| I was amused by the cleverness of your summary. :) But while what you wrote seems to literally be true, I don't think it's an accurate portrayal of what the article (if not its title) describes. I might have overlooked something, but 1. CA would be taking the money from everyone. (I.e., it isn't intending to punish and doesn't single out who is taxed. For example, a poor person who receives the reparations benefits more than a rich person who does, since the latter would have paid for more of the reparations through their own taxes.) 2. The people who would receive the money are descendants of slaves; while not former slaves themselves, this $ could be thought of as a representation of the inheritance they should have received. (But how they determine these people seems flimsy -- the article mentions people who "claim" enslaved ancestors and it's unclear how such claims may or may not be validated.) Regarding CA not having been a slave state, the article mentions the harm caused by prejudicial policies in CA, but then it's unclear why affected people who don't have enslaved ancestry wouldn't also be compensated. Anyway, after (and despite) writing out the above, I think your summary is actually fairly apt (and humorous). But I kind of wish it were less provocative. (FWIW, I think the course of action discussed in the article is problematic and I have conflicted opinions about the concept of reparations. I think it is a complex topic.) I think if more people tried to make less potentially inflammatory statements, it would be easier to have productive discussions about contentious topics. This could serve to reduce tribalism, which I feel would be a good thing. (The article's title is a much stronger example of the inflammatory language that I think should be minimized.) [Edit: grammatical and formatting fixes; criticism of the article's title added.] |