74 of 131

No

Write now Article Tools

The United States government promised all victims of the horrendous practice of slavery 40 acres of land and a mule to plow their own fields. Obviously, this promise would have little use now days. The only place in the country that would have that much available land would be Alaska, where a mule seems very useless. Also, you would have to feed it, which would really just be costing the victims of slavery money. So, if we were to discuss this hyperbolically, it would mean that proponents of restitution believe that victims should have to pay for the crimes inflicted upon them. I don't agree with that at all and I strongly oppose punishing the family descendent's of slavery. Also, with inflation, it would be more acres and even more mules. Also, mules in Alaska wouldn't live very long. So, what your telling me, if you believe in legitimate restitution, that victims should be forced to suffer further, and that you hate animals. Well, that just makes me sick.

To be quite honest, the idea of restitution isn't necessarily a bad one, just incredibly inefficient and implausible. First of all, "Blacks" should not be given restitution. The descendants of slaves should be the only ones eligible. Which would mean that one would have to prove their geneological history which, because of the massively flawed birth records of slaves kept by slave owners, would be difficult to say the least.

Learn more about this author, Zach Seemayer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should America pay restitution to the descendants of slaves??
We want to hear your view. Write now!