Fibonacci Blue from Minnesota, USA / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)
Today, slavery reparations have become a hallmark policy that has been tied up in the democratic agenda for racial equality. CNN recently reported that in the wake of the George Floyd killing, democrats have sponsored a congressional bill to consider reparation payments to African Americans whose ancestors were enslaved. Unfortunately for anyone who supports this bill, they have the burden of proof. This burden of proof lies in them demonstrating three things. First they must prove that we live in a racist system, second they must prove that slave reparations will be helpful in unifying the country racially, and third, they must prove that their plan is feasible and in accordance with the principles of justice. If any of these things is untrue then their case falls apart.
One concept that people supporting reparations must prove- that the U.S. is a racist system -is very scantily supported by the evidence. Nevertheless, attempts have been made. In the wake of recent police killings leftists have been very eager to capitalize and appeal to people’s emotions in order to get them to believe that an entire organization tasked with keeping peace and order actually promotes violence and oppression. If they have been successful at emotionally persuading people that the police are racist, they have certainly not been successful academically. In fact, the data do not support the contention that the police are racist at all. Statistics reported by the Wall Street Journal show that “a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.” Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a study in which they produced the self-evident findings that the more often police officers are involved in situations with violent suspects in a specific racial group, the more likely it is that members of that racial group will be shot. The study found “no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police.” The fact of the matter is that African-Americans are not being artificially oppressed by systemic barriers such as police bias.
The second proof also falls apart when it is looked into with an unbiased mind. Reparations would not at all help to racially unify the country. In fact, an AP-NORC poll found that only 29% of Americans favor cash reparations. To say that it is unifying to take money away from one group to give to another when 71% of people oppose it is at best, sheer nonsense. Slavery reparations might benefit a certain group in the short term but it might actually have the unfortunate effect of promoting racial animus among those who are forced to pay.
The third and final proof is probably demonstrated the worst. The plan for reparations is in no way in accordance with principles of justice. The idea of justice being done is that you have had an illegal act committed against you and therefore you will receive payment for what has been done to you either by the transgressor of the wrongs or by someone related to the person who transgressed the wrongs. This was the principle behind the most recent reparations to Holocaust survivors that was paid by Germany. A wrong that was committed is rectified by helping those who suffered the wrong not the descendants of those who suffered it.
Aside from the gross distortion of justice, advocates of reparations have also been unable to prove that their plan would be feasible. In order for reparations to work properly the descendants of slave-owners would need to be the ones required to pay. Otherwise descendants of people who were killed fighting to stop slavery would have to pay. What would then be required is a vast database where everyone in the United States was genetically tested to see if any of their ancestors owned slaves. This would be unconstitutional in the highest degree as it would severely encroach upon the privacy of individuals.
Although advocates of slave reparations may have good intentions they have sorely failed at proving the merits of their case. Their logic is extremely flawed and even if you agree with them in principle, there is no way to effectively carry out their plans. People advocating for this policy have the burden of proof and if they wish to have their policies accepted they must attempt to fulfill it much more effectively.
Your humble servant,
Silence Dogood
