Excellent article, Iain. The current ‘thinking’ behind the Gen Z-ers comes of course from the loony left who believe their actions are ‘progressive’ and morally correct. They are incapable of looking at the past through anything other than today’s lenses and finding fault with all.
Thank goodness the world is waking up and the wokerati are being exposed for the frauds they are.
Were the British children working down mines and sent up chimneys any better off than the slaves and why should their ancestors be due to pay reparations?
I think the problem with the reparations arguments is that a lot of British people have directly transported an argument from the US without understanding the differences in societies and, frankly, a lot of American activists have simplified the argument so much that it is now almost unrecognisable.
In his seminal essay “The Case for Reparations” Ta-Nehisi Coates does not specifically argue for reparations on the grounds of pre-1860s slavery. Instead, he walks through the last 100 years of the indirect consequences of slavery - the Jim Crow laws, that Blacks were exempt from the GI Joe laws, that only the most expensive and exploitative mortgages were available to Blacks, the white flight which reduced house prices and with it financial base, the truly shocking statistics for Black poverty in 21st century America. I am still not totally convinced by Mr Coates, but his arguments are infinitely more eloquent and persuasive than screaming activists.
Excellent article, Iain. The current ‘thinking’ behind the Gen Z-ers comes of course from the loony left who believe their actions are ‘progressive’ and morally correct. They are incapable of looking at the past through anything other than today’s lenses and finding fault with all.
Thank goodness the world is waking up and the wokerati are being exposed for the frauds they are.
Were the British children working down mines and sent up chimneys any better off than the slaves and why should their ancestors be due to pay reparations?
I think the problem with the reparations arguments is that a lot of British people have directly transported an argument from the US without understanding the differences in societies and, frankly, a lot of American activists have simplified the argument so much that it is now almost unrecognisable.
In his seminal essay “The Case for Reparations” Ta-Nehisi Coates does not specifically argue for reparations on the grounds of pre-1860s slavery. Instead, he walks through the last 100 years of the indirect consequences of slavery - the Jim Crow laws, that Blacks were exempt from the GI Joe laws, that only the most expensive and exploitative mortgages were available to Blacks, the white flight which reduced house prices and with it financial base, the truly shocking statistics for Black poverty in 21st century America. I am still not totally convinced by Mr Coates, but his arguments are infinitely more eloquent and persuasive than screaming activists.