Reparations are a racist policy

The argument

Proponents of this position accept that reparations have a strong moral argument behind them: the correcting of the injustices of a racist history of slavery. Their objection is not to that moral impulse but to the fundamental structure of the policy that would carry it out, which they argue is itself wrapped in racial discrimination. The first strand of the objection concerns who is asked to pay. A reparations programme, on this account, explicitly directs the blame of slavery onto the living generations of white Americans, despite their having nothing to do with the practice and being several generations removed from it. Blame assigned by descent rather than by conduct is, on this view, the defining feature of a racial policy rather than a remedial one. Proponents add that timing compounds the problem: in a time where racial tensions are high, a policy which singles out a race for its historical mistakes is needlessly divisive, and the division it creates is certain while its benefits are not. More importantly, they argue, the results of such a system are too unclear to risk the political and social consequences that would follow. The second strand concerns who receives. The system prioritises the financial needs of black Americans, despite the many impoverished communities of all other races and ethnic groups. Giving only black Americans an economic boost, while seemingly righteous, discriminates against and alienates all the other low-income families in America on the basis of race — reproducing, in the remedy itself, the sorting by race that the remedy was meant to answer. What follows, on this argument, is a different direction of policy altogether: one that unites Americans and attempts to remove discriminatory practices in society rather than adding a further one. The more public policy focuses on race, proponents conclude, the more it divides the country. Judged by that standard reparations are regressive, not progressive, and so there should not be reparations for slavery.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Reparations require current generations of white Americans to recognize that their privilege and wealth is the direct result of the system of slavery. Black wealth is a fraction of white Americans due to a lack of generational inheritance and civil rights. Pursuing a policy or reparations would allow white America reconciliation for their privilege in a way that will reduce the racial disparity in the country. It may be uncomfortable, but reparations are a necessary step towards greater equality in society.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Reparations proposals are generally framed as a public obligation rather than as personal guilt: a payment made by a state for what the state did and permitted attributes blame to no individual, as other reparations programmes have not held living citizens personally culpable. [Rejecting P2] Divisiveness is a claim about how a policy would be received rather than about whether it is just, and it would count equally against any remedy for a historical wrong. The premise's other point — that the results are too unclear to risk — is an argument for studying the question, which is what the leading legislative proposal actually asks for. [Rejecting P3] Addressing a specific harm is not discrimination against those who did not suffer it. On the counter's account the wealth gap traces to slavery and then to exclusion from property, credit and civil rights, so a remedy aimed at that history is targeted by cause rather than by race — and the third position in this debate, addressing poverty across all Americans, is the argument the premise is really reaching for.

Framing

Based on the idea of 'reverse racism,' or that white individuals and communities are victims of racial discrimination. The concept is often used as a criticism of policies that specifically prioritize or benefit other races over white individuals, such as affirmative action and reparations.