Reparations discussed in the context of justice and patriotism
Michael Sandel and Diane Rehm
On this morning’s Diane Rehm Show, one of her guests was Michael J. Sandel, an author and professor of government at Harvard University. He’s written a book called “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” To be clear, the entire segment was not about slavery reparations. A caller phoned the show and asked Sandel for his definition of justice and how that might be applied to the issue of reparations.
His definition was very simple: People getting what they deserve.
How he applied that definition to slavery was more nuanced. He cited former Ill. Congressman Henry Hyde’s somewhat famous quotation on the subject:
The notion of collective guilt for what people did (200-plus) years ago, that this generation should pay a debt for that generation, is an idea whose time has gone. I never owned a slave. I never oppressed anybody. I don’t know that I should have to pay for someone who did (own slaves) generations before I was born. (Note: This quotation is oft-cited, but I have failed to figure out when or where he said it; if someone can show me that information, I’d be grateful.)
And Sandel acknowledged that there’s a way of thinking about justice and fairness on an individual, one-to-one basis. No, Hyde didn’t own slaves. He doesn’t owe anyone reparations. But Sandel also said that applying that one-to-one restriction to issues of justice cuts another way, too. If we cannot look collectively at our society’s ills, how, then, can we take credit for its successes? What becomes of the concept of patriotism? We take pride in and reap the benefits of the collective achievements of our nation. Should we not take responsibility for its collective failures?
This is another important point: Sandel went on to say that he didn’t know what form reparations should take. He was not advocating individual payments to the descendants of slaves. He was merely expressing the opinion that the nation should at least have the conversation about reparations.
Listen to the segment on the Diane Rehm Show page here. This is a RealAudio file of the segment. This is a Windows Media version of the segment.
(6 votes, average: 1.67 out of 5)
Loading ...
Kurt is the director of social media for the Post-Dispatch, where he has worked since August 2002. He's been a journalist since 1982, covering municipal government, courts, education and two hurricanes as a reporter before becoming an editor. 
Even though I never owned a slave and my ancestors didn’t either, I am all for reparations. We are paying anyway, so what’s the difference? At least this way there would be no more excuses and we could finally start moving forward. Until then, I don’t see anything changing - except maybe getting worse.
If giving every african american 40 acres of stolen native american land and one cloven-hooved animal will suddenly make all of the problems in the african american culture disappear overnight then i’m for it. If it happens, I want both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to retire, an end to affirmative action, and never again hear about how horrible white people are because they bought slaves from african kings.
My family came over here from Italy in the 1920s; I don’t see how I owe anyone a dime. I guess just being white and of European descent makes me an oppressor, according to supporters of reparations, right? If that is the case, anyone who perpetuates the idea of reparations should probably find another country to live in. I’m sure they’ll offer more opportunities for blacks, and have bent over backwards/spent more money creating opportunities than the United States.
Well, as I feared, the early comments here are not willing to take a nuanced approach to the discussion. Nobody is saying that any of us in this generation had a hand in being an oppressor. I’m not sure how much clearer I could be about that. I’m not a fighter pilot, or an infantryman, or an American inventor, or entrepreneur. But I take patriotic pride in the accomplishments of those people and I reap the benefits.
I’m not arguing for reparations. My own mind isn’t made up on the subject. I’m relating a point I heard on the radio and I think it’s worth having a conversation about it.
The professor’s definition of justice is this: People getting what they deserve. If one looks at the promises that were made to African-Americans upon emancipation, i.e., 40 acres and a mule - the impetus for self-determination, and that promise has yet to be fulfilled, then what the descendents of those to whom the promise was made should be allowed to recoup from that promise….at current market rate! If the nation can pay corporations to take American jobs off-shore, if the nation can pay Asian-Americans for their incarceration during WW2, then….the plausible question to be asked is this: Why can’t African-Americans collect on the promise that was made???
David Horowitz laid out the logical and rational argument again reparations in an ad placed in many campus newspapers entitled “Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist Too.”
It is ironic that to be discussing Mr. Horowitz now due to the recent decision by St. Louis University to not allow him to speak. Also, the editors of the Post Dispatch attached Mr. Horowitz in a very misleading manner in an editorial in yesterday’s paper which is reproduced in the Platform blog. The editorial mentions Mr. Horowitz’s crusade against reparations for slavery.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/published-editorials/2009/10/big-boor-on-campus/
Mr. Horowitz’s reasons are included in the below link. Left wings blogs went hysterical criticizing the article mostly by launching personal attacks against Mr. Horowitz. This gives pretty good testament to the lack of any rational argument opposing his views.
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24317
Mr. Greenbaum,
I do not think that the points presented are very nuanced. The argument seems to be for group pride or guilt. There is no logical reason to take pride in the accomplishment of someone just because the other person has the same skim pigmentation. It is equally illogical to accept blame for their actions. This is the very view we must get beyond in order to make any legitimate progress on race relations.
Kurt - Your comment basically suggests we are close-minded. Not so. We are TIRED. “Conversation” is getting us nowhere. I want to see an end to this and there isn’t an end in sight. At this point I don’t care that my hard-earned money might have to pay for something I didn’t do and my ancestors had no part of. I simply would like to see blacks and whites move forward sometime in the next couple of generations. If we continue the course we are on, IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! “Talking” and “conversation” can’t solve everything and clearly the social programs in place are not solving anything.
Let’s look one level deeper at this nonsense. What qualifies Sandel to say what’s “right” ? Is he on a direct line from the almighty?
@David H.: I grant you that my summary of Sandel’s points could not capture the nuances of his argument. That’s why I included the link to the actual audio, in hopes that people would actually take the time to listen to it.
Kurt
I’ve heard this argument since the 60’s. its just another white guilt trip laid on the readers and listeners of the radio program. The amount of money paid to 13 percent of the population from the sixties to Clinton’s second term is in the billions. People forget that during the late sixties early seventies some whites were trying to get an ancestors to write that great great grandpa was a black and this made you eligible for some free crap given to African Americans back then they were “Negros” .There were articles in Playboy how to do it. Anyway, do blacks deserve it? Yep! but in the end because of their culture of blaming whites for all that happens to them they as a group will continue to fail to meet standards set by the majority.