Personally, I don’t believe in reparations as a solution. Handouts are not how wealth is created.
That said, I do understand some of the arguments for and against reparations.
Reparations, by definition, involve making amends for a wrong by providing payment or other forms of assistance to those who were harmed. Notice the emphasis on “payment or assistance”—yet, the discussion around reparations is almost always centered on payment alone. In my view, assistance would be far more impactful than a one-time payout, as it has the potential to foster long-term benefits rather than fleeting compensation.
Today, the most vocal calls for reparations come from advocates seeking amends for slavery.
Supporters often cite historical examples: slaveowners who were compensated for their “freed” slaves, Japanese Americans who received payments after internment during WWII, and Jewish survivors who received reparations from Nazi Germany.
However, what often goes unmentioned is that these payments went to the actual people who were wronged, not to future generations. Evidence of harm was required before payments were made, and the responsibility to pay reparations fell on those directly involved in the wrongdoing. Holocaust survivors receive German reparations to this day, as long as they can prove their case.
In the case of slavery, things are vastly different.
The challenge with reparations for slavery is that there are no clear parties involved. Who among the descendants of enslaved individuals should be compensated, and who among the descendants of those responsible should be liable? These questions are understandably difficult to answer.
Imagine the position of a descendant of a slaveholder from centuries ago. Should they be held accountable for the actions of ancestors long gone? And if they accept this responsibility, to whom should they pay reparations? To the government of an African nation, where corruption risks looting such funds? To a descendant of an enslaved individual, even if that person did not experience slavery directly? These complexities are central to the questions many people, especially those of European descent, are asking.
Another issue is that slavery was a global practice, not confined to European or American societies. Almost every culture engaged in slavery at some point in history. So why is the focus on Europeans when it comes to reparations? For instance, many may not know that North Africans once enslaved more Europeans than Africans who were shipped to the United States and its colonies.
On the African continent, significant slave trading occurred among African kingdoms. Empires like the Oyo and Sokoto Caliphates thrived in part due to their involvement in the slave trade. In fact, at the point when the Europeans let go of slavery, many African Kingdoms insisted slavery must continue. It took force to stop them.
Even beyond the Atlantic, millions of Africans were transported to the Middle East and Asia, where the experiences were equally brutal, yet far less frequently discussed. In some regions, enslaved men were castrated, resulting in minimal African populations in these areas today. It’s not because there were no blacks who resided in their multitudes in Arab and Asian countries. It was because they were severely restricted from procreation.
Knowing what we know about the universality of slavery, if we go down the path of reparations, who is included? Should North Africans compensate Europeans? Should the Arab world band together to provide reparations to African descendants? Should descendants of African empires compensate those captured and enslaved within the continent? At what point does the cycle stop?
Or are European descendants being guilt-tripped into reparations because their societies evolved into some of the most prosperous nations, partly built on the economic gains of slavery? Should they be penalized for using resources available to many societies at a time when slavery was widely accepted?
There are many nuances in this conversation, far too many to unpack fully here. But the central question remains: Can we build a prosperous future by focusing on reparations, or would our energies be better spent on building human capital and creating opportunities?
History has shown that lasting prosperity comes from investments in education, infrastructure, and empowerment. Reparations alone, whether granted or withheld, do not determine a community’s progress. Instead of dwelling on the injustices of the past, why not use the resources and opportunities available today to forge a better path forward?
With the resources and tools available in today’s world, any nation or community can achieve remarkable progress within a generation. Prosperity comes from a commitment to development, not from compensation. Reparations have not prevented or enabled any group to reach its potential. Progress is built through human capital, determination, and forward-thinking policies.
The past may inform us, but it doesn’t have to define our future.
Leave a Reply