[rayiner]

> Like the point made here[0], it's de-facto reparations by advantaging those who were/have been affected by lost generational wealth (unequal schools and racist HOA & loan policies).

Reparations would at least be a coherent policy. But Prop 16 proponents also want the policies to favor Latinos, who given the demographics of California would by far be the primary beneficiary of such policies. But Latinos enjoy similar income mobility to whites. Favoring Latinos over whites isn’t “reparations” but just straight up racial discrimination. Ironically, Prop 16 was voted down in every single Latino-majority county in the state.

[judge2020]

Ya, this is why I gave myself the out by saying it’s a divisive topic- a lot would be solved by having specifics for reparation laid out and a deadline for when such would end, but such a policy is likely to have so much against it (too much v not enough, general dissident for giving away money, whether or not it would even be legal on the basis of discrimination) that proxy bills that move the needle (somewhat) with (somewhat) negative side-effects are what we end up with.

[rayiner]

If you’re going to discriminate based on skin color, it seems to me that a narrower policy that applies to the 6% of California that’s black would be an easier sell than a broader policy that ropes in the additional 40% that are Latino.

I think there’s a simpler explanation: most of the people behind Prop 16 are racist. Their only knowledge of race is the black-white dichotomy and they categorize Latinos as black for political purposes because that's the only framework they have for thinking about people with dark skin.

[at_a_remove]

Reparations, once in effect, would never end.