xpatplayer
Kingfisher
Dr. Howard said:I dont' understand what the basis for reparations are? Some explanation would be helpful. Indian reparations I get the basis for, settlers came in and took land, some of which was adopted through shady treaties or acts of the US government.
Why would americans have to pay reparations to slaves, or their decedents? The slave traders were the people doing the actual abducting in africa and then brokering the people here. The american's were just buying people being marketed to them as slaves, there weren't these southern gentleman lassoing people on the plains of africa to bring home to their plantations. Slave traders were the exploiters, slave buyers paid for the 'resource'
By the same logic you could argue that every consumer that has bought a 'blood diamond' or anything made in a sweatshop should be liable to the factory workers or child miners for reparations instead of the actual factory owner or mining operation owner.
Former slave-owners paying reparations to their former slaves would make sense in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. But why should an ethnic group composed of the descendants of said slaves be the immediate beneficiaries of these reparations?
Another argument is that Jim Crow-era laws discriminated against Colored Americans, leading to a loss of economic opportunity. If the states that allowed these laws to exist had to pay reparations to them in the 1960s, it would be justified. But why would they pay reparations to the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the oppressed? I really don't understand their logic.