The Double-Edged Sword of Slavery Reparations in Woke Politics

Contrary to current "political correctness” in the United States, the heated debate on "slavery reparations” in "woke” politics is trapped within an essential dilemma between "achievement and conquest,” on one side of the double-edged sword, and "carefreedom and backwardness,” on the other side -- with subsequent consequences which are both progressive and regressive simultaneously.

Photo: By Russiannn6876 is licensed under is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

On One Side of the Double-Edged Sword — "Achievement and Conquest”

On one side of the double-edged sword in the heated debate on "slavery reparations” is the "ambivalent” character of "achievement and conquest” for the "strong,” meaning that achievement can be entangled in conquest, with subsequent "resentment” or "hatred” towards the "strong.”

The word "strong” here refers to those in human history who "achieve” relatively more success in material development and, more often than not, use their acquired wealth and power to "conquer” those who fall behind, and this is true in "imperialism,” "colonialism,” "neo-colonialism,” "slavery,” and so on, throughout human history.

In the heated debate on "slavery reparations” in "woke” politics, the "strong” here refers to mostly "whites” (from Western Europe) who engaged in the "trans-Atlantic slave trade” (starting from the 15th century onwards) and used their colonial power to exploit "blacks” (through slavery) in the making of early America.

The "descendants” of these "white” conquerors in American history have enjoyed "white privilege” -- benefiting mostly "white” folks but hurting mostly "non-white” (especially "black”) ones in American society since then.

But why did not "blacks” in sub-Saharan Africa at the time enslave "whites” in Western Europe (in reverse), instead of being enslaved by the latter in the "trans-Atlantic slave trade”? The answer is that "blacks” in sub-Saharan Africa at the time did not "achieve” the same level of material development that the "Europeans” enjoyed in building their modern wealth and power (especially, though not exclusively, during and after the "Industrial Revolution”).

This shows a historical tendency that those who are more "advanced materially” in development or enjoy more material "achievement” in wealth and power often end up "conquering” those who fall behind (or those who are weak) -- and whether this historical tendency is "good” or "bad” is a value judgement relative to the power that be in a historical context (meaning that what is "good,” or "bad,” for the "strong” can be "bad,” or "good,” for the "weak” instead).

On the Other Side of the Double-Edged Sword — "Carefreedom and Backwardness”

On the other side of the double-edged sword in the heated debate on "slavery reparations” is the "double” attribute of "carefreedom and backwardness” for the "weak,” meaning that carefreedom can be entangled in backwardness, with subsequent "subjugation” or "exploitation” of the "weak.”

The word "weak” here refers to those in human history who espouse relatively more the "joy of life” (or "la joie de vivre”) in life outlook, which does not focus as much on a "strong work ethic” for "ruthless competition” to race to the bottom, and the tradeoff here is that they often have a cheerful enjoyment of life (in "carefreedom”) but suffer from a material condition of relative "backwardness,” which thus makes them a "vulnerable” target of the "strong.”

In the heated debate on "slavery reparations” in "woke” politics, the word "weak” here refers to mostly "blacks” (from sub-Saharan Africa) who did not have the necessary "wealth” and "power” to fight against "whites” in the "trans-Atlantic slave trade,” when the Europeans were colonizing most of the world (especially, though not exclusively, during and after the "Industrial Revolution”).

The "descendants” of these "black” slaves in American history have suffered from "white privilege” -- benefiting mostly "white” folks but hurting mostly "non-white” (especially "black”) ones in American society since then.

This shows a historical tendency that those who enjoy their "joie de vivre” (in "carefreedom”) and therefore are less "advanced materially” in development (or in a relative state of material "backwardness”) often end up being "vulnerable” to subjugation or exploitation by those who are more advanced — and, again, whether this historical tendency is "good” or "bad” is a value judgement relative to the power that be in a historical context (meaning that, in the reverse direction, what is "bad,” or "good,” for the "weak” can be "good,” or "bad,” for the "strong” instead).

Conclusion: Progressive and Regressive Effects of the Double-Edged Sword of Slavery Reparations

This double-edged sword has profound implications for the heated debate on "slavery reparations” in "woke” politics of our time.

The fundamental question in the heated debate is: Are the "descendants” of "black slaves” in the United States entitled to "reparations” for past slavery? Contrary to current "political correctness,” the answer in this essay is not either "yes” or "no,” but both "yes” and "no,” because the question is trapped within the essential dilemma in the double-edged sword (as explained above).

In the part of the answer which is "yes,” no amount of "reparations” (mostly for "blacks”) can eliminate the "double” attribute of "carefreedom and backwardness” among the "weak.” One can see this "double” attribute in "black” communities around the world (be it in sub-Saharan Africa, North America, Western Europe, the Caribbean, Latin America, and so on), which are often among the "poor” but also among the "joyful,” when compared with the rest of the world, on "average” (meaning the "central tendency” of a group, not "outliers” above or below an average value).

In the part of the answer which is "no,” no number of "excuses” (mostly from "whites”) can hide the "ambivalent” character of "achievement and conquest” among the "strong.” One can see this "ambivalent” character in "white” communities around the world (be it in Europe, North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Southern Africa, and so on), which are often among the "competitive” (or "ruthless”) but also among the "imperialist” (or "racist”), when compared with the rest of the world, on "average” (meaning the "central tendency” of a group, not "outliers” above or below an average value), again.

Of course, history does not stay the same, as there is often the "change of the guard.” For instance, the Western dominance of global affairs since modern times is ending in our time, as the global balance of power is shifting to the East in the "Asian century” to be dominated by China and later India, so the word "strong” may refer to different groups in different historical eras. And the same logic applies to the word "weak,” which does not necessarily refer to "blacks” in different historical eras.

This shifting balance of global power from West to East in our time does not logically imply that there will be another "trans-Atlantic slave trade,” as the world is evolving in the "post-democratic,” "post-capitalistic,” and "post-civilizational” direction as already predicted in my 2002 book titled "The Future of Capitalism and Democracy,” my 2004 book titled "Beyond Democracy to Post-Democracy,” my 2004 book titled "Beyond Capitalism to Post-Capitalism,” and my 2005 book titled "Beyond Civilization to Post-Civilization.”

In the end, the important idea to remember in this essay is the "achievement-carefreedom” principle (as one of 75 principles in my theory of "existential dialectics,” which is one of my 3 "unified theories of everything” already analyzed in many of my books), which can be used here to explain this essential dilemma in the "double-edged sword” (as explained above).

But the opposing sides in the heated debate on "slavery reparations” in "woke” politics of our time have not yet understood this essential dilemma affecting them both -- but they will, one day.

About the author:

Dr. Peter Baofu is an American visionary and author of 180 scholarly books and numerous articles (as of July, 2023) to provide 146 visions (theories) of the human future in relation to the mind, nature, society, and culture -- and had been in 133 countries around the world (as of October, 2023) for his global research on humanity, besides knowing 10 languages with different degrees of fluency. His books are listed in top university libraries and national libraries around the world (including the Library of Congress in Washington, D. C.). He was interviewed on television and radio as well as by newspapers around the world about his original ideas and visions of the human future (search for "Peter Baofu” on YouTube). He was a U. S. Fulbright Scholar in the Far East and had taught as a professor at different universities in Western Europe, the Caucasus, the Middle East, the Balkans, Central Asia, South Asia, North America, and Southeast Asia. He received more than 5 academic degrees, including a Ph. D. from the world-renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), was a summa cum laude graduate, and was awarded the Delta Sigma Pi Scholarship Key for being at the top of the class in the College of Business Administration, with another student.