Introduction
It is a fact that since the establishment of the United States, there have been calls for justice regarding the atrocities of the slave trade, Jim Crow, racial slavery, and their violent legacies. The highlighted struggles place the historical exploitation, abuse, and political dominance of African Americans in the context of current racial injustice (Balfour 292). Even though Black reparations have been a part of political discourse for a long time, the federal government has only paid compensation to former slavers (Balfour 292).
Reparations plans in the U.S. have been mocked as unrealistic and written off as divisive even though the concept has been utilized globally to imagine new political possibilities in the wake of injustice (Balfour 292). As a result, the African-American community has been ignored about payments for past injustices. It is the United States government’s moral responsibility to compensate minority races for injustices suffered in the past, given their continued and longstanding deleterious impact in the present.
Reparations
The language of reparations has been employed to encourage an orientation toward closure or settlement despite the fact that social movement literature frequently interprets reparation demands in a global sense (Balfour 300). Reparations, unlike conventional civil rights solutions, offer the possibility of closure. This means that at the conclusion of negotiations, the government will never owe Black people more than any other person is legally owed (Balfour 300). It is commonly defined as a program of acknowledgment, redress, and closure for serious injustices (Balfour 300).
Such a strategy, however, may not be the best tool for bringing about political change if it is viewed as a settlement. It is unlikely that such initiatives will influence current discussions regarding the development of future policies. Therefore, it is vital to investigate whether reparation policies will facilitate the thorough examination of persistently racist structures and behaviors or if they will act as a kind of foreclosure that prevents such an analysis.
The aforementioned facts notwithstanding, the United States has a system of reparations in place to make up for grave injustices for a select group of races. Since being forcibly removed from their ancestral homeland, Native Americans have benefited from several programs and perks, including land and billions of dollars (Ray and Perry 2). In addition, a sum of $1.5 billion was given to Japanese Americans who had been detained during World War II (Ray and Perry 2). The selectiveness with which reparations have been provided adds to the challenges with which Black communities must contend.
Moral Responsibility
The victims of injustice are entitled to compensation from the perpetrators, and the compensation should ideally return the victims to the state preceding the victimization. The goal of reparative justice is to restore the violated state of moral equality. A decision that leads to the return of what the victims have lost and removes from the offenders what they have wrongfully gained brings the moral scales back into balance. When restoring the lost property is impossible, reparative justice requires that the wrongdoers pay their victims an amount equivalent to the worth of what was lost, plus additional damages that the wrong may have caused. Therefore, the United States government has the moral responsibility to ensure that African Americans are compensated.
Although the links between slavery and the ongoing disadvantages Black Americans face are undeniable, some believe reparations are an unsuitable solution. This is because they do not offer a clear solution to the highlighted problems and are unlikely to spark a widespread political movement that fosters unity across racial divides (Balfour 296). Furthermore, the reparations debate stems from black nationalist politics, which historically downplays class and ignores the ways in which race-first politics can serve to advance distinct bourgeois class interests (Balfour 296). The question of whether the reparations movement is essentially an elite endeavor or if it represents a Black-led class struggle is therefore crucial to examine.
Conclusion
Reparations are powerful social repair tools, given the fact that they facilitate the implementation of reparative justice. The fact that past discriminatory events impact the lives of minorities today is a foregone conclusion. The victims’ descendants need to be equipped to address the challenges that originated from the ills that defined the lives of their ancestors. Universal morality needs to be supplemented by a process of social repair to show commitment to equal treatment of all people regardless of race, gender, or religious inclination.
Works Cited
Balfour, Lawrie. “The Politics of Reparations for Black Americans.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 26, pp. 291–304.
Ray, Rashawn, and Andre Perry. Why We Need Reparations for Black Americans. Brookings. pp. 1-6.