The debate over reparations has been a generational narrative. The concept of paying guilt surcharges for the nation’s past with slavery is one of those concepts that is simple in the proposal stage but becomes a Rubik’s Cube inside a Gordian knot in terms of theoretical implementation.

Who gets the money and who pays it is the first issue. It is a Sins of Our Fathers argument that itself carries ethical problems. To get around that thorny reality, it is said this needs to be doled out because the nation thrived on the forced labor of others.

These, and far more complex issues, are why reparations continue to be talked about – and just talked about. But despite this immovable nature, it is a topic cropping up in this midterm election cycle. During Abdul El-Sayed’s interview on Monday with Jesse Watters, the topic came up and the Senate candidate talked of the need to address reparations.

At least…to a degree. “I think we need to have an honest conversation about the incredible debt that was put upon Black folks as a function of slavery, that we have yet to pay.” Again, talking is all that is possible.

As this was being reported, Will Chamberlin, responding to a video of El-Sayed repeating this pro-payout position, turned the discussion in a contemporary fashion. “I totally agree,” he wrote in a post, “American Muslims like Abdul need to pay reparations to the families of the victims of 9/11 and the soldiers who lost their lives in the war on terror.”

Clearly, he was placing those provocative words in a snare. Mehdi Hasan rode in and promptly consumed the bait.

In his rush to slam the theory and resorting to an instantaneous charge of racism in the process, Hasan may not realize he just blasted the arguments for reparations into confetti. And also completely dismantled his own prior positions on the matter.

It was just this past December when Hasan engaged in a debate with British theologian and author from Oxford, Nigel Biggar. The two men sat for a forum on the topic, since Biggar released the book Reparations. Slavery and the Tyranny of Imaginary Guilt.

At the heart of the book, and hence the debate, was the concept of collective societal guilt as the means to justify the reparations payout. Biggar’s larger point is that contemporary citizens should not endure this guilt over a centuries-old practice. Hasan countered this with a pedantic argument.

He asked Biggar if he felt pride in England defeating the Nazis, and when told “yes” it meant that if the pride was said to be legitimate, then the guilt over slavery is equally valid. His attempt here was to say any collective emotion in society needs to be acknowledged, and this justifies the need for reparations.

Now today Hasan is saying the polar opposite. Since the attacks on 9-11 were made in the name of Islam, it would track with his previous position that those following Islam should bear the guilt and responsibility for the attacks. But instead, he holds that you cannot say all Muslims are guilty, because not all Muslims were responsible for or in favor of the terror attacks.

OK Mehdi, now apply that rationale to slavery. Not everyone in the country favored its use. Slavery was a hotly debated topic in this nation before it was a nation. Many Founders from the northern colonies were already lobbying to end the practice, and it was a debated topic at the Constitutional Convention. The Three-Fifths Compromise and the fact that the word “slavery” was intentionally avoided so it would not be codified (with other fluid language used to allow future expulsion) were problematic resolutions made to achieve ratification.

You could also bring up the vast amount of Union soldiers who fought for the purpose of bringing about abolition. Yet today Hasan holds that all Americans and British subjects should tote the responsibility via reparations. It is a pat proposal that contains a matrix of complex issues with application.

The basic concept is that all Black Americans should get a check cut by the government, but what is the agreed-upon figure, and how is it portioned? Would those Black people in successful positions be exempted, as they do not seem to have endured the social blockades to success claimed to exist? And why are all white Americans on the hook when it can be argued that not all are reaping the alleged benefits? Do those toiling in low-income jobs shoulder the financial responsibility when they do not appear to be benefiting?

Another matter is demanding a fiscal payout from those who it can be shown were not recipients of the benefits from the slave trade. My forebears, as one example, were Dutch butchers and came to this country decades after abolition. They had no jobs, no homes, and could not speak the language. How did they have an advantage over those already in the country who possessed those elements?

There is one compelling debate point that might sway the minds of those opposing the reparations theory. As El-Sayed explained, “It’s important for our country to have a conversation about how do we make people whole.” If that is the result, there is some motivation possibly found.

Would there be a way to ensure that if reparations were paid out, it would bring to an end the persistent talk of our dark history and the slavery-induced hardship? If that were guaranteed, you could motivate some folks over to your side. But I think we all know this would be a most unlikely result. The lure of activist outrage going forward is just too great.