Has anyone disputing Horowitz et. al. taken the time to point out that a major reason Africa is underdeveloped is because millions of people were seized and forcibly "exported" from that continent over a period of several hundred years?
Also, shouldn't the debate on reparations for African-Americans be placed in the context of the worldwide legacy of imperialism? I have a hunch (note sarcasm: I have a good deal more than a hunch) that a lot of African-American radicals, including but not limited to the BRC, are doing exactly this, but you wouldn't know that from following the debate on this list.
I think that this is a key point in assessing whether the fight for reparations is a politically efficacious tack to take. I would argue that it is not only politically wise, but absolutely necessary, to talk about reparations if we're going to address the global imbalance of power that we all presumably want to overturn. After all, isn't Jubilee 2000 a worthy enterprise? And isn't our argument just as effective -- perhaps even moreso -- when we start raising the question of who REALLY owes a debt to WHOM? Is Mozambique really "indebted" to the IFIs, or might it not be the case that a debt is owed to Mozambique, for the years of subversion by RENAMO, South Africa, the USA et. al., not to mention the hundreds of years of imperialism and systematic exploitation?
It's inane to observe that reparations are not politically acceptable in the current political atmosphere of the United States. Very little that people on the left favor is politically feasible in the near future in the US, but trying to effect systemic change is never easy, right? Or am I just a starry-eyed youth to be dismissed by the world-wise likes of Leo Casey?
John Lacny