A dark chapter in American history on the treatment meted out to slaves still finds resonance in modern American society. A select group of present-day politicians and social activist groups believe that America must provide monetary relief to the descendants of slaves as reparation for the pain, suffering, and loss suffered during the slavery era. The legal fraternity backing such claims has been unsuccessful in persuading the US government to pay reparation has shifted their focus to companies that once used slave labor. The author, Juan Williams, in his article “Slavery Isn’t the Issue; Reparations Would do Irreparable Harm,” argues that such a move would be counterproductive as it would harm race relations and impinge on the gains made due to affirmative action. Williams’s article is worth reading because it points out some very valid reasons why payment of reparation must be discouraged. This essay aims to provide a critique of the views of the author.
The author claims that far from being really worried about ameliorating the economic, moral, and social debt of African American descendants of the slaves, the present initiative of the lawyers to force companies who had once used slave labor to pay is just a money-making enterprise. Legally, there is no jurisdiction to hear a reparation case against the federal government as the statute of limitations for hearing such cases has expired long ago. The author argues that if the reparation actually becomes a reality, it will lead to another round of racial resentment against the blacks, including further segregation with respect to other minorities such as Hispanics and Asians. On the political level, the payment of monies will lead to an end of moral responsibility and closure of affirmative action by all government and private agencies. The author claims that despite the obvious disadvantages, the reparation movement thrives not only because of greed but also because of Black activism fuelled by an affluent black community bent on a nationalist black agenda. The author claims that the reparation argument is flawed as affirmative action has ensured that a record number of black Americans move up the economic and social ladder.
The authors’ presumption that the lawyers are only interested in a money grab though evocative is not a legally tenable argument. Any course of action as long as it stays within the ambit of the laws of the country is admissible. The logic that “the statute of limitations has long expired” (Williams, 2002, Para 2) is correct and agreed to. The thesis that reparations may lead to communal and social disharmony amongst the Whites, Blacks, and the Colored is correctly argued by the author. The author’s claim that reparations may lead to turning a national policy into a Black Nationalist agenda (Williams, para12) is wholly unsubstantiated with any statistics to support such a claim. The article, on the whole, is well-argued and clearly puts forth the case that payment of reparation would do more harm than good. The claim that lawyers are pushing the case against companies for self-aggrandizement through evocative is not legally tenable. The main thrust of the argument that payment of reparation may lead to social disharmony amongst the various denominations in American society is valid and agreeable. One discordant note of the possibility of rising Black elitism and Black Nationalism hijacking the reparation movement is an alarmist view that can be discounted in light of the more substantive arguments put forth by the author. In conclusion, the author makes a strong, convincing case that paying reparation monies will indeed do irreparable harm.
References
Williams, Juan. (2002). Slavery Isn’t the Issue, Reparations would do Irreparable harm. The Wall Street Journal. Digital network. Dow Jones and Company Inc. 2008. Web.