Mate, the entire last page and a half wasn't sparked by you telling us to watch the documentary alone. It was sparked by this opinion of yours that you gathered from the documentary.
If that's what the documentary is alluding to, then of course no one here is going to pay to watch it because they already take issue with the idea of paying people for the work of their forefathers with no ancestral link. It's why you were asked to explain the documentary further about what it said that led you to that statement.
I guess you missed the first post where I pointed out what my opinion was about the documentary. To clear up the confusion:
1. I as a european was ignorant about the racial wealth gap having an origin in the history of slavery. I learned there are actually proposals for reparations discussed in the USA
2. After learning about it I concluded that there is
legitimacy in the claim. Like there is legitimacy of the opposite, that it isnt feasible in the current time for reparation. People interperted that as me advocating that slaveowners should pay the reparations. I did not do that, that were assumptions made by others in this thread.
3. I did not post, advocated or even made a notion that
descendants of slaveowners are responsible for reparation. Those notions were posted by others.
4. I ignorantly wrote 3-4 generation, but I meant that in 240 years of the usa hypothetically 3-4 people (living up to 60-80 years) could have lived in between 2018 and 1776. I apologised for the wrong statement. I incorrectly thought a generation is an average lifetime of approx 60 years. The ultimate point (if you ignore the incorrect use of generation) is that the USA is not that old and it should be impossible to trace back lineage up to 10 generations (approx 25 years) back, compared to lineage that traces back hundreds of generations.
5. I posted a reference to a documentary, like if someone would post a reference to a movie or a book. The argument that I am not allowed to retort to people who chose to comment about the documentary, because they havent seen it, because you have to pay for it, I still can not understand. You can have your opinion of course, but the logic still illudes me. If you have no acces to it, because perhaps regional or monetary reasons, then you can choose not te react to the post. I never read any Harry Potter book, so you find me posting about it.
6. Some people compared vietnamese and japanese communities with the black community having had hardship that in his eyes shoudl be an equal comparinson. That is highly inaccurate, because a community suffering during the vietnam war or ww2 can not be compared to more then 200 years of slavery. Also references were made how asian americans have higher average income then white americans. But according to research in 2008, Asian American households had the highest median income in the US, at $65,637; however,
11.8 percent of Asians were in poverty in 2004, a higher than the 8.6 percent rate for non-Hispanic whites.
To summarize, I wanted to talk about the acknowledgement of the racial wealth gap. My opinion that it is caused by racism throughout history. And for the X-th time I repeat again to all readers in the thread, I did not advocate that reparations should be made by descendants. Those assumptions were made by others. The whole idea of reparation came from the documentary that references a bill to give land to former slaves, that never came to fruitition (40 acres and a mule).
A short summary of the doc:
The racial wealth gap has been a discussion since the abolishment of slavery. The documentary establishes that historically the best way to accumilate wealth is to have land. In the aftermath of the abolishment of slavery there were concrete plans to reparations to the slavecommunity. At the time there was a bill that asigned land to former slaves, but after Lincolns assassination it was reversed. Most slaves who did already had claimed land were evicted. And this is established as one of the primary reasons for the racial wealth gap that exists today.
Homeownership is one of the important things that define wealth in the middle class. And it has been incredibly difficult for black people buy property of value because they have hostorically been in white areas. Owning a home in a good neigbourhood build wealth immensely and also has increased the racial wealth gap even more significantly. Most recently during the economic crisis of 2008 the black community lost 53% of their wealth, compared to 16% of the white community.
The eventual point is made that the black community only had real rights since 1968 and therefor had over 300 years to play catch up, where the white community had a head start.
Apologies for my english. This is only a summary of the first half of the mini-doc.
