David Cameron, the Conservative prime minister of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern India, recently visited Jamaica, a former colony, to meet with their government and announce a £300m development package for the Caribbean. This includes £25m in British aid for a new Jamaican prison, slated to house Jamaican-born criminals deported from Britain, whose prisons are overcrowded with vibrancy. But even with all this investment money and aid from Britain—and the giving of such aid from Europe to the Third World is not limited to Britain and the Caribbean nor to the current year—there were still calls for Cameron to apologize on behalf of Britain to Jamaica for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and even for Britain to pay formal reparations to the Jamaican government. In an impressive display of backbone for someone otherwise cuckservative, Cameron rejected this and instead highlighted how Britain’s role in ending the slave trade should be remembered.
Of course, no mention of slavery goes without sparking a conversation in the United States, with the usual gauntlet of leftists and blacktivists arguing in favor of ad hoc gibsmedats for the descendants of long-dead slaves from the successors of long-dead slaveholders, generalized to all black people versus the US government. The loudest proponents of this are typically BPLSWPLs, who’ve been at this for some time and as enemy polemicists are generally uninteresting to the alt-right. I don’t feel it’s worth the time or energy to systematically refute everything they have to say about why they deserve moar gibsmedats. Rather, I will offer my own reasons why I am against reparations, mostly in an American context.
I. It’s Been Paid in Silver
Blacks have had full citizenship in the United States since the 1960s, incidentally a century after emancipation. Since that time—or even since FDR’s New Deal, which won many of them over to the Democratic party—trillions of dollars in aid and welfare, if not gorillions, have been spent on blacks, most of which was extracted from the pockets of Whites. Affirmative action, diversity, and anti-racism hiring practices have also been promoted across the business and academic world to make their ascent easier. If there is a debt, it would seem that it has been paid. But as both left and right know, equality never happened.
Gibsmedat activists will blame structural or institutional racism for the failure of blacks to attain White levels of success. This is true to an extent when examining the history of the United States, but does not hold up past the 1960s/70s era; a better explanation is needed. The "muh oppression" argument is also deficient in that it doesn’t account for scientific racism, which is my preferred explanation for black inequality, to say nothing of differences in culture and work ethic. Let’s have a conversation about that. Let’s talk about differences now, and leave the rent-seeking aside—the government already gives away too much of other people’s money.
II. It’s Been Paid in Blood
Here are some numbers on the Civil War, which resulted in the abolition of slavery in the United States and the formal recognition of blacks as citizens rather than property. The Union raised 2,672,341 soldiers over the course of the war; a vast majority of 2,489,836 were White and a fraction of 178,975 were black. The size of the Confederate Army is estimated to have been between 750,000 and 1,227,890, with full demographic data lost due to incomplete and destroyed enlistment records. It’s safe to assume the South did not arm hundreds of thousands of slaves, given all the exemptions from service made for wealthy Whites and White overseers on plantations, who were needed to keep that population in place during the war. The 642,427 Union casualties (110,100 killed in battle, 224,580 diseases, 275,174 wounded in action, and 30,192 prisoners of war) and the 483,026 Confederate casualties (94,000 killed in battle, 164,000 diseases, 194,026 wounded in action, and 31,000 prisoners of war) make the War Between the States the deadliest war in US history—WW2 had 1,076,245 casualties, less than the combined totals of the Union and the Confederacy. Therefore, the Civil War was overwhelmingly fought between Anglo-Americans and it is they who suffered and died, resulting in the end of slavery. This might sound obvious, but it’s important to remember that White people died so blacks could go to college in the current year and learn how much White people are oppressing them.
While we can and should debate why the Civil War was fought (to preserve the Union, for Southern independence, to end slavery, to preserve slavery, etc.), the ends are what remain as significant to us today. And the ends, through the means of about a million White casualties, were the abolition of black slavery. The four million enslaved Africans living in the United States did not do that themselves, The Union had 2,489,836 White soldiers and 178,975 black soldiers who fought the Confederacy and ended slavery. There were no mass liberation revolts springing up in the South to topple White rule during the war. Blacks were freed from slavery by Whites. The end of slavery was not something preordained; it was a forced campaign by Whites first in Britain and then the United States, with the notable exception of Haiti, which went from being the richest colony in the Americas under French rule to the poorest country in our hemisphere after a slave revolt and its subsequent self-rule. Not even Haiti’s mulatto neighbors want them around. If blacks had ended slavery themselves and created their own country in the South it isn’t hard to imagine how horrible a place it would be to live then and now. Instead they were freed by Whites and given citizenship in the United States. You can’t blame White people for African slavery and ignore that slavery was ended in the United States and around the world by Whites and that the best opportunities in the world for black people are not in Africa but the West. You’re welcome.
III. It Would Establish Congenital Guilt as Legal Precedent
A vexing aspect of our legal system in Anglo-America is that of legal precedent, the notion that past rulings in court cases can be referenced to resolve current cases. It is an old English tradition. It also allows the meaning of the law and its application(s) to mutate rather easily depending on the political leanings of those who arbitrate justice. And courts would be involved in any kind of reparations scheme or gibsmedat initiative, e.g. would it be Constitutional or not? In other words, the implications of enacting a law that would make the US government pay reparations for slavery are not going to be limited to a one-time injection of gibsmedat into black America. It would quite literally cause a legal revolution and institutionalize rent-seeking. One can only imagine how many situations in which Nuffin v. United States would be invoked.
A related issue is this little thing called the statute of limitations, which determines how long you have to bring someone to court for a claim. An extension of that idea dominates Western legal tradition, the idea that the son is not guilty for the crimes of the father—they are separate legal persons and to punish one for something the other has done is widely considered to be injustice. But if the nth-generation descendants of slaves can go after the US government—or even less plausibly, individuals descended from slaveholders—for something that was not a crime in the legal sense when it happened and was committed by people who’ve been dead for at least a hundred years, suddenly lots of things are on the table and little stands in their way. Culpability for crime becomes something that transcends victims and transgressors. It becomes a property one can assign to whoever they want to rent-seek against provided they have popular, if not judicial, support.
Sure slavery was mean and something permitted by the government. But other governments have done bad things to other classes of people at times when there was nothing in the law to stop them, or even a legal system that could be used against them over what they did. Can aboriginals in Australia sue Britain too? Can Ireland sue Britain for criminal negligence during the Famine and eight hundred years of oppression? Can Italy, Greece and Spain sue Algeria over the Barbary pirates and the enslavement of Europeans? Can France sue Italy for the Roman conquest of Gaul? Can Greece sue Turkey for the removal of souvlaki from Asia Minor between 1071 to 1923? Can both Chinas sue Japan for wartime atrocities? Can Armenia sue Turkey for genocide? Can Palestine sue Israel for genocide? Can we sue Israel as the representative of world jewry for White genocide? I’ll go get my popcorn.
IV. Rent-Seeking Intensifies
A quick reminder as to what rent-seeking is: using one’s resources to increase their share of existing wealth without creating new wealth. I’ve hinted at this already but the demand for reparations is essentially macro-sized rent-seeking. How is this going to work? Is the government going to pay out a lump sum to blacks? A monthly stipend? As if we weren’t already subsidizing these people. I wonder what a bunch of high time preference dindus with poor future orientation are going to do with free money. Oh right, the same shit they always do, spend it on consumer goods. That’s not an economic stimulus or ((((social justice)))); it’s just a one-shot spending session of buying more baubles.
Some on the left (and Rand Paul) have this delusion that inside every urban youth is an entrepreneur waiting to burst out and found the next big tech start-up. But entrepreneurship requires more than handouts and investors—it requires investing one’s own time and money, cultivating beliefs and habits conducive to taking a valuable idea and creating a competitive product or service from it, and bringing that innovation to market. I don’t think most people, let alone dindus, have any drive to do this. They want more income to spend on consumer goods, and they want it as regularly and as easily as possible. If you made a thousand extra dollars a month, would you maintain your current standard of living and save that money away for future investment, or raise all of your expenses to live more comfortably and enjoyably? So the notion that throwing even more money at black people is going to create some kind of economic resurgence is just completely ridiculous. We’ve been doing that for decades. In fact, since reparations money would be in the hands of youths themselves rather than the SWPL signalocracy that runs dem programs, it would probably have even less economic impact than programs do.
So in conclusion, reparations have already been paid in blood and treasure, instituting reparations would turn the Western legal tradition on its head, and enabling further rent-seeking would be offensively wasteful of other people’s earned money. Also I just generally don’t want to pay you my income because a minority of Southerners owned slaves a hundred and fifty years ago. I think that’s a reasonable objection and something a White-majority country, even when thoroughly cucked, is going to agree with. For now, the latest gibmedat initiative remains negro LARPing.