A cogent argument against reparations. The speaker makes the obvious point about how the punishments for the sins of the fathers shouldn't be visited on their descendants (an archaic biblical concept of inherited guilt); she also notes that the descendants of the white soldiers who freed the slaves shouldn't be forced to pay reparations to the descendants of the slaves. In this vein, she asks whether a child born of a rapist should be branded a rapist because of its father's deeds. Then, she brings it all home by noting that the Democrats were the slave owners and the makers/enforcers of Jim Crow laws, so should we treat today's Democrats as slave owners and advocates for Jim Crow?
The only real question is whether the left has enough self-consistency to heed this argument. The left tends to believe whatever is convenient in the moment.
"whether the left has enough self-consistency to heed this argument"
ReplyDeleteThat gave me a chuckle. Like that old saw, "if it wasn't for low standards, the left would have no standards at all."
I've heard it as, "If it weren't for double standards..."
Delete