As part of America's on-going racial controversies, there is one issue that continues to rear its head on a regular basis-black reparations. In other words, should present-day African-Americans be granted some sort of monetary compensation for the institution of slavery that ended in 1865 upon the conclusion of the Civil War? Within Congress, black Democratic Congressman, John Conyers of Michigan, has been the leading proponent of this idea. While I would concede that we are still plagued with the legacy of slavery even today, I still feel that reparations is a bad idea.
Many African-American supporters of reparations use the Japanese-American experience during World War II as an example. Several years ago, Congress granted a payment of $20,000 to each surviving Japanese-American who had been interned during the war. In my mind, this amount was insufficient for the deprivation of their liberty based solely on their Japanese heritage. History has shown that the internment was a great mistake since not one case of disloyalty was ever shown against those who were interned-and lost their homes and businesses as a result. However, here is the great difference: In the case of the Japanese-Americans, reparations were paid to the actual persons who were victims. In the case of slaves, it is sadly way too late. They are long dead. Were they still alive, I would argue that this country owes them a life of luxury for the remaining years they would have. Unfortunately, that is not possible. I cannot make that argument for those black people living 150 years later.
But let us say that we decide to grant reparations to today's generation of African-Americans. Would we do it on a one-time basis? That would be difficult. If we can justify giving reparations to American blacks 150+ years after the end of slavery, how can we refuse the next generation of blacks, not yet born? Or the next? When would it end? Lawyers in the next generation and the next would win every case they brought to court based on a grant of reparations today.
Then, if we did decide in favor of reparations, which individuals would be affected? For example, what about mixed-race persons? Do we investigate their family trees to determine just how black they are? Do we give a 50% grant to those who are of black/white parentage? How about black/Asian parentage, such as Tiger Woods? Obviously, this would create a nightmare that only a new bureaucracy could deal with. Do we really want to investigate peoples' family trees like the Nazis did trying to root out Jewish heritage?
Then, what about blacks whose heritage includes immigrants from the Caribbean or Africa, post-slavery? What do we do with them? From whom are Jamaican immigrants due reparations- Britain?
Let us also not forget that many non-black Americans are not descended from the days of slavery. For example, what about the children of immigrants who came here after slavery ended? What about Asian Americans, Arab Americans or Latin Americans? What is their debt to African-Americans? I would argue none.
That leads to the final argument. Reparations could only lead to further divisiveness among Americans of all races. That is the last thing this country needs. Furthermore, the last thing black America needs is the continuation of the negative stereotype about blacks as a people who need a handout. In the end, reparations would prove to be a disservice to blacks.
True reparations should simply be a reaffirmation of the principle that all Americans are equal and should be afforded equal opportunity (small case e and o) to succeed- or fail on their own merits. If we can do that much, then that would be the greatest tribute to those slaves whose lives were taken away from them in a different era.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
For the most part I agree with you. I think its just a running joke in the black community about wanting a big fat check. That's preposterous and anyone who would suggest that government do so is rife with ignorance and needs to get a quick lesson in macroeconomics.
I think reparations were appropriate in the form of Affirmative Action programs, and the institution of government subsidied watch dog programs that will look out for "the least of these" who simply can't get a break in life.
I know some people don't want to hear that it all goes back to slavery, but it really does. It's just a sad fact of life. Black folk were getting along just fine back in Africa until Europeans showed up in West Africa and discovered gold. Would I want to move "back to Africa" in that sense--NOPE, this is the evidence of Africa after Europeans showed up.
I hope that the reaffirmation wouldn't simply be some hollow words spoken on MLK's birthday and never mentioned again until next year.
Yes, it does go back to slavery in many respects, but I think not all (I am referring to the dramatic rise in illigitimacy since the institution of welfare programs in the 60s.) Lyndon Johnson was a great figure in Civil Rights history in my view, but welfare caused a lot of long-term damage even if it kept many afloat.
As for Affirmative Action, it may have been necessary at one point, but I question whether it has outlived it's usefulness. It does carry a kind of stigmatization with it-one that says a person can't do it alone with AA. I guess this partly goes to Geraldine Ferraro's comment about Obama.
You know, I learned a lot about slavery when I was researching my
2nd book, "The story of Papiamentu-a study in slavery and language."
As you probably know, slavery had existed in Africa for centuries before the Portuguese arrived on the coast of W Africa. African tribes were capturing members of rival tribes and dealing them to Arabs-then later Europeans. They would transport them to the forts on the W African coast and sell them to the Euros. It was gold in the Americas sought by Spain and sugar in Brazil under the Portuguese that fueled the demand for labor.
After the Euros/Americans abolished slavery in the 19th century, it continued in parts of Africa-and still does today.
But as I said, I am sure you know that.
Numbers that I am aware of have more whites on welfare roles, if no other reason than the fact that whites outnumber blacks in this country. But, we don't cover the poor whites living in Appalachia of the mountains of Montana, Idaho or those farmers of North Dakota and Nebraska and Kansas who quite often receive federal moneys to surive or not plant certain crops respectively.
Furthermore, I'd question the ultimate goal of the government. Truthfully, one of the qualifications of federal aid was to be single. This was something that was in place shortly after The Great Depression and the WWII generation. I just question was this nothing more than the government carrying out slave society tactics of dividing families.
And it must, MUST be noted that the chattel slavery that was practiced by the Europeans was NOT the type of slavery that was practiced by that of the tribes of the West Coast of Africa. Yes, slavery is and was slavery, but Europeans tried and were quite sucessful at breaking the mindset of Africans stolen and sold from the West Coast.
I mean, in acutality, the intertribal disputes that resulted in slaves being exchanged did NOT include a Middle Passage nor the seasoning process where minds were broken and had to endure the indoctrinating views from white slave masters. Yes, they were looking for free labor in the Americas but, how convenient that they stumbled upon the willing Africans. Granted that the Portuguese built Elmina Castle in 1482 in Ghana with rooms designated as chambers to hold gold originally, but once that was depleted, slaves proved to be profitable.
Additionally, as the Atlantic Slave Trade officially stopped in 1808 by Britain and the 1820's (I belive) in the United States; abolished 1865 with the U.S. and 1888 with Brazil, it was also in 1888 that Europe decided to try out imperialism in Africa and Asia. I mean as this "slavery" existed, Europe was still there and if they were there for such noble purposes, they certainly did a horrible job of curbing such injustices.
I guess I'm saying all of this to suggest that, 150 years or so after slavery has ended, and really since 1965, have we really begun the road to healing all of the deep, nearly fatal wounds. Slavery was a metaphorical train wreck which caused massive internal bleeding, severe cerebral damage and damage to major internal organs, and it wasn't until 1965 that black America was taken off of the ventilator and is breathing on our own. But we're still in a comatose state--no one should expect that a 400 year history should be dealt with adequately in 40 years.
Agreed, we should not pay farmers not to plant crops.
My point about the African slave trade was that some Africans were complicit in the slavery of other Africans. Be that as it may, we can both agree it was one of the worst atrocities in world history.
As for the welfare of the 60s onward, I don't think there was an intention to break up black families, I just think it was an unintended consequence.
As for your last paragraph, I don't argue that slavery has no impact on today- I imagine that for blacks, just being aware of the history has an effect on one's attitude. It still affects white guilt.
I do have one question, however. Since our history is what it is-where do we go from here? More importantly, where do African-Americans go from here? We all have our own lives to live as successfully as we can. My point is that I would hate to see anyone go through life thinking they can't make it in America. It would only become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Post a Comment