The answer to the question is emphatically "YES". Every black person who was legally a slave in the United States, or, their immediate offspring should receive $1M immediately and be tax-exempt for the remainder of their lives.
Let's say for argument sake this is an official policy. A person is indeed a direct descendant of a slave. Call slave 1. 1 has kids A & B. A & B are direct descendants 100%. A marries Z and B marries Y. Z is also a 100% direct descendant of a slave. Y has no slave family history. AZ have a kid named 2. BY have a kid named 3. 2 is 100% slave descendant. 3 is only 50% slave descendant. It would stand to reason that 2 was impacted to a greater degree from slavery when compared to 3. Thus 2 is entitled to a greater percentage of compensation.
Now run this example out 5 - 6 generations. Fat chance that anyone alive today is 100% descendant of slaves. Any descendant would have a percentage. That percentage would have to be figured before awarding any monetary benefit.
What is the parentage is unknown? Would that parent default to 0%? Anytime a non slave person enters into the mix, percentage drops by 50% automatically. So we go from 100 to 50 down to 25 then 12.5. Drilling further down we get 6.25, 3.125 and finally 1.5625%. That assumes that 1 of the parents is 100% slave descendant. If both parents are less than 100%, the percentage drops off even faster.
It would stand that more people are 1% and 3% than are 50% & 100%. Payments in this case, using your example, would be in the $30,000 range more or less.
In the case of caucasians that have interracial kids, the opposite would be true. The white parent would have no claim but their offspring could. If that offspring reproduced with another slave descendant, the grandchild would have a higher percent than both the grandparent and parent.
I know you are an intelligent person. I'm trying to look at this in practical terms if it were ever to get past the discussion stage.You just gave me a headache........
The answer to the question is: No.
I agree
No need for asinine explanations or rationalizations...the answer is simple and it is "No".
I agree
Neither, as stated by the typically idiotic Fox "News" contributor, should the US get any "credit" for ending slavery after only 150 years.
I agree. How can the US claim to have ended slavery when Africa is still selling slaves today? We just stopped buying their product.
That is why I stopped at the immediate offspring of the person born into slaveryLet's say for argument sake this is an official policy. A person is indeed a direct descendant of a slave. Call slave 1. 1 has kids A & B. A & B are direct descendants 100%. A marries Z and B marries Y. Z is also a 100% direct descendant of a slave. Y has no slave family history. AZ have a kid named 2. BY have a kid named 3. 2 is 100% slave descendant. 3 is only 50% slave descendant. It would stand to reason that 2 was impacted to a greater degree from slavery when compared to 3. Thus 2 is entitled to a greater percentage of compensation.
Now run this example out 5 - 6 generations. Fat chance that anyone alive today is 100% descendant of slaves. Any descendant would have a percentage. That percentage would have to be figured before awarding any monetary benefit.
What if the parentage is unknown? Would that parent default to 0%? Anytime a non slave person enters into the mix, percentage drops by 50% automatically. So we go from 100 to 50 down to 25 then 12.5. Drilling further down we get 6.25, 3.125 and finally 1.5625%. That assumes that 1 of the parents is 100% slave descendant. If both parents are less than 100%, the percentage drops off even faster.
It would stand that more people are 1% and 3% than are 50% & 100%. Payments in this case, using your example, would be in the $30,000 range more or less.
In the case of caucasians that have interracial kids, the opposite would be true. The white parent would have no claim but their offspring could. If that offspring reproduced with another slave descendant, the grandchild would have a higher percent than both the grandparent and parent.
Pretty soon, we'll be at 1/1024th slave ancestry.Let's say for argument sake this is an official policy. A person is indeed a direct descendant of a slave. Call slave 1. 1 has kids A & B. A & B are direct descendants 100%. A marries Z and B marries Y. Z is also a 100% direct descendant of a slave. Y has no slave family history. AZ have a kid named 2. BY have a kid named 3. 2 is 100% slave descendant. 3 is only 50% slave descendant. It would stand to reason that 2 was impacted to a greater degree from slavery when compared to 3. Thus 2 is entitled to a greater percentage of compensation.
Now run this example out 5 - 6 generations. Fat chance that anyone alive today is 100% descendant of slaves. Any descendant would have a percentage. That percentage would have to be figured before awarding any monetary benefit.
What if the parentage is unknown? Would that parent default to 0%? Anytime a non slave person enters into the mix, percentage drops by 50% automatically. So we go from 100 to 50 down to 25 then 12.5. Drilling further down we get 6.25, 3.125 and finally 1.5625%. That assumes that 1 of the parents is 100% slave descendant. If both parents are less than 100%, the percentage drops off even faster.
It would stand that more people are 1% and 3% than are 50% & 100%. Payments in this case, using your example, would be in the $30,000 range more or less.
In the case of caucasians that have interracial kids, the opposite would be true. The white parent would have no claim but their offspring could. If that offspring reproduced with another slave descendant, the grandchild would have a higher percent than both the grandparent and parent.