Angry: The Little Brother: A Parable and Reflections on Reparations

*The siblings described below may or may not describe actual children

Imagine two brothers. They love each other but they also fight a lot.

Older Brother is bigger and stronger.  In the room they share, probably 75% of the toys belong to him. He has an an entire shelf devoted to his collectibles, a desk of his own, and lots of storage space. Even some of the toys Little Brother has are toys that Older Brother once owned (okay, okay, still owns. He's quick to clarify that if Little Brother gets too possessive: Remember, that's mine!)  He always gets new clothes, while most of what his brother wears are hand me downs from him.  When they play together it is always the Older Brother who decides what they will play. He is the one who sets the rules of the game, and more often than  not the rules give the Older Brother advantages that will almost certainly lead to victory for him. This frustrates Little Brother sometimes and he cries and says he doesn't want to play anymore. Older Brother will then complain to his parents about how Little Brother refuses to play with him, demanding that they force Little Brother to play.  He clearly has the upper hand. But Older Brother doesn't see it that way.

 When a fight breaks out between the two you might hear howls of pain and anguish from the younger brother.  You come running in to find the Older Brother has manhandled the little one in some manner. When you begin to reprimand the older one, he quickly begins to make the case that is he, not his weeping little brother here, that is the real victim.  He will recount the multitude of injustices that his brother inflicted on him--how he was truly suffering--until he had no choice but to take drastic action. The absurdity that Little Brother is crying but Older Brother was the one wronged is lost on him.  If things get really bad, he will bring up dubious memories from years ago when his little brother threw an object at him, threatening his very life and nothing was done. 

Any attempt by the parents to try to make things more equitable between the two is met with fierce resistance from the older one. The parents might say we're going to buy Little Brother a toy.  Older Brother is appalled. 

 "That's not fair," he protests. "If he gets a new toy, I should get one too."

  "Yes, my son, but you already have so many more toys than your brother does. You've had quite a head start from the years before Little Brother was born."

  But the older brother is adamant. If Little Brother has purchased a toy it is a grave injustice, unless he gets one too.  The older brother feels his parents favor the younger one, and is happy to recount the many ways in which his parents have showed preference to his little brother over himself.

And heaven forbid that you even bring up the disparity in the brothers' experience.  Older Brother would be deeply wounded by even the description of their situation. He would view it as an attack and proof of the parents' preference for Little Brother.

Of course the parents love both their boys very much. But they would like to see Little Brother treated a little bit more fairly.  From their vantage point they can see the inequity and their desire is for that inequity to be addressed.

He who has ears, let him hear.

I believe, in principal, in reparations. It only makes sense.  Granted it would have been better if they'd been administered as promised in the years immediately after the Civil War. But they weren't. And it's not unreasonable to suggest that the debt this nation owes its slaves and their still-uncompensated descendants needs to be paid. You're going to need to put aside some significant time but it's gripping reading:  Ta-Nehisi Coates laid out the case for reparations in a lengthy piece for The Atlantic six years ago (David Brooks makes a shorter case for why he came around to Coates view after initially disagreeing). One thing Coates masterpiece on reparations makes clear is that slavery was not the end the story. The robbery of black people's wealth and property continued through segregation well into the 20th century--even up to as recently as the 2008 housing crisis when it came to light that lenders were deliberately directing black homeowners into subprime loans. After reading his article it's hard to argue that reparations are unnecessary.

It's far easier to argue that reparations while theoretically the "right thing to do" are practically speaking, a political and bureaucratic nightmare (not to mention extremely expensive). But just because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't or can't be done. Developing the reparations package could be straightforward. My opinion is that it should consist of a monthly direct payment (similar to what we did this past spring), free college tuition, a grant to purchase land and/or a home, and interest free loans for small businesses. It should be a one-time, single generation payment. It would not continue in perpetuity. The complicated part would be who gets it. In this New York Times article on what reparations might look like, William A. Darity, an economist at Duke University suggests two  criteria: First the recipients must have at least one ancestor who was a slave. It shouldn't go to just anyone who is black--black immigrants from other countries for example shouldn't be eligible.  Second recipients would have to have identified themselves as black or African American on legal documents for at least ten years prior to the implementation of the reparations plan. This would weed out newly "black" opportunists. 

As for the expense, it's disingenuous of the nation to fuss about the exorbitant expense when the same country build itself on the backs of free labor. Most times when people complain about "how we're going to pay for that" it's really a statement on what you think is worth paying for.  Many of the same people who object to big government expenditures on social programs often have no issue with big government expenditures on the military. 

Coates made his case for reparations not believing that it would ever happen, at least in his lifetime.  But he argued that simply studying the issue, as the bill that Michigan Representative John Conyers proposed year after year in Congress would itself be a step in absolving the nation of it's racial sin. It begins with acknowledging there is a need. That reparations are, in fact, owed.  Two groups of people frankly deserve to be compensated. The Native Americans whose land was stolen and the black Americans who built this nation on the stolen land. When we as a nation, at the very least, acknowledge what we have stolen, and consider how it might be repaid, we will be on the road to healing, on the road to life.

But even if you could navigate that morass of challenges, you'd still have many Older Brothers in this country howling with rage at the "unfairness" of it. 

"If a wicked man restores a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statutes which ensure life without committing iniquity, he will surely live and not die."

                                                                                              --Ezekiel 33:15

"America you so pretty
But you not perfect
Confession of guilt is worth it
These people hurting deserve it
Blood on your hands I saw
When there's blood on this nations floor
But it's blood on the upper post of your door
If you need to know"

--Switchfoot (feat. Lecrae) "Looking for America"