Initiated "Reparations" Programs in the U.S. 2020-2022: An Analysis of the Twitter Discourse


Jenny Nilsson, York University

The redress of historical racism has since the 1800s concerned a debate about reparations. While there is currently a vivid discussion both in activist, media, and academic spheres about attitudes toward potential reparations, few studies have looked at the discourse on the “reparative” programs that have already been initiated. In this study, I am analyzing the discourse surrounding self-declared reparative programs executed by six local governments in the U.S. between 2020 and 2022. These programs are mainly implementing monetary compensation and financial investments toward Black communities. Most initiatives claim to concern slavery reparations, and one initiative claims to address the demolishment of a Black neighborhood. I am utilizing data from approximately 1,000 tweets on Twitter, which I gather manually and analyze in NVivo. Employing a grounded theory approach, I am in the process of exploring the themes of the data from two theoretical lenses. First, utilizing the value-belief-norm (VBN) theory (Stern et al., 1999), I am exploring how attitudes towards these initiatives may vary. VBN is a useful theory for exploring support of social movements and has mainly been used to study support of the environmental movement. The theory rests on three pillars, namely (1) acceptance of the movement’s basic values, (2) recognition of threat or oppression of the movement’s subject, and (3) the belief that one’s action can make a difference which they feel obliged to contribute with. Using this framework, I am affirming that these reparative programs are a question of the reparations movement, as they are highly debated within the movement. They are endorsed by some and critiqued by others. Second, drawing from collective memory theory (Halbwachs, [1941] 2008), I am exploring how the atrocities to be redressed are described by users. Through this framework, I can investigate how different groups’ collective memories of slavery and other historical atrocities addressed in the programs may take the form of rites to uphold specific narratives (ibid.). Through connecting these two theories, I am able to study attitudes and (non-)support towards the initiated reparation programs, with particular emphasis on how collective memory may inform recognition of past atrocities. Initial findings in the early stages of my thematic analysis suggest that while the discourse on these initiatives concerns critique by both Black-presenting and White-presenting users, there are differences. Black users express concerns about the robustness of the programs, while White users tend to echo their general views of reparations. Implications for how these attitudes relate to collective memory will be further explored. This study highlights an understudied dimension of Americans’ attitudes towards specific reparative initiatives by exploring their views on already initiated government-level projects rather than their broader attitude towards future federal-level reparations. Moreover, the programs analyzed also bring attention to specific, local cases of atrocity, in contrast to the mainstream debate on reparations in media, where a more general language about atrocities tends to be used. In turn, this enables an analysis of the public’s attitudes toward very specific concerns addressed in these programs. Specifically, it enables an analysis of what can be understood as several layered aspects of the legacy of slavery and anti-Black segregation in the U.S. I hope that this presentation can contribute to fruitful discussions in the “Remember the Bad Times: Collective Memory and Crisis” session at the CSA. My study is particularly relevant for the second inquiry of the session as it directly explores how collective memories of oppression facing Black communities in the U.S. may inform attitudes toward reparations.

This paper will be presented at the following session: