I disagree.  That is, indeed, effectively what the GP is saying: that we can never rise above the mistakes of the past.  That we can never let go of the past and move forward.  That we will always be guilty of the sins of people who lived on this plot of land 150 years ago.<p>And that&#x27;s all balderdash.  In fact, go back in time a few decades, and this was not such a big deal.  We <i>were</i> moving on.  Fast-forward to today, and we have a new generation of agitators learning how to be outraged at the distant past, fomenting dissent and unrest.<p>We are not saddled with racist institutions--we are building a new breed of them.  And poverty knows not skin color.<p>And what is it with this idea of police brutality?  &quot;black people would still suffer the brunt of police brutality, because they still live in the poorest areas where there is the most crime.&quot;  There is less police brutality in this country than there has been at any time in its history.  Those people you&#x27;re talking about are suffering from <i>crime</i>.  The problem is not police brutality--the problem is crime.  Most murdered blacks are murdered by other blacks.<p>Frankly, how dare you tell anyone that they are not qualified to have an opinion on what is just or fair or right or wrong.  That is a stone age attitude if I ever heard one.  What you are advocating is effectively a detatched kind of &#x2F;lex talionis&#x2F;, one in which the distant descendants of people who were wronged are asked how they should be compensated by the perpetrating of further injustice upon innocents who are in no way responsible for said wrongs of the distant past.<p>And as a rational human being, I am fully qualified to recognize that injustice, regardless of my skin color or sex.<p>It&#x27;s ludicrous.  Ask any human being, &quot;Hey, some folks way up your family tree a long time ago were treated wrongly.  Therefore, we can give you some free money and bump you to the top of the resume pile.  Is that okay with you?&quot; and what do you think they are going to say?  The problem is that, in some ways, it <i>is</i> a zero-sum game, because every time one person is given preferential treatment over another, that other person suffers.  And that is unjust, unfair, and wrong.<p>And at the same time, in some ways, it&#x27;s not a zero-sum game, because when one person suffers injustice, we are all wronged.  The only way to stop this is to stop all injustice and treat all people equally.  That is the only truly fair, just, and right thing to do.  <i>Justice</i> should be blind, and that includes being blind to skin color and sex.<p>&gt; Don&#x27;t get defensive and try to prove how non-racist you are.<p>Why are you saying these things?  Show me where I am defensive and trying to prove anything about myself.  I am not and have never been the subject of this discussion.  You&#x27;re parroting lines, not participating in a discussion.<p>&gt; Despite how uncomfortable that makes a lot of people, there really is no way for that legacy to ever be erased.<p>So, tell me, what is the statute of limitations?  When is the expiration date?  Apparently 150+ years is not it.  Apparently the 600,000 deaths of Union soldiers who died as part of the effort to end slavery isn&#x27;t part of the equation.  So what is it then?  200 years?  500 years?  1,000 years?  The dissolution of the nation altogether?  If there is truly no end to this &quot;legacy,&quot; then why are we stopping at slavery?  Why aren&#x27;t we going back more hundreds or thousands of years to all the other horrific tragedies perpetrated by one group upon another?<p>Quite seriously, where do you draw the line, and who are you--or anyone else--to make that call?<p>You don&#x27;t bail out a sinking ship by pouring water into the ship; you stop the leak and pump out the water.  You don&#x27;t heal broken bones by breaking other people&#x27;s bones.  You cannot solve racism by applying more racism.