Obviously, the idea of so-called "reparations" is unconscionable at every conceivable level. Particularly where, as is the case with BLM, that entire group seems to be no more than a front to launder money from the purported "cause" to the purported "leaders."
Financially, BLM is basically the same thing as the PLO.
Politically, they're basically the same thing as Hamas.
But BLM's similarities to terrorist organizations is low-hanging fruit; that group is so easy to find fault with any idiot could do it, and only an idiot could possibly support their activities (much less donate money to their objectives).
Here's the broader point to consider: WHY are so-called "reparations" even proposed? Take Ta Nasi Coates' argument at face value, as an illustration of that argument's stupidity. I'll pick on him since he's a target my own size, as opposed to whoever these woke people are posting in this thread.
The idea is that by giving money to individuals who purportedly belong to one or more group(s) that were 'oppressed' we are rebalancing the scale of historical inequity. Essentially, so-called 'white' wealth has accumulated over time and that accumulation is due in substantial part to slavery. White people got rich. Black people got less than 40 acres and a mule. A century of segregation followed, which further prevented 'black' wealth accumulation.
Assuming for the sake of argument that wealth can be accumulated by groups (as opposed to individuals, who, it turns out, are the actually relevant societal units unlike groups), the way you'd prove that argument is by talking about things like average net worth of 'black' families, relative to something as a point of comparison.
If you accumulated that data, which some people --- i.e., Thomas Sowell --- have, I'm sure many would be shocked to learn that black folks in fact meteorically improved their standard of living, generation after generation until a certain series of events in the 1960s when LBJ was elected. What changed, you might wonder? Well, the state decided that it was going to involve itself in black folks' lives to an increasing degree, which was one of those stupid ideas that progressives implemented 'with the best of intentions' without any notion of what 'could possibly go wrong'.
Tremendous horror unfolded. People wonder why the lack of black fathers is so pervasive that it's a meme. LBJ's presidency and social initiatives are why. The government destroyed families, started constructing housing projects like Pruitt–Igoe and kicked off a range of initiatives that vitiated the human networks through which black folks' lives and standards of living had improved since the end of the civil war. And that's all very clear in the data Sowell has published on time and time and time again.
It's tragic, really. Expanding welfare more than anything else probably did the most harm, because that meant that the financial costs of children born out of wedlock no longer had to be a father's responsibility. So, with reproduction unmoored from marriage; black fatherhood, or the lack of it, became a meme. Roe v. Wade thereafter made those problems worse. Entire generations of black babies were aborted after that egregiously wrong decision was handed down. When you actually look at the demographics of who was aborting babies, the data are sufficient to make your blood run cold. If there ever was any so-called 'white' privilege, it was the fact that you had a much better chance of not being aborted if you were white than if you were black, post-Roe. Sowell compellingly argues that without Roe, more black babies would have been born and they would have accumulated considerable more social and economic capital, absent the "Great Society" bullshit of LBJ's presidency.
In reality, however, intergenerational poverty is hardly limited to black folks' though. White trash families throughout the South and the rest of this country remain at the bottom of the economic scale. Ever been to West Virginia? Eastern Kentucky? California's numerous trailer parks? They're as bad or worse as Chicago's South Side from a poverty perspective. The reasons why are the same: there is no surer way to remain poor for the rest of your life than to have kids out of wedlock.
