It’s sad that the economist published such a polemical and intellectually dishonest article. One thing that especially stood out was “ And why it embraces repar

It’s sad that the economist published such a polemical and intellectually dishonest article. One thing that especially stood out was “ And why it embraces reparations-adjacent policies like the creation of a $4bn fund to pay off the debts of only non-white farmers.” There was a class action lawsuit where the USDA had to pay out tens of thousands of claimants who were discriminated against between 1981-1996. African Americans were discriminated against and were not equitably issued farm loans during this period. However, the majority of African-Americans were unable to get relief through the courts for various reasons (often filing late), not to mention that lawsuits for Hispanic and women farmers never even went ahead. This seems pretty different than the right’s idea of what reparations are and why they may be harmful. Instead it seems like ensuring that people are compensated for very recent (when compared to something like slavery) losses due to discrimination. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigford_v._Glickman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigford_v._Glickman for more info