[sinkspur]

But can I justify the rejection of reparations out of hand? I don't think so. I'm open minded on this.

Not me. I'm open to reparations for actual victims, but, to those 150 years removed from actual slavery and who just want "the man" to "pay"?

No way.

[TheRightGuy]

Not me. I'm open to reparations for actual victims, but, to those 150 years removed from actual slavery and who just want "the man" to "pay"?

In the '70s, '80s, and '90s it was widely reported that approximately 70% of blacks were born out of wedlock. With that compounding over a couple of generations, it would seem to me that a significant part of the young black population today couldn't trace their own ancestry to their biological grandparents, much less to slave owners of the 1860's.

[Aquinasfan]

Not me. I'm open to reparations for actual victims, but, to those 150 years removed from actual slavery and who just want "the man" to "pay"?

No way.

Alan's position is that the blood of the northern soldiers atoned for the sin of slavery, and that the federal tax break would serve as recompense for Jim Crow laws. Many people who were effected by Jim Crow laws are still living.

This doesn't explain why being a descendant of slaves would serve as a criteria for receiving benefits. I suppose his theory is a work in progress.