04-11-2019, 09:02 AM
A very touchy subject.
I would be less likely to vote for a candidate who is pro-reparations simply because in the general election, that would be a big favor to Trump.
This country is still deeply racist, so the idea of trying to base your campaign on an explicitly pro-black item is very dangerous. Maybe not so much in the primaries, but in the general, it'll be handing Trump millions of votes.
I understand the desire for reparations. This country, to a degree, is as successful as it is today due to the free labor it gained from slavery and the racism that followed the freedom of the slaves (both societal and economic) put black people at such a handicap that it's guaranteed that opportunities, land and wealth were lost as a direct result of the policies, laws and beliefs of this country's government.
However, the issue with reparations will be 3 key things:
1. How do you define who is eligible for it? Presumably, it won't be a racial level, as there are many Africans living in America who did not experience American slavery (as they came over from their home country after slavery had ended). So do you do an extensive genealogical study of the black residents in this country? Or maybe do you have an open application process that would allow people to come forward with their own proof before being able to claim reparations?
2. How much should you be given if your ancestors were slaves? If you rated work of each slave at an income adjusted rate (say, they are paid a certain amount of dollars per year that their ancestor(s) were slaves), how much would that come to? I imagine it would be rather massive. Especially since, owning land is one of the biggest money making prospects ever. So if a slave's work was worth a house's value (let's just say), then does the loss of that value mean that rent paid by all ancestors is also subject to reparations? And that doesn't even get into the potential investment value of any money that was lost as well. How do you define how a person would have invested their money, if they had it?
3. Who is meant to pay these reparations? Slavery was no doubt caused by the Government's laws, but they weren't the only ones who benefited from it. Do you require farmers whose relatives owned slaves to pay a portion? Do you do a genealogical study to find whose relatives owned slaves and put a tax on them? Or does the government just bare the full weight? And what economic impact will that have on those people/the government?
It's a complicated process and I don't know how to best approach it all. I do think it's a topic worth discussing though, even if you limit the reparations to those subjected to Jim Crow Laws (as that would likely be easier to define).
But man, making that your platform when trying to unseat one of the most (openly) pro-racism incumbents we've had since the 60s is a difficult prospect. Especially when the majority of the voting base would not gain anything from it at all (and, as we know, most people only actually care about things that directly affect them). If you could galvanize the liberal sympathizers it could be a tremendous success. If Trump uses this to further galvanize his base, as well as moderate/fiscal conservatives, it could be an abject failure.
My perception of this country makes me fear the latter.
I would be less likely to vote for a candidate who is pro-reparations simply because in the general election, that would be a big favor to Trump.
This country is still deeply racist, so the idea of trying to base your campaign on an explicitly pro-black item is very dangerous. Maybe not so much in the primaries, but in the general, it'll be handing Trump millions of votes.
I understand the desire for reparations. This country, to a degree, is as successful as it is today due to the free labor it gained from slavery and the racism that followed the freedom of the slaves (both societal and economic) put black people at such a handicap that it's guaranteed that opportunities, land and wealth were lost as a direct result of the policies, laws and beliefs of this country's government.
However, the issue with reparations will be 3 key things:
1. How do you define who is eligible for it? Presumably, it won't be a racial level, as there are many Africans living in America who did not experience American slavery (as they came over from their home country after slavery had ended). So do you do an extensive genealogical study of the black residents in this country? Or maybe do you have an open application process that would allow people to come forward with their own proof before being able to claim reparations?
2. How much should you be given if your ancestors were slaves? If you rated work of each slave at an income adjusted rate (say, they are paid a certain amount of dollars per year that their ancestor(s) were slaves), how much would that come to? I imagine it would be rather massive. Especially since, owning land is one of the biggest money making prospects ever. So if a slave's work was worth a house's value (let's just say), then does the loss of that value mean that rent paid by all ancestors is also subject to reparations? And that doesn't even get into the potential investment value of any money that was lost as well. How do you define how a person would have invested their money, if they had it?
3. Who is meant to pay these reparations? Slavery was no doubt caused by the Government's laws, but they weren't the only ones who benefited from it. Do you require farmers whose relatives owned slaves to pay a portion? Do you do a genealogical study to find whose relatives owned slaves and put a tax on them? Or does the government just bare the full weight? And what economic impact will that have on those people/the government?
It's a complicated process and I don't know how to best approach it all. I do think it's a topic worth discussing though, even if you limit the reparations to those subjected to Jim Crow Laws (as that would likely be easier to define).
But man, making that your platform when trying to unseat one of the most (openly) pro-racism incumbents we've had since the 60s is a difficult prospect. Especially when the majority of the voting base would not gain anything from it at all (and, as we know, most people only actually care about things that directly affect them). If you could galvanize the liberal sympathizers it could be a tremendous success. If Trump uses this to further galvanize his base, as well as moderate/fiscal conservatives, it could be an abject failure.
My perception of this country makes me fear the latter.
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
