Reparations for Native and African Americans: A Debate

Introduction

Today, there are approximately 3.4 million Native Americans and 40 million African Americans in the United States (U.S. People, 2019), and virtually all of these individuals have ancestors who unfairly suffered at the hands of federal and state governments at some point in the nation's history. The research question guiding this analysis is: "Should Native Americans and African Americans be paid reparations?" The overarching thesis is as follows: historical injustices including genocide, oppression, slavery, and racial discrimination in the United States have caused current economic disparities between racial groups, so the call for reparations is quite justified. The various arguments in support of and against reparations are examined in the sections that follow.

Historical Injustices and Economic Disparities

The historical record is replete with instances of genocide, oppression, slavery, forced relocations, invasions, and racial discrimination that have adversely affected or ended the lives of tens of millions of people (Bradford, 2004). This has also been the case in the history of the United States, where slavery of African Americans was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and the subsequent Indian Removal Act of 1830 proclaimed in essence that Native American lives were expendable. While it is not possible to precisely calculate the human suffering caused by these and other racially motivated laws and acts, it is possible to "make people whole" again through the payment of reparations.

It is vitally important to point out, however, that making people whole through mere words—such as those used in Australia's annual "Sorry Day," wherein mainstream citizens collectively apologize as a nation for the wrongs done to indigenous peoples by their ancestors—does not serve as a replacement for actual monetary compensation. Such gestures may be regarded as a cheap substitute that holds no real meaning for survivors today (Bradford, 2004).

The depravities exacted upon millions of enslaved African Americans during the first two centuries of what would become the United States are also well documented. At the same time, the United States undertook a mission to rid the continent of its indigenous population by whatever means necessary. For instance, according to Flavin (2002), "The British army distributed smallpox-contaminated blankets to the Indians of Pennsylvania. Many people believe that Jeffery Amherst, a 'lobster-backed general' who once commanded the British military in colonial America, perpetrated a 'genocide' by ordering the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans in 1763" (p. 2).

Against this backdrop, the case for implementing some type of reparations scheme represents a truly daunting ethical dilemma for twenty-first-century policymakers.

The Case for Reparations

The arguments in support of reparations are grounded in stark historical facts. People in the United States did in fact enslave millions of African Americans for decades, and the efforts to eradicate American Indians are well documented. The wrongs done to these two minority groups in particular can easily be considered the crux of the reparations debate today (Forrester, 2019). Authorities such as Howard-Hassmann (2004) maintain that while an apology might be sufficient for a social faux pas, simply saying "I'm sorry" is wholly inadequate to compensate for centuries of abuse and degradation; such gestures can actually exacerbate feelings of distrust and resentment toward mainstream governments.

It is therefore not surprising that the issue of reparations has assumed a prominent place in modern American politics. As Lockhart (2019) explains:

"For much of the 150 years since the official end of slavery in the United States, talk of the need for reparations has existed. In 2019, that discussion has become a full-blown political debate among politicians, presidential candidates, and academics over what it would look like to apologize and provide restitution to the people harmed by slavery and its legacy. Now that discourse is headed to the halls of Congress." (para. 2)

At first glance, the arguments in support of making reparation payments to African Americans and Native Americans make good sense according to the principles of restorative justice. In this regard, Nichols and Connolly (2019) report that "the elements that comprise the retreats are not a new quick fix, but rather are rooted in how humans have, since time immemorial, worked to transform overwhelming trauma" (p. 2). Reparation alternatives to simply giving cash to the countless descendants of survivors of slavery and forced relocation represent a seemingly viable approach for modern national governments (Bradford, 2004).

Notwithstanding the complexities involved, some advocates of reparation payments maintain that nothing else will suffice (Gilmore & Adams, 2019). These arguments are based not only on the human suffering and sacrifices of tens of millions of African Americans and Native Americans, but also on the more strictly pragmatic consideration of the wealth that was potentially denied to these disenfranchised Americans through generations of systemic exclusion.

The enormous complexities involved in determining who should receive monetary reparations and who should be responsible for these payments make the argument highly contentious. As Forrester (2019) notes, "Reparations have been heavily opposed by liberals and regarded as practically unrealistic and theoretically sympathetic. They have also been opposed by some on the basis that they propagate 'reverse-racism': they discriminate against whites who also lost their lives during the Civil War and other wars. It therefore follows that if other groups are to be given reparations for injustices against them, so will the whites" (p. 37). In other words, reparations to African Americans and Native Americans are not only justified—they are demanded by the basic principles of restorative justice, yet the scope of who qualifies remains deeply contested.

Conclusion

The research was consistent in showing that the historical record is replete with instances of genocide, oppression, slavery, forced relocations, invasions, and racial discrimination that have ended or otherwise adversely affected the lives of countless people—most especially tens of millions of African Americans and American Indians. The interests of justice compel modern lawmakers to take these wrongdoings into account as they move forward as a nation. It would be enormously difficult, if not impossible, to single out living descendants of those responsible for genocidal actions during the Indian Wars. Moreover, if reparations were paid to American Indians, it would leave the door wide open for claims from descendants of Americans—most especially women who were kidnapped and held against their will by various Native American tribes—to seek compensation as well.

In sum, reparations may sound like a compelling idea congruent with the fundamental tenets of restorative justice. Critics argue, however, that the harsh reality is that it is simply impossible to develop a formula that would ensure fair and equitable payments, and that some form of statute of limitations must ultimately be applied to this issue. The moral case for reparations is strong; the practical path to implementing them remains deeply and perhaps irresolvably contested.

References

Bradford, W. (2004). Beyond reparations: An American Indian theory of justice. Ohio State Law Journal.

Flavin, F. E. (2002, Winter). A pox on Amherst: Smallpox, Sir Jeffery, and a town named Amherst. Historical Journal of Massachusetts, 30(1), 1–5.

Forrester, K. (2019). Reparations, history and the origins of global justice. Cambridge University Press.

Gilmore, B., & Adams, H. (2019). The case for a reparations clinic. Michigan State Law Review.

Howard-Hassmann, R. E. (2004). Reparations to Africa and the group of eminent persons. Cahiers d'études africaines.

Lenzerini, F. (2007). Reparations for indigenous peoples. Oxford University Press.

Lockhart, P. (2019, June 19). The 2020 Democratic primary debate over reparations, explained. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/11/18246741/reparations-democrats-2020-inequality-warren-harris-castro

Loewen, J. W. (1995). Lies my teacher told me. The New Press.

Nichols, B., & Connolly, M. (2019). Transforming ghosts into ancestors. Antioch.edu.

U.S. People. (2019). CIA world factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html