Neg - Reparations Hauntology - Michigan 7 2023 KLAB

NEG
Case
1NC --- solvency
Changing the institutional structures of discrimination is key to the success of any reparations effort and the only way to ensure systems of discrimination aren’t repeated post-aff. That supercharges the TVA and proves state action is key to solving the aff.
Burkett 07, 2007, Maxine Burkett is a professor of Law at the University of Colorado Law School and has a J.D. from the University of California Berkeley, “Reconciliation and Nonrepetition: A New Paradigm for African-American Reparations,” Oregon Law Review, https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/orglr86&div=6&g_sent=1&casa_token=6CShzpRRD4AAAAAA:ROjjC_Nv-uUwm7b9aESPUaKwj-6HaaoyCH-SqN1QlNCNwKPgdEl0enSO2rljNRxNloETkA&collection=journals, Morr
The contemporary paradigm for African-American reparations fundamentally fails to address what should be its most vital component. Of the three essential elements of a successful reparations campaign-apology, award, and nonrepetition through reconciliation-the most vital is nonrepetition. In past "successful" reparations campaigns, the offending parties have issued apologies and awards, but have neither challenged nor dismantled the attitudes or infrastructures from which wrongful acts emerged, leaving open the likelihood of wrongful acts occurring again. Any campaign that neglects the nonrepetition element runs the risk of strengthening the status quo. In this Article, Professor Burkett argues that in order for a reparations campaign to be a true success for African-Americans, it must include a nonrepetition element. To do so, the reparations movement must embrace a reconciliation model that is forward looking, and concerned with the methods of deterring future bad acts for ultimate, complete, and successful repair. In the current discourse on African-American reparations, Professor Burkett argues, nonrepetition through reconciliation is woefully underemphasized. The incorporation of the nonrepetition element is particularly important in the American context. From the nation's earliest days, the American political and economic landscape has evolved in a particularly pernicious manner, creating and entrenching a racial and economic hierarchy that persistently subjugates African-Americans and other of-color and lowincome communities. Professor Burkett argues that in this context, a multiracial, multiethnic, and cross-class reconciliation model is vital to the success of the African-American campaign. This broad-based approach, the author maintains, is the only way to ensure nonrepetition. The contemporary paradigm for African-American reparations for slavery and its legacy fundamentally fails to address what should be its most vital component. Any successful reparations must contain three critical elements. The first element on the path to repair is an apology. The second element is a monetary or other award that gives actual or symbolic weight to that apology. However, the true weight of an apology and redress is felt in the commitment by the perpetrator not to repeat the act. It follows the simple lesson taught to children- "sorry" is limited in its effect. One must promise to try, vigilantly, not to commit the act again. An apology and remuneration alone are, therefore, insufficient. The third and most vital element of a reparations campaign is the guarantee of nonrepetition. The current movement for reparations, however, fails to demand and secure this most important element of repair. The movement for African-American reparations thus seeks remedies that fall short of forcing structural change that will produce true social transformation. It makes an impossible request in a hostile arena, and at the same time does little to dissipate the very cloud of hostility that makes the social, legal, and political space so inhospitable. In short, the current movement for African-American reparations simply asks for too little. In the current discourse on African-American reparations for slavery and its legacy, the focus on monetary reparations for injuries suffered by African-Americans is misguided.' The emphasis on reparations with respect to actual monetary losses, as well as psychological and community damages, pulls energy away from efforts to address larger systemic changes that need to occur in a race-riddled society. Furthermore, in accepting traditional forms of reparations, African-Americans aid in perpetuating the very system that allows for their persistent subjugation and the subjugation of other of-color communities. Although a number of proposed remedies focus on building programs, arguments demanding monetary liability are often said and heard most loudly, and, to be sure, money transfers are integral to erecting necessary programs. This focus on money transfers or payments is based largely on the belief that American society is so riddled with racism and its permanency that monetary awards are the only true means of change for which African-Americans can hope. Closing the economic gap between black and white Americans is a vital component in remedying the plight of African-Americans. It is impossible, however, for money allotments to have substantive and lasting meaning beyond temporary currency in the marketplace. Rather than risking reinforcement of the status quo with respect to widening class divides and the formidable power of monied groups, challenging the economic structure and the manner in which economic and political power exists in America is the conceptual core around which reparationists must frame their argument and the ensuing debate. Thus, I contend that the reparations movement should focus on the larger goal of transformation by meeting the demands of the nonrepetition prong. I fully acknowledge that this is a far-reaching task, but it is necessary to repair the damage done. Realization of any number of alternative futures that may pull American society out of its current loop requires an adequate response to centuries of legalized subjugation followed by extralegal oppression, individual and systemic. This may well demand a fundamental shift in America's economic, political, and social structures. While crafting and implementing differing structures may be a daunting task, African-Americans must begin the long march toward realizing these alternative futures. The reparations debate itself provides an incomparably valuable opportunity for all Americans to come to terms with the truth of their history. It is an historic moment that offers a chance to rediscover, or perhaps introduce, compassion in and for all Americans. This debate provides unparalleled potential to explore the racial and economic hierarchies that have defined American social construction for over three centuries. Yet the dangers of pursuing reparations without faithfully pursuing the third element of repair are great, as African-Americans risk perpetuating American social hierarchy by reshuffling the players without dismantling the game. To be clear, I am not the familiar dissenter in reparations debates.3 I do not believe that reparations claims are without basis. In fact, in light of the centuries of indignities suffered by African-Americans, reparations are absolutely warranted.4 I instead seek something qualitatively different from what many of the most enthusiastic reparations proponents advocate. I am seeking reconciliation-and a concomitant guarantee of nonrepetition-through profound social change. In Part I, I briefly survey the history and contemporary claims of the African-American reparations movement. I then evaluate the viability of the current reparations paradigm, foregrounding the peculiarly individualistic and historically prejudicial American context within which those claims are brought. I seek to highlight the characteristics of the American political economy on which current claims rely, but which are themselves vital targets for effective reparations. In Part II, I argue for a redefining of the African-American reparations movement, focusing on a restructuring that can meet the mandates of nonrepetition. I look to the Japanese-American reparations campaign and argue that the Japanese-American experience provides not a model for emulation, but a crucial cautionary tale. The failure to address nonrepetition in obtaining reparations reinforces the political, social, and economic status quo. In Part III, I expand upon the potential dangers of reparations pursued within the current paradigm and argue that the most important failing of the contemporary reparations struggle is its limited scope. A limit in scope indicates dwindled optimism about fashioning an alternative future. This diminished optimism has serious consequences: as John Torpey poignantly declares, "[w]hen the future collapses, the past rushes in.",5 I conclude by arguing for the infusion of a grander vision of social justice in African-American claims, and by advocating for an alternative reparations campaign focusing on structural change. My purpose here is not to prescribe a particular roadmap for meeting the mandates of nonrepetition, although I do offer some suggestions. Instead, my aim is to initiate a discussion among African-American reparationists that will shift the focus to the vital need for a movement centered on nonrepetition. Indeed, a fundamental ideological shift in the movement is essential to repair the very brokenness inextricably interwoven in the American cultural machine-a brokenness that produces and reproduces the economic and racial subjugation on which this country has historically depended for its prosperity.
The aff’s reparative politics fail to address structures of anti-blackness and create a false sense of faith in institutions to bring about liberation—instead a politics of black self-reliance is key to alleviate racial violence.
Kane 03, 2003, Gregory Kane is a Baltimore Sun Columnist who's won several writing awards. He and Sun Reporter Gil Lewthwaite were Pulitzer finalists in 1997, “Why the Reparations Movement Should Fail,” Maryland's Law Journal on Race, Religion, Gender and Class, https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=rrgc
IV. REPARATIONS WILL NOT ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEMS FACING BLACKS TODAY: Reparations advocates fail to realize that reparation handouts will never cure the ills Blacks face today as individuals and as a community.' 0' Reparations will not give Blacks self-worth. It will not lower poverty, the crime rates or out of wedlock birth rates, even though proponents try to use these statistics to justify their claim that the government should pay reparations. These problems are engrained within our culture. They are a mindset that cannot be changed by any proposed reparations. Instead, proponents should devote their time and energy to alleviate theses problems by proposing viable solutions that will truly impact Blacks in a positive way. Reparations supporters should preach self-reliance to the black community rather than advocating for an unreasonable and unrealistic fix to current social ills. When people are not forced to take responsibility for their lives, this attitude actually reinforces the perpetual cycle of problems facing the black community.' 0 2 Blacks should stop treating themselves as victims and take responsibility for their lives.'0 3 But reason has been the first casualty in the Victimhood Sweepstakes, from which the reparations movement gets it casus belli. Will the reparations issue rear its head again if paid to black Americans? It certainly will. Many other ethnic groups will ask for handouts until our country is bankrupt, which ultimately harms everyone. Therefore, Blacks in this country would better reach their goals by relying on themselves to attain the American Dream. As such, the focus should be on strengthening the economic base of the black community. One theory on how to do this is through cooperative economics, which promotes the reinvigoration of a community by encouraging community residents to financially patron local businesses. In turn, these businesses will reinvest their resources into community development enterprises.' 0 4 Black Cooperative Economics is an attempt to reinvigorate the black community by establishing a system of economic self sufficiency within the community. 0 5 Black residents support black businesses while these same businesses provide the capital base for the community, thus a creating a beneficial cyclical effect. 10 6 The premise behind black cooperative economics is that Blacks should not depend upon anyone, especially the government, to invest money into black communities in order to strengthen the black community. The result of this cyclical economic structure and the element of exclusivity yield a self-sufficient economic system that is durable and permanent. In addition to encouraging responsibility of black businesses to reinvest within the black community, black middle-class professionals are encouraged to prime the capital pump by investing within black communities. 1° 8 Consequently, a self-sufficient enterprise is born and sustained by the black community for its own benefit. These ideas would be a healthier and more productive way to address the problems of black today instead of wasting time and energy on the reparationists' lost cause.
1NC --- Reparations fail
Reparations fail – creates further political divides, pushes some further into poverty, and forces determinations of who deserves reparations
The Economist 23– The Economist is a British weekly newspaper centering on economic policy. “California's reparations scheme is bad policy and worse politics.” https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/06/08/californias-reparations-scheme-is-bad-policy-and-worse-politics (DOA 20 July 2023)/MCN
Since at least 1865, when Congress voted to set up the Freedmen's Bureau, Americans have debated how and whether to compensate former slaves. In 2020, when Donald Trump had reawoken the left and George Floyd , an unarmed African-American man, was murdered by a policeman, the idea of reparations —paying money to the descendants of slaves—became almost mainstream. Some Democratic politicians, under pressure from activists and eager to be on the right side of history, agreed to set up commissions to study the idea. A few years later, those commissions are coming back with recommendations. Cash reparations for slavery are not popular . Only 30% of Americans support the policy. Most of those alive today played no role in Jim Crow; none can reasonably be blamed for slavery. Nor are black Americans the only disadvantaged group: try telling an unemployed Appalachian coalminer why finite tax dollars should go on reparations rather than, say, better schools or public health. Still, unpopular policies are sometimes right. Are cash reparations for African-Americans one such case? Not long after slavery ended, the Freedmen's Bureau collapsed. Few freedmen received compensation and many ended up working as sharecroppers for their former masters in something close to indentured servitude. Emancipation was followed by the creation of a two-tier version of citizenship that lasted for a century. Until the 1960s, many black Americans lived in fear of terrorism, were shut out of many neighbourhoods and could not vote. Many were also excluded from supposedly universal programmes like the GI Bill. Plenty of the people who suffered directly from this system are still alive today. And in many cases their children and grandchildren have inherited disadvantages that have their roots in state-sanctioned discrimination. How much present racial inequality is due to that inheritance is impossible to quantify. But it is not zero and it is not 100%. The moral sentiment about reparations rests on these centuries of unfairness. Yet the cruelty of history is not the main argument. If the past were the same but there were no present-day racial gaps in income or life expectancy, the case for reparations would be weak. The main policy question, then, is how to help those who have been left behind. California shows how, in practice, it is impossible to create an actuarial table of injustice that can be consulted to determine how much cash is owed and to whom. California outlawed slavery when it joined the union in 1850, so its commission concentrated on making amends for current racial disparities. These are considerable, as they are nationwide. African-Americans die four years earlier than white Americans on average. (Perhaps less noticed is that black Americans have enjoyed the fastest gains in life expectancy over the past 20 years.) For the purpose of its calculations, the commission assumed that a life is worth $10m and, speciously, that all racial disparities in outcomes are due to racism, current or historical. It then calculated how much African-American Californians are owed. The maximum payout per person came to $1.2m. San Francisco, naturally, created its own commission, which put the figure higher, at $5m. The bill for the statewide scheme could exceed $800bn, though the commission deems even that sum to be merely a down payment. This comes as California faces a $32bn budget shortfall on an overall annual budget of $300bn. Then there is the difficulty of determining who is eligible for reparations. America, happily, is more racially fluid than when the Jim Crow era ended, which makes that hard. The commission's answer is to set up another body to determine individual claims, which is just to pose the question again. If the aim of the policy is to ease disadvantage, that can be done with race-neutral anti-poverty programmes. The expanded child-tax credit, which was part of Congress's response to covid-19, cut child poverty nationwide. It did the most for African-American children, narrowing disparities, and was popular. This is a route to the same end that is achievable. For Democrats, whose task is to build as big a coalition as possible to defeat Mr Trump's movement, it is hard to think of a policy better designed to set different groups of supporters against each other than cash reparations. Or one easier to lampoon in attack ads: "Californian liberals vote to give Hollywood star $1m!" Gavin Newsom, the governor, appears to be looking for ways to quietly ignore the state commission. London Breed, San Francisco's mayor, has not endorsed the city council's proposal. Both should say clearly that they oppose cash reparations, and then propose policies to narrow disparities which most Americans would happily support.
No spill up – lack of global support
Anna Dunham 17 – (Graduate Program in International Studies, Old Dominion University) ODUMUNC 2017 Issue Brief Fourth Committee: Special Political and Decolonization. “Should There Be Reparations to Post-Colonial States?” 2017. https://ww1.odu.edu/content/dam/odu/offices/mun/2017/ib-2017-fourth-reparations-final.pdf (DOA 7/19/2023) //ELAI
Despite their evidence in support for reparations for postcolonial states, the activities of these U.N. groups have not been able to convince all U.N. member states that reparations need to be issued. What they have succeeded in doing is to provide reliable information on the importance of reparations as one important element in addressing the problems that have emerged as a result of colonialism. This information has helped to inform the debate on reparations both within and outside of the U.N. One branch of the U.N. that, to date, has yet to be fully utilized in order to help answer the question of colonial reparations, is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ represents the judiciary body of the United Nations and works to settle legal disputes between member states as well as advises the main UN bodies on international legal standards. In this forum, individual postcolonial states could bring a legal case against a former colonial power, as long as they are both members of the UN, for damages o

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.