They did not - but when aspects of my identity are used to buoy up arguments then I'll assert my lack of them. See my pinned story for why. Although as you've made evident, skin colour isn't important - people can be black, white, brown or whatever. The important thing is that they agree with you.

And sure, I'd rather replace the current system with one of justice, but you're very light on the details. How exactly are you going to instigate reparations, to whom do they apply? Once you've effectively collapsed the US economy, what's the plan then? This is the problem with populism, it's very popular - just none of it works in practice.

I'm pro-human. I think there's a better way of doing things, I think that way is socialism. I think the current Us vs Them espoused by identity groups runs counter that aim and so I reject it. If I'm going to argue for reparations (and I think we should) then it has to be embedded in funded programmes aimed at disadvantaged communities, a form of socialism that in your country at least would have a disproportionately positive effect on Black people.

But why have moderate plans that might work if there's a Bishop promising every Black person $200,000 each and the chance to kick a white guy called Chad in the face?

The problem with not having fences is that you let the sheep go everywhere and they fuck your garden right up.

Democracy is the art of occasionally seeing the importance of fences. I don't mind riding them on complicated issues.