America's I.O.U.: Slave Reparations

The subject of reparations due to the forced transportation of Africans and eventual enslavement in the Americas from the 17thC, comes up in politics every so often in the United States and Great Britain, but it seems to get more traction even as more time lapses. On examination Britain's experience is very different to the United States, yet the calls for reparations are very much enmeshed in both countries' politics. However, the principle of reparations to offspring of people that were enslaved centuries ago or discriminated against in the late 19thC and early 20thC needs to be examined for what it really means.

In many respects it's not just about the distribution of money, which is what reparations mean, but there is something greater at stake which can't be ignored. In this case the argument will center on the clash of the moral and ethical question within a legal and historical perspective rather than the political or how the financial framework would be agreed upon for distribution. That in itself is complicated, but I'll leave others to make the case of the difficulties that would create.

From an historical perspective the first question that has to be asked is why does the transportation of slaves from Africa from the early 1600's to the early 1800's stand out as requiring attention than any other awful event from the past? The legal transportation of Africans to the Americas was outlawed in 1810 and slavery was forbidden in all British possessions and territories by 1833. After the American civil war came to an end in 1865 all slavery in the USA was abolished.

So, we'd have people that never owned slaves underwriting reparations for people that were never slaves on the basis of an historical injustice that dates back as far as 350 years ago to the eventual abolition of slavery in the USA which was nearly 160 years ago. This would come under heavy legal scrutiny and would almost certainly be challenged in the courts. However, there is another legal obstacle that will clash with the morality of reparations.

After the Nuremburg trials in 1947 it was agreed upon that the notion of "collective guilt" and moreover the consequences of "collective punishment " is wrong and that legislation should be enacted that can provide legal protection for the individual and groups of people is one of the most fundamental principles in human rights. This has been incorporated into the UN charter of human rights, Geneva conventions as well as international law. But I'd go further and argue that a modern government have no legal authority to declare or impose collective guilt and ultimately punishment on its population for something that happened hundreds of years ago. Governments should not violate the social contract between the individual and the state which under pins social democracy and accountable government.

The biggest obstacle would be the state trying to impose or declaring a moral obligation on the people for things that happened that they had no control over. Bearing in mind we are talking about decades and centuries ago when the world was very far away from behaving like the modern social and liberal democracies that we know of today. Modern politicians and law makers have no right or legal authority to do this and any attempt to do so should also be challenged in the courts. In addition, they have no right to speak on behalf of everybody or of any individual for things in the past that they personally are ashamed of. Just because some people can't come to terms with the historical past, they shouldn't be allowed to force collective atonement on innocent people. The notion that the people have to face up to it and then be forced to pay compensation in essence is collective punishment. Just because white on black slavery is now seen as the gold standard of historical injustices is no reason to violate these legal understandings and basic principles in human rights.