| We've seen many cases where reparations end, so ... yes, they can end, and yes there can be a maximum payment. (Eg, $20,000 each for Japanese Americans interned during WWII.) But "reparations" doesn't mean only financial reparations, and don't let people focus on just that! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_(transitional_just... describes "five formal categories of reparations: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition". You want unequivocal equality, which is satisfaction and a guarantees of non-repetition - yes, you want reparations. Which is entirely reasonable and just. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery include examples of non-monetary reparations, this time for Africa as a whole, like "to use all lawful means to secure the return of African artefacts from whichever place they are currently held" and "an accurate portrayal of African history and thus restore dignity and self-respect to African people". I can't help but think the idea of focusing on financial reparations is to keep people from thinking about all the other reparations that can be done. I can't help but think the idea of focusing on reparations for slavery is to keep people from thinking about reparations for Jim Crow in the US (there are people still alive who suffered under Jim Crow) or reparations for imperialism (the Dutch decolonialized during 1942–1975; again, there are people still alive from that period). And the point made is true - the Dutch profited from colonization, at the expense of their colonizes, and continue to profit from the inherited wealth of colonization. Why do ex-colonial powers get to hoard their stolen wealth? Also, it mentions that in "Suriname, activists and officials say they have not been asked for input about the apology" ... why didn't the Dutch do that? Surely they must know it makes them seem like they still don't think of their ex-colonies as equals. |