I think in order to answer that question you’d have to first ask the question, what are reparations meant to accomplish?
I found something fascinating about how you stated your argument. I’ve always thought reparations, however well intended were a bad idea. Like saying one bad deed deserves another AND making someone who may have not had anything to do with the source deed pay the price based solely on their race. Just not sure how that is supposed to help anyone.
But I read your post, in particular the part how you wondered if the many trillions we’ve spent on poor black families would count against or be subtracted from reparations. while it doesn’t change what I think of reparations it does make me rethink what I thought about racism in this country.
I guess I always assumed reparations was a way of punishing one race to make up for the misdeeds of the other. We would have done it sooner, but it took a good long while for it to be socially palatable.
I never thought of it as a way to balance a fiscal scorecard, and I certainly wouldn’t assume that blacks have had some disproportionate amount of unfair aide given to them and that this was now being held against them. I found that idea to be pretty raw and hope it was just poorly worded. I guess I naively think that when we give aid to people, the average person on the receiving end needs the help and it isn’t supposed to be some stain on their existence. I thought that was a troubling outlook at a difficult problem, and I don’t think it enhances your argument