You're misunderstanding me, and thus your reply really doesn't make sense in the context of the discussion I'm trying to encourage here.

I'm not sure how this apology furthers the understanding of how the lingering effects of slavery affect black Americans.

Working to solve the problem requires identification of how, exactly, the problem manifests itself today, and how to best attack the root causes of these problems to eliminate them, and not merely to assuage one or two select portions of inequity. How can you propose a solution to a problem until you know how the problem can even be addressed?

When I get a chance, I'll look into Robinson's book, thanks for the recommendation.

With regard to reparations in this particular sense, I think that you are partially correct to say that the fact that those directly affected are long dead plays a part - although I can't say how much. Race is a hotbutton topic for many, as well, and so that clouds the conversation with emotional arguments and misunderstanding (as we've seen just in this thread).

For me personally, I think that the concept of reparations can only exist under a plan of helping the African American population in general, and not by paying specific families. After all, those who came to the States well after the end of slavery are still affected by lingering racism and a fiscal/educational divide. It is vital to understand the 'how' and not merely the 'why' of lingering effects of slavery.

I didn't read his posts after the first, my bad - regardless, the vast majority of discussion has little or nothing to do with this (highly emotional, fallacious) argument.

I'm just saying that banks are targeted because the industry is so competitive and lobbyists for the competitors love it. You can make of that what you want, but if you think there is any altruistic reasoning behind the greed, you might be surprised...

-Rudey