How about a crude analogy, if there are 3 people, all have a broken leg from a car wreck, and all have the same limp, but you only give the white guy any compensation, thats rascist. If there are two guys and and a girl, and only the guys get any compensation, thats sexist, but if they all get compensation, you are compensating them fairly.
Im saying dont compensate one till you can afford to compensate them ALL, as it would be seen to be preferential or racist.
Put it another way, IF Rosa Parks had been white, but poor, would it have been equality if she had been made to move? No, it would have been seen as equally as unjust, but we don't have a word for inequality on the grounds of wealth.
Slavery of the "Blacks"(word of the time) and "Chinese"(which people seem to forget a lot) ended in Europe and the USA now over a hundred years ago, rightfully, but we still have slavery, wouldnt it be better now that instead of spending the money on rewarding the descendents of former slaves, it would be spent on freeing other people from actual slavery rather than lifting people from financial slavery?
I pretty much agree with your assessment of the past & the folly for the future. I don't however feel it is racist to correct racism though. Yeah it sucks for those who are poor & not of the race being vindicated. I'm thinking here more of First Nations- not so much racism but Nation- though that indubitably was the intent (acknowledged or not) of the usa towards us. We consider it Nation to Nation & the transgressions were racist in nature.
It was a war, funny how at the same time as the USA was condemning Germany for invading Poland etc, they were still operating as an Occupying Power in their own country. I dont know what its like now, but its basically like I've been saying for the past few years, governments dont give a s*** about what people think, they care about what they can get away with and what they can make people think!