What Conservatives Think


 

 

What Is This Publication?

Faced with what seems to be an increasing level of misleading rhetoric about conservative positions on public policy issues, The National Center for Public Policy Research has resolved to help bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality.

Disclaimer: We freely acknowledge that not all conservatives share every view related as "what conservatives think," nor does every speaker of what our editors perceive to be a left-wing comment think of themselves as "liberal." However, unanimity is impossible on questions such as these. We therefore offer our best judgment, and offer apologies to anyone who believes we could have done better.

Persons with an opinion on any of our judgments are welcome to write us at [email protected]. Be sure to tell us if you object to having your comments reproduced, as we may otherwise post an occasional comment on our blog.

 

Published by The National Center for Public Policy Research


P
hoto of Valley Forge National Historic Park by James Lemass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Civil Rights: Should Black Americans Receive Reparations Payments Because of Slavery?


The Left Says:

"The moral force of reparations-arguments is simply to suggest that the African-American community can no longer shoulder the burden of redeeming American society, as Dr. King put it, on our own.  Instead, all citizens must engage as full participants in a dialogue examining what is the cost of repairing our society to make it equally accessible to everyone."

Source: Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., Professor, Harvard Law School, "Reparations, A Fundamental Issue Of Social Justice," The Black Collegians Online, undated document downloaded August 22, 2004


What Conservatives Think:

Professor Ogletree, quoted above, seems to believe justice is something that can be bought with cash.

Conservatives say: If a law is unjust, repeal it. Don't force uninvolved third parties to pay cash to those injured by it.

Slavery reparations supporters generally make this fundamental argument: That slavery harmed slaves and thus, indirectly, their descendants; therefore, any organization, corporation, institution or government that promoted or profited from slavery owes reparations to descendants of slaves.

Among the arguments made against reparations:

1) One injustice (slavery) cannot be corrected by another injustice (taking money from an innocent party). No one alive today owned slaves legally in the United States. Millions of non-black Americans don't even have ancestors who lived in the U.S. at the time of slavery.

2) It would be impossible to administer fairly. Most Americans don't know their lineage well enough to assert, let alone prove, harm from slavery (or the converse, that their ancestors are responsible for or benefited from slavery). This means -- and most reparations advocates seem to concede -- that reparations would be paid to black Americans by other Americans simply on the basis of race. This would result in reparations payments not only by the distant descendants of actual slaveowners, but of post-Civil War immigrants, such as Vietnamese "boat people" refugees and now-elderly survivors of Nazi concentration camps.

3) Reparations payments based on race alone would be perceived by nearly everyone forced to make payments as a monstrous injustice, embittering many and inevitably setting back race relations. Apologetic feelings many whites hold because of slavery and past civil rights injustices would to a significant extent be replaced by anger. Yet, would one of the goals of the reparations movement: A supposed lessening of black anger (to the extent it exists) because of slavery really abate if reparations were enacted? Evidence is scant.

 

Issue Date: August 23, 2004
Author: Amy Ridenour

 

Donate | Subscribe | Archives | Search | About Us | What's New | Blog | Home