The Sensitive Subject of Reparations

HR 40, the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act, has been introduced in every Congressional Session, without success, since 1989.  The bill does not spell out a remedy and does not come with a meaningful fiscal price tag attached to it.  It is simply a proposed commission charged with laying out the history of slavery, its impacts, and suggestions for how to right this wrong, a wrong defined by James Madison as America’s “original sin.” Why is Congress so afraid, you might say terrorized, by the prospect of letting light shine on this troublesome issue?

There are likely two main reasons for this, represented by statements like those that follow, one strategic and one simply ignorant.  Mitch McConnell, when he was majority leader in the Senate, said: “We tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a Civil War, by passing landmark civil rights legislation, elected an African American president. I don’t think we should be trying to figure out how to compensate for it.”  McConnell’s words are interesting.  By quoting Madison, he allows for the inference that the original sin of slavery was overcome through the bloody baptism of the Civil War, the attempts to legislate equality, and the election of an African-American to the highest executive office of the land.  Having been baptized, the inference is that we are “born again” and “saved,” so no further action is necessary. Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, when referring to slavery, stated “As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built.” Yes, necessary if your primary job as a legislator is to promote and protect this country’s oligarchy.

And just as these statements represent expressions of politically strategic thinking, followed by an expression of truthful, yet ignorant, reasoning, so too are the main reasons for opposing even the formation of a commission based upon strategy and ignorance.  Both must be addressed.

In terms of political strategy, McConnell’s statement is meant to resonate with a political base that is made up of many elements: those who feel entitled to whatever social, political and economic benefits they enjoy; those who believe that whatever they have, they have earned; those who solemnly memorialize the loss of Southern lives in the Civil War and now celebrate White nationalist calls for a return to  “blood and soil;” those who feel aggrieved by what they see as reverse discrimination based upon 1960s civil rights acts; those who believe that Blacks and other minorities should just “get over it,” since this country elected a Black president. 

But there’s more to the political strategy embodied in McConnell’s preemptive statement.  Think of it in this way.  Assume, for illustration, that the Unites States has 100 people with a combined wealth of $100.  Assume further that the wealth of the United States was laid out as food on a banquet table.  The table is large, but the seating and eating arrangements are oddly skewed.    About 90% of the table has 80% of the food.  There are 10 seats for the 10 people who sit at that part of the table.  For the remaining 10% of the table there are 90 seats but only 20% of the food.  To take this one step further, for the food available at the overcrowded part of the table, a bit less than half of those people vying for the available food are not entitled to sit at the table. They are not permitted to sit at the table because they have negative wealth.  They have to be invited and provided with charity or government passes before they can eat.  Of course, those who are sitting at that end of the table without passes look upon those with taxpayer-subsidized passes with contempt.

Let’s take this one step further.  The racial configuration at that part of the table with 20% of the food has a wealth disparity roughly equal to the overall wealth disparity in the country.  Those seated at that end of the table who are white have about 10 times the amount of wealth, and therefore ten times the claim for the available food, as those who are Black and brown.  So now we get to the political implications of reparations, namely that reparations for slavery will not be possible if we maintain the current status of our political economy. That is a major reason why it has not garnered substantial support up to now.

      First, given current power sharing arrangements in this country, the first aspect of inequality that will resonate with our “leaders” is racial wealth disparity, when and if they are forced to consider reparations.  For example, in 2016, as mentioned above, the average wealth of a White family was about ten times the wealth of a Black family.  The arguments that go into the reparations debate feed well into this statistic.   Due to slavery and historic discrimination, Whites had opportunities for jobs, housing, educational assistance, government jobs, social security, unemployment benefits, union benefits and more that was not available to people of color.  This makes for a convenient excuse to keep the discussion on one side of the table.  Some likely and actual arguments to ensue: “Money will not do.  We need a check PLUS.”  “Money, wealth, land – we deserve it all.  We built this country!”  “As New York State legislator, Charles Barron says, just give us the South.  We built it!”  “Black history in this country is mistakenly said to have started in the 16^th or 17^th Century, but that is a falsehood.  Our history pre-dates our bondage.  If not for slavery, we would have inherited the legacy and wealth of the African kingdoms we were part of.  Reparations to make up for slavery would only scratch the surface of what we are owed!”  “Why did the Jews get reparations, and the Japanese as well?  Why don’t we get the same respect as a people?  Is it because to give us what we deserve would bankrupt the country?”

      The quotes from above are paraphrases from an online podcast from the group that put together an independent film entitled Betrayal of a Nation, which streams later this month (2/26/21).  The film puts this country on trial for all its past crimes, thus serving to showcase the history of racism in this country.  The comments above will shock many, if not most, White people who see themselves a “liberals.”  It will likely anger Whites who see themselves as an aggrieved and shrinking majority.  Yet regardless of outcome, this history, this sentiment, and the anger underlying it must be allowed to come out if there is to be an honest discussion of race and reconciliation in this country.  But back to the table.

      If our focus was to be on the racial wealth gap, then the resolution would be housed at that part of the table with 20% of all the wealth in this country.  Requiring those with about 17% of the wealth in this country to give up about 40% of their wealth to reach racial wealth equality, would that be possible without starting a civil war?  The question answers itself, especially in light of the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol Building.  And this brings us to the second dilemma: can reparations be restricted to those descended from slaves, or would they need to be extended to those who are simply defined as Black?  Would demands for reparations end there?

      Angela Davis, in her book Freedom is a Constant Struggle, illustrates the dilemma well when she states that “the Black radical tradition is related not simply to Black people but to all people who are struggling for freedom.”  Unless current calls for reparations depart substantially from historical precedent, calls for justice will not simply stop with descendants of slaves. What about all blacks who have suffered and died due solely to the color of their skin? What about Puerto Ricans who have seen their lives turned upside down by neo-colonialism, and who, like Blacks, have faced discrimination in employment and housing, have had their women involuntarily sterilized, have inordinately suffered by being forced from their homes due to Urban Renewal, were forced to settle for deficient educational opportunities for themselves and their children, and suffered as much as any persons of color due to government mandated redlining policies?  What about Native Americans who fell victim to this country’s pursuit of its self-contrived “Manifest Destiny?”  What of the Chinese, the only group to have been statutorily excluded from this country?  What about those seeking asylum in this country due to our foreign policy that supports repressive regimes? What about Muslims in this country?  What about those in the Middle East who died in the Iraq War because of the fabricated excuse of “weapons of mass destruction” or those civilians who just happened to reside in areas where scud missiles were launched to kill “enemy combatants?” What about women in this country who experience ongoing discrimination in terms of pay equity? Is there an end to the potential victims who would have a claim on this country for reparations, once this door is opened?

Regarding how we deal with the ignorance, the answer speaks for itself.  There is no discussion, no honest deliberation, no reconciliation without education.  We must educate ourselves about our history.  We must educate ourselves about benefits we take for granted.  We must educate ourselves about the numerous legacies of slavery, racial violence, discrimination, mass incarceration and more.  We must educate ourselves about the true sources of inequality in this country. So where does this leave us?  It brings us back to the table.

      The only way to truly resolve this issue of racial inequity and reparations, assuming we invest the time and effort to educate ourselves and come to some consensus for the need for reconciliation, is to reconfigure the arrangements of the banquet table.  We need to look beyond wealth situated at the shrinking part of the table where we have been confined for so long and taught to rely on in order to frame our expectations for making a life for ourselves and our families.  Tear down that wall, and redefine how wealth is generated, employed, shared, taxed, and governed.  We need to re-create our political economy.  We need a political economy that is more equitable, inclusive, and enabling.  We need a political economy that thrives on meaningful participation, diversity and accessibility.  We need a political economy that promotes and supports a culture of inclusivity, collective popular power, and self-actualization.  We need a political economy that does not thrive on exploitation but succeeds through voluntary association.  We need a political economy that does not define success solely on the basis of wealth generation and profit making, but as a function of the quality of life for all of its people.  We need a political economy that does not promote hyper-individualism, but flourishes on inter-dependence, mutual aid and cooperation.  We need a political economy that does not make people redundant and disposable, but sees its people as indispensable parts of an integrated, yet diverse, whole.  We need a political economy that is existentially perceived as a part of the environment that supports us.

      This is the most practical path for making up for past wrongs.  Reconciliation and reparations must be framed within the context of a political economy that works for the vast majority of all.  And, as a necessary aspect of new political and economic arrangements, there will need to be some degree of “leveling” to make up for disparate economic circumstances.  What kind of system does that look like?  More to follow in subsequent posts.