The Insufficiency of Reparations

The following is one of a series of excerpts from a book that I’ve recently written on the subject. If you have a further interest in my take on this topic, please contact me at gadornato@gmail.com for information. Thank you.

The concept of reparations is, of course, almost as old as slavery in America. From the beginning, the practice of human bondage has caused some who engaged in it to challenge themselves, their faith, and their actions loudly even as they purchased the next black family from a ship’s dark hold. They lamented their actions as they passed over their coins and loaded their purchased human beings into their carts. 

Famously, Thomas Jefferson wrote volumes on the subject. He professed slavery to be “a moral depravity” and anticipated the abject punishment of a displeased God. He called for the abolishment of slavery in multiple texts, both in the governance of Virginia and in the founding of the new Republic. He owned over 600 people, spawned a second family with his chattel Sally Hemmings, and still declined to call for their freedom upon his death, as was a common practice among others with similar internal conflicts.

There is no reconciling of the choices that were made, no excusing the Faustian bargain made in seeking financial prosperity through the enslavement of others. There is nothing except that it was amoral and for America, the original sin that gained the nascent country material advantages at the cost of its emerging soul. 

As with all unrepented sins, the cost to the sinner has been far greater than the satisfaction of their choice. Recent analysis suggests that those lost during the Civil War numbered over 750,000 as one in ten white men of military age died either in battle or from related causes. The over 150 years since that carnage have seen the emergence of a country vast in wealth, but constantly struggling with its own conflicted legacy, a nation perpetually besieged by the unresolved and unended oppression of its historical victims.  

For every generation since that time, there have been innumerable fatalities of the most horrific kind is the cause of racism, an uninterrupted line that only paused for a second to pass through the callously ended life of George Floyd under the knee of a police officer. Those transgressions have grown as a festering wound on the heart of America as they have been graphically exposed by technology, precluding plausible denial and forcing open a poison ledger.

It could be reasonably argued that the unfathomable deaths have been the least of the atrocities, and I would be one making that case with some conviction.

Beyond the taking of a life is the usurping the rights, the freedoms, the opportunities, and the dreams of an entire people. Over one-eighth of Americans are black, and the systemic disadvantages imposed on their lives have been unrelenting.  The cost to black Americans has been incalculable, and what the nation has primarily gained is a perpetual struggle from an indefensible position. Pervasive and systemic racism has deprived America of not only its moral bearings but of the unknown potential contributions of fully an eighth of its citizens. It remains as a fault line over which a divided country pulls apart rather than together. Whatever compensations have been assigned to the sin, the cost has beggared the benefit and continues to be paid today by both the sinner and the victimized.

Idea of Reparations

There is a convenience to the conventional idea of reparations, a simplicity that makes it almost palatable for so many on both sides of the black and white fault line. For the black American, it is a minimalist recognition by their oppressors of the worst of their victimization, some grudging acknowledgment of a history that has been almost too painful to contemplate for centuries. For the white American, it is a type of “indulgence”, a financial payment for the forgiveness of sins as was fashionable in the Christian church during Medieval times. It is a salve to a guilty conscious that frees white America from the costs of true repentance and reconciliation. 

Reparations, as is defined in most dictionaries, is the financial compensation of the descendants of slaves for their enslavement. It is simple, clean, tangible.

It is also alarmingly insufficient, a hollow charade that won’t bring either party what they believe that they are bargaining for. At the very best, it can be the first small step towards a useful outcome… at its worst, it is makeup over a cancerous mole.

If we are to consider the idea of reparations as a form of reconciliation, we must first redefine the definition to make it something useful and constructive. The objective of reparations must be to functionally reduce or eliminate the generational damage done by a perverse system of discrimination, and to provide a foundational balance for black Americans to fully participate in a shared nation’s present and future. The definition of the word must encompass all of that, or be rejected.

In searching for a definition that I could identify with, I began with the term reparation itself. As I expected, many of the first definitions found were specifically limited and unhelpful to my purposes. Wikipedia refers to reparations as the following:

“Reparations for slavery is a political justice concept that argues that reparations should be paid to the descendants of slaves.”     

My personal aversion to the concept of monetizing the atrocities of slavery is not based on some denial that it is deserved but rather arises from a pair of competing calculations: first, that any fiscal allocation that accurately represented the pain and suffering to dollars is incalculable (and ultimately inadequate) and second, that the idea that “only” the direct descendants of American slaves have faced that sort of pervasive imbalance and obstruction is indefensible and incomplete. 

If a serious resolution to the historic and current imbalance is to have meaning, it must recognize and respond to all of the histories of racially motivated and legislated circumstances of denial and deprivation. 

The particulars of the various published suggestions for reparations confirmed my sense of insufficiency. Various scholars, attempting to quantify the unquantifiable, have suggested numbers for distribution ranging from a few hundred dollars to as much as $80,000 or more. These are based on various permutations of some mathematical calculation of valuing slave labor, its economic impact, and the abandoned promises compounded over a few hundred years, divided across 40 million or so recipients. 

I consider these to be irrelevant. To my sensibilities, it feels more like a poor excuse of an apology than the satisfaction of centuries of malicious restraint. Even if an $80,000 grant were provided to every black family -- an amount that would likely represent between $750 billion and $1 trillion in federal provisions -- it would only represent a temporary relief, a one time salve spread over an unhealed and infected wound. A generation from now, would the impact of that single payment create a meaningful change in the opportunities and experiences of black Americans in a still white preferenced society?  I can mathematically calculate that diminishing impact, and it is neither determinative nor transformational. 

Definition of Reparation

Another definition of reparation might be more useful; Webster's offers this:

“the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury..”

The act of making amends, if interpreted carefully, opens a larger door. Satisfaction cannot be achieved, amends would be insufficient, so long as the offense continues forward and is unresolved. The stopping of one man from beating another is of little value if (a) the beaten man is not healed, and (b) the offender is allowed to continue the abuse. Appropriate resolution cannot exist in the absence of systemic reprogramming and the recalibration of disadvantage and constraint. In that possibly contorted sense, the term reparations begin to apply to meaningful discourse. 

The majority of definitions offered by various sources and reference books appear to focus more on the application than the concept, suggesting an outcome (payment of cash as a response to transgressions) more than an objective (Resolution? Apology? Repair? Recompense?). 

Without understanding the constructive purpose of reparations, the concept is hollow, without a mechanism for transforming, or even ultimately assessing its success or failure. It is only in understanding the objective that the manifestation takes on meaning. 

For my personal purposes and efforts, I settled on the following as an initial definition for guiding my research and framing my suggestions, reserving the right to later revision:

Reparations are the collaborative effort to effectively redress historical and present transgressions and to establish the foundation for a more equitable future.

The keywords are critical here. 

Collaborative, because no meaningful solution can reasonably be imposed, so the solutions must be the process of a shared agenda and mutually acceptable outcome. 

The effort, because perfection is something that is so entirely subjective is unattainable and a false objective.

Effective, because success should be evaluated by the measurable applications and results rather than the theoretical or academic. 

Redress, which, when defined as “the setting right of what is wrong”, speaks to a common acceptance of the past and the present state of “wrongness”.

Foundation, because reparations can and must serve as the base for a future where a repeat of the transgressions is not preordained or inevitable. 

Equitable, because the objectives are for the establishment of ongoing fairness and balance rather than simply punishment or profit.

Affirmative Action

There is another term that needs to be dealt with at this time. In the discussions of racial inequality, the phrase “affirmative action” is frequently denigrated and used as a polarizing political meme. It is often portrayed as a form of charity. It is periodically defended by a complicated insistence that it is not predatory towards white Americans, and a series of accompanying linguistic contortions.

This distinction is critical: the idea of reparation is not charitable. It is not something given by white America to black Americans as a sop. Reparations, as defined in this paper, are the steps necessary and appropriate to begin the process of repairing centuries of systemic deprivation and denial. As such, the projected outcome would be the elevation of the capacities and productivity of a major segment of our population, a discernible benefit to all Americans, and to the national economy as a whole.

To the degree that the programs discussed herein appear to preference black Americans over white Americans, whether, in terms of resources and opportunities, that appearance is intentional and factual. 

As noted frequently, the historical and present conditions of black life in America are indisputably disfavored; reconciliation of those circumstances requires addressing the various aspects of that imbalance. This in turn would require elevating the conditions of black Americans or denigrating the conditions of white Americans in order to level the playing field meaningfully. In my proposals, I have somewhat logically chosen to elevate. 

In doing so, it is my belief that the inevitable outcome would be the elevation of all Americans, and of America itself.