More on Slavery and Reparations


You cannot expect millions of people to pay reparations based on your emotion laden arguments. You have to address why it is just to make the payers pay -- not simply proclaim why it is just that the recipients have the right to receive. In legal terms, there must be a nexus between the person being asked to compensate the wronged for his or her damages, a nexus that is sufficiently direct to let us deem the payer a wrongdoer worthy of punishment.

You really don't deal very well with the fact that many, many people opposed slavery to the point of giving up their lives to end it. It would be a silly law that asked John Brown's descendants to make reparations to the descendants of slaves. Read John Brown's final statement to the court that ordered his execution:

"Had I interfered in behalf of the rich every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward. I see a book kissed here, the Bible, that teaches me to 'remember them that are in bonds.' I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I believe that to have interfered in behalf of His despised poor was not wrong, but right. Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country -- I say let it be done!"
> The real question is, who benefited from slavery? The "this was a structural thing in the U.S." and therefore all citizens must pay only takes you so far. Most states did not permit slavery at all and would have abolished it if they could have. Many states were not even part of the U.S. at the time of the Civil War, among them, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Montana, Utah, Nevada, etc. One of the reasons why the Civil War started was that these areas -- the territories -- would be opened up to slavery as a result of the implications of the Dred Scott decision. Those immigrants who have come in the last 100 years, after the Civil War, and after slavery, did not have a hand in perpetuating this evil institution and suffered their own indignities (not comparable to slavery, but real nonetheless). You say that they benefited from slavery -- but how, exactly, is this the case? Slaves did not build railroads, for instance, or other public goods. In fact, although slaves conferred gain on private parties, backed, of course, by the power of the state to enforce the slave condition, the nation as a whole did not benefit from slavery -- it was not just catastrophic for the slaves, it was economically stultifying. The nation benefited a whole lot more when slavery was abolished.

Are we really just going to pay people because they have dark skin? Are Haitians and Jamaicans included? Or are we going to make a huge effort to classify people racially? Is that what we really want?

And once we've paid, does that mean we get to wash our hands of the continuing economic and social problems faced by African Americans? (I've heard conservative defenders of reparations make this particularly nasty argument). On what basis would be able to convince all those people who have just "ponied up" that they ought to continue affirmative action or similar programs?

The real issue? Although I am sympathetic to your position, I do not believe that African Americans are angry about slavery, as such, so much as they are angry about the enduring racism and unfair treatment that they believe they continue to suffer in both major and minor ways. If this were not the case, I do not believe that anyone would ask for reparations. Alas, the focus on reparations is likely to make racial conflict worse, not better.

Barbara


I guess no one likes emotional arguments . . . but why (and don't give me a reason either)?

Was slavery wrong and should the descendants of slaves receive reparations? We all know deep down that the answer is yes. If there should be reparations is a different question than how it should be done.

The other thing is that everyone seems to assume that pro-reparations people are asking for money. We certainly are not all that stupid. Could it not be possible that programs be put in place to help create wealth denied, or HBC (Historically Black Colleges ) receive certain grants to benefit the people in question, etc, we could come up with tons of creative ways to do this.

BTW, I am far from convinced by the parsing of up of America arguments, i.e, some states were not part of the union or some people did not participate, etc. and I think it is a stretch to say that slavery was economically stiffling, it was one of the more economically efficient systems in place.

(Side note: don't my detractors appreciate the idea of corporate responsibility? I may own a corporation that defrauds you and die later this year. My death notwithstanding, the corporation if found guilty, regardless of current ownership must address its liability [and don't tell me anything about statute of limitations!]. The state is not a corporation, but that idea of the relationship between the individual and the state, or individual states and the State has some resonance with the corporation idea. We don't have to spell this out in utmost detail, but that's part of the general idea that makes the State responsible and those who choose to join it.)
I give up.