Glenn vs. Hitch
Glenn vs. Hitch
A debate over reparations
Back in November 2001, I was invited by Boston University—where I was a professor of economics and ran the Institute on Race and Social Division—to participate in a debate on the question of reparations for African Americans. I was very much in my progressive phase at the time. I had recently delivered the lectures that would become The Anatomy of Racial Inequality, and I had been embraced by other black progressives as one of their own. To a casual observer, it would appear that I was in the midst of a pendulum swing that took me from the right to left (and eventually back again).
But that trajectory is a little too clean. Then as now, it was quite common to find support for reparations on the left. But the idea didn’t sit right with me (it still doesn’t), and the debate gave me a chance to explain why. There were several debaters taking up either side of the issue that night, but I found my most formidable opponent in Christopher Hitchens, who argued in favor of reparations with his trademark wit and savoir faire. Hitchens apparently felt the same about me, as he devoted a significant chunk of his time arguing directly against the positions I put forward. Ironic, then, that we would both soon find ourselves swinging rightward in our own ways, he in regard to American foreign policy and me in regard to domestic issues.
I do wonder if Hitchens would have eventually changed his mind about reparations, as he did about many other things. Below I’m presenting an edited version of the debate. You can see the full version here, but I wanted to highlight my exchange with Hitchens, as I think it distills some of the core issues at play.
This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.
How in the heck do we have these "debates", while willfully excluding that there were always two factions involved in slavery. At LEAST two. For the sake of keeping things brief, there were pro-slavery and anti-slavery. In the end, the pro-slavery faction seceded from the union, leaving the ant-slavery faction to write law as they pleased. And in short order, they amended the CONSITUTION to say that slavery is not to be permitted within the USA. Yes, the secessionist states were forced back into the union, but had no voice in these decisions.
So, how can we pretend to be thoughtfully considering reparations, while ignoring that, post 1865, the federal government actively involved itself in ending slavery. Pre 1965, the majority of the federal government favored ending it. My relatives fought for the North, fought and died to end slavery, yet I hear BOTH of the debaters here suggest that ALL White people share responsibility for slavery. No, we DON'T. And don't forget, the federal government did not create slavery, it was already here. So, it is not the federal government that is responsible for it, it is, perhaps, King George who is responsible. Too, far back to go? It's only mere decades previous to the constitution.
If reparations are to be paid, then by who? The federal government? The only real money the federal government has is the money it takes from us. Why should we all pay? It is insulting to suggest that the descendants of slaves should be paid reparations by the descendants of the soldiers who fought and died for the North, to FREE them. No, if there are to be reparations, write that check on the account of the people who fought to KEEP slavery. That would be the Confederate States of America. Unfortunately, the Confederate States are defunct and have no money. But do not despair. The political party from which the Confederate States sprang still exists. It is the Democratic party. Send THEM the bill.
I'm signing up for paid just for this! I miss Hitch! Keep up the great work, professor!