comment: >
  
  Somehow I doubt you give a shit about Indigenous people, either.
context: Did Minnesota have slavery? >
  
  No, but it is likely that descendents of slaves have moved there >
  
  How likely? And which people get the money? Does a white persons that’s a descendent of a slave get reparations? Does everyone need to take a dna test? >
  
  
  How likely?
  
  How likely is it that a single person in this city is a descendant of a slave? I'd bet it's around 99.99% chance. 
  
  And which people get the money?
  
  There hasn't been much specifics released, this committee - as I understand it - is to explore the options and gather data. 
  
  Does a white persons that’s a defendant of a slave get reparations?
  
  Again, specifics haven't been released. 
  
  Does everyone need to take a dna test?
  
  Again, specifics haven't been released. But this seems incredibly unlikely. >
  
  Then how do you prove you are deserving of reparations? >
  
  I dont know how much clearer I can be that the specifics of this proposal haven't been released. 
  If I had to wager a guess I'd say a direct lineage to a documented slave. Perhaps DNA tests would be involved, but the question I responded to was 'does everyone need to take a DNA test'. >
  
  So after people who’s family was affected by slavery get 5k then what? It will be an a okay now to racists because we “paid our dues.” Politically, this is a horrible idea and will lose votes. I am pretty fuckin far left and this idea is extremely ridiculous to me. >
  
  It seems like you're criticizing specifics and hypothetical that haven't even occured >
  
  Then why do you back it? Tell me what you like about it that’s not hypothetical? >
  
  The funny part, to me, is that I never even stated whether I backed it or not. I have no opinion on the content of the article because frankly, the article is too vague to really form an opinion over. The results of the committee might be good, they might not. 
  But I do support the hypothetical idea of reparations. It is undeniable that slaves were denied wages, therefore their descendants were robbed of the generational wealth growth that non-slaves had. 
  In this country, the single greatest indicator of someone's success, is the wealth of their parents. Money makes money. An entire group of people was denied access to money, and their descendants are still paying the price. That'd why there is such a large racial wealth inequality. The difference has to be made up somehow. >
  
  The African counties should pay reparations not only to the descendants of the slaves but also the white people that fought for their freedom. The slave trade was run why black kings who would capture their enemies and sell them to white people. Africa has a lot to apologize for to its people (not to mention the shameful history of Liberia, where freed black slaves who returned from America started … capturing and selling slaves as their main income. People are so rotten) >
  
  Ahh yes the ole I’ll give you reparations for your DNA trick. >
  
  That's uh, pretty dumb. Slave states should be footing any bills, including any work needed to even trace someones roots back to any American slavery. Then figure out what the line is for reparations, unless it just comes down to being black or not. >
  
  Nobody should be getting reparations.  There isn’t single person alive whose grandparents were slaves.  And a couple of bucks isn’t going to fix what’s wrong with race relations in this country. >
  
  There are people alive whose great grandparents were slaves. I don’t necessarily agree with reparations but your reasoning is completely wrong. >
  
  But so what?  How is it close to fair to take money from someone who did no wrong and give it to someone who suffered no personal harm.  The person living today has no personal experience of slavery.   By that logic, everyone should get reparations (from whom I can’t imagine) because someone in their genetic past. >
  
  I just said I don’t necessarily agree with reparations. I take issue with your posts talking about how this is ancient history people are drudging up. It’s not even close to ancient. There are people alive today whose great grandparents were slaves. That is not ancient history. >
  
  Yes, I understand.  But the person getting the money wasn’t a slave.  If great gramps was a slave, I guess he can talk about being compensated for the wrong to him.   I don’t care if it’s ancient or last weekend. >
  
  But you brought up the grandparents being slaves thing, it makes sense that you do care how recently it happened? Like I said before, I don’t necessarily agree with reparations but to act like there weren’t lasting effects of slavery on those descended from slaves is a bit naive/ignorant. >
  
  No. >
  
  Counterpoint: Yes. >
  
  A state that never allowed slaves using taxpayer dollars from people who never owned slaves and giving to people that never were slaves.
  Rather than addressing any type of institutional racism in their police departments or fixing redlining, you’re content with giving every black American (many of whom would not be descendants of slaves, for example an immigrant from Nigeria) a few thousand dollars instead of lasting and consequential change? I’ve always found people in favor of monetary reparations to be incredibly naive and terribly short-sighted. >
  
  
  you’re content with
  
  I dont see anyone saying they're content with anything here. Don't make assumptions about someone's policy positions. >
  
  Fair enough >
  
  
  "the creation and sustainment of generational wealth for the American descendants of chattel slavery and to boost economic mobility and opportunity in the American descendants of chattel slavery community"
  
  It's only fair. If you live in Minnesota and you didn't have a great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent who was a slave in the Confederate states, then you should have already amassed generational wealth yourself by now. No excuses. >
  
  Did Minnesota have a slaves? >
  
  That’s actually what the committee in California changed, … as it was brought up lose in state court (potential sanctions for the lawyers) when the lawsuits happen (re: CA was a Union state). 
  Now the CA reparations are for (provable) housing discrimination (redlining, blockbusting etc.) into the late ‘60s, but that brings up the price tag even surviving a legal challenge.  For CA the $235,000 per figure would total twice the state budget for 2 years = tripling the state income tax in an already expensive state.  This as rich companies continue flee (or at least their HQ) and the next group of taxees have been proven to raise their rates.   There’s combining households, but that’s already happened in response to cost of living. 
  If the $200,000 figure stands, an eligible Californian would have to spend almost $200,000 to get it. >
  
  Were there slaves in St. Paul? That is a good question since Minnesota wasn't a slave state. >
  
  No, but there are likely descendents of slaves who have moved there. >
  
  Oh sorry, I misunderstood your initial question. I thought you were asking if there was slavery in st Paul, not if former slaves had moved there. 
  Fwiw, that quote doesn't imply there was slavery in st Paul. >
  
  Imagine if this sort of decency spread everywhere. >
  
  Like back to native Americans who are entirely first in line for stolen land and genocide reparations?  Despite disingenuous sophistry that they aren’t.