Not Being Able To Talk About Reparations Is Why We Should Be Talking About Reparations
The word reparations has found its way into mainstream narrative as of late. Although not a new conversation — or concept — recently there’s been a resurgence of the word and it’s possible implications and implementing in future times. The word means and brings different sets of feelings to different people.
Reparations by definition is the compensation from a government to a harmed people group to make up — monetarily — for the damage done to them because of an oppressive event. This kind of negotiation and transaction has taken place before in other situations (e.g. The agreement between Germany and Israel for Holocaust damages, Civil Liberties Act Of 1987 to Japanese Internment camp survivors, etc.) but specifically the topic becomes an issue when talking about reparations in America for damages done for the Atlantic Slave Trade and Jim Crow south policies.
There have been many intellectual and promising arguments made for such an event, and I don’t propose here to attempt to join the conversation of the should or should nots. What troubles me is not that arguments made for or against, but that the conversation seems to not even be allowed to be had at all in certain spaces.
The recent uproar in talks for reparations is happing on Capitol Hill now. Introduced into the House years ago, Bill H.R.40 calls for the “Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans to examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies.” This bill is simply calling for a committee to be formed to study the history of slavery and how to remedy its effects on today’s society. A mostly Democratic supported venture, it gained national attention with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that not only are reparation a non-issue, but that African Americans should consider the electing of Barack Obama as a reparational event.
The problem — one of the many problems — with Mitch McConnell’s response to the topic of reparations is that at its core he is attempting to not even have the conversation. The committee proposed to be formed is simply asking to study the effects of slavery and how and/or if there are remedies, such as reparations, that can be made to alleviate the effects of said event. The committee wants to have the conversation; Mitch McConnell, and others like him, do not.
Why don’t they want to have the conversation? I believe there are several reasons, one of the main ones being the pervasive mindset in white majority culture that slavery (read: all racism) is over and therefore we should just move on. They argue that the people we have issue with are dead and therefore they themselves are unable to provide any real recompense that the black community seeks. Slavery is over, Jim Crow is over; therefore racism is over and the conversation should be too. But, by not being able to have the conversation at all they are proving that this conversation is one of the most important ones to have.
The truth is a friend that hurts us for own good. It brings to light that which we want to hide and makes us slow down and stop next to things we want to avoid and move past. The Bible says the truth will set you free; that truth, though, has to kill the lies we believe and are bound to in order for it to reign supreme. When Jesus calls Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life, he was fully aware that this Truth would have to first die on a cross to kill the lies that held us in bondage. This Truth, then, would resurrect and be crowned King of all. In order for truth to reign above, it must first kill the lies the lurk below.
The problem with not having the conversation regarding reparations is that it is a method to muzzle the truth from being told: the truth that America has never fully repented of the sins of racism and has not done the deep soul-searching work of repentance to truly seek reconciliation and long-lasting change. Instead, America has sought to apologize under its breath and move past the offense, hoping that those who are “truly” at fault will die out and we can all just move on with our lives. But real repentance over sin doesn’t just acknowledge the offense but also the fallout. It recognizes that the offense is just the present result of past heart sins that have future consequences which they too will be responsible to acknowledge. Real repentance seeks every opportunity for the truth to surface because it truly desires to make amends for what it has done. It does not seek to stifle conversation on hard and implicating things, but asks for opportunities to own the hurt it has caused.
This is what the Bible calls worldly vs godly sorrow. The former seeks simply to feel bad for a moment and move on, hoping things will get better. The latter realizes that it has first offended the God of truth, then next the person. The latter brings true healing because it’s desire is not to exonerate itself but to see true reconciliation happen no matter the personal cost. And for a nation that prides itself on Christian morals and beliefs, our sorrow seems very worldly.
The conversation on reparations needs to happen for many cultural, historical, and socioeconomic reasons. But at the core of the conversation is the question of “Can America truly repent of its sins?” The inability to have the conversation is the inability to let truth reign. And a country that avoids truth is a country that is building its own demise. The more we avoid hard conversations, the more callous we become to good and right things. We need this study, we need this committee, we need people to see that America has a chance to truly right it’s wrongs by beginning a real journey to repentance. That is what I’m praying for. God bless America…with a repentant heart.
