UNTHINKING RACIAL REALISM: A FUTURE FOR REPARATIONS?¹

Abstract

Considered costly, divisive, and backward-looking, reparations for slavery and Jim Crow appear to have no place in the politics of the "postracial epoch." This essay proposes that the dismissal of reparations concedes too much. First, I contend that the conjunction of postracial discourse, on the one hand, and deepening racial inequalities, on the other, demands a counter-language, one that ties the analysis of the present to the historical conditions out of which it was produced. I explore reparations as a political language that (1) situates political claims within the historical framework of slavery, reconstruction, and segregation; (2) links past to present to future in its demand for concrete forms of redress; and (3) has played an important role in African American political life and in contemporary democracies in transition. Second, in contrast to much of the reparations scholarship, I focus on the demands of democracy rather than justice. Doing so both helps to evade some of the technical questions that have prevented full consideration of the political work of reparations and provides a vehicle for redefining both governmental and civic responsibility in the shadow of slavery and Jim Crow.

The Sociology of Utopia, Modern Temporality and Black Visions of Liberation

“…By contrast, the demand for reparations takes up and concretises the distinctive temporality found in the Black utopian tradition, where hopes for the future are accompanied by the traumatic presence of the enslaved past. Reparations are caught between ‘a backward-looking assessment of harm’ and ‘a forward-looking conception of democratic reconstruction’ (Balfour, 2014: 53). The backward-looking moment of reparations involves a confrontation with the horrors of slavery.…”

Official Frames and the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921: The Struggle for Reparations

“…The literature on reparations covers a variety of topics, including slavery (e.g., Balfour 2014; Craemer 2015; Fayemi and Samuel 2014), genocide (e.g., Aram 2014; Bargueño 2012; Theriault 2014), and race riots (e.g., Greenwood 2015; Howard-Hassman 2004; Special Master’s Final Report 2003). A significant body of literature has examined related issues such as the justifications for or against reparations (e.g., Feagin and O’Brien 1999; Kukathas 2006) and public opinion of reparations (Aulette, Langley, and Aulette 2004; Campo, Martin, and Frazer 2004).…”

“…Two notable exceptions in the United States involve payments to Japanese Americans detained in internment camps during World War II and victims of the Rosewood, Florida, riot in 1923 (Hatamiya 1994; Special Master’s Final Report 2003). While groups pursuing reparations emphasize the violation of human rights during a particular event or condition (Balfour 2014; Bargueño 2012), they often face substantial legal and political obstacles in their campaigns. Notably, in most cases the victimization was vast and the victims are no longer alive.…”

“…Specifically, reparation cases nearly always invoke claims of “injustice” and “unfinished business.” For reparation movements, the moral frame extends beyond issues of legality and into the realm of human justice and human rights. Thus, advocates not only argue that reparations are legally appropriate but also frame their arguments around important moral obligations (Balfour 2014; Feagin and O’Brien 1999).…”

Grammars of reckoning: Redressing racial regimes of property

“…Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee reintroduced it in January 2019. The lack of congressional will reflects to a large extent the viewpoints of the white public, a significant majority of whom oppose even apologies for slavery (Balfour, 2014; Kelley, 2002). This is further indexed by the glacial pace of legislative resolutions apologizing for slavery (the first made by the state of Virginia in 2007).…”