I was totally joking, but the history behind the notion is interesting if you wanna look it up. It actually originated from a written field order issued by a civil war general regarding the redistribution and sale of land seized during the war. It was overturned by Johnson & a ton of freed blacks who purchased property were dispossessed of their own land which was legally purchased, but then returned to original land owners.
It's actually a theoretical issue that's popular in law school tort mock trials, not only because it's emotionally loaded but because it broaches the subject of damages for future loss of income due to contract breach. It actually holds no legal water, but it's an interesting subject.
I might do at somepoint. It's a weird situation to even approach because even if we were to agree something should be given back for reparations we'd still have to find out "who" gets those reparations.
It's an interesting subject for sure, it has so many angles. Like, most of these kids you see arguing for reparations most likely wouldn't gain reparations because the compensation for the slaves' labour would be an inheritance that goes to their eldest family member such as their father or mother, or even their eldest sibling, right? It wouldn't be a "You black, you get money" type of deal.
Then there's the whole, "should the system pay for the debts of older generations with the present generation's money?" argument as some of the present's generation's didn't have ancestors that were even in the country during slavery.
It is a pretty fun topic to think about, minus the subject matter's obvious terrible past.
Should white people pay reperations?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I was totally joking, but the history behind the notion is interesting if you wanna look it up. It actually originated from a written field order issued by a civil war general regarding the redistribution and sale of land seized during the war. It was overturned by Johnson & a ton of freed blacks who purchased property were dispossessed of their own land which was legally purchased, but then returned to original land owners.
It's actually a theoretical issue that's popular in law school tort mock trials, not only because it's emotionally loaded but because it broaches the subject of damages for future loss of income due to contract breach. It actually holds no legal water, but it's an interesting subject.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I might do at somepoint. It's a weird situation to even approach because even if we were to agree something should be given back for reparations we'd still have to find out "who" gets those reparations.
It's an interesting subject for sure, it has so many angles. Like, most of these kids you see arguing for reparations most likely wouldn't gain reparations because the compensation for the slaves' labour would be an inheritance that goes to their eldest family member such as their father or mother, or even their eldest sibling, right? It wouldn't be a "You black, you get money" type of deal.
Then there's the whole, "should the system pay for the debts of older generations with the present generation's money?" argument as some of the present's generation's didn't have ancestors that were even in the country during slavery.
It is a pretty fun topic to think about, minus the subject matter's obvious terrible past.