Should African Americans Recieve Reparations For Slavery

Argument I: Government Programs.Reparations serve no purpose in the US. They are based on the idea the Black People are owed financial aide from people who never oppressed them (note: my grand father oppressing some one =/= me oppressing them) in order to help them in their current situation. However, the US Government provides benefits for all races and people facing difficulties.*High unemployment rate among black people? Unemployment Benefits and Job Fares.*High hunger rate among black people? Food Stamps.*High poverty rate among black people? Negative Tax Rates.*Low Education rate among black people? Pell Grants (1)That being said, every issue facing black people has a pre-existing program (both federal and charitable) meant to help. Reparations serve no role in fixing these issues, but leads to numerous problems, such as calculating the amount of blame per person. I'll explain these issues in my Rebuttals.[1] http://federalsafetynet.com...[]Rebuttal I: Prior Reparations.The first of Pro's arguments are in Paragraph 1. The issue with these examples is that they aren't relevant. Israel is a country surrounded by enemy states and terrorist groups, and Germany isn't the United States. They are not comparable to African Americans or the US. Also, Pro begs the question here... He says they pay Reparations, but never explains why Germany paying Israel is right, or that they should. He also says the US has been paying Native Americans... This also begs the question, as he never shows why paying Native Americans reparations was a good thing either. In fact, many believe paying reparations to Natives is wrong, so it's far from Status Quo. Pro must prove the US or Germany paying reparations was good to begin with.Rebuttal II: Historic Free Labor.This assumes that wealth can be tracked or that, after 150+ years, it's in the hands of someone responsible for slave labor. By now, all of the wealth collected via slave labor is likely in the hands of people who's ancestors didn't even own slaves, and some of that wealth (and inflation from the wealth) might not even be in the US anymore.This case more appeals to emotion than logic. My great great grandfather might have owned a slave and made a fortune (he didn't, but go with the example)... I don't have that fortune. I didn't own slaves... Why should I pay then? This is based on the flawed principle that we are responsible for the sins of our father. A fair system would have slave owners pay back the slaves, but neither are a live anymore.This is also based on the flawed idea that half, or even a quarter of wealth back then, was based on slave labor. The North hardly had slaves, if any. The South, the group that utilized slaves, made up an agricultural economy, and was responsible for only 10% of all manufacturing in the nation (2). By that understanding of industry back then, slave labor wasn't even responsible for a tenth all production in the US. Even in the industry that the South excelled at, the North out produced them (Review source 1). Therefore, not even the agricultural industry owes much to slave labor. And if it had, it still raises the question of why the grandchildren 8-12 generations down should be held to that debt. 8-12 generations down (about 150-180 years) is too far for debt to rightfully travel.Another issue... My great great grandfather moved into the country from Poland during World War II. He never owned slaves. So how am I to be held accountable for slave owners? My net-worth is in Nintendo Stock and income from a job working for an Italian who's family arrived after the Civil Rights movements. All of their income comes from people buying their food, all of whom earn their money much the same as me. At what level of responsibility am I for slavery? And how is my wealth the result of slavery?And my case isn't alone. Even today, 12.9% of Americans aren't native born, therefore they weren't here for the Civil Rights movement or slavery (3). Throughout US History, a fare percent of Americans weren't native born. Following the charts, it wouldn't be a far strectch to say 40% of Americans today didn't have ancestry living in the US during slavery, and at least 20% weren't living here during the Civil Rights movement.[2] http://www.nps.gov...[3] https://www.census.gov...[]Rebuttal III: Modern Conditions.Pro is wrong to assume white people should be responsible for oppression in the 1900's... Most white people were on the black populations side during the movement. You would have to find the minority of white people who opposed black people, hunt down their children and grandchildren, and hope none of them had grandparents on both sides of the issue, and tax them. This again raises the question, should they be responsible for what their grandparents did?Many of the condition Pro lists off makes assumptions he never proves. For starters, the majority of the prison population is black, but why? Because the US is racist? Or because crimes are more common among people who live in poverty and ghettos, of which black people make up the majority of? Then ask, why are they poor and living in ghettos? After 50-100 years, can the white people of long ago be held responsible for conditions today? At what point does blaming the original cause end, and responsibility for one's situation take hold? This is a common Sunk Cost Fallacy, although it's hard to detect... You see, the fallacy is based on two principals. *The first is the flawed idea that because you spent $200 on an Apple Keyboard, you need to spend $1000 on a Mac. In reality, you should acknowledge that the $200 is gone, and buy a $500 PC.*The second principle is related the the second half of the first case (acknoledging the the $200 is gone). Making a case that is based on not acknowledge that what happened is done and tring to fix the issue instead of continuing to blame the original cause.Either of these make up the fallacy, and in Pro's case, it's the second one. Instead of fixing the issue by continuing to focus on why it happen, black people have become equally to blame for the issue not getting better.Pro must prove that high unemployment rates and the high crime rates are still mostly the fault of today's white people. He must prove it's today white population who is to blame, as proving that it is the fault of white people a century ago does nothing to prove white people today should inherit their father's sins, espcecially when such a high percentage of white people today didn't even have ancestors in the US a century ago.The whole of Pro's last paragraph is an appeal to emotion.Conclusion:White People today simply can't be held accounted for what White People a century did, and there are too many Government Programs for Reparations to be justified.