The Case for Reparations: Not for Slavery but for Everything Else Since

David Horowitz describes himself as a “lifelong civil rights activist,” though he’s recently only concerned himself with the rights of white people. Horowitz is a mentor to Stephen Miller, one of the authors of the Trump immigration policy featuring separating brown children from their families and promoter of white nationalism. In 2001, Horowitz published an ad in several college publications, “Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks — and Racist Too.” Here are the reasons he gives:

1. There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery
2. There Is No One Group That Benefitted Exclusively From Its Fruits
3. Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them
4. America Today Is A Multi-Ethnic Nation, and Most Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery
5. The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury
6. The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination
7. The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt To Turn African-Americans Into Victims. It Sends A Damaging Message To The African-American Community.
8. Reparations To African Americans Have Already Been Paid
9. What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?
10. The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom.

Many academics took the time to refute Horowitz; here is the response from five authors in the Daily Northwestern:

Almost all of Horowitz’s arguments are directly related to slavery. He has made additional arguments elsewhere, including:

1. Nobody currently alive enslaved people.
2. Black people have already received reparations through affirmative action.
3. I am not responsible.
4. Black people don’t deserve anything.

“The reparations argument is based on the unsubstantiated claim that all African Americans suffer from the economic consequences of slavery and discrimination.” — David Horowitz

Reparations Around the World

Reparations have taken place in America and around the world to white people in reimbursement for their loss of enslaved people.

Haiti’s independence from France was the first time a Black nation won freedom from a colonizer. Though Haiti declared itself free in 1804, France didn’t recognize Haiti’s independence for two decades. In 1825, King Charles X agreed to acknowledge Haiti only if Haiti compensated France and the absentee owners of enslaved people for their property loss. France demanded 150 million francs, more than ten times Haiti’s annual revenue.

They could make such a demand because the world’s white nations, including America, placed an embargo on Haitian goods. Haiti had to agree to France’s extortion; to pay the ransom, they had to borrow money from two French banks at substantial interest, adding insult to injury. French aristocrats lived in luxury for doing nothing, while Haiti became the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. The United States didn’t recognize Haiti as a nation until 1862. France didn’t stop collecting payments until 1947, though everyone who once owned slaves was long deceased. Most of the loan debt was forgiven in 2010; Haiti had paid out the equivalent of $21 billion because the world couldn’t stand the thought of Black people winning their freedom.

When Britain abolished slavery in 1833, it paid out millions in reparations, not to those who were enslaved but to those who enslaved them. Over 47,000 British citizens received compensation for their losses following 500 years of participating in the slave trade. Not one enslaved person got a pound sterling for their labor and suffering. White people received reparations, while Black people got none. Individual enslavers got reparations in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and much of South America. That’s the way of the world.

“After the abolition of slavery, Britain paid millions in compensation — but every penny of it went to slave owners, and nothing to those they enslaved. We must stop overlooking the brutality of British history.” -Kris Manjapra

American Reparations

The United States paid reparations multiple times, though you would have missed it in the history books. When Abraham Lincoln ended enslavement in the District of Columbia in 1862, he eased the blow for slaveholders by paying them $300 per enslaved person for their loss. He also paid $100 to each enslaved person if they agreed to leave the country. Black people who remained in the country they helped build for free got nothing. Did I mention they had to agree to leave permanently? Lincoln had a plan to send all enslaved people away once they got their freedom but couldn’t convince Fredrick Douglas and other Black leaders to support him.

“It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.

He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. — Frederick Douglass

You may have heard references to “40 acres and a mule?” That came from General William T. Sherman’s Field Order 15 in 1865, which intended to redistribute confiscated Southern land to freedmen in 40-acre plots. Most people think of Field Order 15 as an unfulfilled promise, but Sherman did distribute land to Black people in Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas. The order never included a mule, though the army sometimes lent mules to the freedmen. The formerly enslaved planted crops and made improvements to the land. Only to see President Andrew Johnson revoke the order and return the land to its original owners. Many of those who owned land for less than a year fell victim to provisions of the Black Codes, which often forced them to work for the same people who once owned them, on what was once their land.

Andrew Johnson, as President, made “Confederate resettlement” a priority, which was reparations by another name. White Southerners had but to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States and “proof of property” to recover land, including some they never owned in the first place. A lot of federal money went to the South after the Civil War. Schools and roads were built, and the railroads were restored. While some schools were intended to serve the freedmen, most funds went to serve white institutions and business interests. That should be considered reparations as well.

Ta-Nehisi Coates Changes the Conversation

Given the benefits white people have gotten, maybe it’s worth another look at why some think Black people aren’t entitled to them. Ta-Nehisi Coates got the ball rolling with his famous article in the Atlantic, The Case for Reparations,” in 2014. He debunks the excuses against providing reparations to those who deserved them most. White people have already gotten theirs.

Coates didn’t focus on slavery but on most of the things that came after. America has found dozens of ways to inequitably support white people, whether through the tax code, subsidies for farmers, small business loans, education loans, grants, housing, and employment policies. FHA and VA loans were almost exclusively available to white people for decades until the Fair Housing Act of 1968. White Americans have received reparations since the founding of the country.

What Coates didn’t dwell on, which is relevant, is voter suppression. We don’t have to go back to 1865 when 2023 will suffice. The Supreme Court has changed the standard to where proof of racism isn’t sufficient to seek redress in the courts; one must also prove intent.

David Horowitz rejected reparations because he believed Americans were no longer responsible for what happened back then, and some Black people who weren’t descendants of slaves would unfairly benefit. Though the case can be made to tie current economic disparity for Black people in general to slavery. Let’s assume that the end of slavery established a new starting point from which all debt was forgiven.

You’d then have to overlook that America immediately replicated slavery via the Black Codes and Jim Crow. Added on were racist housing and employment practices and voter suppression. These things have affected virtually every Black family in America, whether direct descendants of slaves or not. While I’d love to debate some of Horowitz’s rationales, I find them a distraction and choose to look at what came after.

—

This post was previously published on MEDIUM.COM.

***

—

Photo credit: iStock.com

This post was originally published on this site