Due to Justice and the Politics of Difference, I do think Marlon Young’s critique of the distributive paradigm does apply to the argument of Hirschl, Shachar and Coates. Young’s explanation of the injustices in the distributive paradigm are correct because “philosophical theories of justice tend to restrict the meaning of social justice to the morally proper distribution of benefits and burdens among society 's members” (page 15). The distributive paradigm only confronts the individual materialistic aspect of social justice (i.e. property, resources, and wealth) while ignoring its unfair institutional structures. Some of these institutional structures include, but are not limited to, decision-making authority, the hierarchy of labor, and culture.
…show more content…
The validity and importance of their argument is more easily understood while looking at Young’s work on the distributive paradigm. For example, living in America as a Black American but also being a child of Haitian immigrants has caused me to relate deeply with these authors. Although France’s attempt at enslaving Haiti was not as successful as the United States attempt with Black Americans, the birthright theory still applies. Due to the fact that my family’s lineage traces back to Haiti’s slavery era; my property inheritance was stolen, looted, and embezzled from my ancestry. As a result, my parents inherited little from their elders; therefore, I will inherit little from them compared to my White counterparts who benefitted from slavery. More importantly, my parents’ property inheritance was greatly devalued by Haiti’s economic status as a third world country. Therefore, as their child my birthright citizenship “excludes” and “ignores” the aforementioned hardship placed on my ancestors. In comparison, this connects to Coates case for reparation for Black Americans. Even though Coates only advocates for the reparations of African Americans, I believe reparations should be extended to all countries who were historically enslaved. More importantly, unlike Shachar and Hirschl, I believe reparations should not be repaid through a universal levy but by the offenders who created socioeconomic havoc and chaos for these societies; through slavery or other means (i.e.
The validity and importance of their argument is more easily understood while looking at Young’s work on the distributive paradigm. For example, living in America as a Black American but also being a child of Haitian immigrants has caused me to relate deeply with these authors. Although France’s attempt at enslaving Haiti was not as successful as the United States attempt with Black Americans, the birthright theory still applies. Due to the fact that my family’s lineage traces back to Haiti’s slavery era; my property inheritance was stolen, looted, and embezzled from my ancestry. As a result, my parents inherited little from their elders; therefore, I will inherit little from them compared to my White counterparts who benefitted from slavery. More importantly, my parents’ property inheritance was greatly devalued by Haiti’s economic status as a third world country. Therefore, as their child my birthright citizenship “excludes” and “ignores” the aforementioned hardship placed on my ancestors. In comparison, this connects to Coates case for reparation for Black Americans. Even though Coates only advocates for the reparations of African Americans, I believe reparations should be extended to all countries who were historically enslaved. More importantly, unlike Shachar and Hirschl, I believe reparations should not be repaid through a universal levy but by the offenders who created socioeconomic havoc and chaos for these societies; through slavery or other means (i.e.