... the different assumptions we start with for the discussion.
To me, what needs to be justified is why a particular broad service shouldn't be provided by the government. Not why a particular service should be.
You may disagree with that view, but if you take that assumption as a given for a moment, you'll see why to many who are pro-reparations don't think it has any bearing on the separate, but worthy discussion, of the poor who are white and how to help them.
There is no either/or, here. At least in my conception of it, the idea of reparations to African Americans most certainly won't be coming at the cost of broader anti-poverty programs I believe the government aught to aggressively engage in. Poverty, in aggregate, costs society too much for it to not intervene, with no care for race.
In fact, the core thesis of this article, and why a lot of economists see why reparations make sense is precisely because several anti-poverty programs, from Social Security to the GI bill to FHA mortgage insurance were not broadly applied in a raceblind manner.
Because they were not, the gap between African American and White wealth in America is as big as it is. Had they been inclusive of African Americans to the same extant as they were to white families, the wealth gap would have been more truncated, and the case for reparations more tenuous. Or, at least, the cost of reparations would have been so much easier to bear earlier, that it would have been settled long before doing so in a fair way now would make no sense.
If, on the other hand, you think each government program needs to clear a very high bar to exist, it makes sense to imagine that reparations could only come at the cost of poor people who happen to be white.
By no means do I think your family is less deserving of financial help and strong welfare programs because they are white. That is the basic job of government, as I see it. It is non-negotiable, no matter what race or sex or sexuality marks any person.
Reparations are a separate thing. They are restitution for a heinous crime. A wealthy black kid today is as deserving of it as a poor one because their wealth or poverty doesn't change what happened. In a similar fashion, I wouldn't distinguish between the justice a poor or rich person receives as recompense for a crime. Their current wealth or poverty is orthogonal to the fact of the crime committed against them.
Put another way... aiding and supporting poor families of any race is basic governance, and failure to act now is economic injustice to those families. Paying reparations to African American families, rich or poor, is simply justice for crime committed against their ancestors.
