Introducing Reparations - Questions & Thoughts | Eva Pruitt
I wanted to take this blog post to synthesize some of the first arguments and points that Taiwo introduces his book with and share some thoughts that it brought up. Even though the first few pages are just a prequel to the whole argument, I found some of the paragraphs extremely important and wanted to expand upon some of them.
First of all, Taiwo brings up the (I think) commonly held definition of reparations as stated by Adolph Reed, Jr.: "a blend of 'material, symbolic, and psychological components,'" (2). This definition encapsulates the conceptions we have discussed of compensation, acknowledgement of injustices, and other actions that are meant to rectify the past. And I think this is the most common way that Americans today understand reparations.
One of the problems that Reed brings up with this definition (and which Taiwo elaborates upon) is the issue of the ambiguities creating an opportunity for the elites to focus on the symbolic aspects to fulfill their social responsibility. Taiwo brings up the example of the mayor painting "Black Lives Matter" on the White House Plaza, only to monetarily endorse police brutality of protestors a few days later. Reed's problem with the fact that "overinvestment from any level of society into such symbolic reparations could detract energy and resources from an alternative, preferable political project," (3). Reed concludes that "the call for reparations for some distracts from a more worthy political project that would provide justice for all," (3). But, this distraction isn't an issue with reparations themselves- it's an issue with people taking the easiest route to ease their consciences of the racist system most of us gain advantages from. Reparations do not call for an empty symbolic move that takes funding from other issues; that is an interpretation put forth by those who don't want to take on the real work that Taiwo says reparations really ask us to do.
This is where Taiwo's reshaping is important. He addresses Reed's problems with the following question: "what if building the just world was reparations?" (3). This following paragraph (at the bottom of page 3) holds a lot of weight in my opinion, especially in terms of some of the discussions we have had in class. Here, Taiwo addresses the fact that (race-based) reparations are necessary to address problems because "the struggle to build a just social system can't be won through simple 'universal' programs addressing 'common' problems," (3). Essentially, relying on the fact that intersectional discrimination exists and compounds effects for members of multiple minoritized groups, he argues that addressing racism cannot be lumped into simple universal problems. He brings up Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor's example of the healthcare system in its unequal treatment of Black mothers and white mothers. I learned about this specific issue in my Feminist Ethics class last semester, where we talked about the policing of pregnancies. As Taiwo mentions, women of color are subject to discriminatory treatment and, in cases where the police get involved for child care, more likely to be subject to imprisonment or simply to be assumed guilty. Taiwo says that "to build a just health care system, we would have to address both lack of access due to unjust economic structures and lack of access due to unfair gender- and race-based discimination," (3). In my class, we learned that, even in states with progressive health system policies meant to address class inequalities, women and people of color still face unjust treatment. This illustrates that it isn't a "one system solves all" type of situation. This paragraph reminded me of our discussion over affirmative action where Josh suggested class-based affirmative action instead of race-based. We raised some objections to that and tried to logically refute it, but certainly couldn't put our issues as succinctly as Taiwo. At the end of that paragraph, he states, "these goals aren't substitutes for each other; they are complementary," (3). This statement perfectly sums up the reason why we have to address racism as its own issue- because it is pervasive to all other goals, not a substitute. He states right before this that universal programs cannot address common problems because "not all the relevant social problems are, in fact, common to [all]," (3). Having addressed why reparations are still necessary and not adequately substituted by Reed's suggestions, Taiwo moves into what that system should and could look like.
At the top of page four, he describes reparations as a "construction project." I think this is an excellent way to covey the idea. Too often do we look at social issues, like racism, as a bandaid fix type of issue. They aren't. As much as we would like to implement one policy, one decision as a solution for all these problems, it is quite clear that they are more complex than that. And this is where the common objection of reparations being too complicated comes in. But, as has been stated by a couple of us in our affirmative action discussions, complicated problems still require solutions. And, I think that Taiwo's constructive view is possibly even less complicated because it isn't advocating for the individual redistribution that so many people take issue with. By reframing the concept of reparations as a construction project, Taiwo recognizes that there will need to be multiple steps in the process, which might turn some people away. Without the advertisement of a quick and easy solution, I would imagine some might be even more deterred by this idea...
Personally, I am loving this book so far and just wanted to share some of the thoughts I've had so far.
Eva, thank you for your summary of the introduction! Your blog post and Taiwo's Book also made me reflect on our past class discussions. I wanted to add more context that was in the introduction and question some suggestions behind them.
ReplyDeleteA topic that came up in our seminar was monetary reparations. I would state that Taiwo would agree that the focus is on a different goal than the one demanded by those seeking reparations. Taiwo brings in the assertion from Robin D.G. Kelley, which states, in the case of the United States, that reparations "[were] never entirely, or even primarily, about money" (4). Taiwo proves this by adding examples of proposals from black radical movements, one of which doesn't demand "individual payments [but secure] funds to build autonomous black institutions" (4). When I read this section, I automatically thought of The Settler Contract. Pateman discusses that Native peoples aren't asking to create their own states. In reality, Pateman states that Native folks seek recognition of their self-governance and aid in building their economy through autonomous business. Within debates of reparations, there is often discourse of reasoning that disregard and, at times (for convenience), completely ignores the demands of those who would receive the "benefits."
In addition, Taiwo brings in a perspective from Black philosopher Toni Morrison, which I have never learned, that "racism is a smokescreen" (6). While we know that racism delays the progression of equality and equality for marginalized communities, I never analyzed it from the academic space. Taiwo states that we should not spend time proving that our identities exist and are not inferior to those casting these "perceptions," which tend to be majority white. As Morrison states, "racism keeps you answering other people's questions" (6). Morrison reshapes the way one should do scholarly work/research. She states that through academia, we must show the "anonymous or peripheral" behind the generalizations in data and statistics (7). The question that comes to mind is how far should minorities educate their (mostly white) counterparts, given the repercussions if their actions and ideologies go unchallenged and corrected. What would be the methods of conversation? We can see this on our campus through the current struggle to pass a race/ethnic GE and how students of color take time away from their studies to go against the proposition opponents.
Hi Eva!
ReplyDeleteThank you for providing a clear road map of the ideas of reparations and what they require according to Taiwo!
I wanted to expand on the question you include from Taiwo: "what if building the just world was reparations?" (3). In class through our varying discussions of reparations, we have touched on how difficult it could be to truly make up for past atrocities and how it may be unfair or unreasonable to interrupt and rearrange the current systems. In the introduction, Taiwo is arguing that despite difficulties, building a new world is the way to achieve reparations. He says that reparations are a construction project based on "thinking about the relationship between justice's past and future" (4). He goes on to explain and support his claim that the whole global system needs to be rebuilt in chapter two where he examines the history of colonialism and how it still affects global society today. He argues that "we can look at the politico-economic system of the world as something like a water management system, a web of aqueducts that spans the globe, channeling, instead of water, advantages and disadvantages from one place to another" (20). He goes on to say the system set up during colonialism to funnel advantages back to the mother country still exist and operate today. In order to make up for the advantages that were stolen or gained through slave labor, Taiwo argues that the politico-economic system must be rebuilt. "If slavery and colonialism built the world and its current basic scheme of social injustice, the proper task of social justice is no smaller: it is, quite literally, to remake the world" (67). I appreciate how he emphasizes that the reparations need to be similar to the amount of damage done. This connects back to your point Eva that just money or symbols is not sufficient for reparations. As you say it needs to be a combination of things that address all of the harm done. While I agree with Taiwo and have expressed this in multiple seminar discussions I have no sense of how to go about rebuilding the global system. I'm hoping that as we continue to read the book Taiwo presents some ideas that will inspire our own. My final question is , assuming that we must rebuild the world, how do we go about it? How do we construct it in a way that life is not put on pause while also avoiding past mistakes?