Ten oz

I am not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? If you read my whole post I am saying it is worth looking at property which was promised to but never given to African Americans and property forcibly taken from Natives.

Starting in 1938 with the Property Registry the Germany govt passed many laws that disenfranchised Jewish people and stole their wealth. Many atrocities have happened under than banner of law. Property is one of the top manner in which wealth is created and moved down through generations. The combined value of all the real estate in the U.S. is $30 trillion. Massive amounts of land were given to White families for free. Families literally were able to just stake land claims. Something Natives, African Americans, and Chinese weren't able to do. Whites in the South didn't only own slave but also stole vast amounts of land from Native. The Indian Removal Act forced Natives out of the South leading to the Trail of Tears and gave White Southerners ownership of the property. Segregation may have only existed in the South but mortgage discrimination was nation wide. Blacks, even those who could afford to it, were prevented from buying homes is a variety neighbors with better prospects for equity growth and education. As mentioned in an earlier post the current President was proven guilty in a court of law of discriminating against African Americans in his real estate dealings. The problem continues to this day. African Americans have been and continue to be denied a fair opportunity to compete for a slice of that $30 trillion in real estate. During the Civil War African Americans had been promised land and in some cases given land but post Reconstruction that was mostly all reversed. White families are more likely to receive an inheritance than black families and among those who receive an inheritance white families receive a much bigger inheritance. Property is the most easily traced source of wealth I can think of. We have seen arguments in this thread that reparation is akin to revenge or that is unduly punishes people for something they neither participated in or benefited from. Going back and looking at where sources of wealth came from and how those sources do directly still benefit people today and are still impacting wealth inequality today might (maybe, still just exploring the idea) be a healthy step. Identifying ill gotten and/or maintained land (taken via native removal or promised to Slave pre Reconstruction) seems more practical to me than a standardized from of payment/benefit based purely on race. In many cases, perhaps most cases, the slaves promised that land or the Natives removed from lands can be identified.

Yes, a lot of people will see it that way. No argument there. My objection was to you citing average Americans. Trump lost the popular vote. His supporters are no more average Americans than those who opposed him are. Your use of average Americans was redundant at best and had some undisclosed loaded meaning at worst. Well done, lol. You asserted that people would want to discuss certain things and brought those things in. Also I don't feel saying you dumped a turd is the same thing as name calling. I am not calling you a turd. Anyway you challenged me to elaborate on my comments from page one and I gave you 3 posts from page 2 where I did. Did you find the answers you asked for or do you need further clarification?

The below quote is also from the second page This gave me thought. What if assets could be traced back through a family and it be shown how they benefited from Slavery and or Segregation. Should those assets be taken away? For example post Slavery families kept their plantations. I'd imagine some of that real estate remains in the hands of descendants to this day and continues to be a source of wealth. Would the govt striping individuals of such assets be a good idea? This is not a rebuttal of any kind to your post. It is literally just a thought which popped into my head. I am not advocating for it much as just exploring it. Might be a sobering slap in the face for many you argue they never owned slaves and haven't benefited directly from slavery. Losing valuable antiques, property, homes, and etc which have enriched heirs for generations might be quite the slap in the face. I disagree. I don't think their is any sort of anti white movement afoot in U.S. media or popular culture. Whites regularly are able to win political elections, star in movies, manage successful social media accounts, host news programs, record successful pop music, and etc. 70% of the population of the U.S. is White. So unless you believe a significant amount of Whites in the U.S. are self hating the majority of the U.S. is not anti White. I didn't say it was in general. I am trying to address the specific scenario you are referencing. I am not capable of imagining every possible scenario which may exist.

Both of the below quotes are from page two and expand on the very thing you are claiming I haven't expanded on. Yes, turd is word I used. You stated a list of issues saying "some people" would like to discuss them while adding "not me, I'll be keeping my distance". You brought those items up for discussion while claiming you wouldn't be discussing them. I consider that a turd. Just say what you have to say. Posting about what others might say, the average American sees (you used that turd as well), and so is all unnecessary. Just speak for for yourself and spit it out already.

You feel this is happening in the U.S.? If the question is related to the Oscars than my answer is no. I don't think anyone should win an Oscar based on race. I recommend you review the link the OP for more context. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

So then we agree that Black Panther's Oscar nominations had nothing to do race. As for Dave Chappelle lamenting about various audiences not liking his jokes isn't that the nature of his industry? In my opinion It is Chappelle's job to entertain the audience and not the audiences job to laugh at jokes they don't find funny. Dave Chappelle makes millions and has a large base of fans. It would be inaccurate to imply Chappelle is being silenced or isn't free to speak his mind. Not every audience likes him. That's no big deal. No celebrities I am aware of are Universally loved. A comic telling Catholic Priest pedophile jokes in Vatican City will get less laughs than if they told the said jokes in New York City. Entertainers need to know their audience.

Black Panther wasn't nominated for Best Cinematography. It was nominated for Musical Score, Costume Design, Production Design, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Best Picture. It won Oscar's for Musical Score, Costume Design, and Production Design. Art is subjective but I think it is fair to say Black Panther did have music, sound, and design which was expertly utilized. I assume (and you can correct me if I am wrong) that you are implying Black Panther got extra consideration because it was Directed by and starred black people. Yet the Director wasn't nominated for anything and neither were any of the actors from the movie. The Musical Score Oscar went to Ludwig Göransson who is a White Male. The Production Design Oscar went to Jay Robert Hart and Hannah Beachler. Jay Robert Hart is a White Male. Whom here have I called racist?

That is fair. I am responding to the use I most often see where PC culture is more specific. I don't think I am. Black on black crime, PC culture, and etc are often brought into conversations about racial inequality. The negative implications associated with them are often built off of stereotypes and act as a sort of whataboutism argument turning blame or responsibility on the disenfranchised group itself. Challenging those misnomers doesn't derail the discussion. They are part of the inequality. I think it is fairly obvious in koti's post about Black Panther. Lots of movies that various people don't think were good have won Oscar's. Why is Black Panther is singled out?

Can you provide a concrete explain of Academics uniting to prevent specific discussion from taking place?

What doesn't that apply to though? Some people conform to any number of fake things. Children write letters to Santa Claus but that doesn't make Santa real. Political correctness as an ideology pushed by academia suppressing freedom of thought or speech doesn't exist.

There is a lot of questions swirling. At present time it is unclear whether there are any sealed indictments or whether Mueller's investigation finished on its own or the new AG forced the issue. Given what we already know from the Manafort and Cohen indictments it is obvious that at a minimum investigators believe Trump Jr. lied to Congress. Then of course Southern District of New York can continue with their own indictments and operate outside the purview of Barr. It will be interesting to see what gets made public, how long it takes, what Congressional investigations follow, and etc.

I agree but am adding that political correctness as an actual thing doesn't exist. It is just a type of MacGuffin used by those seeking to make themselves the victim. It is often easier to claim ones ideas aren't being considered than it is to validate those ideas.

Right. When crack cocaine was an issue in specific black communities the answer was to increase prison sentences. No that opioids are an issue in specific white communities Politicians want to increase funding for rehabilitation. For blacks drugs have been treated as a criminal justice issue and for whites a healthcare issue. The notion of politically correctness as a new problem sweeping media and Universities has been around for decades. It is neither something new nor sweeping in scale. Below is President George H.W. Bush complaining about the new growing problem of political correctness stifling free speech back in 1991 nearly 30yrs ago. Of course in the decades since the internet and social media has only empowered free speech to levels never before seen. In my opinion political correctness is merely a catch all excuse one uses when an opinion or ideas of theirs is out of touch with the majority of reasonable people.

90% of black people who are murdered are murdered by black people and 85% of white people who are murdered are murdered by white people. Black on black crime as a label promotes inaccurate stereotypes. It is statistically accurate to say in cases where black people are victims of crimes (theft, violence, etc) the perpetrators of those crimes are black. It is equally as statistically accurate to say the same thing about Whites yet it is never said. White on white crime as a label doesn't exist like black on black crime does. Crime is worst throughout the U.S. in impoverished communities. White on White crime, Asian on Asian crime, Black on Black crime, and etc are all worst in impoverished communities.

Do you have a citation to support your assertion about what "the average American" perspective is? Exit poll from 2016 showed 49% of the public believed blacks are treated unfairly by the criminal justice system to 42% of that felt they were treated fairly, Link.A poll from this past summers shows the 3/4 of Americans support criminal justice reform. Strange that you'd compliment CharonY for demonstrating how to have a conversation but then not pay CharonY the respect of a direct response free from sniping at other posters. Would go differently from what? It is you have asserted how the conservation might go not I. I also don't understand what you mean "by this point in time". Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Andrew Goodman, and etc, etc were murdered in the 60's for discussing Civil Rights. It isn't as though other times in history has embraced equality discussion easily.

The tax cuts are clearly negatively impacting the annual deficits. As executed the tax cuts have failed to achieve they stated objective. Increases in GDP spurred by business growth from the tax cuts were suppose to pay for the tax cuts and increase jobs.

How about you muster a response to CharonY's post.

You asserted things which are not true. Your whole post was subversive. No one has said any of the things you mentioned are off limits. You are attempting to position your views as unfairly treated in advance of even stating them. Do you plan to explore your thoughts on the matter or just censor yourself and play victim?

Who here denies minorities are arrested and imprisoned at higher rates than whites? Race is often front and center when discussing crime statistics. Who has said any of that is off limits? It is laughable you say "some people" but not you may wish to discuss those things yet you are the one here bringing it up. You seem to be attempting to eat your cake yet have it as a display piece as well. If you want to discuss those items you listed than do so. Don't just dump than off like a loose turd and claim someone else would like to discuss them. Isn't it often the point of political and racial violence to silence people? Fear of making the opposition mad isn't a good reason to table a discussion.

To limit the confusion can you provide a citation which links reparations by Germany with the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Meaning what? You seem to be confusing the Israeli Palestinian conflict with the Germany paying reparations. It was Britain and the U.S. who advocated for the creation of Israel through the UN. Had nothing to do with German reparations.

Israel exists whether or not reparations happened. The conflict between Israel and Palestinians does too. Explain how German reparations to Jews hurt Palestinians.

How are the 2 related directly?

Germany's 1952 Reparations agreement