It wouldn't be anything Dr. Bennett related without some work of Ryan Burge or Paul Djupe (or both) showing up. It is rather disturbing to see QAnon so comfortably bandied about in mainstream articles. I almost wish that the whole movement had remained in the shadows, rather than becoming so prevalent, if only so that we wouldn't have to confront the utter inanity of it so often.
I read the interview with authors Kwon and Thompson, and I was curious about an answer that Kwon gives to the question, "What are the strongest arguments you know of against reparations? How would you answer them?" Part of Kwon's answer is that "There’s a strong Christian tradition that restitution is owed even to descendants of victims of theft who have since deceased." I was not aware of this supposedly strong tenet of Christianity. Perhaps he is mistaking the long-obsolete Old Testament laws of the Jewish faith for what is "strong Christian tradition"? Either way, I must admit I'm interested to see how they make this argument in their forthcoming book.
I was also amused at the response that Thompson gives to the question, "I could see someone saying, ‘If we did reparations, at what point would we stop?’ How do you respond to people who believe it can’t practically work?" Though I am usually remiss to apply intent to simple words in an article, I can't help but read a tone of smarminess from his answer. Thompson replies first, "There’s sometimes a motive in that question that’s a pretext for not taking it seriously. 'When are these folks going to be satisfied?' I bet we could ask them." Here, Thompson does a wonderful job of side-stepping the question and instead reframes the issue to critique the motives and sincerity of the potential opposition. He doesn't even go on to define what the "motive that is a pretext for not taking reparations seriously" is. What a confounding rhetorical move.
The second of part of Thompson's reply I found to be equally as frustrating, which reads as follows: "Also, when are we done with democracy? When are we done with the work of perfecting our union? When are we done loving? The question itself shows we have not grasped what we are dealing with. Part of what we’re saying is, this is the work of our lives. We’re trying to reframe how the questions are being asked." I struggle to understand why Thompson moves the goal posts from concerns about the extent of reparations payments to the ephemeral ideals of "democracy" and "loving." I find this comparison absurd. The authors themselves state that there exists goals that reparations would be trying to pursue. Why then, do both authors avoid direct engagement with questions about the efficacy of reparations reaching those goals?
Kwon's answer to the same question was just plain confusing. Here I quote from his reply, "The process of reparations will be healing when it includes self-denial and utter relinquishing of control." I admit it, I'm lost. Reparations are a monetary thing, something which is necessarily defined by the policy that implements it. What does "utterly relinquishing control" have to do with making reparations work? If a reparations program is established, people won't comply because of Christian love or morals, they'll comply because (1) it's out of their control and (2) the authorities are well versed in prosecuting people for tax evasion. Now of course, Kwon could be referring to the idea that White people (and other groups, perhaps) will only benefit from a reparations once they learn to apologize and realize the theological value of reparations. This very well may be a valid point, but I'd argue that reparations is not the best way to achieve reconciliation, if that's what the goal is. If the goal is just giving money to African-American communities, then why all the theological maneuvering?
While I do have several other bones to pick with the answers that the authors give throughout the rest of the article, I must leave this comment as it is now. I think it's one of the longest that I've written on your Substack, so I thank you for your patience, Dr. Bennett.
It wouldn't be anything Dr. Bennett related without some work of Ryan Burge or Paul Djupe (or both) showing up. It is rather disturbing to see QAnon so comfortably bandied about in mainstream articles. I almost wish that the whole movement had remained in the shadows, rather than becoming so prevalent, if only so that we wouldn't have to confront the utter inanity of it so often.
I read the interview with authors Kwon and Thompson, and I was curious about an answer that Kwon gives to the question, "What are the strongest arguments you know of against reparations? How would you answer them?" Part of Kwon's answer is that "There’s a strong Christian tradition that restitution is owed even to descendants of victims of theft who have since deceased." I was not aware of this supposedly strong tenet of Christianity. Perhaps he is mistaking the long-obsolete Old Testament laws of the Jewish faith for what is "strong Christian tradition"? Either way, I must admit I'm interested to see how they make this argument in their forthcoming book.
I was also amused at the response that Thompson gives to the question, "I could see someone saying, ‘If we did reparations, at what point would we stop?’ How do you respond to people who believe it can’t practically work?" Though I am usually remiss to apply intent to simple words in an article, I can't help but read a tone of smarminess from his answer. Thompson replies first, "There’s sometimes a motive in that question that’s a pretext for not taking it seriously. 'When are these folks going to be satisfied?' I bet we could ask them." Here, Thompson does a wonderful job of side-stepping the question and instead reframes the issue to critique the motives and sincerity of the potential opposition. He doesn't even go on to define what the "motive that is a pretext for not taking reparations seriously" is. What a confounding rhetorical move.
The second of part of Thompson's reply I found to be equally as frustrating, which reads as follows: "Also, when are we done with democracy? When are we done with the work of perfecting our union? When are we done loving? The question itself shows we have not grasped what we are dealing with. Part of what we’re saying is, this is the work of our lives. We’re trying to reframe how the questions are being asked." I struggle to understand why Thompson moves the goal posts from concerns about the extent of reparations payments to the ephemeral ideals of "democracy" and "loving." I find this comparison absurd. The authors themselves state that there exists goals that reparations would be trying to pursue. Why then, do both authors avoid direct engagement with questions about the efficacy of reparations reaching those goals?
Kwon's answer to the same question was just plain confusing. Here I quote from his reply, "The process of reparations will be healing when it includes self-denial and utter relinquishing of control." I admit it, I'm lost. Reparations are a monetary thing, something which is necessarily defined by the policy that implements it. What does "utterly relinquishing control" have to do with making reparations work? If a reparations program is established, people won't comply because of Christian love or morals, they'll comply because (1) it's out of their control and (2) the authorities are well versed in prosecuting people for tax evasion. Now of course, Kwon could be referring to the idea that White people (and other groups, perhaps) will only benefit from a reparations once they learn to apologize and realize the theological value of reparations. This very well may be a valid point, but I'd argue that reparations is not the best way to achieve reconciliation, if that's what the goal is. If the goal is just giving money to African-American communities, then why all the theological maneuvering?
While I do have several other bones to pick with the answers that the authors give throughout the rest of the article, I must leave this comment as it is now. I think it's one of the longest that I've written on your Substack, so I thank you for your patience, Dr. Bennett.