This highly controversial debate questions whether Black-Americans are owed reparations for slavery by America and its Whites. David Horowitz maintains the negative position, that black people should not receive reparations, and argues his stance by criticizing an argument from analogy. Arguments from analogy attempt to justify one’s acceptance of a moral assessment of a practice by comparing it with a second practice of which most people are already in agreement. Reparations for slavery propose that compensation should be provided to the descendants of enslaved people in the United States, in consideration of the forced, uncompensated labor their ancestors performed, as well as its continued effect on African-Americans today. This debate is an instrumental component in the edification of both, oppressive societal practices, and those who benefit from them. The case for reparations is central in current anti-racism social movements, as its legalization inexorably epitomizes a reality in which most people, especially whites, would be collectively cognizant of racism.
David Horowitz’s deduces that the argument for reparations secures its reasoning from an analogy comparing the relationship of the U.S. government and its Black citizens, to an iniquitous perpetrator of an immense injustice and the immediate victims of that injustice.
…show more content…
Racism in America is a well-established, historically-based system meticulously sculpted and embedded into every aspect of life, ranging from individual to institutional racism. These oppressive structures and systems create a dangerous form of racism deep within every white person, created and perpetuated by denial, and functioning without consent (Jamison,