[RD] Where BLM Isn't Needed

[innonimatu]

I think all form of inheritance is strictly amoral, and I also think capital accumulation is to a degree amoral (note: this doesn't mean earning a wage, but rather earning interest on your already existing capital). So I do not have the problem with needing to distinguish between blood money inheritance and "fair" inheritance, because I believe the latter is oxymoronic. Inheritance is unfair by principle.

Ideally we wouldn't need, and have, either. Currently I don't think we can get rid of inheritance because property matters under the current economic organization, and people care for their families more than they do for others. It's an unfairness that at this stage has to be lessened and compensated in ways other that a complete suppression of inheritances.
But, more importantly for me, there is also the fact that people get attached to the places they lived in, which (if they are not too poor to own them, which is a drama) are theirs as some form of property/right. And become naturally the places their descendants are attached to also. Most people don't move away unless they are made unhappy where they are. That was the shock of modernity, the mass uprooting of people. Refugees are not voluntarily so... To dispossess people of their home as property to pass on may seem theoretically "fairer", but it is a form of violence, and an unnecessary one. One of the mistakes of some past socialist states imo. Letting people own that which they use and pass it on to the family that lives with them, who naturally take possession of it by living there also, is entirely fair. They acquire that right by sharing in that use also. It's the accumulation or retention of superfluous property that is the problem, preventing others from enjoying the same right to have their place.

Can you explain what you mean by that? In my mind, it was a very simple decision of letting millions of people die or drown (what most of Europe and the USA, who were responsible for the crisis in the first place, actually wanted) and saving some of those people from dieing (which is what we ended up doing). Is your problem with the attitude? Can you elaborate on that a bit?

My problem is that these millions of people were set on the move by outright propaganda that the borders would be open. I believe that there was a calculated decision to "import what would become cheap labour". In other words, it was more a pull by Europe (as in: certain european governments) than a push into Europe (by refugees fleeing war). When the borders were announced closed, it mostly ceased. And as the number of those coming dwindled, do did the number of those dying on the trip. If anything the announcement that Europe would take refugees it caused the deaths on that path, because this same Europe didn't organize any kind of air bridge into Turkey's border to transport these refugees in safely, did it? Talk of rescuing the migrants who drowned was deployed to overcome reactions against the policy of opening borders, it was a show of government hypocrisy.
No millions of people would have died if the borders had not been announced "open to refuges", just as no millions of people would have died in Benghazi if Libya hadn't been bombed into civil war. Or Syria thrown into civil war. And in fact no millions died after the flow of refugees was stopped, they just stayed in Turkey, Lebanon, Tunisia, etc. It was lies served with a truckload of hypocrisy: the "humanitarian interventions" caused wars they have not yet ceased, destroyed whole countries and killed or uprooted million of people indeed. And the "humanitarian taking in of refugees" was meant only to then exploit those people inside Europe. Call me cynical but I absolutely I do not trust the announced good intentions of governments who destroyed their lives in the first place, disguised as "humanitarian intervention".

It's not just just black lives that don't matter. It's foreign lives don't matter. Warmongering just goes on and on, producing the same entirely expected results. It's not just the destruction of populations and ransacking of natural resources, it's also the ransacking of populations driven to migration. This is then modern slave trade to supply the underclasses of servants to the used in the developed world. Isn't it nice that those who use them can even claim to be acting all humanitarian? They'll probably get a statue too. To be dumped into a harbor in a century or so.

 

[amadeus]

I feel like this is just dumb. The rich families in any slave-nation, what is their wealth build on? Where did their inheritance come from?

The Waltons? Retail. Gates? Computer software. Ted Turner? Television. I don’t think I saw any plantation owners in Forbes recently.

I don’t mean it to be snide, but we are 150 years from slavery. Nobody alive today in the U.S. was a slave. “X was built on slavery” doesn’t mean anything to me since there are so many variables.

Allow me to emphasize part of your quote below:

"Looking forward" just means ignoring where the status quo actually came from, and in 99% of cases the entire white population benefitted, to some degree, off of slavery (or cheap workers in general) and those benefits extent to today. What you are asking for is essentially to keep this unfair wealth/advantage and act like it doesn't exist.

Black Americans today are inheritors of wealth that poor whites produced in America’s steel mills. Or the Chinese and Irish workers that built railroads. Or Japanese plantation workers growing pineapples in Hawaii.

Who is entitled to “restitution” and who needs to pay it? My ancestors were conquered by the Prussians—does modern-day Germany owe me anything? Same for the English that conquered Scotland—to what extent is London obliged to provide me with something? I can’t point to any specific disadvantage today, but if we’re going to be dragging out every legacy of every negative thing that happened in history, I want my cut of it.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The Waltons? Retail. Gates? Computer software. Ted Turner? Television. I don’t think I saw any plantation owners in Forbes recently.

it goes something like this

- slave work or serf work helps with infrastructure, infrastructure benefits everyone (besides slaves) in terms of economic development
- slavery means cheap labor, of which all walks of life benefit
- slave work fuels rich families, even those of tech moguls. just ******* remember that Tesla was born out of blood diamond money, slavery is not some far-away concept, not for the US and not for anyone. slavery is still alive today.
- rich families fuel a national economy and global competition, of which again mostly the already rich gain

to say it in short: slaves did lots of work. work for which someone would have been paid otherwise. the money that the slaves were never paid accumulated in the pockets of the owners, and partially it went back into the economy. everyone who wasn't a slave benefitted from slavery financially.

it works the similiarly with CO2 emissions. Europe and the US got rich, in part, because they polluted like hell.

- it is beneficial for an economy to have cheap fuel and cheap energy
- cheap energy and fuel means the hurdle for entry in the economy is much lower
- cheap energy and fuel translate into all kinds of things.. cheaper plastic, cheaper mobility, much cheaper running costs for industrialists
- anyone can benefit off of it , as long as they participate in the economy and have a car (so really, not everyone can, but everyone has to suffer the consequences, aka climate change)

these are compound effects and even though slavery has been abolished in the US, the compound effectsand its injustices are still there. advantages don't vanish over time, even if many people want it to, because it's much easier this way.

 

[amadeus]

@yung.carl.jung, I’m familiar with the concept but I don’t agree with the premise because they are only looking at the white-black variable and nothing else.

edit: the brevity of my reply here is not meant to be a slight against you or your opinion.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The difference between USA and Europé is mostly the descendants of slaves in USA are living in USA and don't seems to do to well, while the slaves Europé used are mostly living in countries on other continents.

The brutality that happened in the colonies was probably actually illegal in the European countries at the time so it was covered up and probably is still covered up even today, it took a long time for the people in Europe to know what happened in place like Belgian Kongo.

Another difference is that the colonized people did not get any sort of long term benefit because the resources they extracted was shipped away to distant countries while the former slaves or their descendants in USA could benefit from their work.

Today the poorest countries in the World are former colonies while the colonizers are some of the richest countries in the World so Argubly the European form of slavery was far more sinister than the version seen in USA and also much more covered up to make it look like it is the fault of these countries that they are poor, but how are you supposed to build a country when the people can't trust their government due to extreme oppression for centuries.

So basically the European countries got away with extreme crimes against humanity while USA maybe only partially got away.

 

[Zardnaar]

The difference between USA and Europé is mostly the descendants of slaves in USA are living in USA and don't seems to do to well, while the slaves Europé used are mostly living in countries on other continents.

The brutality that happened in the colonies was probably actually illegal in the European countries at the time so it was covered up and probably is still covered up even today, it took a long time for the people in Europe to know what happened in place like Belgian Kongo.

Another difference is that the colonized people did not get any sort of long term benefit because the resources they extracted was shipped away to distant countries while the former slaves or their descendants in USA could benefit from their work.

Today the poorest countries in the World are former colonies while the colonizers are some of the richest countries in the World so Argubly the European form of slavery was far more sinister than the version seen in USA and also much more covered up to make it look like it is the fault of these countries that they are poor, but how are you supposed to build a country when the people can't trust their government due to extreme oppression for centuries.

So basically the European countries got away with extreme crimes against humanity while USA maybe only partially got away.

Ex UK colonies are rich. Aussie, Canada etc.

The colonizers built up infrastructure. It's one reason Korea is reasonably rich, Japan built the power grid. China inherited Manchukuo.

What countries did after colonization was imported. Zimbabwe being case in point.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Considering BLM's conduct and open dishonesty (including that it actually cares about all black lives), there are quite a lot of nations where it isn't needed.

There is enough evidence to push reform without ruining the lives of people in poor communities (including actual deaths) in the name of protecting them. An honest movement would be pushing for consistent enforcement of standards. Sometimes those associated with BLM do that, other times they do not.

I feel like this is just dumb. The rich families in any slave-nation, what is their wealth build on? Where did their inheritance come from? "Looking forward" just means ignoring where the status quo actually came from, and in 99% of cases the entire white population benefitted, to some degree, off of slavery (or cheap workers in general) and those benefits extent to today. What you are asking for is essentially to keep this unfair wealth/advantage and act like it doesn't exist.

Quoted is itself a little racist.

I get it. People want to legally grab things. But that's no way to run a nation, because it implies no incentive to make/have things if allowed.

A large number of people immigrated to nations like the USA long after the abolition of slavery. Many of them poor themselves, in some cases fleeing their own bad conditions (as war refugees, for example). Now people claim these folks somehow had more privilege. Meanwhile, mixed race people with actual plantation slave owners as ancestors can somehow claim said immigrants owe them something.

Nevermind who sold others into slavery in the first place, or that if you go back a bit more in history many of those "99% white population" also had slavery in their own history. 100-150 years earlier and it doesn't count anymore? Where are we drawing the line in this arbitrary discussion of wrongs committed outside any of our lifetimes? Restitution for actions > century ago is not a functional proposition. We really do need to look at policy in the present and evaluate what actions get us outcomes we prefer.

 

[cardgame]

Nevermind who sold others into slavery in the first place, or that if you go back a bit more in history many of those "99% white population" also had slavery in their own history. 100-150 years earlier and it doesn't count anymore? Where are we drawing the line in this arbitrary discussion of wrongs committed outside any of our lifetimes? Restitution for actions > century ago is not a functional proposition.

How is this relevant?

a) there is no line to be traced from white slaves 600ish years ago to modern white people, neither individually nor as a whole

b) there is no line to be traced from the owners of white slaves (which cannot be compared to black slaves in the first place, so I don't even know why I'm humoring this line of thought except boredom) to any modern day people, AFAIK

c) even if any of A or B was wrong, absolutely none of that is relevant to America

d) the opposite of A and B is true of black slavery in America

 

[TheMeInTeam]

a) there is no line to be traced from white slaves 600ish years ago to modern white people, neither individually nor as a whole

Much more recent than that.

b) there is no line to be traced from the owners of white slaves (which cannot be compared to black slaves in the first place, so I don't even know why I'm humoring this line of thought except boredom) to any modern day people, AFAIK

It should be possible to compare white slaves and black slaves, if we accept that both populations were enslaved.

c) even if any of A or B was wrong, absolutely none of that is relevant to America

That assertion is incorrect. If you *can* trace lines (aka A is wrong), then you have to come up with a good reason that some slavery counts and not other slavery, and which context matters. Which people don't do because it's intractable nonsense.

Speaking of tracing lines, what do you do with Americans who have both slaving and being enslaved in their own family history? Quite a few of those. Does their skin color matter at that point, at all?

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm opposed to reparations for slavery, it's a can of worms best left unopened.

Not opposed to money bring spent on social programs to help the poor out which would benefit blacks more in the states. Sure poor whites will get it as well but it's easier to sell to the populace at large.

That help being things like welfare, healthcare, education funding (schools, university, trade training etc).

We've been doing it since the 70s. There's no quick and easy fix anyone claiming otherwise is full of it. It's a generational thing.

 

[AntSou]

I don’t mean it to be snide, but we are 150 years from slavery.

You say that like it's a lot.

Considering BLM's conduct and open dishonesty (including that it actually cares about all black lives), there are quite a lot of nations where it isn't needed.

I don't understand this bit since you're not referring to anything specific to support it. What's the open dishonesty you speak of?

There is enough evidence to push reform without ruining the lives of people in poor communities (including actual deaths) in the name of protecting them. An honest movement would be pushing for consistent enforcement of standards. Sometimes those associated with BLM do that, other times they do not.

This is all abstract. There's no juice here. "Push reform", "honest movement", "consistent enforcement of standards", "sometimes those associated with BLM do that, other times they do not". None of this means anything unless you can provide some content to what it is that you're actually talking about.

I get it. People want to legally grab things. But that's no way to run a nation, because it implies no incentive to make/have things if allowed.

Do you? It must be very comfortable to believe and easily dismiss the centuries of abuse as a simple manifestation of consumerism. Have you ever considered you may be merely projecting your own morals onto others?

Personally I think reparations are impractical, and that's the sole reason they should not be made into policy, not that there's anything immoral about them. Reparations should be used and put into contracts/laws/treaties in the immediate aftermath of an offence, as was established by the treaties/agreements of Versailles, Paris, Potsdam and Luxembourg.

However, the spirit of reparations should still be applied through different manners where actual reparations are not practical.

A large number of people immigrated to nations like the USA long after the abolition of slavery. Many of them poor themselves, in some cases fleeing their own bad conditions (as war refugees, for example). Now people claim these folks somehow had more privilege.

Were Italians and Irish men being blocked from Universities in the 60s? Are you even trying?

Meanwhile, mixed race people with actual plantation slave owners as ancestors can somehow claim said immigrants owe them something.

"Germany should not pay reparations to Israel! Some of those holocaust victims married the children of Nazis. How can these people claim Germany owns them anything?" - This is your argument. Which you would of course have noticed if you cared, but your mind is not on being honest, rather in just being defensive.

Nevermind who sold others into slavery in the first place

The rulers of Kongo were particularly notorious for selling their own people into slavery. Just how exactly does that cancel the actions of American citizens on American soil? You're scrapping the barrel for sand, but there's not enough in there to throw it at anyone's eyes.

or that if you go back a bit more in history many of those "99% white population" also had slavery in their own history. 100-150 years earlier and it doesn't count anymore?

Restitutions by whom to whom? See above for the impracticality of reparations. The restitutions of the white populations came through the abolishment of the institutions of serfdom, the acceptance of democratic principles, the expansion of the public school, the expansion of the welfare state, etc.

 

[Traitorfish]

It should be possible to compare white slaves and black slaves, if we accept that both populations were enslaved.

Which populations of white people were enslaved? Where is the European diaspora in the former Ottoman Empire that we can talk about in the same terms as the African diaspora in the Americas?

 

[Zardnaar]

Which populations of white people were enslaved? Where is the European diaspora in the former Ottoman Empire that we can talk about in the same terms as the African diaspora in the Americas?

A lot got used for sex slaves. Alot would have been breed out or otherwise integrated into their societies. The children would have their fathers name, position etc.

Every now and then you see a Turk or whatever that could pass for a an Englishman. Whether they are descended from slaves or another minority in Turkey idk.

Slavery wasn't as race based in the former Muslim lands. Although they were happy to enslave Africans.

Some where also castrated so no descendents. Long term solves that problem.

There's also black ex slaves in places like Pakistan. They get discriminated against.

 

[warpus]

One thing I liked about New Zealand when I was there, was that the indigenous Maori culture and even language was incorporated into the fabric of the country. It was refreshing, coming from a country (Canada), where we name our cities after cool sounding aboriginal words, but other than that you don't really see aboriginal culture as a part of Canadian culture. It's sort of its own separate thing that you see in museums or on reservations. In New Zealand this stuff is more "in your face" and you get this feeling that Maori culture is its own thing, but also a big part of the country. Here in Canada it feels more like there is Canadian culture, which is European, and then you have various aboriginal cultures here and there, that most people for the most part usually ignore.

I quite liked that. The haka (for example) is something people do in NZ, no matter what they look like. I find that refreshing, two (or more?) very different cultures coming together and merging together like that, as opposed to the North American approach, in which you're not allowed to wear a sombrero because you were born in the wrong country.

 

[Zardnaar]

One thing I liked about New Zealand when I was there, was that the indigenous Maori culture and even language was incorporated into the fabric of the country. It was refreshing, coming from a country (Canada), where we name our cities after cool sounding aboriginal words, but other than that you don't really see aboriginal culture as a part of Canadian culture. It's sort of its own separate thing that you see in museums or on reservations. In New Zealand this stuff is more "in your face" and you get this feeling that Maori culture is its own thing, but also a big part of the country. Here in Canada it feels more like there is Canadian culture, which is European, and then you have various aboriginal cultures here and there, that most people for the most part usually ignore.

I quite liked that. The haka (for example) is something people do in NZ, no matter what they look like. I find that refreshing, two (or more?) very different cultures coming together and merging together like that, as opposed to the North American approach, in which you're not allowed to wear a sombrero because you were born in the wrong country.

The Haka is kinda drummed into you.

It's not perfect as I said but the Maori make it unique here. Cultural transfusion here is going both ways.

Local city including some residential area.

Iwi up north have requested a statue to come down. It's coming down.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-...-hamilton-to-be-removed-hamilton-city-council

 

[cardgame]

It should be possible to compare white slaves and black slaves, if we accept that both populations were enslaved.

It's not possible, because American slavery was chattel slavery, and THE ENTIRETY OF BLACK AMERICANS CAME FROM SLAVERY. You cannot say the same about any group of white people anywhere in the world. That's why it's not relevant.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, entitlement is easier to trace if there's a legal line of succession when it comes to the actual property. Other examples tend to include instances where government and property rights were re-allocated. BUT, I don't think restitution works because it's too complicated.

You know what could work? It wouldn't be perfect, but it would work. A bottom-up and aggressive approach to poverty. If one cohort is over-represented at a specific wealth-cohort (it could be for historically bad reasons or good reasons ... but given that wealth is inherited, a lot of the 'good' wealth will have been built off of bad wealth), then that cohort will be affected by the efforts to alleviate poverty.

Oh sure, it means you'll have to tax some of one race in order to tax the majority of another. OR, it means you'll have to help out members of one race in order to help out a huge number of another. BUT, the concern is economic suppression, built off of compounding effects. Wealth redistribution undoes that, one literal dollar at a time

 

[innonimatu]

The difference between USA and Europé is mostly the descendants of slaves in USA are living in USA and don't seems to do to well, while the slaves Europé used are mostly living in countries on other continents.

No, Europe used plenty of slaves in Europe. Including african slaves. They just melded away after being released. Proportionally there were more in the colonies, true. And an apartheid regime was enforced there that didn't exist in Europe. Perhaps because Europe already had a huge "developed (stable) underclass" of locals where the liberated slaves melded into, whereas the colonies had a social hierarchy where the owners where white and on the top, and most of the poor below were... the slaves, or some other recent imported underclasses that stuck together as groups.
I guess that what I'm suggesting is that the melting pot theory of america is in fact a big lie?

The brutality that happened in the colonies was probably actually illegal in the European countries at the time so it was covered up and probably is still covered up even today, it took a long time for the people in Europe to know what happened in place like Belgian Kongo.

Also no, I'm sad to say. Slaves in Europe, depending on the jurisdiction they fell under, could be bred together forcefully (raped...), to produce children for sale, murdered with impunity, etc. Or not, it very much depended on the place and local customs also. Only in the 18th century were national laws limiting very much what slave owned could to and then releasing slaves done and applied.
Of course by the time of Leopold's wholesale slaughter in he Congo (western) Europe had forbidden slavery more a century ago.

 

[Zardnaar]

No, Europe used plenty of slaves in Europe. Including african slaves. They just melded away after being released. Proportionally there were more in the colonies, true. And an apartheid regime was enforced there that didn't exist in Europe. Perhaps because Europe already had a huge "developed (stable) underclass" of locals where the liberated slaves melded into, whereas the colonies had a social hierarchy where the owners where white and on the top, and most of the poor below were... the slaves, or some other recent imported underclasses that stuck together as groups.
I guess that what I'm suggesting is that the melting pot theory of america is in fact a big lie?



Also no, I'm sad to say. Slaves in Europe, depending on the jurisdiction they fell under, could be bred together forcefully (raped...), to produce children for sale, murdered with impunity, etc. Or not, it very much depended on the place and local customs also. Only in the 18th century were national laws limiting very much what slave owned could to and then releasing slaves done and applied.
Of course by the time of Leopold's wholesale slaughter in he Congo (western) Europe had forbidden slavery more a century ago.

Slavery never really caught on in Europe
It wasn't quite banned but you couldn't enslave Christians.

So that limited to Muslim PoWs for the most part and the colonial empires. Since most slaves were shipped off to the colonies there were very few in Europe itself outside Ottoman Empire. IIRC there were 10000 Africans mostly in London in 18th century (population England+Scotland 1707 5 million iirc).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's not possible, because American slavery was chattel slavery, and THE ENTIRETY OF BLACK AMERICANS CAME FROM SLAVERY.

Quoted assertion is plainly not true. Many do have that background, but "entirety of black Americans" is nonsense.

Which populations of white people were enslaved? Where is the European diaspora in the former Ottoman Empire that we can talk about in the same terms as the African diaspora in the Americas?

That's a good question, what happened to people and why in each case...

You say that like it's a lot.

It is longer than any human being has lived by a significant margin, more than a generation longer. This is important, because each year since abolition contributes to deny a reasonable attribution of blame to "slavery" rather than other factors that are more recent and more influential on people who are actually living today.

I don't understand this bit since you're not referring to anything specific to support it. What's the open dishonesty you speak of?

• Rate statistics of shootings based on race vs other explanations for policy brutality
• Representation of specific incidents. The Michael Brown shooting in particular really damaged credibility.
• Assertion of the organization's name while condoning/supporting actions that seem to harm a significant portion of black Americans rather than benefit them, including in the recent riots. Though it's not a 100% concrete organization with vouched members, so you do get criminals jumping on the back of it and claiming they're with it when others would obviously disagree. Still, the end result is that Floyd gets a big outcry, but an ambush/killing of a black police officer barely gets mention, if at all. That doesn't sit well with me...the latter's life mattered, too. As much as Floyd's. And that sort of occurrence is a non-trivial factor in incidents like Floyd's.

Do you? It must be very comfortable to believe and easily dismiss the centuries of abuse as a simple manifestation of consumerism. Have you ever considered you may be merely projecting your own morals onto others?

History repeats claims of injustice that are rectified by taking other people's stuff many times over, dating back to before "consumerism" was even a commonly understood term. Using group complaints as a basis for grabbing is a very old practice. As in more than centuries old.

This is all abstract. There's no juice here. "Push reform", "honest movement", "consistent enforcement of standards", "sometimes those associated with BLM do that, other times they do not". None of this means anything unless you can provide some content to what it is that you're actually talking about.

I have gone into more detail about this in the thread on the Floyd incident specifically. This includes removing qualified immunity outright, FBI investigation of conspiracy cover-ups, forced body cameras with much higher penalties for conveniently having them off, and charging officers similarly to how a citizen would be charged if committing the same offense. And doing something about how egregious civil asset forfeiture is too, though I'm not sure what and that's a bit tangential in this context.

Personally I think reparations are impractical, and that's the sole reason they should not be made into policy, not that there's anything immoral about them. Reparations should be used and put into contracts/laws/treaties in the immediate aftermath of an offence, as was established by the treaties/agreements of Versailles, Paris, Potsdam and Luxembourg.

Sure, in the immediate aftermath of an offense you have basis for reparations. This is the basis for civil lawsuits as well for example. But the narrative isn't about specific civil lawsuits of recent offenses when it comes to reparations.

Were Italians and Irish men being blocked from Universities in the 60s? Are you even trying?

Are you even trying? It doesn't seem like it given the tangential and debatable assertion quoted.

"Germany should not pay reparations to Israel! Some of those holocaust victims married the children of Nazis. How can these people claim Germany owns them anything?" - This is your argument. Which you would of course have noticed if you cared, but your mind is not on being honest, rather in just being defensive.

Spare us the ad hominem garbage. If you have a valid argumentative position, you don't need it.

Germany being expected to pay Israel reparations in 2100 is silly, yes. That's the kind of timeframe we're talking about when it comes to slavery in the US.

The rulers of Kongo were particularly notorious for selling their own people into slavery. Just how exactly does that cancel the actions of American citizens on American soil? You're scrapping the barrel for sand, but there's not enough in there to throw it at anyone's eyes.

The basis for the argument is to point out that enforcement of reparations or adjustments based on past injustices needs coherent, consistent standards. Just as an example, if a descendent of those rulers happened to immigrate to the US in 1970, why should they not be expected to cover reparations similar to slave owners descendants in the US? I rarely ever see such an assertion made by those who are pro-reparation, however. Instead they claim that US citizens who weren't US citizens for > 100 years after abolition should still be expected to shoulder part of this burden. That's the kind of degenerate setup that could easily demand a Japanese-American must pay reparations based on an 1800's institution they had nothing to do with.

Restitutions by whom to whom? See above for the impracticality of reparations. The restitutions of the white populations came through the abolishment of the institutions of serfdom, the acceptance of democratic principles, the expansion of the public school, the expansion of the welfare state, etc.

One can make identical claims about the restitutions to those who suffered slavery in America, as well. Do we have substantive data on the "restitutions" handed out in each case? By whom to whom indeed.