Sources & Extracts

Review these ideas and then use the BACK key in your browser to go back to the page you were on.

The philosopher Bernard Boxill has put the argument for reparations based on the exploitation of the slave system as follows:

Consider now the assertion that the present generation of white Americans owe the present generation of black Americans reparation for the injustices of slavery inflicted on the ancestors of the black population by the ancestors of the white population. To begin, consider the very simplest instance of a case where reparation may be said to be due: Tom has an indisputable moral right to possession of a certain item, say a bicycle, and Dick steals the bicycle from Tom. Here, clearly, Dick owes Tom, at least the bicycle and a concession of error, in reparation. Now complicate the case slightly; Dick steals the bicycle from Tom and 'gives' it to Harry. Here again, even if he is innocent of complicity in the theft, and does not know that his 'gift' was stolen, Harry must return the bicycle to Tom with the acknowledgment that, though innocent or blameless, he did not rightfully possess the bicycle. Consider a final complication; Dick steals the bicycle from Tom and gives it to Harry; in the meantime Tom dies, but leaves a will clearly conferring his right to ownership of the bicycle to his son, Jim. Here again we should have little hesitation in saying that Harry must return the bicycle to Jim.

Boxill goes on to argue that the case of reparations for black Americans is analogous to the simpler case he has just described:

Now, though it involves complications, the case for reparation under consideration is essentially the same as the one last mentioned: the slaves had an indisputable moral right to the products of their labor; these products were stolen from them by the slave masters, who ultimately passed them on to their descendants; the slaves presumably have conferred their rights of ownership to the products of their labor to their descendants; thus, the descendants of slave masters are in possession of wealth to which the descendants of slaves have rights; hence, the descendants of slave masters must return this wealth to the descendants of slaves with a concession that they were not rightfully in possession of it.

Boxill concludes by adding some final qualifications to his argument in order to make it more applicable to the current situation:

It is not being claimed that the descendants of slaves must seek reparation from those among the white population who happen to be descendants of slave owners. . . . As a matter of fact, slavery produced. . . wealth which has been passed down mainly to descendants of the white community, to the relative exclusion of the descendants of slaves. Thus, it is the white community as a whole that prevents the descendants of slaves from exercising their rights of ownership and the white community as a whole that must bear the cost of reparation.

Reference: Bernard Boxill, "The Morality of Reparation" in Reverse Discrimination, edited by Barry Gross, p. 275-276.