On Reparations

Today I was watching Due Process, a legal show on channel 8 here in Northern New Jersey and there was Ron Daniels and Stanley Crouch discussing reparations. Ron Daniels was doing his thing and Stanley Crouch was, well, doing his. This is not going to be a recap of the discussion that happened on that show but rather I'm going to throw in my opinion on the matter.

The first thing that many people who are opposed to reparations as it concerns black folk in the US. is that we blacks now, aren't and have never been slaves. A logical point, to a point.

If, at the end of the Civil War, the US made good on the forty Acres and a Mule proposition, the entire reparations movement would have had one of it's legs knocked out from under it. This is an important point. It was clear to those proposing forty Acres and a Mule that in order for the African to "make it" in America, they needed to move from being dispossessed to asset holders. Hence the forty acres would be a means by which the emancipated African (And you''ll note I did not say "slave") would be able to stake property claims in America and have a source to secure funding.

The mule in the forty acres proposition would represent a means of gaining income. Most blacks at the time being involved in agriculture would naturally be suited to start in that area. Again by having assets, the African would be given a "leg up" out of dispossession and put on the same level as other immigrants. However; the forty acres proposition was not carried out and therefore the US government passed on the opportunity to deal with reparations directly to those emancipated at the time. Since the claim of reparations in the US goes back at least that far, the failure to resolve the issue is not the fault of the current claimants but rather the fault of the US Government. Therefore any person who objects to current blacks maintaining the claim to reparations ought not fault the blacks doing so, but rather ought to blame the US government for stalling.

The second argument, usually proffered by whites is that their ancestors came to America after slavery was abolished and therefore they should not have to pay for something they nor their ancestors had anything to do with.

There are any number of responses to this point. One point, which can seem callous to some would be "tough shit". Everyday the American tax payer pays for stuff he or she doesn't agree with. The Iraq war comes to mind. Public funding for "racist" politicians comes to mind. So really I could say I'm not much concerned with whether whites don't particularly "like" having to pay for something they didn't agree to or have a part in.

Another, less callous point would be that depending on when one's ancestors came to America, they quickly benefited from the racial hierarchy that placed blacks at the bottom of the employment and opportunity ladder. Though groups such as Italians and Irish were initially deemed "not white" they eventually earned their "white stripes" and fell in line with the benefits offered whites. This includes all material, economic and social benefits that has largely resulted in the current economic situation in which whites have far greater wealth than blacks. It should also be noted that the public school system which many whites, including immigrants, benefitted from was the act of the black congressmen from the reconstruction era. So while these "never owned a slave" whites were benefitting from their new whiteness, black were being Jim Crowed and discriminated against.

This brings us to the next argument which is that "slavery happened a long time ago".

The problem with this answer, as discussed before is that the reparations movement is for damages inclusive of slavery but now expanded into the legal disenfranchisement of blacks that followed emancipation. As I pointed out before, had the US government made good on the forty acres, then this may not have been a point. The legal discrimination of blacks in education, living and economic opportunities is legendary. We aren't just talking about the black poor, but even the doctors, lawyers and teachers and the like were circumscribed in their opportunities simply because they were black. That the one group of people who have been in the US since it's inception are not the founding owners of huge industries in manufacturing and banking and the like is a clear example of this. So the claim here is about slavery the Jim Crow that followed it and it's repercussions.

The next common argument is that "blacks have it good now".

Well OK. Jews have it pretty good too. Apparently the "doing pretty good argument" didn't apply to them so why apply it to black folk? Well the reason for this was discussed above with the "blacks now aren't slaves" point. But besides that point, blacks as a whole in American society represent a disproportionate amount of the poor in America. Even if we weren't disproportionately poor, the argument still wouldn't wash because the current state of the claimant does not negate the claim. Could you imagine a the court in the say OJ Simpson civil case that since the Brown family was pretty much well off, that they couldn't make any claim against OJ? And no this isn't a referendum on OJ, just an example. Therefore legally, even if blacks were over-represented in the top earners and wealth, we STILL could make the claim for reparations. I will be generous and state that most people, including most whites have absolutely no clue as to how, as a group, white Americans have far more wealth than black Americans. Many whites, when they do see blacks see Oprah and Hip Hop artists on TV and think that black people must have it good. Or they see their black co-workers who has spent much of their money on material items that depreciate and think that they wish they had (put item here) failing to realize that odds are that the black person is all flash. That doesn't mean there aren't well off blacks. But as I said before, the existence of Oprahs and Bob Johnson's are beside the point.

The last point I want to address is the "They'll just spend it on dumb ish"

Well there are a number of ways to answer that. The first is in line with a point I made above: It's not your business how the reparations are spent IF given as individual checks. Again, imagine if the judge in the OJ civil trial told the brown family that they could only have the money if they agreed to spend it in a manner the judge approved of. Utterly ridiculous. But I will agree that individual checks would be a bad idea. The reason for this is that I fear that if individuals are given checks the result will be a net transfer of wealth to white Americans. By that I mean that by and large the holders of mortgages, supermarkets, etc are non-blacks. Since many of these essential services and goods have to be acquired then a large amount of this money could very well find its way right back into non-black hands. Since a record number of blacks are in debt (along with many other Americans) Banks would also probably be the recipients of individual money. Therefore it would probably be a bad idea to give money out to individuals. Instead I agree with those that say such money should go into institutions to be used in such a manner as to keep such money within' black communities and institutions. I think such finds should be available to primarily boost education at all levels, though that should be the primary responsibility of the government (since it mandates primary and secondary education). But I would like to see a Higher Ed and Trade School funding made available. I'm also amenable to small business loans though that has it's risk since 75% of all startups fail. I was also considering housing subsidies in terms of home purchases but I'm worried that people will use such subsidies to get into homes they cannot afford. That may not be any of my business, but it's a concern.

Overall though, even if cheques are given to individuals if they blow it on dumb ish, the businesses that get that money will benefit and that will be the loss of the individual who then cannot complain. In the end, reparations in whatever form is the right thing to do irrespective of the opinions of the detractors. For those black folk who are opposed to reparations, I suggest a nice national registry for the objectors to make sure they are unable to participate and that their share is redistributed to others.