ing the floodgates to anyone who canrnfind a white ancestor who was an indenturedrnservant during the 17th or 18thrncenturies.rnTo decide who deserves reparations,rnthe government will have to accept thernlogical consequence of a generation of affirmahve-rnaction policy and acknowledgernthe official, statutory establishment of arnfederal system of racial classification,rnpreferably under a board with Cabinetrankrnstatus. Classification would be arnsimple matter, as genetic science is nowrnsufficiently advanced to decide the predominantrnracial identity or geographicalrnorigin of any person. Perhaps this geneticrnidentification could be coded into arnmodified Social Security number or federalrnidentification card.rnWliile there would be ongoing controversyrnover people of half- or quarter-descent,rnthe government would otherwisernhave a rock-solid basis on which to formrnfuture policies, not just in allocatingrnreparations, but in shaping educationrnand welfare policies, designing electoralrndistricts, and so on. For example, wernwould know exactly which people livingrnon the Hawaiian islands are entitled tornshares in the multibillion dollar reparationsrnto be paid by the United States forrnoverthrowing the native monarchy backrnin the 1890’s; or which self-described ‘Indians”rncould legitimately claim some ofrnthe wealth pouring in from the casinornboom on reservations. American politicsrncould move smoothly toward the kind ofrnefficient classification proposed underrnthe Nuremberg race laws and debated inrnsuch celebrated historical documents asrnthe proceedings of the Wannsee conference.rn(But what about Jews of “threequarterrndescent”? How about “half-rnJews,” mischlings?)rnI wish I were joking about some ofrnthese trends, but I’m not. For the Indianrnexample, see Jeff Benedict’s book WithoutrnReservation (HarperCollins, 2000), arnshocking study of how the federal governmentrndecided that an ill-assorted bunchrnof Connecticut families suddenly declaringrnthemselves to be “Mashantucket PequotrnIndians” was in fact a lost tribe, entitledrnto all the rights and privileges thatrncome with tribal status —including permissionrnto build and run the Foxwoodsrncasino, currently one of the biggest money-rnmakers in the hemisphere. LikernAfrican-American reparations, the Indianrnand Hawaiian cases represent the growingrntendency to award rights on the basisrnof descent and genetics, an idea that isrnunconstitutional, immoral, and (doesrnanyone remember the word?) un-American.rnA reparations bill would open wide therndoors to all manner of subsequentrnclaims, to the extent that our emergingrnsystem of race law would be driven to thernpoint of collapse, which is where it belongs.rnWithout race law, we might havernto learn to live in a colorblind society,rnwhere everyone, regardless of geneticrnmakeup, is regarded as equally entitled torncertain basic rights, including life, liberty,rnand the pursuit of happiness. Itrnsounds radical, but it just might work.rnAs an added bonus, a reparations debaternmight limit the endless spiral of guiltrnand apology. Paying Japanese-Americansrnfor internment during World War IIrnmight, arguably, have been justified, butrnlook where we have gone since then.rnConnoisseurs of political eccentricityrnfound a rare treasure in a report issuedrnthis past July by a special internationalrnpanel formed by the Organization ofrnAfrican Unity to examine the genocide inrnRwanda, where members of the Huturntribe massacred several hundred thousandrnrival Tutsis. The panel demandedrnpayment of a “significant level of reparations”rnby the United States and France,rnon the grounds that they had failed tornprevent the tragedy. In the words of thernCanadian spokesman, only such gigabucksrncould possibly purge “an almost incomprehensiblernscar of shame on Americanrnforeign policy.” In other words, thernUnited States should pay for doing nothingrnin a situation it had nothing to dornwith. Is the syntax of that last sentencernany more bizarre than the idea it expresses?rnExtending this principle, we could seerna good deal of money changing hands internationallyrnin the future: money paidrnby Canada, say, to apologize for not preventingrnthe Chinese conquest of Tibet;rnby France, for its failure to save Atiantarnfrom Sherman; and several trillion dollarsrnworth of amnesty payments from thernArab world to the African regions fromrnwhich it raided slaves for over half a millennium.rn(Which raises an interestingrnquestion; Wlien I note black faces in thernUnited States or the Caribbean, 1 can seernthe living descendants of the Atlanticrnslave trade, but where is the comparablernblack population in the Near East? Justrnhow many of the Arabs’ millions of slavesrnsurvived to bear children?)rnIn short, a reparations debate wouldrnimmensely benefit the United States byrnraising countless delicate questionsrnwhich need to be explored. We knowrnthat people believe this outrageous nonsense:rnLef s force them to say these thingsrnout loud. A reparations measure wouldrnalmost certainly stir a general reactionrnthat would have positive effects. And if itrndidn’t—if the political elite were allowedrnto get away with this atrocity, with nornmore than token protests—that would atrnleast prove, once and for all, that Americanrndemocracy is too far gone to be worthrnsaving. It would be nice to know oncernand for all.rnPhilip Jenkins is Distinguished Professorrnof History and Religious Studies atrnPennsylvania State University.rnThe Case forrnAnonymous Artrnby Peter LauriernFor all of living memory, they havernbeen making this wilderness andrncalling it art. If you were there in Paris, asrnI was, for the public sale of the Picassornlegacy belonging to the artist’s mistressrnand model Dora Maar, you would knowrnwhereof I speak.rnThe masterpiece of this collection,rnWeeping Woman, probably the most repulsivernwork in portraiture up to its timern(though successfully emulated since), inspiredrnan hysteria of greed. Both thernpainting and its sale must rank as highwaterrnmarks in the incarnation of thernhideous, the ongoing search for an idealrnugliness to characterize our time.rnIn this painting, Picasso has outdonernhimself, insulting his subject, the art ofrnportraiture, all the artistic ideals of thernWest, and life itself And it is not wellrnpainted. Which is to say one would bernhard put to imagine paint laid to canvasrnin some less painterly way. That he madernmyriads of such paragons of anticraftsmanshiprncan only imply that (beyond hisrncontempt for his patrons) Picasso loathedrnhimselfrnThere is a term for this state of soul,rntaedium vitae, for which our word “tedium”rnwould seem too neutral. What itrnreally means is that one abominates life.rnNOVEMBER 2000/45rnrnrn