NAACP: “WHEREAS, African Americans have been enslaved in the United States from 1619 to 1865 and people of African descent have been murdered, brutalized, made victims of genocide, sexually assaulted and economically depressed based on race in the United States from 1619 through the civil rights movement. Evidence of this systemic racism are still present today. The United States government must atone for the actions in the name of the United States government against Black people in the United States.”
No good radical-left public policy proposal can gain any traction with radical-left lawmakers without a radical-left academic study to back it up.
Harvard professors Linda J. Bilmes and Cornell William Brooks have published a study in the “Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences” titled “Normalizing Reparations: U.S. Precedent, Norms, and Models for Compensating Harms and Implications for Reparations to Black Americans.” That the radical-left professors say it is necessary to “normalize” reparations suggests that reparations are not “normal” and shouldn’t be attempted. This is especially true when you consider that the very word “normal” doesn’t exist in the usual academic lexicon.
They must be pretty desperate.
The point of the paper is to twist logic and facts to show that the federal government does things like paying reparations all the time.
This Harvard study referenced by Moran claims there is a “historic precedent” for paying slavery reparations to Black Americans, presenting a list of compensatory actions by the federal government as evidence. The study argues that various groups—coal miners, farmers, victims of natural disasters, and others—have received government compensation for the harms suffered, while Black Americans have not received reparations for the enduring impacts of slavery and systemic racism. This conclusion, however, rests on a foundation of misguided logic that stretches historical facts to fit a predetermined narrative.
The Misguided Premise
The study asserts that reparations for Black Americans are justified based on historical precedents of government compensation to various groups. This conclusion, however, seems to have been the study’s starting point rather than a result of impartial analysis. The authors appear to have selected instances of government compensation that superficially resemble reparations, ignoring each case’s distinct and specific contexts.
Comparing Apples and Oranges
The compensatory actions cited by the study include payments to coal miners, farmers, victims of natural disasters, and many others. Each of these cases involves compensation for direct, tangible harms or losses suffered by individuals or groups. For instance:
Coal miners:Compensated for work-related illnesses and injuries.
Farmers: Assisted during crop failures due to unforeseen circumstances. Natural disaster victims:Provided relief for losses directly attributable to events like hurricanes and earthquakes. Victims of terrorism and nuclear radiation: Compensated for specific, identifiable harms caused by targeted attacks or exposure to hazardous materials.
In each of these instances, compensation is linked to direct, measurable harm and often involves individuals or groups who can demonstrate specific losses or damages. These compensations are not granted based on collective guilt or historical injustices but rather on immediate and identifiable needs.
The Fallacy of Collective Guilt
One of the central flaws in the Harvard study’s argument is the implicit suggestion that reparations for Black Americans are analogous to these compensatory actions. This comparison overlooks a critical distinction: the notion of collective guilt.The examples provided do not involve compensation based on collective historical guilt but on immediate, tangible harms.
Compensations to coal miners, farmers, and natural disaster victims are not rooted in the idea that contemporary society owes them for historical wrongs. Rather, they address specific situations where individuals have suffered direct losses. In contrast, the call for slavery reparations involves attributing collective guilt to contemporary society for the actions of individuals and institutions from the distant past.
In my view, assigning a monetary value to the abhorrent practice of slavery may be an insurmountable challenge. However, a discerning examination of history reveals that the U.S. federal government has made greater efforts to address this issue and satisfy its debt than any other government in the history of the world. As it pertains to money and materials as reparations owed to black descendants of slavery, the United States government’s ledger should unequivocally read, “paid in full.”
Explaining the global spread of slavery, economist and author Thomas Sowell uncovers this issue in his book “Black Rednecks and White Liberals,” writing,
“Despite widespread misconceptions in the United States today that the institution of slavery was based on race, for most of the thousands of years in which slavery existed around the world, it was based on whoever was vulnerable to enslavement and within striking distance. Thus, Europeans enslaved other Europeans, just as Asians enslaved other Asians and Africans enslaved other Africans.”
~ Sowell, T. (2009). Black Rednecks & White Liberals. Encounter Books.
While acknowledging slavery as a global practice doesn’t lessen its inhumane brutality, it instead highlights the notion that slavery primarily exploited vulnerability rather than ethnicity. Transatlantic voyages began in the 15th century, coinciding with a new approach to the slave trade: transporting vulnerable individuals to distant lands.
From the 15th to the 19th centuries, transatlantic slavery involved the trafficking of 12.5 million people. Captured by fellow Africans, these people were sold and transported from Africa to regions like the Caribbean, the United States, the mainland Americas under Spanish rule, and Europe. Brazil received the largest share of slaves, with 3.5 million slaves delivered to Brazilian shores. Approximately 388,000 to 450,000 were eventually brought to the United States.
The reparations debate is not about rectifying past injustices. Instead, it’s about leveraging reparations as an emotional cudgel to manipulate blacks into placing their individual power in the hands of a select few. If this doesn’t ring the bell of past black exploitation, I don’t know what does.
Questionable Historical Parallels
The study’s attempt to draw parallels between these compensations and slavery reparations is further weakened by the selective use of history. By cherry-picking examples that support their narrative, the authors create a distorted view of historical and current government actions. Many of the cited compensatory programs were established to address immediate, pressing needs and were often contentious in their own right. Suggesting that these examples form a coherent precedent for slavery reparations is an oversimplification that glosses over the complexities of each case.
The Problem of Precedent
The argument that America provides reparations to nearly everyone but Black Americans, even for comparably severe harms, is a sweeping generalization that ignores the nuances of each situation. The “precedents” cited are not based on a uniform principle of reparatory justice but rather on varied responses to diverse circumstances. Each case of compensation involves unique factors, from legal battles to policy decisions, reflecting the multifaceted nature of government action.
Should These Compensations Exist?
It can also be argued that many of the government’s compensatory arrangements are contentious and should not serve as models for further compensation programs. Some critics argue that government bailouts and compensation programs can encourage dependency, create moral hazards, and lead to inefficient allocation of resources. Reparations, like any other type of government bailout, while often seen as necessary interventions to compensate for historical injustices, are fundamentally flawed in several ways. These flaws stem from both practical and ethical considerations, impacting economic efficiency, market behavior, and social equity. Perceived unfairness and misuse of public funds can erode trust in government, leading to social unrest and political instability.
Implementing reparations necessitates significant public expenditure, potentially leading to heightened government debt and long-term economic instability. This could hinder investment in crucial sectors like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Additionally, determining the amount of reparations, the eligible recipients, the source of funding, and the entity responsible for managing the substantial financial distribution would present considerable challenges.
Conclusion
The Harvard study’s claim of “historic precedent” for slavery reparations relies on a selective and flawed interpretation of government compensation history. By conflating direct compensations for immediate harm with the idea of reparations for historical injustices, the study stretches logic to fit a preconceived narrative. The argument overlooks the distinct contexts of each compensation case and the absence of collective guilt in those examples.
Rather than providing a robust justification for slavery reparations, the study highlights the need for a more nuanced and critical approach to understanding government compensation and the principles that should guide it. In the end, the issue of reparations requires careful consideration of history, justice, and the practical implications of implementing such a policy, not a forced analogy to disparate compensatory actions.
Next on the agenda?: newly revised compensation arrangements for…
✅ Japanese American internment victims
✅ Native American land seizures
✅ German citizens killed in WWII Allied bombing raids
✅ Native Hawaiians’ stolen land holdings
✅ Tuskegee Experiment Reparations for Medical Brutality
✅ Reparations for [fill in your group] for our historical injustices
Comparing Apples and OrangesIn my view, assigning a monetary value to the abhorrent practice of slavery may be an insurmountable challenge. However, a discerning examination of history reveals that the U.S. federal government has made greater efforts to address this issue and satisfy its debt than any other government in the history of the world. As it pertains to money and materials as reparations owed to black descendants of slavery, the United States government’s ledger should unequivocally read, “paid in full.”
Should These Compensations Exist?
Rather than providing a robust justification for slavery reparations, the study highlights the need for a more nuanced and critical approach to understanding government compensation and the principles that should guide it. In the end, the issue of reparations requires careful consideration of history, justice, and the practical implications of implementing such a policy, not a forced analogy to disparate compensatory actions.