Reparations: Addressed Incorrectly?
In modern discussions of reparations, a “corrective justice” argument is often amongst the most common to arise. Under this reasoning, philosophers point to the fact that, since slavery, African Americans have experienced unequal treatment that has resulted in a significant gap in nearly every major indicator of wealth, education and safety. Philosopher Darby notes in his piece “Reparations and Racial Equality” that, in the education field alone, Black children receive much harsher sanctions than White children in terms of suspension (20% of Black students compared to 9% of White students), being left back (17% Black to 8% White) and even expulsion (5% Black to 1% White) (Darby 61). In terms of crime statistics, Black individuals have been found to be more likely to be held in custody prior to sentencing, with this occurring for 68% of Black individuals while to only 44% of White individuals (Barby 61). The Black population of the United States has also been affected significantly by other segregatory policies that are responsible for placing African Americans in comparatively lower-income neighborhoods, separate from their White counterparts.
Injustices such as these are particularly significant in a modern context as they demonstrate that the unequal treatment towards African Americans within our nation did not completely end after the abolition of slavery or even after the enactment of the various civil rights protections. Indeed, the effects of these initial systems are still perceived in many ways to this day. This is the argument that is often addressed by philosophers who are consistently critiqued for a pro-stance on reparations based upon the fact that there are no living slaves within the United States and no slaveholders. Furthermore, many would argue that those born today would not be responsible for providing reparations for events that occurred before their time of existence. By referencing the fact that abuse did not end with the termination of these events, and that the systems under which this abuse was able to take place exist to this day, this effectively refutes the argument that reparations should be completely rejected. Nevertheless, Darby actively proposes his own method of arguing for reparations that is distinct from the “corrective justice” method that is commonly utilized (Darby 64).
In Darby’s article, he emphasizes how the manner for which reparations are generally argued is not as effective as it could be if one were to accept an approach centered in self-development (Darby 64). As previously described, one of the most common arguments against reparations for Black Americans is the belief of many individuals that doing so would be akin to blaming one for the sins of their ancestors. Additionally, some may argue that their families arrived in the nation long after the abolition of slavery and did not partake in the abuse associated with it. However, as Darby points out, one of the benefits of reparations is that it is not necessarily designed to blame others for past events or to hold one unfairly accountable for events of the past (Darby 64). Instead, this process is more associated with addressing the injustices of the present that are derived from the past.
As Black Americans still are negatively affected by the systems established in the past, reparations in some form should be pursued to address this. Nonetheless, a corrective justice approach often seeks to correct injustices of the past to the greatest extent possible by enabling specific individuals to provide reparations tends to be more controversial in nature. An approach which is focused more on self-development is less-easily refuted. With an emphasis on development within the African American community, the focus is taken off of the necessity for one to physically provide reparations and placed instead on narrowing the gap between White and Black Americans. As most would be in agreement that creating a more just world is both beneficial and should be pursued, this presents the opportunity to separate the concept of reparations from the concept of retribution for past injustices. This approach seeks to emphasize the role of a more just future and utilizes reparations as a means to this end, avoiding explicit reference to events for which modern individuals may dispute their particular role or responsibility. Darby argues that the systems that are present today produce notable inequality between White and Black individuals (Darby 64). As a result of this situation, reparations, in some form, should be provided to allow for more equal opportunities in the future. The direct connection between past injustices and those who would pay reparations is effectively lessened, and the focus can be on the potential minimization of certain inequalities (Darby 64).
I agree with Darby’s view that reparations, while certainly deserving of being addressed and adopted in order to mediate existing inequalities within society’s various systems, have been argued in a manner that often proves ineffective. This is to say, with an emphasis on a “collective justice” point of view, modern individuals are often swift in denying a role in past occurrences. However, I also note that by arguing for future equality as a means for reparations, the solution becomes much more difficult to refute. This could be applied to the current educational system, the criminal justice system, or others such as the agricultural system of nations worldwide (as noted in this week’s supplemental material). Concentrating on current and future inequalities allows for reparations to still be actively promoted while removing the necessity of placing inherent responsibility on the individual. Instead, this approach seeks to consider the groups of people who unjustly suffer at the hands of systems developed in the past.
(Here are two videos: one with a brief explanation of reparations' approaches and another which
includes an in-depth discussion of Darby's reparations arguments).
Bibliography
Carroll-Cachimuel, Thalia. “Podcast Episode 7: Decolonizing the Land, Liberating the Farmer.” When We Fight, We Win, 10 Aug. 2020, www.whenwefightwewin.com/podcast-episode-7-leah-penniman/.
Coates, Story by Ta-Nehisi. “The Case for Reparations.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 16 June 2020, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/.
Darby, Derrick. “Reparations and Racial Inequality.” Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 6 Jan. 2010, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00268.x.
Drumming, Neil. “We Are in the Future (2017).” This American Life, 6 June 2020,
www.thisamericanlife.org/623/we-are-in-the-future-2017.
Comments
Post a Comment