Clark

Maybe it is presumptuous, but I am not claiming to be a spokesperson for anyone. I'm just trying to have some empathy. If people don't feel the way I do about it, or think that it is a useful question, I'm okay with that. I can try to reel it in a little.

I think that if someone can be persuaded that slavery benefited people of color at all, then they are a hopeless moron that could be persuaded of almost any right-wing bullshit regardless of the way some small number of people frame their arguments for reparations. — ToothyMaw

Florida’s teachers are now required to instruct middle-school students that enslaved people “developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”...DeSantis has repeatedly defended the new language — AP - DeSantis is defending new slavery teachings.

I think you know that I'm suggesting that our government ought to pay for these damages.

You mean the taxpayer, which also includes many of your victims. It’s not clear how that will rectify any injustice.

Personally I agree that reparations are good in theory, but I am skeptical about the viability. For example, if we are going to help disadvantaged people, why limit it just to descendants of slaves? (Not to say we shouldn't have a unique program for those reparations, just showing how it will be viewed as unfair to other disadvantaged individuals).

And is trying to make this fairer even feasible? I agree that we should if we could, but we would need more information than we have to avoid just giving benefits to those with certain backgrounds, which will cause at least some political backlash, and if that is inefficient, then shouldn't we just spend that money on creating a fair and equal world that's better for everyone?

I agree with you that past racial discrimination has current generational effects. I also agree with the idea of current policies to compensate for this. I agree in addition that a lum sum check from the government is not a very good way to accomplish this. Firstly, because the government is currently underfunded to complete it's current mandate, let alone taking on this financial burden. Thus the fund drain would likely weaken the social safety net that these same individuals use disproportionately. Thirdly, this generational disadvantage will persist for several more generations regardless and I don't trust this generation's recipients to use the funds in such a way to benefit those future generations. Lastly, those future generations would likely suffer worse effects from the society declaring "hey we paid our debt, it's over, problem solved, let's do whatever we want to whomever we want".

this generational disadvantage will persist for several more generations — LuckyR

I think that's optimistic. I hope not.

I don't trust this generation's recipients to use the funds in such a way to benefit those future generations. — LuckyR

What do you mean you don't trust them? What obligation do they have to use the money to benefit people in the future? If I gave you a windfall, what would you do with it? I suspect you would spend it on something you want or need or put it in your bank account. $470 billion is a lot of money and it would certainly provide an economic boost, but how much long-term impact could it have?

those future generations would likely suffer worse effects from the society declaring "hey we paid our debt, it's over, problem solved, let's do whatever we want to whomever we want". — LuckyR

This is a very good point. I should have included it in my list of good reasons not to give reparations.

I think this is probably true, and that everyone would feel cheated out of something.
For those who received the payment, they would feel it as inadequate for repairing the suffering of their ancestors (which it, no doubt, would be), and for others (specifically lower class people who didn’t receive the payout), it would feel unfair that they didn’t get anything but many more rich and privileged did.

And finally, to everyone else, it would feel as though they had been cheated out of their chance to truly make things right, because now the chance of any reparations being made again are very slim.

Western civilization is founded on INDIVIDUAL freedom and responsibility. The idea of reparations makes no sense unless you view justice on a racial rather than an individual level. Entertaining this idea means that you totally disbelieve in western values.

I would argue that a civilization is founded upon common moral ideas. Since your moral ideas are outside the western view, that would make you a barbarian from the point of view of westerners like myself.

Reparations also could not be implemented without theft. So, you are advocating for theft. And you are advocating for theft from me, because I am a white person. It is extremely ugly to try to convince the potential victim of a robbery that you are morally justified in robbing him.

Welfare is bad for its recipients. It makes them dependent. Black families were doing better back in the 1970s before the welfare programs started to really take off. More of them were married in stable families and had jobs. There was less gang sh*t and looting. A common thing that happens in poor communities is that the mothers realize they can get more money from the government if they're single, so they kick the dad out of the home to get the money. Then the children grow up messed up because there was no father in the home.

Blacks are already receiving welfare. If I understand correctly, because of the welfare state, only White men and Asian men as groups pay net taxes. All other groups are net drains on the tax base because of welfare. So, they have ALREADY been receiving reparations (and I'm not happy about it).

Now suppose I were forced to see people in terms of their race rather than as individuals, because the rest of my society forced it on me. Why should I fight for the enemy team? I might sooner be in favor of reintroducing segregation/slavery than of reparations.

This idea also shows a complete lack of historical knowledge. Most slaves in history were white. Or more specifically, a lot of them were slavs. I might be wrong on this, but I think the word "slav" and "slave" might be related, because of how common it was for slavs to be taken as slaves by muslims. Vikings sometimes sailed down the Volga river to kidnap slavs and sell them to muslims in Baghdad. Do the Scandinavians and Muslims owe Russia reparations?

The muslims on the Barbary coast also sometimes kidnapped whites all across the Mediterranean. I suppose most of the descendants of these slaves are still mixed into the muslim population. Do the muslims owe themselves reparations?

In the black slave trade, African kings kidnapped their own people to sell them to Jewish traders, who then sold them again to white American plantation owners. Do the Jews and Africans still living in Africa owe black Americans reparations?

Probably some of the lighter-skinned blacks in America got that way because one of their distant ancestors was r*ped by their white owner. So, they are descended both from slaves and slave owners. Do they owe themselves reparations?

The population gets thoroughly mixed over a long period of time, so that probably everybody had slave and slave-owning ancestors if you go back to the Bronze Age. Does everybody owe themselves reparations?

There are also some whites who never owned slaves or had colonial empires (at least not since the Bronze Age). Finland never had a colonial empire. And so far as I'm aware, my ancestors were Americans who settled in Kansas (a free state), and some of the more recent immigrants came from England and the Czech Republic. So, it's likely that none of them owned a black slave. Even if a person is guilty for the sins of his ancestors, I don't think my ancestors committed this particular sin. And none of the Fins did.

I believe when the idea of reparations comes from black people, it is grab for power and money. When it comes from a white person, it probably means that he still feels guilty about original sin, but isn't a Christian anymore, so that he finds some other BS to feel guilty about other than Adam eating that apple.

Can't tell if moron or troll. You have 100 posts and have been a member for 5 years, so it seems very unlikely that you would lurk so long just to get this one off.

I think that if someone can be persuaded that slavery benefited people of color at all, then they are a hopeless moron that could be persuaded of almost any right-wing bullshit regardless of the way some small number of people frame their arguments for reparations.
— ToothyMaw

Florida’s teachers are now required to instruct middle-school students that enslaved people “developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”...DeSantis has repeatedly defended the new language
— AP - DeSantis is defending new slavery teachings. — T Clark

Yeah, I wasn't aware that it extended to brainwashing children. That's messed up.

those future generations would likely suffer worse effects from the society declaring "hey we paid our debt, it's over, problem solved, let's do whatever we want to whomever we want".
— LuckyR

This is a very good point. I should have included it in my list of good reasons not to give reparations. — T Clark

That's why we should continually advocate for change and constantly remind people of the grotesque, unjust disparities between different groups of people - in terms of both class and race. Reparations and effecting political change are not mutually exclusive. Do you think someone who cares about the working class like Bernie Sanders would just retire to some beach in Florida if we implemented reparations? Or would he continue to fight for people, black, brown and white, to have better lives? If people begin to listen less, then we dial it up until they listen again. For me it's pretty much that simple.

Personally I agree that reparations are good in theory, but I am skeptical about the viability. For example, if we are going to help disadvantaged people, why limit it just to descendants of slaves? — Igitur

I categorically think we should help disadvantaged people in general, and reparations is just one part of that. But, like I said to T Clark, it is also about justice. If we want to claim we believe in just treatment, then reparations are a no-brainer: people should be paid for the work they do, and if they cannot be paid for the work they do directly, we should compensate the people most proximal to that theft of wages.

And is trying to make this fairer even feasible? I agree that we should if we could, but we would need more information than we have to avoid just giving benefits to those with certain backgrounds, which will cause at least some political backlash, and if that is inefficient, then shouldn't we just spend that money on creating a fair and equal world that's better for everyone? — Igitur

I think that if we improve everyone's lot through policy, then people are less likely to lash out over perceived unfair treatment. If everyone just got a check from the government to sustain them while they mostly get to pursue whatever they want, for example, they probably wouldn't care that much if we tried to give the descendants of slaves something extra. So, yes, we should make the world fairer and more equal, and in turn I think that that will make the distribution of reparations less controversial in the absence of a way to make it a really efficient, fair process.

Undoubtedly the most important thing, really, is to make the world better for people, but I would like to see reparations not just because it would do that, but also because it would be the just thing to do.

I believe when the idea of reparations comes from black people, it is grab for power and money. When it comes from a white person, it probably means that he still feels guilty about original sin, but isn't a Christian anymore, so that he finds some other BS to feel guilty about other than Adam eating that apple. — Brendan Golledge

Do you believe that the US is and has been a land of equal opportunity for all? Simple question, a yes or no should suffice as answer.

People who were never slaveowners paying "reparations" to people who were never slaves all on the basis of skin color is one of the most silly and racist things I've ever heard argued by "serious" intellectuals.

I'm struggling to imagine how massive one's blinders must be to even take this idea seriously.

People who were never slaveowners paying "reparations" to people who were never slaves all on the basis of skin color is one of the most silly and racist things I've ever heard argued by "serious" intellectuals. — Tzeentch

Like I said in the OP, it would be on the basis of being the descendants of slaves, not merely on skin color. Furthermore, I believe that slavery, and the destructive policies that kind of piggy-backed on it, are severe enough to warrant compensation given my pre-existing ideas of justice. If you agree with me on the effects of slavery and policy, and have a sense of justice like mine, then I think you are the one with blinders - more specifically, a selective view of when to apply that sense of justice.

If you thought slavery were as deleterious as I say, and had generational effects lasting to today even, would you agree that reparations could be justified?

Also: I'm no intellectual, let alone a serious one.