The argument functions as a conversation-stopper. It holds that opposing reparations implicitly endorses the institution of slavery itself. To reject the remedy, in this framing, is to reject the acknowledgment of the wrong. Anyone who questions reparations is thereby signalling that they do not believe slavery was wrong, or that its victims do not deserve justice. The logical conclusion is that decent people cannot oppose reparations, and those who do must be acting from morally compromised motives.
The argument is deployed widely and effectively. It shuts down debate by pre-emptively characterising critics as defenders of indefensible positions. It conflates two separate questions, whether slavery was wrong and whether this specific remedy is appropriate, into one, making it impossible to hold the first position without also accepting the second. In its strongest form, it suggests that even asking questions about the reparations mechanism is a form of racial bad faith.
The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Apia in October 2024 agreed to language about “forging a common future based on equity” partly because this argument makes it politically very difficult for governments to refuse any engagement with the reparations question. The asymmetry created by the argument, where any position short of full agreement is labelled as slavery apologism, has been effective in moving the political conversation.
