Resolved: the United States Federal Government Ought to Pay Reparations to African Americans

West Coast Publishing Reparations PF Main File, Aug 2015 Page 1

West Coast Publishing
Reparations African Americans
Public Forum August 2015
Thanks for using our Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp Materials.
Please don’t share this material with anyone outside of your school
including via print, email, dropbox, google drive, the web, etc.
We’re a small non-profit; please help us continue to provide our products.
Contact us at

Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

Introduction

United States Government

Ought to

Pay

Reparations

African-Americans

Pro

Contention 1—Tangible Costs

Contention 2—Racial discourse

Reparations are good for the economy

Reparations are morally necessary

Reparations key to reconciliation

American wealth is built on black exploitation

Reparations are legally necessary

Answer to debt has been paid

Answer to no recent victims

Answer to African-American privilege

Services reparations are needed

Con

Contention 1—Logistics

Contention 2—Black Economies

Reparations aren’t owed

Reparations won’t make up for slavery

Reparations won’t help black economies

Reparations hurt race relations

Reparations deny black agency

Answer to American wealth built on slavery

Introduction

This month’s topic is simultaneously timely and timeless. Reparations for the hardships suffered by African-Americans were promised at the end of the Civil War over 150 years ago and remain a contentious issue today. While the debate has been largely academic and removed from legitimate public policy circles, the increased acceptance of white and government culpability as well as the influx of media images depicting police violence and mistreatment of black people have hastened calls for reform. While reparations still represent an abstract and politically difficult policy goal, many scholars believe a public discussion is the starting point of a more concrete solution.

The terms “reparations” and “African-American” are potential sources of contention. While some will define reparations as a strictly referring to cash payments, most acknowledge and accept that reparations could take the form of investment in social programs, tax cuts or non-traditional payments like land or favorable college admission. While some negatives will attempt to restrict the affirmative to direct monetary payments alone, indirect payments through services should be included as long as they are explicitly based on race. The definition of African-American is a question of historical significant; not all black Americans are the descendants of slaves (some are from families that migrated more recently) and not all blacks lived in areas affected by Jim Crow.

Some opponents of reparations use this as a way of decrying the racial divisiveness and imprecise allocation of such a system. Jim Crow reparations present a range of distinct legal and political options that are in contrast to claims made in the lawsuits focusing on slavery claims. Many of the differences are obvious and perhaps explain the greater level of public and scholarly support for one form of reparations litigation over another. In contrast to the slavery reparations context, Jim Crow litigation usually includes a more readily identifiable set of harms, plaintiffs, and defendants. However, the racist and oppressive “one-drop” rule that the government applied for more than a century, which implied that any individual able to trace their ancestry to an black person was considered black, was a tool of oppression to deny rights. It seems fighting that such a rule would ensure broad payouts to confront a broad issue of racial inequality.

The affirmative has a wealth of economic and ethical reasons to support a system of formal reparations. Many scholars have noted that the economic strength of the United States and several other western economies were developed thanks to the institutions of slavery, sharecropping, segregation, redlining and racial profiling. In this view, reparations aren’t so much a penalty but a distribution of monies owed to compensate black people for their historical contribution. While not all problems confronting black people are strictly economic, tax cuts, direct payments and public assistance programs will provide key support that furthers equality goals. Evidence suggests short-term monetary transfers can have a big impact on local economies and families. Most Americans admit that slavery was a morally monstrous system that wreaked severe pain and suffering on America. City councils in Chicago, Dallas, Oakland, and Los Angeles, and other cities in the past year have passed resolutions supporting a federal commission to study reparations. Also, there was no national outcry when the U.S. government made special indemnity payments, provided land and social service benefits to Japanese-Americans interned during World War II, Native-Americans for the theft of lands and mineral rights, and Philippine veterans who fought with the American army during World War II.

Legal and moral justifications for reparations are plentiful as well. The Takings Clause of the Constitutions, the United Nations Convention on Genocide, Unjust Enrichment and various local civil rights tort payments provide ample legal framework for a reparations system that could address tangible wrongs and provide real compensation. Even the narrative stories of those who suffered the worst results of slavery, Jim Crow and white supremacy could be a moving reason for judges to vote Pro, regardless of the economic rationale of reparations. The issue of race-based reparations concerns a fundamental issue of social justice as well: the responsibility that the community as a whole shoulders for the enslavement of and continuing discrimination against African Americans.

The general moral obligation to eradicate racism from our society requires coordinated efforts to work toward correcting the chronic fragmentation along racial lines that exists in so much of our country today. The moral force of reparations arguments is simply to suggest that the African American community cannot shoulder the burden of redeeming American society, as Dr. King put it, on our own. Instead, Dr. King persuasively argues that all Americans must engage as full participants in a dialogue examining the cost of repairing our society to make it a place for all citizens to and their home

While the Pro side of the debate may seem to have a monopoly on pathos in this debate, the Con has significant reasons to oppose reparations. The most common arguments point out the difficulty in attributed blame for historical abuses of black people, especially the most antiquated abuses like slavery where no slave-owners are left to hold accountable. With civil rights laws on the books for the last 50 years, very few of those paying for reparations through taxes ever directly profited from any kind of abuse. This conveniently goes in hand with the argument that contemporary black people have not experienced the kind of abuses they would be compensated for.

There are also questions concerning how persistent this debt really is. Ever since the foundation of government assistance programs in the 1930s, black people have used a disproportionate about of welfare, social security and public school funding relative to the rest of the population. While this cost may not alleviate the burdens of historic racism, they do obscure the modern costs owed. And if one argues these programs did not compensate, it is fair to ask whether any kind of monetary transfer could be more effective.

One of the inherent assumptions of a reparations system is that it would be develop black economies that have been hit by the worst forms of poverty. The Con can dispute this point by pointing to the lack of development stemming from welfare and other poverty alleviation programs. Because reparations would target payments by race rather than economic need, reparations are, at best, an inefficient way of tackling the issue. At worst, reparations may be cost-prohibitive of these other government assistance programs while providing nothing more than a short-term boost in spending money. Data on poverty and African-Americans seems to suggest that sudden cash infusions aren’t typically invested or saved in sustainable ways.

Another compelling line of argument for the Con is to point out the racial divisions imposed by reparations. Not only would reparations make racial identity a matter of great public importance but it would also exclude other underprivileged minorities and further issues of inequality. Victimhood and a lack of agency are often associated with such programs and could have a negative long term effect on the development of black communities the same way welfare has stunted progress.

United States Government

United States Government refers to all federal branches and the states

US Legal. No Date. United States Federal Government Law & Legal Definition. Accessed August 15, 2015.

The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people.

Government is the primary authority in a given area

Merriam-Webster. No Date. Government. Accessed August 15, 2015.

noun, gov·ern·ment often attributive \ˈgə-vər(n)-mənt, -və-mənt; ˈgə-bəm-ənt, -vəm-\ : the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc. : a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc. : the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.

Government refers to all institutions with legal authority

Oxford English. No Date. Federal government. Accessed August 15, 2015.

(in the US) the system of government as defined in the Constitution which is based on the separation of powers among three branches: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. This system provides a series of checks and balances because each branch is able to limit the power of the others. The executive branch consists of the President and Vice-President, based in the White House in Washington, DC, and government departments and agencies. The President can approve or stop laws proposed by Congress, appoints senior officials, such as heads of government departments and federal judges, and is also Commander-in-Chief of the military forces. There are 15 government departments, the heads of which make up the Cabinet which meets regularly to discuss current affairs and advise the President. The legislative branch is the Congress which is made up of the two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives which both meet in the Capitol Building in Washington, DC. The main job of Congress is to make laws, but its other responsibilities include establishing federal courts, setting taxes and, if necessary, declaring war. The President and members of Congress are chosen in separate elections. The Senate has 100 members, two from each state, both of whom represent the whole state and are elected for six years. The House of Representatives has 435 members, who are elected every two years. The number of members from each state depends on the population of the state, with larger states divided into districts, each with one representative. The judicial branch of government has three levels: the Supreme Court, 13 courts of appeal and many federal district courts. The Supreme Court has nine members, called justices who are chosen by the President and headed by the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court has the power to influence the law through a process called judicial review.

Ought to

Ought expresses obligation or advisability

Merriam-Webster. No Date. Ought. Accessed July 20, 2015.

Used to express obligation <ought to pay our debts>, advisability <ought to take care of yourself>, natural expectation <ought to be here by now>, or logical consequence <the result ought to be infinity>.

Ought to expresses an expected action

MacMillan Dictionary. No Date. Ought. Accessed July 20, 2015.

Ought is usually followed by “to” and an infinitive: You ought to tell the truth. Sometimes it is used without “to” or a following infinitive in a formal way: ♦ I don’t practice as often as I ought. It is also used in an informal way followed by “to” but no following infinitive: ♦ I don’t spend as much time with them as I ought to. Used for saying what is the right or sensible thing to do, or the right way to behave. Used when you have strong reasons for believing or expecting something.

Ought expresses a duty

Oxford English Dictionary. No Date. Ought. Accessed July 20, 2015.

1 Used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions: they ought to respect the law it ought not to be allowed 1.1 Used to indicate a desirable or expected state: he ought to be able to take the initiative 1.2 Used to give or ask advice: you ought to go.

Pay

Pay refers to the exchange of money

Merriam-Webster. No Date. Pay. Accessed August 15, 2015.

transitive verb 1 a : to make due return to for services rendered or property delivered b : to engage for money : hire <you couldn't pay me to do that> 2 a : to give in return for goods or service <pay wages> b : to discharge indebtedness for : settle <pay a bill> c : to make a disposal or transfer of (money)

Pay is financial restitution

Oxford English. No Date. Pay. Accessed August 15, 2015.

verb (past and past participle paid) 1 [WITH OBJECT] Give (someone) money that is due for work done, goods received, or a debt incurred: [WITH OBJECT AND INFINITIVE]: he paid the locals to pick his coffee beans [NO OBJECT]: TV licenses can be paid for by direct debit MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES SYNONYMS 1.1Give (a sum of money) in exchange for goods or work done or in discharge of a debt: he paid $1,000 to have it built in 1977 [WITH TWO OBJECTS]: a museum paid him a four-figure sum for it MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES SYNONYMS 1.2Hand over or transfer the amount due of (a debt, wages, etc.) to someone: bonuses were paid to savers whose policies completed their full term MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES SYNONYMS 1.3(Of work, an investment, etc.) yield or provide someone with (a specified sum of money): jobs that pay $5 or $6 an hour MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES 1.4 [NO OBJECT] (Of a business or undertaking, or an attitude) be profitable or advantageous to someone: crime doesn’t pay [WITH INFINITIVE]: it pays to choose varieties carefully MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES SYNONYMS

Pay means giving money

Macmillan Dictionary. No Date. Pay. Accessed August 15, 2015.

[INTRANSITIVE/TRANSITIVE] to give money in order to buy something pay for: [INTRANSITIVE/TRANSITIVE] to give money to someone who does a job for you [TRANSITIVE] to give someone their salary [INTRANSITIVE/TRANSITIVE] to give a company, institution, etc. money that you owe them

Reparations

Reparations are monetary payments that correct mistakes

Merriam-Webster. No Date. Reparation. Accessed August 15, 2015.

nounrep·a·ra·tion \ˌre-pə-ˈrā-shən\ reparations : money that a country or group that loses a war pays because of the damage, injury, deaths, etc., it has caused : something that is done or given as a way of correcting a mistake that you have made or a bad situation that you have caused

Making amends or compensating

Oxford Dictionaries. No Date. Reparation. Accessed August 15, 2015.

1The making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged: the courts required a convicted offender to make financial reparation to his victim 1.1 (reparations) The compensation for war damage paid by a defeated state. 2 archaic The action of repairing something: the old hall was pulled down to avoid the cost of reparation.

Slavery reparations could be either direct monetary or provided through services

Dr. John Pohnpei. Professor at Howard University. November 2, 2013. Define slavery reparation in your own words. Should reparations be paid to African... Accessed August 25, 2015.

I would define slavery reparations as money paid out to people who have been harmed by slavery. It would also be possible for the reparations to come in the form of in-kind transfers (like food stamp-type things or vouchers for tuition in college). Reparations are payments made to the victims of some injustice by the people who perpetrated and/or benefitted from that injustice.

African-Americans

The ‘one-drop’ definition was used to maximize the denial rights—should be used to maximize remedies

F James Davis. Writer at PBS Frontline. 2014. Who is Black? One Nation’s Definition.Accessed August 15, 2015.

It should now be apparent that the definition of a black person as one with any trace at all of black African ancestry is inextricably woven into the history of the United States. It incorporates beliefs once used to justify slavery and later used to buttress the castelike Jim Crow system of segregation. Developed in the South, the definition of "Negro" (now black) spread and became the nation's social and legal definition. Because blacks are defined according to the one-drop rule, they are a socially constructed category in which there is wide variation in racial traits and therefore not a race group in the scientific sense. However, because that category has a definite status position in the society it has become a self-conscious social group with an ethnic identity. The one-drop rule has long been taken for granted throughout the United States by whites and blacks alike, and the federal courts have taken "judicial notice" of it as being a matter of common knowledge. State courts have generally upheld the one-drop rule, but some have limited the definition to one thirty-second or one-sixteenth or one-eighth black ancestry, or made other limited exceptions for persons with both Indian and black ancestry. Most Americans seem unaware that this definition of blacks is extremely unusual in other countries, perhaps even unique to the United States, and that Americans define no other minority group in a similar way.