It is inaccurate to say all Democrats support reparations for slavery. Repesentative Sheila Jackson Lee has proposed a bill to "study" the issue and many candidates support that, but no one is suggesting a plan for reparations. It would be hard to determine who might qualify for a cash payout. People would have to show their ancestry dates back to the slave trade. That alone would be very tough to demonstrate. It's a non-starter for that reason. It's clear people of color are persistently economically worse off than so-called white people. The reasons are complex, but no doubt part of it is discrimination.
It seems rather ironic that democrat say that DACA children shouldn't have to pay for the crimes of their parents.
Yet these same democrats claim that white people of today should be held responsible for the actions of some one and a half centuries ago!!!
Any democrat care to explain that????
in a word-----------------NO!!!!Are children responsible for the crimes of their parents?
Really? They must be blind then.
Another poorly educated American. Democrats embrace the liberalism of Lincoln and the liberalism of other Republicans of his time and reject the reactionary policies of Democrats of that era. They would be Republicans today if the parties hadn't done an about face in the 20th Century with Democrats becoming the liberal party and Republicans the conservative party. Why do you suppose the South was solidly Democrat during and following Reconstruction but is now almost solidly Republican?
Basic American political history
It would appear that you believe in the "Big Switch" theory. Tell us where you disagree with Dinesh D'Souza's explanation.
The History of the Democrat Party from Slavery to Wealth Redistribution | Dinesh D'Souza
YouTube
Not interested.
Of course you're not. Dinesh puts the lie to your alternate history.
Are children responsible for the crimes of their parents?
Are parents responsible for crimes of their children?
Of course not. Isn't 'personal responsibility' the mantra of the conservative?
You mean history grounded in scholarship as attacked by a hair brained conspiracy theorist. You should find a different forum.
Ah, the labeling again. Perhaps it is YOU that should give up all forums. You have demonstrated your lack of understanding.
Again?
The original foolish label in this exchange is that of "alternate history" for historical scholarship while promoting a conspiracy nutcase as the genuine article.
And yet you don't dispute his facts. You belittle with no documentation. Sounds about right. How did you ever make it this far?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?