From Radical to Practical (and Back Again?): Reparations, Rhetoric, and Revolution

Kaimipono D. Wenger, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Abstract

The story of reparations advocacy is a story of ideas. This Article discusses some of those ideas. It analyzes the history of slavery reparations advocacy since the Civil War and the role of different rhetorical approaches to reparations. It shows how reparations dialog over time has consisted of two major rhetorical strands: Practical Reparations arguments are those seeking concrete compensation within existing judicial or legislative systems, while Radical Reparations arguments are those that use the idea of reparations as a lens to suggest broad systemic changes to society. Each strand draws on different facets of reparations thought.

Recent court developments cast these differences into sharp relief. Reparations lawsuits represented a new flavor of discussion, an apogee for the Practical side of reparations rhetoric. Lawsuits created their own narrative. They offered potential benefits for the movement, but also created some disadvantages because of their limited scope and inherent race-blind nature.

Lawsuit failure offers a chance to reassess the reparations narrative. It shows some of the problems with too practical of a framework, and ultimately demonstrates the need to more effectively balance both practical and radical approaches to reparations. Ultimately, reparations advocates will be most effective when drawing on narratives that can effectively incorporate both the practical and radical strands of reparations thought.