The United States brutally enslaved African Americans for its first hundred or so years of existence. For the next hundred years, black Americans were lynched, deprived of basic rights, and widely discriminated against. Now, while there are still certainly racial injustices to deal with, how are we to respond to the racial injustices of the past? Does time really heal all wounds? Could it ever be legitimate to compensate the descendants of slaves for burdens they themselves did not bear? Likewise, why should the descendants of slave-owners be made to pay for crimes they did not commit? John and Ken welcome Michael Dawson from the University of Chicago, author of Not in Our Lifetimes: The Future of Black Politics.
Are black people today owed reparations for America’s racist past? On top of the horrors of slavery, America’s history includes Jim Crow and racist housing policy of the past century, and then the mass incarceration, failing public schools, and police brutality of the present. But are the injustices of the past too diluted to adequately compensate for? And are reparations just too politically infeasible for us to seriously consider?
John and Ken welcomes political scientist and University of Chicago professor Michael Dawson to the show. Dawson talks about the need for this country to face its racist past. Ken wonders that after so many decades of racism, aren’t we past conversations? Dawson doesn’t think so; we have much to disagree about. How much do we agree on when it comes to issues of social justice? As an example, Dawson cites the vastly differential support for reparations across racial lines: 90 percent of white people reject it, 60 to 70 percent of black people support it.
Is reparations about holding white people responsible? Dawson doesn’t think this is the right way to think about it; instead, we ought to all be held responsible. John focuses the discussion on specific proposals that would count to reparations. Ken further questions what the advantage is of framing restorative justice issues in terms of reparations. A listener calls in and asks about religious justifications for reparations. The hosts and guest aren’t too persuaded. Ken brings up Simone de Beauvoir’s view of the past, taking an aesthetic attitude towards it.
Dawson agrees with Ken that it would be harder politically to frame the issue in terms of reparations, but Dawson insists that it is still the just outcome. Along this vein, the conversation moves towards the political feasibility of reparations. It becomes clear how much Americans don’t like talking about race. But Dawson powerfully makes the point that most victories won by black people in this country has appeared impossible. Changing hearts and minds isn’t always necessary; increasing black power and creating political conflict may suffice.
Comments (1)
Harold G. Neuman
Monday, June 24, 2019 -- 12:04 PM
I have only one primaryI have only one primary remark, in the form of a question: If the United States goes down the reparation path, what then should the rest o the world do about its' racist, slavery-driven past? Make no mistake, slavery was never a sole province of this country. Anyone who thinks so ought to look more deeply into world history. Justice is not something only pertinent to those who have suffered while living in America. As to the notion of reparations for blacks living here now; those whose ancestors were enslaved or even those old ones who were themselves slaves, I have a secondary question: how much are we to award them? and, a tertiary question: will such reparation(s) supply 'make-whole' relief, such that the matter of race discrimination will be forever and always forgotten? (My only answer is for the third question: I just don't think so.)
We are getting to what John Stuart Mill called 'the religion of humanity', or more familiarly, Humanism. I have just begun reading Mill, so I do not know whether he had any comments on slavery in general or enslavement of black people specifically. But I suspect he had some ideas about the practice, whether he wrote of them or not.