Ph.D. Octopus

Politics, media, music, capitalism, scholarship, and ephemera since 2010

Slavery, Reparations, and Obama

with 2 comments

by Weiner

Henry Louis “Skip” Gates wrote a fascinating op-ed about the difficulties of offering reparations for African slavery, give that both black Africans as well as white Europeans and Americans participated in the heinous trade. He also highlighted the unique opportunity that Barack Obama provides for re-starting the discussion about this thorny issue:

Fortunately, in President Obama, the child of an African and an American, we finally have a leader who is uniquely positioned to bridge the great reparations divide. He is uniquely placed to publicly attribute responsibility and culpability where they truly belong, to white people and black people, on both sides of the Atlantic, complicit alike in one of the greatest evils in the history of civilization. And reaching that understanding is a vital precursor to any just and lasting agreement on the divisive issue of slavery reparations.

Economist Brad DeLong disagrees with Gates’ premise, and endorses programs like affirmative action, on conservative grounds. He invokes Edmund Burke, and argues that Americans “unmerited inheritance” of the goods of Western Civilization obligates them to “erase the debts” of that same inheritance, to wrong its rights, with perhaps no wrong greater than that of slavery.

Practically, a republic requires virtuous citizens: citizens who will take up their responsibilities and shoulder their share of the obligations neecessary for the common good. People who won’t shirk their responsibilities. “If you wish to be part of this great more than two-century partnership that is America,” Burke would say if I had him here right now, “you need to recognize that your inheritance is an entailed inheritance. First, it comes with an obligation not to waste it–an obligation to in your turn pass down to those not yet born a better nation than the one you live in. Second, it comes with debts attached: past deeds of America that were cruel and criminal, the memory of which is still shameful. Just because the particular members of the great partnership who incurred the debts (the three-fifths clause, the legality of the slave trade, the Missouri Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Act, et cetera) are dead doesn’t mean that that the debts aren’t still owed by the great partnership.”

I’m not sure where I fall here. I might agree with Barack Obama, that is I support the “theory of reparations” but agree that in practice they are tricky. But thinking about it more, maybe they’re not so tricky. What I think has happened here is that DeLong and Gates have over-historicized this issue. Or at least over-analyzed in an academic way. That is, it’s (relatively) easy to recognize that slavery was evil, and that diverse peoples were implicated. The question is what to do now. To think, pragmatically, as Obama is so found of doing.

And so taking both of these articles together, I think we can have a good middle ground, or rather a combination of the Gates and DeLong suggestions. First, I think Obama can begin the process of making important symbolic gestures in recognizing that US government owes a debt to the victims of slavery, while also recognizing the roles played Europeans, Africans and everyone else involved. At the same time, Americans can continue to celebrate and study African and African American history, literature, art and culture. Last, and perhaps most important, programs like affirmative action, and other forms of economic redistribution and education reforms that will benefit people of colour can continue (and be improved upon) as well. DeLong is right: Americans (and Canadians) all have that obligation.

I recognize that this probably doesn’t sound particular original. It also might be very naive. But perhaps this issue doesn’t need to be as thorny as we make it out to be.

Advertisements

Written by David Weinfeld

April 28, 2010 at 19:06

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. My personal preference is not to base political re-distribution on historical oppression. Too many thorny issues. How far back to go? Which groups? How do you define whether an individual is part of the oppressed group?etc…

    Rather I think you can make an abstract argument that groups that are currently suffering from the legacies of historical injustice deserve first crack at political re-distribution, not because of the past suffering, but because of the current suffering. How do you know whether they are still suffering? If they have the type of social problems that reparations could address. In other words, the need for reparations (or whatever you want to call it) justifies reparations. But it is the need, not the past oppression, that is the moral justification.

    Which is to say, African-Americans, Native Americans, and probably even some circles of rural whites (say, those in Appalachia) deserve some sort of reparations because they suffer from poverty and discrimination; and the fact that they need those reparations is proof that historical injustice occurred.

    Oh, and since we’re assuming- a la Delong- some sort of collective identity, we can assume the reparations would be collective (investment in community schools, job programs, infrastructure, Affirmative-Action, etc…)

    Wiz

    April 28, 2010 at 20:20

  2. The difficulties lie in the facts: (1) the US government abolished the importation of slaves in 1807, which means that almost everybody here now is descended from somebody imported under British governmental rule, not the United States, so why should the US government pay? (2) almost all African Americans are descended both from slaves AND slave owners, AND any reparations paid would be paid by taxpayers of all colors, meaning the US government would be paying reparations for what your great-great-grandfather did to your great-great-grandmother, so you might as well just pay yourself (3) many white Americans died in the Civil War, in an effort to abolish slavery, why should their descendants be required to pay reparations? (4) a huge majority of white Americans never owned slaves, never imported slaves, and in fact, are descended from people who immigrated here after the abolition of slavery, so why should they have to pay? (5) would reparations, if paid, be based simply on skin color, so that recent refugees from the Sudan, for example, be entitled to the same amount of money as someone who has 1 slave ancestor, or 8? What is to stop people who are white by all accounts from claiming that several generations ago, one of their ancestors was an African slave? (Elizabeth Warren’s spurious claim of being a Cherokee comes to mind) Furthermore, up until the 19th century, from the viewpoint of women, there wasn’t much difference between matrimony and slavery, which means almost everybody here is descended from someone who probably made the trip unwillingly, doing uncompensated labor. Let’s not forget about indentured servants either! No, it won’t work. it’ll be a bureaucratic mess. Your ancestors made the trip, endured great hardship, suffered terribly, with the upside that you get to live where thousands of people living in refugee camps in Africa RIGHT NOW would do anything to take your place.

    Anne

    May 28, 2013 at 00:18


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: