comment: >
  
  This is a ridiculous proposal.  Also and then what?   Anyone who gets the reparations no longer gets minority preference in hiring, etc. because they have been made whole?   Should Asian and Mexican immigrants from THIS  century absorb the cost.  This is ludicrous
context: /u/ICuriosityCatI (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  There is a psychological concept called anchoring.  The short version is that whoever throws out the first number in a negotiation sets the basic parameters for that negotiation and greatly influences the final number that is agreed upon.
  It is very unlikely that they truly expect $5M/person, but by setting the initial bar that high, they can potentially get a higher final figure than if they had gone in with a more reasonable number off the bat.  Now, this could backfire and they could get dismissed entirely for being unreasonable, but that is a risk you take in negotiations.
  So, it isn't whacky if this is part of a broader negotiation strategy. >
  
  This is a fair point and I was thinking about this. But I don't think in this case proposing a wildly high figure in hopes of negotiating down to a lower figure but one that's higher than it would have been is a great strategy. 
  But !delta because it could be a strategy even if it does backfire (which I think is likely, especially given how much power conservatives have right now.) >
  
  Time will tell if it is a good strategy or not.
  It does influence the conversation, though.  Pretty much everyone in the negotiating room will be basing their offers on how much less than $5M they are, and that is the power of anchoring.  It becomes the baseline from which you determine the reasonableness of your counter. >
  
  Does that approach usually work though? If I'm negotiating with somebody and I throw out a ridiculous number and then a really high but not as ridiculous one do they say "well compared to the ridiculous one..." Or do they say "this guy is full of crap and I don't trust him, no deal."
  The psychology is very interesting to me, but I'm wondering how often it really works. >
  
  The further from “reasonable” your anchor the less likely it is to work.  I put reasonable in quotes because often (but certainly in this scenario) what is reasonable is very subjective.  However, my sense is that the 5mil will prove this be a mistake in hindsight because I think it will make independent people less likely to support this and give catalyzing talking points to the right. >
  
  Indeed. You don't even have to be right-wing to think that reparations is an asinine concept.
  I suppose those of us who are mixed-race are going to pay themselves? What about First Nations Americans? They were dealt an even worse hand.
  In all seriousness, I worry that the average Joe will read these headlines and surmise that "Black people think that we should have to pay them five million dollars for being Black."
  This seems to be an effective way to both shut down conversation and create actual racists. >
  
  
  I suppose those of us who are mixed-race are going to pay themselves? What about First Nations Americans? They were dealt an even worse hand.
  
  Raises the question, just who is going to pay for it?
  Do taxes get increased across the board? Is your tax burden increased because you're "White"? Or will there be a register of folks who's ancestors owned slaves who need to pay for this? >
  
  The vast majority of white people are not descended from slave owners. My ancestors were poor potato farmers who didn’t come to the US until after the civil war. Should I have to pay, not only for sins that I did not commit but also for sins that nobody I was even related to committed? This just seems ridiculous to me that people who were never slave owners should give people who were never slaves reparations for something that happened hundreds of years before either of us were born. That just seems like a more drawn out North Korean 3 generations of punishment abuses of power. >
  
  Hahaha, no. 
  You can qualify by any two. 
  Imagine how many people there are who
  
  descended from slaves
  have a drug conviction
  
  Gotta be a half-million people. >
  
  I wonder if you need to prove the descended from slaves part, or can you just claim it.  "Master didn't let us keep the birth certificates". >
  
  I totally agree. Further to this, I feel there needs to be legislation in place - or at the very least incentives - that stop the institutional racism that has crept into the capitalist corporate system. Decisions like banks not loaning out, and chain supermarkets not opening, things that would have profound affects in areas from jobs, to affordable groceries, to safer neighbourhoods. And these corporate decisions are all based on socio-economic parameters. In other words, legal racism.
  To OPs point and yours, money should be injected into the system directly to counteract these practices and truly give black communities a wider scope of opportunities while also protecting those communities from sky rocketing land prices and gentrification by keeping the money and business in black hands.
  Giving big hand outs to individuals won't fix the wider problem and is a short term solution at best, while also being contraversial and jeopardising support for the cause. >
  
  San Francisco wasn’t even a city during slavery. It’s a city of immigrants looking for a better life >
  
  The problem with this argument is that you and plenty of others are trying to hold and entire RACE of people to a higher standard than you hold any other group of people: Class action lawsuits happen all the time for discrimination or mistreatment at the hands of employers or the government: The entire point of compensation for damages is simply to make the person or persons who were harmed whole. It has no bearing on your class or income or financial literacy, because those factors have literally NOTHING to do with the original harm that was done by Party A to Party B.
  Furthermore we have proven that the US already has a framework for reparations that includes direct cash payments because we have done so for both Japanese internment and Native Americans. When the US recognized legally that they were liable for the harm they caused to those communities both 42 years and hundreds of years later for Native Americans, we didn’t do this game of making them jump through hoops to be compensated, because the point wasn’t about what these groups would do with the money, because it wasn’t actually ABOUT the money itself, it was about making them whole by holding the party that caused harm accountable.
  So please explain to me why we are so condescending when it comes to black people that we both assume that somehow they will mishandle money, OR that we have any right to even judge how someone else uses settlement money that is compensation for harm?
  To illustrate why this argument is messed up, let’s use an example: Say your grandparents worked in a factory in the 50s that knowingly kept them in conditions where they were exposed to lead for the entire duration of their work career. After 50 years there is a class action lawsuit not JUST for the ones left alive, but also their descendants due to the fact that lead poisoning can cause health problems in both offspring and grandchildren, thus making you eligible for financial compensation. Since a company is an entity without an expiry date (exactly like the government) and both directly benefited from the labor of the people who worked for it even IF they also paid for that labor at the same time, the new shareholders of the company who didn’t have anything to do with the original incident and conditions have still been found liable due to now owning the company. 
  So, How would you feel if the new shareholders then tried to dictate to you that, actually, even though you are entitled to financial compensation, they think they shouldn’t have to pay you in cash because you might spend it in a way that the shareholders don’t like. Instead they believe that THEY get to choose the means of compensation when THEY were the ones found liable for the harm they caused YOUR family. Wouldn’t you be pissed off that someone would have the gall to try to dictate to you how you spend what would be compensation that YOU are entitled to? So why are we treating black people like that?
  Do you see how it doesn’t make any sense? >
  
  The US paid $3 Billion in reparations to Japanese-Americans. Proposed African slave trade reparations are about 60,000x that. Just because something has been done on a relatively minute scale, does not mean it can be done on any level. It’s like saying since we landed people on the moon, this means we should be able to send people off to other galaxies. There’s complications in scale.
  And then there’s the reality of the world where just because something is morally right, doesn’t make it politically feasible. I agree African Americans are victims of one of the greatest crimes in the history of humanity. I also think any kind of cash reparation on anything remotely at the scale proposed would destroy our economy. And before anyone says “good, burn it to the ground,” go read up on what life is like in hugely inflationary environments where cash isn’t worth the paper it is printed on. Then multiply that by a thousand because we live in the largest economy in the world. >
  
  It's also a difference between reparations directly to those harmed (like the Japanese-Americans) and trying to give reparations to people 10 generations later. >
  
  CMV: cash reparations in any form are politically inconceivable, hugely inflationary, and just downright ill-advised. Therefore, these proposals and discussions are just a waste of time, unless they propose something reasonable. My idea are massive investments in the endowments of HBCU’s allowing for free top notch education for all African Americans who want it. >
  
  The actual committee draft actually says that. 
  The 5m was a stupid first suggested action out of a dozen, though I'll remind you that cash reparations are actually a common solution. >
  
  An even better question is "how are mixed-race Americans handled?" 
  There were also a number of Black slave owners with White slaves. 
  Once you get into the nitty-gritty, it gets murky quite quickly. >
  
  
  There were also a number of Black slave owners with White slaves
  
  I would like clarification on this, as far as I've been able to determine, in the US this wasn't a thing. Indentured Servitude yes, but there were no white slaves. >
  
  Seems like a great place to sort by controversial. >
  
  The bike analogy is pretty bad, because in it, your kid is directly stolen from when in the context of reparations everyone is multiple degrees removed from the original issue. If some kid came up to me and told me that my ancestor stole his ancestor's bike 200 years ago, I would tell him to get fucked. >
  
  I don’t understand, in any world where it would be fair to practice to enslave millions of people and keep them as third class citizens for generations based on the color of their skin. >
  
  It’s not ok same as it’s not ok in any world to punish and hold people liable for damages that they did not inflict nor have any hand in causing. 
  If there were a way to hold the actual slave owners liable it would be one thing then again you would have to also hold freedblacks who owned slaves liable as well because it happened more than you’d think. >
  
  They might not have caused it but they are benefiting from it. 
  It is easier for a white person who just immigrated to the US to get a loan for a house than a black person whose ancestors built this country. 
  White sounding names on resumes are more likely to get an interview. 
  Black kids are seen as older at a very young age whereas whites can act the fool till they are in their 30s and people will say “boys will be boys”. 
  One black person commits a crime and it’s ALL blacks are criminals. A white dude shoots up a school and it’s a “lone wolf”. 
  White women calling their henchmen aka police on black people just existing. Etc. >
  
  I'm Black and I argue against this victimhood thinking. This is a bunch of... To each their own but a lot of this is bullshit. It's what has been imbedded a lot of the time, look at these blanket statements. This is crap, stop eating this processed crap >
  
  My dude, people alive today are heavily affected by what happened in the last 60 years. Heck people are still alive that saw MLK. It wasn't just slavery. It was also racism. And very recent racism. Recent as in right now. >
  
  Should lgbt people receive reparations too? How about Asians? Decedents Japanese-Americans for the internment camps? 
  Why are black people special compared to other minority groups for reparations? >
  
  ...Japanese Americans did get reparations. Indigenous Americans got reparations. Jewish people got reparations. I'm not sure how when it comes to black people suddenly it's a ridiculous ask. >
  
  The USA did not give Jewish people or Japanese people 5,000,000 each based on their race/ethnicity. 
  There is no reason that I should get reparations because my father was a black man who suffered from injustice by the drug war which is a requirement of this absurd proposal. (I doubt I’d even qualify because I’m white passing.) The notion that the government is going to pay me off for mistreatment of my father or his parents is quite ridiculous. >
  
  Is 5 million dollars a figure that's not going to happen, absolutely.
  Are African Americans owed reparations, yes. The government just never paid for slavery nor the decades of second class citizenship that came after, and we're supposed to just shuffle along because it's a long time ago?
  Native Americans get reparations till this day, so why not Black People. >
  
  Yes, we are supposed to shuffle along. Just as my ancestors did after being wronged hundreds of years ago. How far do the lunatics want to take this? We will all pay each other, and be angry, and nothing will have changed?
  Does anybody truly believe that the incessant moaning will end even for $5 million? >
  
  What happened to your ancestors and were they compensated?
  I think the black and white photos of slavery really gives the impression that the terrorism that African Americans faced in the US is somehow a distant problem. 
  Again, reparations is only for black lunatics. Not one person has explained to me what the difference between the Native Americans and Black Americans in the situation. Why are descendants of the Native Americans different than descendants of enslaved people. >
  
  Native Americans were genocided and have no majority population country they can return to. Even still calling that they’ve receive “reparations” Is absurd. It’s not even a great argument in favor of black peoples receiving reparations given the state of Native American reservation and the economic status of their peoples. 
  Sorry you can comprehend the differences. I believe it’s because you don’t want to do so. Keep posting this all over the thread like some trump card. I’m sure you are convincing a lot of people. >
  
  Just imagine the racial tensions this would cause. Even if it doesn't pass the amount of hate the black community would get would be astounding. >
  
  $5,000,000 x 0 is going to be $0.00.
  
  every eligible…
  
  Full stop. Take a look at eligibility requirements and there’s a total of 1 or 2 people - who are friends with the legislators - who qualify. This is well within affordable for the city and well within realistic expectations when considering the amount of fraud and financial corruption inherent in the system. >
  
  It doesn’t look like being a SF resident is a requirement which means many millions of Black Americans qualify. >
  
  Yup >
  
  100% this. In my opinion, people in favor of reparations are largely virtue signaling. There are very few people alive today that would have a direct correlation of being harmed from slavery and that there are better ways available to undo the harm slavery has caused this country and its descendants. By seeking for reparations you are actively harming your cause by looking for a fast payout that is largely unpopular and ineffective. Versus looking for something that could enact a greater change across the country. Like income tax changes, equal education funding. Removal of race from the justice system aka blind criminal trials. Reformation of the justice system. Housing reform from actions prior to the fair housing act of 1968. Estate tax changes to minimize long term generational wealth transfers.
  All of these would help minorities and have longer and more meaningful effect than a single reparation payment. Which would be impossible to pass and extremely unpopular.
  Edit: wording about estate taxes. >
  
  You seem to argue for reparations but have government distribute it over time.  If my ancestors werent here in the USA during slavery or werent slave owners of any kind, why would a death taxor higher income tax be levied on me because some other people, who happened to have my skin color, benefitted from slavery? Why would I owe anyone for slavery?   The whole notion of government reparations in its current form is racist and is theft.  But i AM in favor of reparations IF you can prove a person benefitted from slavery, quantify it fairly, and then find a person who suffers today because of slavery and can quantify that fairly.  Any time you favor one group over another, you oppress the others.  Reparations are both racist and oppressive.  But there is NO REASON people who want reparations cant donate voluntarily and I am very much in favor of that.  In fact, if this ever comes to pass, I will donate the average (total donations from individuals divided by number of US citizen).  I am comfortable with that commitment because I am well aware that leftists who are clamoring for reparations are only interested in the idea if it is not their money that is given.  My financial risk is maybe $2. >
  
  Actually none of what I listed are specifically race specific. When I mentioned income tax changes I meant moving to a more progressive tax scheme. This would place the tax burden on higher income earners and alleviate the tax burdens on low income earners. I should have clarified this. While this would benefit minorities it's more targeted to those on the lower income levels (in poverty) it just so happens to be minorities in the low income brackets due to systemic racism. >
  
  I understand.  But how much taxes is enough?  Government is already bloated beyond measure.  Government is the least efficient way to allocate resources.  I have heard that entitlements are so juicy today that people unwilling to work(who know how to game the system) have a higher living standard than low income workers thus eliminating any incentive to improve themselves, work, and dig out of government dependence cycle.  That is government for you:  Put programs in place that create more dependence on government which requires more programs which creates more dependence. >
  
  Please explain this to me: Say your grandparents worked in a factory in the 50s that knowingly kept them in conditions where they were exposed to lead for the entire duration of their work career. After 50 years there is a class action lawsuit not JUST for the ones left alive, but also their descendants due to the fact that lead poisoning can cause health problems in both offspring and grandchildren, thus making you eligible for financial compensation. 
  How would you feel if the new shareholders of the company who didn’t have anything to do with the original incident and conditions but have still been found liable due to now owning the company (Since a company is an entity without an expiry date,) then tried to dictate to you that, actually, even though you are entitled to financial compensation, they think they shouldn’t have to pay you in cash because you might spend it in a way that the shareholders don’t like. Instead they believe that THEY get to choose the means of compensation when THEY were the ones found liable for the harm they caused YOUR family.
  Wouldn’t you be pissed off that someone would have the gall to try to dictate to you how you spend what would be compensation that YOU are entitled to? So why are we treating black people like that?
  Please explain how that would make any sense? The entire point of compensation for damages is simply to make the person or persons who were harmed whole. It has no bearing on your class or income or financial literacy, because those factors have literally NOTHING to do with the original harm that was done by Party A to Party B. 
  The problem with this argument is that you and plenty of others are trying to hold and entire RACE of people to a higher standard than you hold any other group of people: Class action lawsuits happen all the time for discrimination or mistreatment at the hands of employers of the government, and we have proven that the US already has a framework for reparations because we have done so for both Japanese internment and Native Americans. 
  When the US recognized legally that they were liable for the harm they caused to those communities both 42 years and hundreds of years later for Native Americans, we didn’t do this game of making them jump through hoops to be compensated, because the point wasn’t about what these groups would do with the money, because it wasn’t actually ABOUT the money itself, it was about making them whole by holding the party that caused harm accountable.
  So please explain to me why we are so condescending when it comes to black people that we both assume that somehow they will mishandle money, OR that we have any right to even judge how someone else uses settlement money that is compensation for harm? >
  
  Because its not fair to the Indians, and every other population that’s been treated badly. On top of that fact it would probably bankrupt the country and start a Civil War. The jealousy of watching the black family next door get 5 million dollars , while poor whites still struggle, would lead to massive violence. You’re a fool if you don’t think it wouldn’t. I think we need a massive investment in black neighborhoods to address the issues of systemic racism . But 5 million dollar cash payments to 22 million people. No. >
  
  Right, now where are my reparations for making every single white, Indian, Asian, (you name it) family immediately poor overnight. 
  5m in the market just creates generational wealth for every black person. How about a family of 50-100 people, they now have enough to own four small countries? 
  To everyone saying “it what they’re owed” it is not. And all your doing through reparations is kicking the can down the road, tipping the scales to the minorities, and waiting for everyone else to be the new minority getting their massive handout so that it’s their time to own the world, all so you can feel better about your “privilege” when plenty of your own white folk haven’t had a thing handed to them in their lives. Anyone who still divides the allegiance of the working poor and middle class by race, is only a part of the problem and not the solution. 
  It’s a fundamental lack of understanding in economics, psychology… you name it. >
  
  Money is passed down generationally. Descendants of slave owning families are still making money off of the money that they stole. It’s a very real debt, and I think debts should be repayed, regardless of if it is the right answer. It’s just reality that money has been stolen. Regardless, I’m curious what is the right answer in your opinion? >
  
  How many families currently in the US do you think are sitting on fortunes made from slavery?
  And if you think the money was passed down generationally...then don't tax the rest of us.  Take it directly from those families.
  My ancestors fought for the Union to abolish slavery...and now you want to take my money because you think I benefited from slavery?  Slavery that neither I, nor anyone in my immediate family, participated in? >
  
  Well, how much should we tax a family who didn't directly benefit, but was complicit in allowing slavery? Do you think 3/5ths of the taxes of the ones who benefited would be a good compromise? [Tongue firmly planted in cheek]
  Because even if your family is from the northern states, there were a lot of shitty deals made on the behalf of marginalized people that the North accepted. They are not blameless either. 
  Hell, even our police force was born out of the desire to 'recover property' a.k.a 'recapture slaves' from northern states. The scars of slavery are EVERYWHERE in America. There is no 'rest of us', but there is a majority that allowed themselves to forget. >
  
  How do you prove which ones were complicit?  If I have ancestors who served in the Union army during the Civil War, am I still complicit?  If my ancestors immigrated after 1865, am I still complicit?
  Further...we're not even taxing the people who were complicit.  We're taxing people based on some kind of nebulous "someone in your ancestory may have been complicit".
  Should we forcing every descendant of Ghengis Khan to pay reparations to China for what he did?  Should we force every descendant of the Visigoths to pay reparations to Rome for sacking the capital?  How far back do we take this? >
  
  
  How do you prove which ones were complicit?
  
  I wouldn't. It would be something that came out of a wealth tax. I'm saying we shouldn't have to go through and individually make sure each dollar that is given in reparations was earned directly through slavery, because at a certain level, everyone WAS complicit. 
  I mentioned the 3/5ths compromise as one of the easiest examples that since 1787, we have a documented record of treating people of color as 'lesser than'. 
  
  How far back do we take this?
  
  America is responsible back to the beginning of America, obviously. It wasn't some OTHER America that we fought a war against. It was a civil war. It was us. WE have the responsibility to fix it, and we just .. never did. The problem didn't go away, and now it's getting worse. >
  
  Sorry, u/Firescareduser – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
  
  Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.  
  
  If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. 
  Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards. >
  
  Great point. >
  
  I think reasonable reparations could happen, such as funding better breakfast and lunch programs and libraries to predominantly black schools, maybe some additional homebuyer incentives. Something that could directly benefit the future generations, just like how a lot of us likely did benefit by racism in some way, such a a great grandparent getting an amazing job only thanks to the fact that black people may have been stuck with low paying jobs. Throwing money at people doesn’t make sense in any way >
  
  How is that fair to the immigrants that came to the us in the last 50years? >
  
  Why would the immigrants get any reperations? >
  
  Funding better breakfast and lunch isn't free no? where's that money coming from >
  
  Taxes? Honestly, funding better breakfast and lunch at all schools is something I’m passionate about every single country doing. Everyone deserves to eat, especially children who have no way of getting food otherwise. >
  
  why would their taxes go towards something they have nothing to do with. How is it fair a immigrant's taxes goes towards a black dude buying a home before the immigrant has his own >
  
  When immigrants come to this country and become either citizens or partake in all of the great things this country has to offer they are also making a commitment to contribute to the debts of the country. So if the US and ot state government has identified a debt owed to a particular group- then yes, everyone’s tax dollars would be used to pay that debt. Just like it has happened with reparations paid to other communities and debts of other government funded initiatives >
  
  I guess which would bring me to my next point about finding exactly who but that doesn't matter. well said. !delta idk if i did that right >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/questnnansr (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Even if you disagree with this proposal, it is embarrassing to not know that reparations have always been paid by the public as compensation for past actions. If a cop beats someone in their custody, not the cop, not the PD, but you as a taxpayer pays a town settlement to the victim or their family so that you're invested in preventing the crime from happening again. >
  
  You're talking about reparations for wrongs that have a victim and a perpetrator. Here, alive, in the present. Not about what a people did to another people. Cause if this is the case, the US has reparations to pay to the whole world >
  
  The rules to qualify are so weird my guess is it was designed to effectively pay a bribe to a few people or there will be family members of someone that will qualify. >
  
  Comment removed by moderator >
  
  Inevitably most people would waste the money and it would end up in the hands of rich mostly white people defeating the whole purpose >
  
  What is an "eligible black person"?  Reparations for what?  Should every citizen pay a penalty for any mistreatment they never committed?  It seems to me that the committee should go back to the drawing board. >
  
  I think they should just be ignored.  It's weird they want to sue the country that played a key part in ending slavery and not Africa.  The country that enslaved them... >
  
  If All African Americans were considered to be poor I guess this would make sense. But in your case just seems a bit disrespectful to make this kind of statement >
  
  The whole reason people want to give reparations is because African Americans are disproportionately poor, largely because of how they were treated in the past. If they weren’t, why should money even be redistributed? It wouldn’t be reparations because there is no disparity to repair. >
  
  >largely because of how they were treated in the past
  far more recently Japanese Americans were forced to relocate and had their property confiscated. Now they're doing just fine. >
  
  That page states that in 1988, an act was passed by the Reagan administration which "provided $20,000 for each former detainee who was still alive when the act was passed". 81,000 people qualified by 1998.
  Let's go through the numbers:
  >$20,000 today is worth $36,000. That's enough to buy a new car.
  >In the 2000 census, there were 1,470,000 Japanese Americans. So that's only ~5.5% of Japanese Americans who claimed the reparations.  
  So yes, at least in part, but it's an extremely small factor. The reparations weren't much and few Japanese Americans even got them. >
  
  There were about 112,000 people interred for up to 3 years. Of them, about 3/4 were still alive 3 decades later and were compensated with about 1.5 years salary (which is now worth $50,000 btw). 
  The survivors didn’t have 12 children each, most of those Japanese Americans immigrated in the following years and therefore weren’t affecting by the interment.
  And while being locked up for up to 3 years is bad, its still nowhere comparable to slavery, both in how they were treated, and more important in the context of this conversation, how they were doing financially. They had lives from before the internment that they were allowed to keep money/assets from, and they were allowed to work for money. The freed slaves started from 0, and they were heavily discriminated against for the next century, making it hard to improve beyond 0. >
  
  
  therefore weren't affected by the internment  
  
  Not a single living African American was a victim of slavery. The reason I used all Japanese Americans rather than the interned ones is because people who support reparations want to give them to all Black people.
  At what point can you continue to blame history? There are plenty of successful African Americans, so what excuse do the rest have? We live in a time where all you need is internet access to learn just about anything you want, and you don't even have to pay for it.
  Also the American government isn't giving these people zero. I know that America has unemployment benefits, and other programs. >
  
  I say they weren’t affecting because it literally didn’t have an affect on them. Sure, African Americans weren’t slaves themselves, but it affected them because most of their ancestors were. Imagine your parents had 0 money when they raised you? Do you think you would be in the position you are now? No, you would be worse off (unless your parents did have 0 money, in which case you should be able to understand how hard it is to escape extreme poverty.) Now just repeat that for 3-4 generations, and they are still being affected.
  
  people who support reparations want to give them to all black people
  
  What counts as reparations? I think we need to close the massive wealth/income gap between black Americans, and white/Asian Americans, that is largely a result of slavery. However, I don’t think we should just give a check to all black people, that’s not even realistically feasible to do. But do need to better fund black communities, especially schools, to help get them more on par which the rest of America. I also believe the same for poor communities of other races as well, but they are disproportionately black.
  
  plenty of successful blacks
  
  You can prove pretty much any point if you cherry pick data. I am going by actual statistics on things like wealth and income, which for the average black person is significantly below average.
  
  other benefits 
  
  They aren’t enough. Many people, disproportionately blacks people, are below the poverty line. >
  
  
  my parents had zero money when they raised me  
  
  Well my father was born to an alcoholic mother and an absent father and now he is very successful because of his mentality. So I already know my position if my parents had a low starting position.
  I'm not American, I'm actually Australian, but ~100 years ago the government began a program to assimilate the natives. Children were taken from parents, placed into "schools" (internment camps), etc. So the position of blacks to whites financially isn't too different.
  
  Better funding for schools  
  
  I actually agree with you here, I don't like the way schools are funded in America. I wouldn't consider that reparations, I'd consider that an obvious problem with the way taxes work because it affects all poor communities, not just black communities.
  What I meant by "plenty of successful black people" are the many that you can see on tv, in media, politics, etc. Not as many as white people but also, there's less black people in the country than white people. Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, those kinds of people. >
  
  Canada did a national "Truth & Reconciliation" process with our First Nations (indigenous) peoples, which ended in financial reparations for residential school survivors. I think people ended up with about $50k each? For context, Canada and California have about the same population and GDP.
  I'm sure $50k is small compared to being stolen from your parents then raped / beaten / starved for the bulk of your childhood (thanks, catholic church). The mass graves of children we're digging up, and verified stories of pre-teens impregnated by priests, whose live babies were then thrown in incinerators... It's beyond words. There is no reparations that can make up for that.
  Having said so, I think the formal acknowledgment from the government and Canadian people, and the long list of changes we're making because of it, is something. Things aren't changing fast enough, but they're changing.
  Canada didn't go bankrupt by paying out the reparations, btw. Also, the people who did blow it all in 6 months really just contributed the money back to our economy. No loss to the public there. 
  Having said so, to ask for $5 million... I assume California has 100x the mass child graves and incinerated rape babies Canada does. >
  
  California became a state 12 years before the emancipation proclamation was signed. The only skeletons they have are indigenous(the majority of which was because of the Spanish) and gold miners (who included free and enslaved peoples of multiple places). 
  I think they just want to get the ball rolling while also pissing off conservatives >
  
  I'll also add for context: the people who received reparations lived through the residential schools (as in, were alive in a residential school, and still alive during the TRC process). Not descendents of survivors. Residential schools started before Canada was a country... Back when we were a British / French colony, but continued for an unacceptably long time.
  I assume the $5m payout isn't for people who were themselves slaves? (/s) 
  I hope the US goes through a T&R process like South Africa and then Canada did. But IMHO there are some demands that can be really hard for even the most progressive person to be onboard with. 
  If California pulls this proposal off, I'm certain Canada will be watching and learning (as we should be). >
  
  Direct victims are an easy sell, but their descendants are much trickier. If it were up to me I'd argue they probably deserve something - the effects of that sort of dehumanization tends to ripple through generations - but how do you quantify it? How do you determine exactly who is eligible for it? And even more challenging, how do you decide who pays for it? >
  
  This sub is strict about their rules which is a good thing. Most of the comments that are removed are gone because they don’t contribute to the conversation. Kinda like the comments you and I are making lol >
  
  Not unreasonable. For how long, do you think?
  Governments are willing to hand out exemptions to businesses, why not people? >
  
  Ontario government here in Canada has partial tax exemptions for Indigenous. Its been like that for at least a decade now and the chances of that changing are nil. >
  
  Social safety nets have been taken advantage of by all. Including white people. The biggest benefactors of affirmative action have been white women. >
  
  Affirmative action has nothing to do with government benefits. The commenter brings up a fair point, over 90% of public housing residents in NYC are black and Hispanic. That is an extremely disproportionate amount of assistance given to them over white and Asian individuals. That’s just one example, overall statistics prove this too. 50% of those receiving EBT and housing assistance are also black. You can argue they “live in lower income areas” but plenty of whites do as well. The system is already showing favorability to a certain group, you don’t have to like the facts but it still stands. >
  
  It all comes down to the poor vs the rich really >
  
  My view is that reparations isn’t an atonement for past sins, it’s money owed. I don’t know about this particular proposal, but it is true that there is an outstanding debt. The specifics of who owes who, how much, etc can be fine tuned and debated. Regardless the debt needs to be payed. >
  
  Great, then collect it from the families of slave owners instead of through a broad tax.
  Gonna be real fun for the descendants of those black slave owners when they find out they owe money instead of getting money. >
  
  When was that how reparations were ever done? >
  
  Ah...so it's a debt owed, but we're not collecting it from the people who owe it.
  I owe money to Visa.  I expect you to pay it for me because Visa has a racist past. >
  
  Yeah, please do more research on the subject. 
  Public injuries, like bad laws or persecutions by institutions like bad cops are paid through public fund settlements. Japanese and Indian reparations were paid by congressional acts through the IRS. Slavery made legal by government and sustained by judicial debt slavery, not including the many many many persecutions after, would be paid by the public. It gets the public involved and motivated to prevent persecution from happening again. >
  
  You know their is also consideration of reparations due to the second hand citizen treatment of blacks during segregation and Jim Crow south. And reparations is to address the gaps in economy that occurred due to slavery and segregation >
  
  Just an F.Y.I. ,the vast majority of people in the U.S. were born after Jim crow laws ended(which was nearly 60 years ago).I mean if we're really going to go down the rabbit hole of people deserving reparations because of inequities of past generations  then I can assure you that everyone alive deserves reparations for some reason or another. >
  
  Two separate issues doesn’t mean reparations isn’t an important one. Let’s also not forget segregation was something people in this lifetime have experienced. >
  
  What? Look up the definition of reparations. It has nothing to do with the treatment of black people now, which in the best case scenarios, is only equal to everyone else, the point of reparation is to make good on past wrongs. >
  
  I hope San Francisco is prepared for the huge influx of black residents that is bound to happen....all of which will insist that they are descendants of slaves. >
  
  SB 1 seems more like a PR stunt. A total of 32 billion statewide vs the proposal mentioned in the OP which is 203 billion for just San Francisco alone. >
  
  Wouldn't the proposal in OP be more like a PR stunt? SB1 was an actual passed and signed budget spending, vs the $5M reparations being one of dozens of actions from a draft committee statement. >
  
  Yeah that’s true. >
  
  If I understood it correctly, the number comes not from what would be a workable policy, but from how much money was lost by the black community due to past racism. If you're ok with atonement for past sins, this is simply a realistic amount for how much needs to be atoned for. >
  
  Modern atonement for past sins is dumb almost 100% of the time >
  
  I specifically added an if since OP seemed to be in support of the idea >
  
  Don’t think it’s a diversion strategy as much as it is a strategy to gain voters, then proceed to do nothing to help their base that got them elected. >
  
  5 million is probably less than deserved if you considered the interest on all that stolen labor, the incalculable mental and physical damage, and then the century of Jim Crow which only furthered the divide between white family wealth and black family wealth.
  It’s funny: we all give millionaires and billionaires tax cuts that are the equivalent of 5 million dollars, but we balk at the idea of paying the descendants of slaves reparations. >
  
  The vast majority of people in the country, white or otherwise, have nowhere near 5 million dollars from their "family wealth". >
  
  Were they asked to put forth a realistic and workable plan, or were they asked to put a number on the financial legacy of enslavement, segregation and racist policy? Because if their brief were the second one, you know, $5 million seems pretty reasonable. What do you think you would be out, in terms of generational wealth and property, if your family had been systemically discriminated against for many generations? >
  
  Do you think that racial discrimination is the only form of systemic oppression that exists?
  You talk like most white people aren't the descendants of peasants, proletariat, and other groups of people that were oppressed by the nobility, the burgeoise, etc., and that's exactly why most white people don't own property enough to live without having to sell their lives to the interests of those who inherited accumulated capital.
  If a white person is born on porverty that's as much a product of systemic oppression as if a black person is born on poverty.
  And how the hell are we supposed to "compensate" everyone who had their previously generations wronged?
  Maybe if you propose a socialist revolution or something.
  But other than that, by trying to give "reparations" only to those who were racially oppressed, you're just reaffirming race as the biggest defining characteristic of a person, and reforcing race as a means of dividing people. >
  
  100% agree with this. >
  
  
  so reparations aren't necessary.
  
  Repatriations aren't about equality.    They're about compensation for being wronged.
  It'd be like suing somebody and the judge gives the money to everyone but the plaintiff. >
  
  Reparations are for slavery correct? No one is alive from slavery today nor the children of those slaves. Same with slave holders and their children. White, Asian, and Latin Americans hold no responsibility to give their money for the desendants of slaves. To right this "wrong" as you put it you have to punish a group of people that didn't have anything to do with it to begin with. This reply might make it seem like I'm unsympathetic towards black people so, I wanna clarify I do believe we need to fight systematic racism and fight the economic/societal disparities facing black people today that are a result of discrimination. >
  
  
  Reparations are for slavery correct?
  
  No.
  
  I do believe we need to fight systematic racism and fight the economic/societal disparities facing black people today that are a result of discrimination.
  
  Well, you're in luck, that's precisely what the reparations are for. >
  
  
  Well, you're in luck, that's precisely what the reparations are for.
  
  Why only African Americans then? Why not Native Americans, Asians, people who are disabled, who are impoverished, etc?
  They all suffer from systemic inequalities too. >
  
  Reparations are a thing, or should be and considering how federal legislation and laws still made black people second class citizens until the early 70s, it’s something as a nation we should do. 
  But cash payments aren’t the way, atleast not “all” the way. 
  The one differentiator between poverty and success in this nation is education. 
  I think we should give any eligible black person alive today and their kids free 4 year education of their choice at any state school in the nation (funded by Uncle Sam). This would be inclusive of a stipend every month so that working adults w/kids don’t have to worry about paying the bills while they go back to school. 
  The people who are too old and wouldn’t benefit from a better education (say those above the age of 50) would get a one time cash payment. 
  Pretending like treating blacks people like 3rd class property for centuries in this nation didn’t result in a multigenerational setback is simply stupid. >
  
  I have a similar idea, but instead I think money should be directed towards HBCU’s. And I think should include investments into the universities themselves to ensure the quality of education and experience. And there should be a reasonable qualifying minimum requirement because giving education to people who don’t want it is a waste of everyone’s time. >
  
  I'd just like to make a stupidly literal point.  It's not unaffordable or unrealistic, San Francisco can just borrow money or raise taxes and then distribute it. >
  
  Am i misunderstanding this post? If every eligible black person were awarded 5 mil, and there are 41.6 million african americans in this country, would that not add up to something on the magnitude of trillions of dollars? >
  
  More than $200 trillion >
  
  I just want to say “expanding programs so reparations are unnecessary” is trash. It’s basically “everyone gets reparations but black people.” 
  Jews check, Native Americans check, slave owners check, victims of internment camps check, France for losing Haiti to a slave revolt check, black descendants of slaves = “are you out of your dammed mind!!!!” Black descendants of race riots = “how dare you.” Black descendants of share croppers previously denied federal assistance = “those minority farm loans are racist Biden, where’s my money!?!” Black WWII vets denied the GI bill = “It was a long time ago.” 
  Etc, etc, etc… just go ahead and say black defendants of government crime victims will never be compensated. Before you respond, go check out the letter the fbi sent Dr King telling him to kill himself. >
  
  If people are helped out of poverty, groups that are disproportionately impacted by poverty will be disproportionately assisted.  All this, while helping anybody deserving of a helping hand.  
  Tying it up with identity and historical wrongs just leaves people out and foments resentment. >
  
  Don’t disagree with your first paragraph. As for your second paragraph, we should just stop all the handouts for Native Americans since their hardships are “historical only” right? I hope you realize how absurd you sound. >
  
  So do or don't you think Native americans deserve reparations?
  I don't seem to understand your position: if you're enteraining the possibility of reparations at all, you must also logically decide who deserves to get them, and you should strive to make those lines intellectually consistent. >
  
  I was responding to the dumb question asked by the other person. I believe all wronged groups should/should have received reparations for what happened to them either by the government or with the governments approval/inaction. The guy i responded to said we should not consider historical events, which is why i asked him if assistance to Native Americans should stop based on his logic. 
  As far as consistent, the United stars government gave reparations to slave owners for the loss of slaves, shouldn’t slaves have gotten something for consistency? >
  
  My own personal position is that if there's an actual legal paper trail that shows something illegal happened, then it should be acted on and corrected, and that can include reparations.
  So if somebody can show that their ancestor was enslaved, or there's a treaty with a native american group that was broken, then I think payouts or enforcing the original treaty should be valid options. (Though, I'm against the entire concept of generational wealth to begin with, so there's perhaps a bit of a inconsistency there)
  I also think there's a broader conversation to be had about aid and support programs for people who need it in general: I would prefer that these don't discriminate based on race, gender, etc, but if it can be sufficiently targetted towards race or gender specific issues then I'm not inherently against it. I'd also much rather we try to solve systemic inequalities via giving aid and support to people early in life so they don't miss out opportunities to begin with, rather then to try to "make up for it' after the damage is already done in stuff like college admissions and in job seeking, where it also screws out other people out of the same opportunity.
  In general I'm okay with a lot of potential programs or actions, as long as people are being intellectually consistent and aren't ignoring or downplaying a bunch of other systemic and personal inequalities like class, wealth, disability, coming from a single parent home, or the ways men face some gender biases; in favor of only focusing on race (or only african americans and not native americans etc), women, LGBT people, etc. >
  
  Let’s flash forward a bit, you don’t think current black Americans are directly affected by cointelpro, the lack of a gi bill for black soldiers, the fbi telling MLK Jr to kill himself, sending innocent men to jail for the assassination of Malcolm X, ignoring eminent death threats to Malcolm X that allowed him to be killed, imminent domain destroying various black neighborhoods, red lining, the murder of Fred Hampton (the only atrocity that actually saw financial compensation), etc?
  Your ok with programs but the fbi was not ok with black panthers giving out free lunches, among other things. Why aren’t the above items worthy of reparations for black Americans in general? >
  
  Probably. There's going to be no perfect way to do it. The more important thing right now is that we haven't done anything. The best chance to make it right was back in Andrew Jackson's time, and he decided 40 acres and a mule was too much to give freed slaves. Thanks buddy. >
  
  
  "I would like to expand social programs to help more people of every race so reparations aren't needed" 
  
  That's some all lives matter level jibberish bud. All races weren't forcefully brought here, then raised as slaves to white men in this country for 400 years >
  
  No one alive was a slave. The logistics alone make this impossible. How do you prove blackness to get your money? Do black families that moved from Africa after the 60’s get reparations? Do half black people get reparations? How do you prove you blackness or family lineage? Reparations would be madness and cause massive resentment across the nation. It will never happen. The tax money should be used to help the poorest and most needy Americans regardless of race or ethnicity. >
  
  No shit no one alive was a slave. Descendants get the will returned when found it went ti an imposter. Descendents have always received inheritance. 
  Ancestry . com has been proving blackness for over a decade lol. Get real. The tax money is already being used for the poorest. There needs to be more tax money. Higher taxes in the rich. >
  
  I am sure that wouldn’t be manipulated at all when $5 million per person is on the line. Ancestry.com is great, but it’s not an official government record. I agree we need to tax the rich more, but that money should go to help all Americans. Not just black people. The world needs to stop acting like all black problems are due to slavery. Personal accountability needs to be restored. >
  
  Reparations wouldn't be all the tax money. And it's a one time payment. 
  Obviously it's not government record, hence the "lol" 
  
  The world needs to stop acting like all black problems are due to slavery. Personal accountability needs to be restored.
  
  "You chose the life forced upon you from your ancestors" 
  Get. Real. >
  
  Where would the money come from if not from tax money? Does the government have a slush fund somewhere that isn’t funded by tax dollars? 
  Most people in this country are born into poor circumstances. There are FAR more poor and impoverished white people in the country than black. They also had a poor situation forced upon them. Doesn’t mean they get a fat government check. >
  
  We just talked about it coming from tax money. But the reparations wouldn't use up all of it. You're drunk. Go to bed. >
  
  Not drunk. You’re just in denial. Reparations will never happen. They are a poor idea start to finish. >
  
  Lincoln said it. Not me >
  
  Reparations would have almost made sense in Lincoln’s day. They don’t work today for so many reasons. >
  
  I must have missed my share.  Where does one get these US reparations for the Jews? >
  
  For the record, the purpose of reparations is compensate a person or people for an injustice. Putting black people on a comparable footing to those of ither races isn't necessarily proportionate to the hardship, indignity and unfairness they've face. 
  I've read suggestions that such a payment would t
  Probably stake the form of an annuity, to spread the cost over a longer period.
  More importantly, the proposal is only whacky if you assume that it's purpose was to achieve it's recommendations. I see a mayor who probably favours reparations, elected and supported by a constituency that is sympathetic to reparations, appointing a committee that was always likely to conclude that major reparations are due. By coming up with an absurdly high figure, it allows the advocates of reparations or more general expanded wealth redistribution to insist that they're making big concessions when they demand smaller (large) financial commitments. >
  
  Who exactly suffered an injustice? >
  
  African Americans, including those living in San Francisco, according to the SF Reparations Advisory Committee. >
  
  If California is giving out reparations, it really should be to the Chinese. Slavery was never legal in California. >
  
  Perhaps the descendents of Chinese labourers are due a piece of the action. Regardless, my impression is that the American history of oppressive ill-treatment of African Americans didn't suddenly stop with the abolition of slavery. It took over 100 extra years for them to be equal before the law. >
  
  But do you think that racial oppression is the only kind of oppression that demands reparations?
  With few exceptions, most people who are poor aren't poor because they or their families had a lot of cash and wasted it for sheer stupidity, but instead they're poor because their ancestors were poor, and they were poor because at some point in History some people took up land and pronounced it as theirs, and used from the cohercitive power of the state to keep it as theirs, then used their economic advantage to profit from others, etc.
  So most of us are descendants of the proletariat, peasants before that, and likely even people that were not considered citizens in ancient times.
  And you don't need to go back to 3.000 a.C. to get my point.
  The US has trade advantages over other countries to this day that comes from a lot of oppressive actions it engaged in it's brief history.
  Should the US give money reparations to every citizen from developing countries?
  The thing that doesn't make sense isn't thinking that injustices deserve reparations.
  What doesn't make sense is giving an arbitrary priority to providing reparation for a single type of oppression.
  We now use arbitrary characteristics such as race, gender, and sexual orientation to divide and classify people, when we reality we are all products of way more complex interactions, even on an individual level.
  And proposals as these just reinforce this perception of race being central to one's identity. >
  
  
  But do you think that racial oppression is the only kind of oppression that demands reparations?
  
  I never voiced support for reparations, only pointed out that their purpose isn't to restore an equal state of affairs.
  I don't think that racial oppression should necessarily lead to reparations. In fact, I think it almost never should. In relatively immediate situations of extreme, obvious wrongdoing, there should be some form of redress. Beyond that, the waters are often too muddied. As you have pointed pointed out, history is very complicated. Once we're trying to untangle fourth order consequences and tease out barely detectable differences, it clearly isn't a sensible policy, if only because our techniques will be insufficient. >
  
  As long as I'm not paying for this out of my taxes they can do whatever they want. >
  
  But all reparations that have been paid for in the past have come from taxes. Why would this be any different? >
  
  It's not federal, it's California state taxes. I don't live in California. >
  
  Your first sentence resembles arguments wypipo use to delegitimize what has been done to BLACK PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY by the white race and the system of white supremacy. 
  The government bailed out banks, farmers e.t.c., did you object to those things?
  Money is just something printed, so it's definitely affordable and realistic, to me. >
  
  My only point was that people shouldn't have to depend on reparations to survive. The government should provide the basics to everyone and reparations should be in addition to that. So instead of "I need this money to pay for critical medical care and food" it's "oh now I can give my kid a larger nest egg, now I can take a vacation to x, etc." 
  I have mixed feelings about bailing out banks and to be honest I don't know enough about the farmer bailout to comment. 
  
  Money is just something printed, so it's definitely affordable and realistic, to me.
  
  But if more money is printed, that can have disastrous economic effects. We can't just print more money. >
  
  Why would anyone in SF think they deserve something that is not theirs? >
  
  I am quite OK with giving every single Black Skinned person in the USA $Five Million Dollars, Confederate Dollars that is ! >
  
  Lot of removed comments. Can’t trust Reddit >
  
  Reparations are bad in every way.  First of all, where do you stop?   3 generations removed?  5?  100?   There is no right answer.    Also, unfortunately slavery was legal, so should reparations be given to those who had their "property" taken from them as well?   Finally, who is paying for these reparations? My ancestors came from Russia in the early 1900's.     So how do I claim exemption from my taxes going to compensate people who were never slaves, when nobody in my family was ever a slave-owner?
  There is just no way to do this in a fair way, and in all honestly, how would it make a difference?  If people aren't educated, they will likely get scammed and not have this money in a generation anyway.  Look at the history of lottery winners or professional athletes who got millions and ended up worse than before.    If we are going to invest that money in anything, it needs to be in EDUCATION and paying teachers a wage that would encourage the best we have to go into that field. 
  We would then need a way to allow schools not to be daycare and not allow disruptive children, or children with uninterested parents ruin the educations of everyone else in the community. >
  
  5 million per qualified person but it's put into a fund to help the black community in a way that benefits all. >
  
  What about Japanese Americand WW2? All there stuff was taken and they fought for America >
  
  I refuse to pay a penny to any black person unless i did something to them