Warning to liberals: clear thinking, moral clarity, and political incorrectness up ahead! If you consider any part of the following to be 'racist' or 'hateful' then you are in dire need, not of refutation, but of psychotherapy. Please seek it for your own good.
There is no question but that slavery is a great moral evil. But are American blacks owed reparations for the slavery that was officially ended by the ratification of the 13th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution over 145 years ago on 6 December 1865? I cannot see that any rational case for black reparations can be made. Indeed, it seems to me that a very strong rational case can be made against black reparations. The following argument seems to me decisive:
1. All of the perpetrators of the crimes associated with slavery in the U.S. are dead.
2. All of the victims of the crimes associated with slavery in the U.S. are dead.
3. Only those who are victims of a crime are entitled to reparations for the crime, and only those who are the perpetrators of a crime are obliged to pay reparations for it.
Therefore
4. No one now living is entitled to receive reparations for the crimes associated with slavery in the U.S., and no one now living is obliged to pay reparations.
It is clear, I hope, that a collectivity such as the white race, whatever the exact ontological status to be ascribed to this collectivity, cannot possibly have moral obligations. Only a person can have moral obligations, and whatever the white race is, it is not a person. And the same goes for the black race. Whatever it is, it is not a person; hence it is not entitled to awards or damages for crimes.
The first premise of my argument cannot be denied since it records a simple empirical fact. The second premise might be disputed by saying that the victims include not only those who were enslaved, but also their descendants, who suffered the consequences of their ancestors' being enslaved. But although it is arguable that the early descendants of slaves are secondary victims of slavery, it is not plausibly arguable that the currently living descendants of slaves are also victims. So even if the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of slaves can be accounted victims of slavery, victim status is not ascribable to blacks presently alive.
But even if it is maintained that (2) is false, this premise is not needed to generate the second conjunct of (4), namely, no one now living is obliged to pay reparations. And this suffices to refute the very notion of black reparations.
(3) does not record an empirical fact, but expresses a moral principle. It strikes me, however, as self-evident. If A steals B's property, for example, it is just that A be forced to make restitution, and it is just that B receive his property back. But it would surely be unjust, and indeed morally absurd, to force C to make restitution to B, or, even worse, to D. Imagine a judge ordering that, since Kramer stole George's DVD player, Jerry should make restitution to Newman.
But it is that sort of moral absurdity that is involved in the very notion of black reparations. It is absurd to demand that first or second generation Polish Americans pay reparations for pre-1865 slavery in the U. S. to blacks who recently came from Jamaica, or worse, are descended from blacks who themselves held slaves. (There were black slaveholders in the U.S.!) Indeed it is racist to ignore the specifics of injury and focus the issue on race alone. It is morally absurd to think that the mere fact that X is black entitles him to reparations or that the mere fact that Y is white obliges him to pay them.
There are many more arguments that can be given against black reparations — see David Horowitz, Uncivil Wars — but they are unnecessary once one grasps the simple and decisive argument just given.