Good post. I especially like the point about how descendants of slaves in America are actually better off than the descendants of those who were never taken from Africa.
I do wonder about how persuasive the statistical points about inheritance are, however. It seems a pretty weak argument to say, "Yes, maybe your ancestor had a right to compensation, and yes its possible you could have inherited some of that compensation, but because it is statistically unlikely you would have actually received anything, you get nothing." It's a fair point when we're talking about massive transfers to very large numbers of people as a policy matter, but I don't think that line of argumentation is likely to convince anyone (though it is worth mentioning).
Finally, while I agree that as a matter of fact it's unlikely reparations would be the end of it, I do like the fantasy of a sort of racial compromise where reparations are paid in exchange for an end to all affirmative action, DEI programs, etc. One could imagine serious reparations payments being a permanent arrow in the quiver against any further racialized progressive policy demands. (I should mention I first heard this idea from Walt Bismarck, of whom I'm not otherwise a fan, in this article https://www.waltbismarck.com/p/the-pro-white-case-for-reparations)
Thanks for your comments. I agree that some of the items are more persuasive than others. The points about inheritance were intended to rebut a claim of black Americans being unable to build up intergenerational wealth, which is one explanation sometimes put forward.
Like you, I can see the merits of a deal where a “reparations” payment is part of a settlement including an end to DEI et cetera, except for the fact that there is zero chance that that would indeed be the end of it. After all, it would have zero effect on the ongoing disparities (educational outcomes; crime rates) that are the underlying problem.
Good post. I especially like the point about how descendants of slaves in America are actually better off than the descendants of those who were never taken from Africa.
I do wonder about how persuasive the statistical points about inheritance are, however. It seems a pretty weak argument to say, "Yes, maybe your ancestor had a right to compensation, and yes its possible you could have inherited some of that compensation, but because it is statistically unlikely you would have actually received anything, you get nothing." It's a fair point when we're talking about massive transfers to very large numbers of people as a policy matter, but I don't think that line of argumentation is likely to convince anyone (though it is worth mentioning).
Finally, while I agree that as a matter of fact it's unlikely reparations would be the end of it, I do like the fantasy of a sort of racial compromise where reparations are paid in exchange for an end to all affirmative action, DEI programs, etc. One could imagine serious reparations payments being a permanent arrow in the quiver against any further racialized progressive policy demands. (I should mention I first heard this idea from Walt Bismarck, of whom I'm not otherwise a fan, in this article https://www.waltbismarck.com/p/the-pro-white-case-for-reparations)
Thanks for your comments. I agree that some of the items are more persuasive than others. The points about inheritance were intended to rebut a claim of black Americans being unable to build up intergenerational wealth, which is one explanation sometimes put forward.
Like you, I can see the merits of a deal where a “reparations” payment is part of a settlement including an end to DEI et cetera, except for the fact that there is zero chance that that would indeed be the end of it. After all, it would have zero effect on the ongoing disparities (educational outcomes; crime rates) that are the underlying problem.