Reparations

Here we go. We're gonna' discuss something difficult and divisive. Something that is automatically muddied because I'm a white male. But I want to address this because it's come out of the woodwork with Ta-Nehisi Coates admonishing Bernie on his no-reparations stance.

In particular, the disagreement arose from Paul Krugman's take on Medicare for all, the Bernie Sanders version of universal healthcare. Krugman argued that we don't have the political force necessary to get anything like that through congress- which is a fair argument. Many people, in response to this, have said that Bernie at least has the courage to try something impossible because it's the right thing to do. He's fighting the good fight, even if he'll lose.

Ta-Nehisi Coates saw that and remarked that this position seems at odds with Bernie's thoughts on reparations, which is that it's impossible, among other things. He criticizes Bernie as inconsistently wanting to do one impossible thing for the good of all, but refusing to even try another.

That's where we stand after the last two and a half weeks.

And I'm frustrated about it. Not least of which because this kind of rhetorical demand isn't placed on anyone but Bernie. But also because Ta-Nehisi is calling Bernie out on a discussion of reparations that does not meet his definition of reparations, which means he's calling Bernie out about a discussion he didn't have. The question, when asked of Bernie and when discussed in common parlance today is about money. Payment. Compensation.

With all due respect (and I assure you, there's a lot of it), reparations has an entirely different set of challenges facing it than universal healthcare. Namely, there are a lot more challenges facing reparations.

Both problems share one roadblock in common: neither venture would likely see the light at the end of the tunnel that is the legislative process. If the similarities continued beyond that, I would be able to stomach Mr. Coates' derision for Bernie's position, but that's just not the case. Not only are there other problems, but they're far greater, far more germane problems than simple congressional gridlock.

First, reparations, as a concept, relies on harms done, which presents a legal roadblock. Each individual, to be entitled to reparations, would need to prove that their ancestors were slaves themselves. That alone isn't a huge hurdle, since the majority of black persons in America are descended from slaves in some capacity, but because we're talking about tangible, non-equal moneyed compensation, each individual would need to prove exactly what their ancestor went through in order to fairly determine how much compensation should be awarded. This means proving how long they were a slave, proving what kind of treatment they may have endured, and proving the link between that and the injustice the claimant has suffered to this day (this final item likely being a proof necessary from a legal representative in a supreme court case over the matter, since it would assuredly come to that). So, aside from the political barricade, you have a cumbersome legal one. Accounting for every black person, vetting their claims, proving more likely than not that their claims are sufficient to warrant moneyed compensation and determining how much compensation-- for every black person in America? We're talking decades of work, which might be worth it if not for...

The problem with solving systemic issues of inequality by cutting a check to each sufferer. It doesn't work. Take lottery winners, pro sports athletes, and other rich-quick examples from history. Most of these people end up bankrupt within a short period of time. This is because people who haven't received sufficient education or experience in personal finances who suddenly come into a huge windfall of money have no idea how to manage it. They go overboard, enjoying the luxuries that they were deprived of their whole life to that point. They live an unsustainable lifestyle because they don't know any better in many cases (mind you, this applies in general to under-educated individuals). Cutting every black person in America a check to make the problem "go away," will result in a lot of people, many of whom are under-educated thanks to systemic racism and inequality, getting a windfall that they often will be unable to or unwilling to manage before it disappears completely. Handing people a lump sum of money is a terrible way to undo systemic injustice that they've faced their entire lives. It's a terrible way to correct a problem, since it's limited in scope, and it fails to address the problems that led to the inequality in the first place, but more on that later as we move onto...

The excuse that America then has to dismiss racism as a problem. By giving reparations to whomever is deemed deserving, the justice and political systems of America will be able to say "look, we paid for racism." They can throw their hands up and say that any problems that come after that day are not their fault; not society's fault. They'd be wrong, but they would have an argument to stand on. When future generations complain about inner city schools, police stops, incarceration rates, conviction rates, employment rates- all they would need to say is "we already gave you money. What did you do with it?" And no matter what the response is, it will be black people that look like the irresponsible party in this instance. I don't think that's acceptable behavior for legislators. I don't think that's fair or moral, but it's what they'll do, and it won't be easy to argue against. It'll be even harder to get the support of average Americans after something like that happens. So, now not only do we have a political barrier, a legal barrier, and a pragmatic barrier, but we have a second political barrier to further progress in racism discourse. But as if that's not enough, there's also...

Money. There's a limited amount going around, which poses two distinct problems for reparations: 1. The money will have to come from somewhere. Namely, it will be argued that it needs to come from social services, since those are, it will be argued, already subsidizing the sufferers of systemic racism. If we give them money, they shouldn't need it from the safety net, which can then shrink as a result. They may go as far as to take from related areas, like education, healthcare, food programs, etc. All bad things. The second, potentially more relevant problem, is that there are currently roughly 42 million black people in America. 42 million. Let's be generous and say that for whatever reason, only half of them manage to make a case for reparations. That's 21 million individuals who will be paid. How much could they reasonably get? $1,000 for all of them would cost $21 billion. A mere thousand bucks. And that's nowhere near enough to make a substantial difference in the fight against systemic inequality, poverty, and injustice. But how much would actually be due in a reasonably world? Between 6 and 14 trillion dollars. An amount that is functionally impossible to grant any cause, no matter how righteous, even if all other obstacles were eliminated outright. An amount that would destroy the economy of the US were they to give it out to 42 million individuals. But ultimately- above all of this, there's one problem that cannot be overlooked and cannot be understated...

Money doesn't make the problem go away. Racism is an attitude, a cultural zeitgeist, a set of values and expectations we've cultivated over generations. Throwing money at it won't make it go away; it won't solve the problem. A thousand dollars for every black person would be swell for a year, but probably wouldn't last beyond that. For some, that might even make a great difference, but it would come at the cost of having a leg to stand on in the debate for systemic change. Change for who gets educated, how well they're educated, what kind of things they learn, what kinds of heroes and heroines star in our shows and our movies, what kinds of politicians lead our nation, what kinds of jobs we can expect to be turned away from based on nothing more than the color of our skin, what kinds of interest rates we get, what kinds of businesses exist solely to exploit us and our dependencies, and what kind of justice system we have. These are things that need broken down and reformed from their base. That's the only thing that can start to cure this human ailment called racism.

If we lined up every black person and told them they could choose between better schools, better healthcare, and criminal justice reform or a lump sum payment, how many do you think would take the money? How many would feel like they have no choice? How many of them really know what the difference would be? Giving them hope of reparations is giving them the easiest way out imaginable. The one that would solve the fewest problems. It's a bribe. "Here. You didn't see nothin'."

We owe them more. We owe them so much more. And more importantly, we owe their kids more. We owe their grandkids so much more. We owe them a better system that doesn't make them talk about this problem. A system that lets them focus on growing up, getting an education, working, being happy and healthy. Reparations wouldn't do that. It might help for a few, but it would be the ultimate in prototypical American "I got mine, so I don't care anymore" philosophy. Everyone else from whom the problems continued will have been left behind in the empty crater of the hopes and dreams reparations promised them, but couldn't deliver as more than a hollow shell.

We don't have the money, Mr. Coates. And even if we did, would that solve the problem? Or would it be a band-aid, worn to cover the infection that racism is- spreading slowly across the body- hiding the ugly truth from us temporarily?

Why not spend that money on sustainable programs that reverse the systemic nature of our inequality gaps? Why not work to reduce the qualitative difference between black and white lives through housing, education, food subsidies, community enhancements, and environmental panaceas?

Universal healthcare has some roadblocks, it's true. But they're superficial roadblocks. Problems we can solve, but choose not to. Reparations is plagued by problems we can't solve. Problems that would undermine the very efforts that reparations would attempt to further. Comparing them is not only intellectually dishonest, but short-sighted and actively dangerous. Reparations should come in the form of solutions built upon existing structures to strengthen, enhance, and protect black lives against the system that has wronged them; not giving them a moment of fleeting financial comfort within the system that robbed them of that wealth once before.

And as a final note, I should say that I'm not suggesting these things- universal healthcare, better schools, more structural protections for black people, etc.- will cure racism. They won't. But they'll go a lot further than throwing money at black people and dusting off our hands, I'd bet $14 trillion on that.


EDIT:

Upon further reflection, I have another thought or two. Ta-Nehisi Coates doesn't advocate for direct payment reparations, so it's worth noting that several of my criticisms are not applicable to his plan, but ultimately, his plan is borne from a definition of "reparations" created solely for the sake of his personal philosophy. And while that's as good a reason as any, he neglects to take that into account when talking about reparations publicly. When he talks about reparations and how they should be on the table, millions of black people everywhere are hearing what I describe above. Coates' position is actually much closer to Bernie's than he makes it out to be. He wants the system fixed, but he wants it fixed in such a way that it's framed as a reparations project specifically for slavery and the suffering after slavery, which I don't disagree with. I think it's a good idea for congress to openly admit that the wrongs and injustices black people have endured was directly caused by white supremacy and that even to this day, the white power system ruins lives, bankrupts black people, and even kills them regularly. I think it should be a message sent in good faith by our representatives to attempt to heal wounds.

But I think framing it as "reparations" without being explicitly clear that we're not talking about money is dangerous, and that many (I would even argue most) of the people arguing for reparations are suggesting that money (or land/other commodities) is the way to solve the problem. And for the reasons listed above, I think that's wrong and an unhealthy way to view the discussion.