>Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
>>Mat & Justin have already made an argument that practicalities are
>>not the problem. What's your objection to them?
>
>1) Defining race.
Elibigity has to be on the basis of descent from a slave, not on the basis of race.
> 2) Defining eligibility after defining race.
Not a big deal. Anyone who can show to some reasonable standard that she or he had at least some % of slave ancestry, something like that. You wouldn't have to require that people produce papers; race might be a presumptive indicator.
>3)
>Defining the mechanism of reparation (America's plan reinforces
>capitalist logic; you want to undermine it.
Send out a check to the eligible.
> 4) Deciding whom
>to
>exclude - if you include the descendants of slaves, why not Indians?
>Why not the Latin Americans we've bled for eons?
Because reparations for slavery is not intended to right all wrongs.
> 5) Deciding how to
>fund them - should working class whites be taxed, or just bourgeois
>whites?
>
In the real world, obviously yes.
This is just a dodge for avoiding _political_ discussion, Doug.
--jks _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com