The Indulgences of the Decedent Progressives By James Reed

In some ways it is amusing, but overall sad. Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury is planning to pay large reparations because of the slave trade. The connections are minor, being mainly some investments back in the day, as most businesses of the time did. But note that the “slave trade” is defined as the trade in Africans. But, if the Church of England wants to do consistently well in the guilt business, then they need to consider white slavery, particularly of the Slavs and Irish, which arguably numbered more than African slaves. But, no, there will not be a mention of anything white, which is outside the woke guilt paradigm.

https://www.amazon.com.au/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-high-cost-of-progressive-indulgences/

“You saw that the Church of England (that's Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, above) is now planning a big reparations payout over its supposed involvement with the slave trade?

Sebastian Milbank read the fine print in the C of E report, and explains that the links to the slave trade are rather minor:

Even the authors of the report are forced to admit that “the research shows that Queen Anne’s Bounty did not benefit from any capital appreciation on the South Sea Company Annuities over the period it held these investments” (no kidding), but the report insists on claiming that “This income [the dividends from the South Sea investment] helped Queen Anne’s Bounty fulfil its purpose of supplementing the income of poorer clergy, and was likely reinvested, contributing to the overall accumulation of Queen Anne’s Bounty’s wealth”. 

This is an economically illiterate argument — if capital does not increase in value, then you have not profited from its dividends; you have merely robbed Peter in order to pay Paul less. It only makes sense if the argument is not actually about material gain from the slave trade, but instead about an idea of moral contamination. This serves to explain the mournful (and hopelessly vague) claim that follows: “Many of the individual benefactors were, or may have been, linked to transatlantic chattel slavery (for example, Edward Colston was a benefactor) and so to some extent their benefactions may have been derived from the profits of transatlantic slavery or the plantation economy

Because three hundred years ago money was invested on the Church’s behalf in a sinful enterprise, or because three hundred years ago wicked men with dirty money gave it as charitable donations to the Church, today modern, progressively-minded Anglican clergy and administrators feel themselves to be sullied. They quite welcome this realisation, one suspects, because it gives them an opportunity to lavishly involve themselves in a very fashionable cause célèbre — America’s “racial reckoning” following the killing of George Floyd by the police. 

The Rev. Daniel French, an Anglican parish priest, has pointed out that this is not going to go over well with the shrinking number of laity in the church, who are seeing parishes closed for lack of funds. Father French is not the only one who noticed:

The Revd Marcus Walker and others have already pointed out the irresponsibility and cruelty of spending this much money — money carefully entrusted for the purpose of maintaining Christian worship in this country — when parishes are being shut down, losing priests, and Christianity in Britain is itself under threat. 

Of course, this is entirely about the progressive leadership class in the failing Church of England trying to virtue-signal and claim its own role in the great drama of "racial reckoning." Nobody outside those posh and coddled circles is fooled.

Meanwhile, the agonizingly progressive city of San Francisco is now considering a plan to award longtime black residents $5 million each in reparations, even though California was not a slave state. It's the chic progressive thing to do. If only 10,000 San Franciscans qualify and apply for the plan, it will cost the city $50 billion. More:

To be eligible for the program, the applicant must be 18 years old and have identified as Black or African American on public documents for at least 10 years. They must also prove at least two of eight additional criteria, choosing from a list that includes, "Born in San Francisco between 1940 and 1996 and has proof of residency in San Francisco for at least 13 years," and/or, "Personally, or the direct descendant of someone, incarcerated by the failed War on Drugs."

The plan also calls on the city to supplement lower-income recipients’ income to reflect the Area Median Income (AMI), about $97,000, annually for at least 250 years. 

"Racial disparities across all metrics have led to a significant racial wealth gap in the City of San Francisco," it argues. "By elevating income to match AMI, Black people can better afford housing and achieve a better quality of life."

The plan also seeks to establish "a comprehensive debt forgiveness program" that clears each eligible person’s student and housing loans, credit card debt, etc.”