@
Lucyy FINE, trying to pull me into drama 😂
Basically it was a whole, unreasonably long thing (because it was required to be at least 7 pages lol) about how, even if it made sense to punish the hypothetical son for the sins of his father, the logistics of reparations like that just don't make sense.
For example- my immediate family is white. But we also have my three cousins living with us- who are not white. So in that case, what do you do? Still charge the reparations, even though having that family pay reparations will directly take money from the household of black children? Would that not defeat the entire purpose?
By that same logic, what about households with one white parent, one black parent? Do they pay half, even though that will take money away from my household with a black person/mixed children?
Do the mixed children then grow up and have to pay half of the reparations, because they are just as likely as anyone with a white parent to have been descended from a slave owner? What about the Africans who enslaved other Africans for literal centuries before white people ever made it over there? What about the free black people in the USA who ALSO owned slaves? What about the Native-Americans who owned slaves? Do they pay reparations, too?
What about the white people who did not immigrate here until after slavery ended? Or the ones who are descended from people who fought and died to end slavery, making reparations through their own blood? What about the black people who didn't immigrate here until after it had ended, and who came willingly? Do those white people still have to pay, and those black people still receive the money? Even though they never had any form of connection through their family?
Logistically, it just doesn't make sense, even if there was moral ground to actually implement reparations.