Reply #96: I totally agree there should have been

[FlaGranny]

reparation for surviving Tulsa massacre victims. Also, there was a black town in Florida in the early 20th century that was burned to the ground and residents massacred for which I agree there should have been reparations.

I'm not AGAINST reparations in concept. My questions relate to the feasibility of assessing for them. For instance, a black American family which immigrated to the US 5 years ago, and a white family which immigrated to the US, also 5 years ago - should they participate? How about 25 years ago. Does one draw a line, and, if so, where should that line be drawn? When we are talking about more than 50 years, or so, we are no longer dealing with pure immigrants, we are dealing with descendants of recent immigrants and of previous slaves in an increasingly confusing mixture.

The simplest solution to the problem (taxing everyone) actually is THE most divisive solution. The argument goes like this: "If my third cousin broke into your house and stole your TV, it's not my responsibility to buy you a new one." I know that's a simple argument, but that's the kind that is made and causes the most division.

I still see the solution as implementing real and total equality. It would be difficult, but the only real solution.

Has anyone ever done a study to decide how much each person should receive? $1,000, $50,000, $1 million? $1,000 would be an insult. $50,000 would only be a temporary salve. $1 million would be considered outrageous.

I'm trying a little devil's advocacy here. :-)