top of page

Reparations

continued

​We do not believe direct financial compensation is the way to go for multiple reasons:  

Determining financial compensation means we would have to negotiate – and try to put a price on – varying degrees of victimhood and harm, which just seems divisive and counterproductive.

We would also have to determine who qualifies for the money which, again, feels divisive and counterproductive. Would this require DNA testing to determine genetic ancestry? What about the 3.1 million Americans who identify as “white and black or African American?” And what about the 1 million Americans who identify as “black or African American and some other race?”

This process seems racist in and of itself – suggesting awful things from the past like the Three-Fifths Clause, and later concepts like the “one-drop rule” – and is loaded with complicated and sensitive social, moral and racial implications.

It’s highly likely that whatever financial compensation was ultimately agreed upon – which assumes it could possibly happen, which it probably never in a million years could – would not be enough to make significant, long-lasting changes in someone’s life.

bottom of page