Ladies and gentlemen: I don't believe that anyone in this chamber would move to disagree with the idea that slavery was an atrocity, committed from the depths of the darkest parts of the human sole. Cruelty is the readiness to give pain to others or lack of concern for their suffering. Pertaining to exactly what the white man did to the black slaves. Slavery was not an institution of neither economical nor a paternalistic system. It was a brutal, inhumane abuse of mankind. Africans were seized from their native land, and sold into lives of servitude in a foreign land. Indeed, it was a tragedy on such a scale that cannot be measured nor quantified. And it is this very notion of tragedy, which speaks to the matter of reparations for slavery. To be quite blunt, reparations, even if they may be deserved, are not feasible under any system or economic tangent. Not only would such an undertaking not remedy the situation, but it would sink Africa and her people deeper into the cycle of poverty and oppression that they have so struggled to free themselves from. While the arguments against reparations may seem shallow or self-serving to advocates of such a system, upon examination, the logistics of what to give, and whom to distribute it to, preclude any potential benefits of such a system of indemnity and requite. The point of the following critique is not to say that Africans were not mistreated, nor that they are not worthy of reparations, but that perhaps reparations are not an adequate solution to this situation, and certainly will only serve to worsen.
             Aside from any philosophical or idea-based arguments against reparations, there exist a number of logistical barriers to repaying blacks for their suffering. Immediate questions arise in the realm of distribution - it is intuitive that such reparations would be difficult to distribute, much less to decide how much, or where to place the funds or assistance. The question...