The Risible Case For Reparations

During a recent prime minister’s Question Time in the House of Commons, Rishi Sunak was asked by Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy whether he would “offer a full and meaningful apology for our country’s role in slavery and colonialism, and commit to reparatory justice?” 

The prime minister responded, “No.What I think our focus should now be on doing is—of course understanding our history in all its parts, not running away from it—but right now making sure we have a society which is inclusive and tolerant of people from all backgrounds.”

While the victim hierarchy is a contentious matter, as players constantly jockey for position, victimhood itself is now such a high stakes game that inventive types are seeking to have their claims backdated. The irony of non-slaves seeking to profit from ancestral slavery via those who were never slave owners is difficult to ignore. 

But then, victimhood is big business—literally. In fact, it is probably easier to compile a list of brands which aren’t queuing up to extract money from professed alignment with the cause du jour, whether it be Gillette’s close shave with ‘toxic masculinity,’ Ben & Jerry’s flirtation with gay marriage, or Bud Light’s shift to transgenderism. 

Calls for reparations are nothing new. What is new is that these demands are now being met. The insurance firm, Lloyds of London, has apologised for historic links to the slave trade, promising to “invest in positive programmes to attract, retain and develop black and minority ethnic talent,” alongside provision of  “financial support to charities and organisations promoting opportunity and inclusion for black and minority ethnic groups.” Meanwhile the pub chain Greene King pledged to make “a substantial investment to benefit the BAME community and support our race diversity in the business.” 

It’s not just big business either. The Guardian, of all things, has apologised for the role its founders played in the transatlantic slave trade, promising to spend £10 million to descendant communities in a decade-long programme of ‘restorative justice.’ Being The Guardian of course, it couldn’t resist simultaneously lecturing the peasants, “The Guardian has begun a reckoning with its history. Others—individuals, institutions, and states—should follow.”

Even the British monarchy, under the unsteady tillering of King Charles III, is now toying with the notion of reparations. The monarch has given his support for research into the family’s links with slavery and has not ruled out the possibility of future payments. 

At government level, Tony Blair called the slave trade “profoundly shameful” and expressed “deep sorrow that it ever happened,” but was criticised by reparations campaigners for not going further. Other leaders have begun negotiating those steps, but perhaps without the desired results. Holland’s Prime Minister Mark Rutte, for instance, claimed that slavery must be recognised as “a crime against humanity.” Alongside the formal apology, he also promised to allocate €200 million to awareness projects, as well as €27 million for a slavery museum. Despite the obvious sincerity of his wallet, Rutte was nonetheless denounced for the ‘colonial feel’ of his speech, alongside doubts as to whether the apology was fulsome of merely political manoeuvring. This does beg the question whether there is a cheque sufficiently blank to obviate the problem of perceived victimhood.  

The most fashionable target for reparations is of course the British Empire, as the Left cannot resist reminding us. Campaigners are certainly emboldened to bang the drum. The poet, Femi Nylander, recently made the assertion that wealthy Brits should be forced to pay compensation to the descendants of slavery, as “they can afford it!” 

Senseless policy

Depending on what you read, you could be forgiven for thinking that our colonial past was nothing but a force for ill; this is clearly a shortsighted reading of history. Was the colonial rule of India for instance only exploitative, or did it to some extent shape the future success of the nation? How about democracy, the rule of law, a free press, railways, and the English language itself—do we get any discount for those?

The truth of the matter of course is that, indivisible from empire, slavery was historically the only game in town. Despite this, there appears to be a distinct lack of diversity among the current claimants for such reparations, which makes one question whether the impetus is genuine restitution, or mere politicking. 

The American academic Thomas Sowell is well-placed to disabuse us of the fashionable trend for a one-sided history of slavery: 

Of all the tragic facts about the history of slavery, the most astonishing to an American today is that, although slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years, nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century. People of every race and color were enslaved – and enslaved others. White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed.

Furthermore, are there not alternate injustices that deserve recompense? How about Holocaust reparations for the Jews? Cromwellian restitution for the Irish? And why not conjure up a little solace for the Salem witches while we’re at it? What about homosexuals, chimney sweeps, and conscripts? History was almost universally generous in its cruelty—where exactly does one draw the line with historic victimhood, if at all? 

Naturally, with the success of any such reparatory claims, the floodgates will open for alternative and possibly specious cases. Climate change reparations are naturally already on the agenda, a can of worms opened by Rishi Sunak at last year’s COP27 summit. Sunak has already pledged an additional £1.5 billion for developing countries to combat climate disasters, but some environmental campaigners argue that the figure should be closer to £1 trillion.

Being seen to be on the right side of history is obviously tremendously alluring, judging from the astronomical sums donated to Black Lives Matter in the wake of the death of George Floyd. But it is far from clear how much of this money will ever reach its intended recipients, particularly with the rampant accusations of embezzlement by BLM staff. Despite this, the U.S. is currently indulging the possibility of direct reparations to black citizens. San Francisco lawmakers are seriously considering $5 million settlements to eligible black adults. How on earth is that going to work? And how many more cases of ‘transracialism’ like Rachel Dolezal are we likely to see as a consequence? 

I do not for a moment believe that the payment of reparations is a viable policy. But even if it were, how would it be enforced? Where is the line, both historically and factually, to be drawn? What proofs are going to be required to justify payment? Is it historic injustice we seek to redress, or merely historic success? Which countries are to be held to account? Only Britain? Only white countries? Only the West? And how exactly are these gargantuan sums to be financed? These are questions which need answers. 

Beyond even that, however, the victim industry claims that everything from the government to the education system, the police, the judiciary, and society itself is institutionally, systemically, and structurally racist. How precisely will a blank cheque rectify this? Trusting a one-time payment to successfully negotiate the rescission of the victim card is a bit like expecting the first alimony payment to placate a bitter ex-wife. A sensible divorcee ought to know better.