O.K., so America looks different - you still live here - MOVE ON!
This is kind of hard to grasp, or explain, from the outside:
"Ta-Nehisi Coates is right about the nature of the harm done to black Americans. He’s right that later generations of black Americans still suffer from harms inflicted in the past. He’s wrong to insist on a remedy that is not only unworkable, but indefensible,…"
Today, for some reason, someone at The Atlantic let David Frum post something, called The Elusive Specificity of Reparations:
"They’re not an abstract notion. They’re particular amounts of money paid to particular people. To atone for America's sins, whom should the government pay, how much, and why?"
We're all counting on Ted (and Rand) to bring in those black voters, right?
It's a weird piece, if you've read what Coates wrote in The Case For Reparations, published by,...The Atlantic:
"Broach the topic of reparations today and a barrage of questions inevitably follows: Who will be paid? How much will they be paid? Who will pay? But if the practicalities,...are the true sticking point, Congressman John Conyers Jr. has marked every session of Congress by introducing a bill calling for a congressional study of slavery and its lingering effects as well as recommendations for “appropriate remedies.”
…HR 40, the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act. We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions. But we are not interested.
So here's my concern already:
Are reparations as a topic causing Frum - and his magazine - to publicly experience, like, some kind of white mental episode?