When receiving an award, be it for this or for that, it’s now considered churlish not to acknowledge that, “We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us.” Only at one’s peril should this be confused with “We stands on the backs of those who came before us.” And yet we’re far more likely to have achieved what we have by standing on bent backs than on upright shoulders. 

Of course no one likes to acknowledge his ‘back-standing’. But not to worry. There’ll be plenty of people more than happy to point it out, both to you and to anyone who might otherwise be inclined to honour you for your accomplishments. 

For example, Americans are told that their prosperity was built on the backs of slaves imported from Africa. This is probably true. True too is that immigrants who arrived in the century and a half since the abolition of slavery, inherited what was built on those bent backs. And the scars from the lashes that kept those backs bent have clearly been inherited by those whose ancestors they were.

Let all this be granted. What follows?

The standard arguments against reparations are twofold. First, that after that century and a half and still counting, the statute of limitations on liability, both legal and moral, has run out. Should Egyptians be required to compensate the Israelites? On the other hand the Canadian government paid Maher Arar ten million dollars, the city of Louisville just settled with Breonna Taylor’s family for twelve, and many of us believe the Israelis owe the Palestinians compensation for the Naqba of 1948. So what is the statute of limitation on these kinds of injustices? 

Is there a principled way to answer this question? Or is it politics all the way down? If so, African Americans are entitled to reparations if and only if they can muster enough political pressure to exact it. Arguments, moral or otherwise, have nothing to do with it.

Second, to whom and by whom are these reparations due? After all, the only truly African African Americans are those who recently stepped off the boat, some of whom, from South Africa and Zimbabwe, are white. And, of course, it’s hard to say what to say about those who’ve arrived from Haiti. 

But the real problem is that as many of the ancestors of African Americans were slave owners as were slaves. So whatever her white alleles owe her black alleles, it’s a wash, is it not? Worse yet, blacks owned black slaves, as did some indigenous peoples. Each of us – black, white, indigenous, Jewish – can lay claim to a lineage. But how many of us can prove the lineage to which we lay claim? It’s not that the milkman always gets in there, any more than every soldier in the U.S. military is gay. It’s just that it’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell!”

The counter-argument is that systemic racism in America is about skin colour, not ancestry. Barak Obama is a Black man, and is treated as such, notwithstanding his father was Kenyan and his mother was white. It’s not what percentage of you is black. It’s how black you look. Imagine refusing to sit at the back of the bus in the Jim Crow south by saying, “No no, I’m not really black. I just spent summer break at the beach.” But if, for several generations, you’ve been passing for white, then, dammit, you are white, because you’ve been enjoying the privileges of being white.

And it’s for these very reasons that most advocates think reparations should be paid to communities rather than individuals, because it’s communities that bear the scars of slavery, regardless of the ancestry of the individual members of that community. Of course to some very minor degree this has already been happening, though no one’s been calling it reparations. 

Nor, as I shall be arguing shortly, should it be called reparations. But in the meantime, I want to take a very different tack. I want to see what happens if neither the statute of limitations objection nor (what we might call) the tracking objection goes through. I want to imagine that the charge is a live one. And I want to imagine that, in the face of her undeniable accusation, some whitey were to say to her black accuser, “So what?”


Accusers expect denial, or perhaps some plea for mitigation. But they’re never prepared for a “So what?” And being unprepared for the question, neither have they prepared an answer. What answer could they offer? “So, uh … so, uh … so you owe me!”?

But this mockery is unfair. From 1) “Some of my ancestors were slaves,” to 2) “You owe me!” – a.k.a. the Reparations Argument – is an enthymeme with dozens if not hundreds of missing premises. Filling them in takes time. And careful thought. Can one get from (1) to (2)? I have no idea. But I do have an idea of what would have to be overcome in the attempt.

The most obvious difficulty is the one no one has the balls to raise, namely the distinction, if distinction there be, between animal husbandry and human husbandry. No one complains that the West was won on the backs of horses, whose submission to the will of their riders was induced just as cruelly as was the submission of slaves to the will of their masters. So the argument has to be that there’s a moral distinction between whipping a horse and whipping a man. And how might that argument be made? 

That humans, but not horses, were created in the image of God? But again, even if that were so, so what?! Yes, the wrongness of fucking a baby doll hangs on the wrongness of fucking a baby. So our being created in the image of God would give me pause only if I give a shit about God. But I don’t. And neither do most of the people who buy the Reparations Argument.

I could, if required, run through the entire litany of attempts to ground human exceptionalism from “nature red in tooth and claw.” Suffice it here to say that none of those arguments work. They don’t work because they presuppose that the property that distinguishes human from animal husbandry is a morally relevant property. But they think it unnecessary to show that it’s relevant.

The sad truth is that there is no such property. People enslave other people when  a) it’s economically viable to do so and b) they have the wherewithal to do so. And when some fatuous argument is thrown at them for why they shouldn’t, they come up with an equally fatuous argument to parry it. What’s the only non-fatuous argument in America in 2020? That a) it would not be economically viable to reinstitute slavery and, even if it were, b) there sure as hell ain’t the wherewithal to reinstitute it!  

Does it follow that whitey doesn’t owe anything to the descendants of these slaves? It does, but only because ‘owe’ is the wrong concept. Its history is only one of the ways an identifiable group can be systemically disadvantaged. Imagine a plague that rendered all but only African Americans disadvantaged. Harm yes, but fault no. Would it follow that they’re not entitled to a leg up? 

Justice is just the wrong concept, as wrong in evaluating history as in evaluating Tay Sachs or Sickle Cell Anemia. What matters, and all that matters, is what kind of world we want to live in now. Some people would rather pay to live in a gated community to ensure none of ‘those’ people are likely to date their daughters. I don’t blame them. I’m just not one of them. I’d rather pay to ensure they are likely to date my daughter. That’s not reparations. That’s investment.

As I say, I don’t begrudge people who’d rather divest than invest. But here’s a sure way to swell their ranks. Tell them that because of the colour of their skin and the colour of yours, you owe them. That’s always a good sales pitch.

Categories: Everything You Wanted to Know About What's Going On in the World But Were Afraid to Ask, Social and Political Philosophy

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 replies

  1. On Twitter on June 29, Thomas Sowell said:

    “It is self-destructive for any society to create a situation where a baby who is born into the world today automatically has pre-existing grievances against another baby born at the same time, because of what their ancestors did centuries ago.

    It is hard enough to solve our own problems, without trying to solve our ancestors’ problems.”

    But the Bible also said it long ago (Exodus 34:7):

    “….. visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon children’s children, unto the third and fourth generation.”

    There is no legal or political limitation period on grievances. So “reparations” today is really about having the political clout to create a transfer of income. Some as yet unspecified definition of “race” and ancestry renders the transferors to be liable for the transfer and qualifies the recipients to be the transferees. We have already seen some of this as the Canadian government is paying to settle a class action with Indigenous Canadians who were sent to residential schools.


    • Reparations claims are created by a victim/oppressor narrative that absolves the former of amy kind of responsibility for the way they responded (or didn’t respond) to the universal disruption of business-as-usual that the emergence & global roll out of capitalism caused.

      That response or lack of it determined what the outcome would be in terms of making the passage into modern times.

      The more sophisticated, like the Japanese & sub continent Indians took it in their stride. The Chinese tried to ignore the modern paradigm & got hammered for over a century.. Melanesian & New Zealand farmer warriors loved modern technology & took to missionary education quite well.

      At the bottom of that pile were the hunters & gatherers, & for them, the whole modernizing business was a bridge too far. They floundered. Australian tribal aboriginals still have not got their heads around it.

      But to blame their colonial interlocutors for that is absurd.

      The residential school system tried to do what the parents of the children who went to them should have been doing, which was to help them become modern people armed with sufficient modern education to make their way in that world, even if only on the bottom rung.

      Cultural atavism rather than the schools was the problem. The subcontinent Indians couldn’t get enough British sponsored education. Competition for scholarships for talented children from indigent families was intense..

      Indians from the subcontinent knew the value of modern education North American & Australian aboriginals didn’t. One lot embraced modern times & moved with them. The others walliwed in failure.

      And that is something they need to take some responsibility for. Anything else is bullshit….


  2. The race narrative being run by the Humanist Ascendancy that runs our system of both private and public social administration, is almost as bogus as the ‘Jewish question’ in Nazi Germany. It carries exactly the same regime function of displacing rational historical/regime criticism by incorporating it into an emotive race mythology that provides a satisfying and politically unifying account of suffering, fear, uncertainty and loss….and the need to re-assign blame and responsibility for perceived ills…as well as gloss over much deeper structural issues.

    The race paradigm is regime neurosis writ large as a result of a crisis, much in the same way as heresy inquisition and witch hunting became during the reformation, when events started to sweep away the old medieval order in favor of what eventually became capitalism.

    American capitalism is in crisis. The race ploy is a counterstroke to the Trump led rebellion of the working class. Getting involved in arguments over the Jewish question in its day and the Black Lives Matter in this one is an invitation to go down an ideological rabbit hole….and the world of Lewis Carroll’s Alice or the earlier Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    In less than 30 years, the present teraflops of academic race and sex identity make work will get deleted, much in the same way as the utterly unmemorable regime rubbish coming out of German university social studies departments of the the Third Reich.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: