Because two-century old injustice is handwavey pie-in-the-sky talk,it is also ridiculously selective. There are other injustices too and how do you determine what the amount is? Do you offset slave ancestors privilege for growing up in the 1st world against their ancestors losses, what is the actual tangible loss due to the past rather than those due to more modern injustices such as overt racism or mere growing up in a poorly run town?
It's completely impractical and/or virtue signalling.
Reneging on debt is a very real decision taken today (not in the past). Practically speaking it signals to bondholders you can't be trusted to keep your word. Hardly honourable, not that they'd worry about this point of view, it's cold hard calculation, will you renege when you proceed on your next ideological crusade, this signals yes.
You try help someone based on their CURRENT circumstances, not based on their relationship with someone who died 200 years ago.
Completely ridiculous, what about those whose parents were drug addicts, or were kept out of school, or were just purely unlucky to be brought up in and surrounded by poverty. You'll find there are many, more contemporaneous, reasons for suffering and that there are many people suffering that do not have any previously persecuted ancestors.
Address their current situation without bias or favouritism.
> You try help someone based on their CURRENT circumstances
You claim I'm being disingenuous and then say this as if I haven't been this entire time referring to historic injustices AND THEIR ONGOING LEGACIES. Nah, y'all just prefer to selectively ignore that part.
Reneging on debt is a very real decision taken today (not in the past). Practically speaking it signals to bondholders you can't be trusted to keep your word. Hardly honourable, not that they'd worry about this point of view, it's cold hard calculation, will you renege when you proceed on your next ideological crusade, this signals yes.