Jackson Free Press

When the average American hears the term "slavery reparations", he or she may think of radicals who are only making noise to start trouble and get free government money. Well, the "radicals" of the 21st century are using a different approach, and some are from the place least expected: the church.

....The most recent victories for reparations advocates came in June, when the Moravian Church and the Episcopal Church both apologized for owning slaves and promised to battle current racism. The Episcopalians also launched a national, yearslong probe into church slavery links and into whether the church should compensate black members. A white church member, Katrina Browne, also screened a documentary focusing on white culpability at the denomination's national assembly.

The Episcopalians debated slavery and reparations for years before reaching an agreement, said Jayne Oasin, social justice officer for the denomination, who will oversee its work on the issue.

Historically, slavery was an uncomfortable topic for the church. Some Episcopal bishops owned slaves — and the Bible was used to justify the practice, Oasin said.

"Why not (take these steps) 100 years ago?" she said. "Let's talk about the complicity of the Episcopal Church as one of the institutions of this country who, of course, benefited from slavery."....

Katrina Browne, the white Episcopalian filmmaker, is finishing a documentary about her ancestors, the DeWolfs of Bristol, R.I., the biggest slave-trading family in U.S. history. She screened it for Episcopal Church officials at the June convention.

"Traces of the Trade: A Story From the Deep North," details how the economies of the Northeast and the nation as a whole depended on slaves.

"A lot of white people think they know everything there is to know about slavery — we all agree it was wrong and that's enough," Browne said. "But this was the foundation of our country, not some Southern anomaly. We all inherit responsibility."

She says neither whites nor blacks will heal from slavery until formal hearings expose the full history of slavery and its effects — an effort similar to South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission after apartheid collapsed.

Full text here.

Previous Commentsshow

What would reparations actually do? How, specifically, would they help anyone's life improve? And, on an individual basis, how is it even possible for me to apologize for the actions of my ancestors? I can accept no glory from their triumphs, nor any shame from their sins. Their actions are theirs alone: I am responsible for what I do. To say otherwise is to set us an endess chain of blame for everyone on earth of all races. We all have ancestors who benefitted from injustice, at some point in our history. I understand that reparations is not really about individuals though, but about the fact that the initial wealth of the country was built on the backs of slaves. But I'm trying to understand how it is even possble to compensate for that in any meaningful way. Ironically, I had a long conservation once with a young black South African woman, who worked with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. She was horrified by the concept of affirmitive action in this country. She sonded like an ultra-right wing conservative, declaring that people should fend for themselves and that affirmitive action was an indignity to black people. Granted, she was relying on me for most of her information about americal society, and although I tried to just lay out the issues impartially, my ignorance may have been a real handicap to her (I am a white guy, so I didn't really have a lot of the information she really needed). But I promise that I didn't say anything that would have caused her to deliver such stark opinioons about the issue -- that was all on her own. So, I know this is just one person, and doesn't really pertain to reparations as such. But I thought it was interesting, given where she was from.

GLB

Jul 11 2006

Why don't we start the discussion here, GLB, and take just one of your questions at a time, being that this topic is so misunderstood or generalized that it's hard to have an intelligent discussion on it. My suggestion, for the sake of discussion, is that you put aside your personal concerns about being "blamed" for the moment, and let's consider your first question objectively. So, what would reparations actually do? And part of that question is: What are the various ways that reparations could be done, and what are the pros and cons of the individual options. Anyone want to take this on?

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2006

Sounds good Ladd. But one point of clarification. I wasn't being defensive in worrying out being "blamed". I was trying to understand how that is even possible. How can I accept credit or blame for the chocies of other individuals? What does genetic descent have to do with it? But I agree, we can leave that issue aside. It's really kind of philosophical and probably not primarily relevant.

GLB

Jul 11 2006

GLB, I didn't mean that personally. The problem is that we never seem to actually discuss this issue in "mixed" company because it makes so many white people so paranoid that they are being "blamed." I'm suggesting that we take it a step at a time so we can get at the discussion. A subquestion to your first one: Is it possible that some form of reparation is as beneficial to all Americans as to African Americans? Talk among yourselves.

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2006

Oh, o.k. That sounds good to me. With regard to your questions, my initial thoughts are that there is really no way to talk about reparations in a way that is meaningful. At best they are a waste of time, money and energy. At worst, they are degrading to black people. But I really haven't thought a lot about this particular issue, and I am open in listening to others' thoughts on this. So someone please tell me why I am wrong.

GLB

Jul 11 2006

OK, let's try this, for the sake of discussion. ;-) What are "reparations"? That is, what possible forms could "reparations" take? (And we're not going for right or wrong here; simply a full discussion that isn't dismissive from the outset.)

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2006

It looks like this might just be a conversation between you and I Ladd. But hopefully someone else will join in. Here's what I think reparations are. Reparations represent some form of financial compensation awarded to descendants of slaves, from the treasury of the U.S. Government. This payment is meant to serve as an official acknowledgement from the U.S. Government that it was wrong to permit the existence of the institution of slavery, and to serve as a partial redress of that injustice.

GLB

Jul 11 2006

OK, that's a good place to start. (I believe strongly in defining terms before debating them.) That's kind of a typical definition—and one that's easy to dislike—but it's very limited. I'm still on deadline, but here's a piece on Human Rights Watch that goes into some detail from an international perspective that would be helpful to lay a foundation, and widen the scope, for a good discussion here. For instance: Reparations can obviously take several forms. One approach would be to establish trust funds on a country-by-country basis to receive payments. The trust funds should be charged with remedying the worst local violations of economic and social rights. Trustees should be chosen fairly to represent the population most in need. Governments, both domestic and foreign, found responsible for past racist practices with ongoing effects would be expected to make financial pledges, ideally commensurate with their degree of responsibility, to each relevant trust fund. Payments presumably would be pledged over several years. When international payments are involved, some degree of international supervision might be maintained, perhaps through the United Nations. Reparations could also be made in other forms. For example, at the international level, a useful model is the one adopted by the international financial institutions for debt relief. This model imposes strict reporting and transparency requirements in an effort to channel the benefits of debt relief to those most in need. A comparable procedure could be used if a government found to have the requisite responsibility chooses to fulfill its obligation through debt relief rather than cash payments. Similarly, reparations could presumably be made, at least in part, by reducing tariffs or increasing import quotas, with appropriate guarantees that the benefits inure foremost to those most in need. Finally, financial compensation in whatever form should be only one aspect of a broader approach to reparations. Because the authors of many of the most severe racist practices of recent history are dead, criminal prosecutions will usually not be a meaningful option. However, as noted, the panels to identify the contemporary effects of past racist practices should also serve as a vehicle for governmental acknowledgment that these wrongs were done and governmental vows to end any persistent racist practices and to avoid repetition of such abuses in the future. (Once more, payments should not be allowed to replace these non-financial aspects of reparations.) Similarly, we would encourage the establishment of monuments or museums as a way of paying respect to the victims of past abuses, educating the public about what was done, and building a public morality dedicated to avoiding repetition of these offenses. Finally, the reparations debate should be an occasion to examine and change institutions, such as the criminal justice system in the United States, that arguably extend the effects of past racist practices through their disproportionately negative impact on racial minorities. More to come later. And hopefully some other folks will chime in here meantime.

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2006

Another good graf from the beginning; should have posted it first: We begin with the premise that slavery, the slave trade, the most severe forms of racism associated with colonialism, and subsequent official racist practices such as apartheid in South Africa or the Jim Crow laws in the United States are extraordinarily serious human rights violations. If committed today these would be crimes against humanity. Under traditional and straightforward human rights law and policy, each living victim of these practices is entitled individually to seek and receive reparations from those who committed or permitted these wrongs. By "reparations" we mean not only compensation but also acknowledgment of past abuses, an end to ongoing abuses, and, as much as possible, restoration of the state of affairs that would have prevailed had there been no abuses. Now, back to work.

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2006

If we are to have reparations, we need to figure out how to distribute that money. I doubt simply handing out checks to individuals will really help. If anything, it will have to be income based (if it's race based, that would give prime rocket fuel for the racists yow-yows to harp about). Furthermore, why include African Americans and ignore Native Americans? The latter suffered at least as much as the former, and many sensible people would argue the latter suffered even more (the point is that BOTH groups suffered hideously - slavery for one, near-successful genocide for the other). All the above is the reason that a reparations program, even if accompanied by an official apology, will never be perfect. The best we can hope for is an imperfect yet significantly beneficial program to help lift people out of poverty (where the economic aspects are concerned, at least)

Philip

Jul 11 2006

I'm not up on where the debate is right now, but I don't think that serious reparations supporters want individual distribution of checks. That is the fear, but I don't think it is the reality. Personally, I'm not a big fan of people getting checks (like Bush's $300 tax check; roll eyes); I'd like to see our inner cities returned to a state where they could have been without state-supported racism and forced ghettoization through redlining and other horrendous practices that continued through very recently. For instance, I see MAEP as one form of reparation, but we can't even get bozos like Barbour to stand up for equalization, much less making up for what his cronies of old did.

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2006

I've thought alot about this issue over the years. I could go along with financial compensation if: 1] it was made directly to any living former slave and that's it. 2] if a former slave is deceased, then to his or her spouse if still living. 3] if former slave and spouse are deceased, then to their immediate family, meaning children - and children only - not to grandchildren, nieces, nephews, uncles or aunts. 4] the financial compensation is shared by corporate and religious entities, not fully funded by tax-payer money. Some of the largest and oldest companies in this country were founded and implemented on the backs of slaves. The same can be said for churches as seen in the article above referencing the Moravian Church and the Episcopal Church. Left out of the article would be the largest condoner of slavery, the Catholic church. I just can't go along with reparations if it means giving out cash to every single African-American citizen because nomatter how much you want to avoid the "don't blame me" line, it's a fact and reality - and part of that fact and reality is that most African-Americans in the country today weren't owned by anyone. Their great-grandfather/mother was, their great-great-grandfather/mother was but that's so far back, it's almost laughable to consider paying cash for it. What if we gays and lesbians started demanding reparations for the way we've been, and still are, treated? Germany started paying reparations for gays and lesbians killed in the holocaust but not for Jews killed in the holocaust. You can't have it one way or another. The true reparations that need to be paid in America are to Native Americans, the first people to be stolen from and forced into slavery.

Jo-D

Jul 11 2006

Ladd, I'm afraid that the extended quotes you presented from Human rights Watch further enforce my initial impression that the concept of reparation is neither pracctially tenable or helpful. A few practical questions. Why are only racist institutons targeted? Is racism the only instituttional practice that has historically resulted in injustice? How could any such programs be impelemented without horrendous corruption? Oil for Food anyone? Has direct financial compenstion evern been shown to be an effective means of lifting individuals out of poverty? As far as I know, very few if any of my direct ancestors were slave owners. Should I pay less than those whose ancestors did own slaves? My nephew is mixed race. Should he receive only half the compensation? I am not trying to be silly or abusive with these questions. I am just asking them to make the point that the whole concept seems to me fraught with difficulties. If we just focus on justice for everyone, on equal protection under the law, and on basic human rights, I think we will accomplish much more actual good than focusing on reparations. As far as I can tell, much of this reparation discussion (from Human Rights Watch) is just a recasting of socialist economic phiolosopy into the language of race. If we want to implement global socialism to redress global injustice, then fine. But let's call it what it is.

GLB

Jul 11 2006

If we want to implement global socialism to redress global injustice, then fine. But let's call it what it is. Well, GLB, you just gave me whiplash. Suddenly, we're dealing with socialism (the government controlling the means of production)?!? And who the hell said *you* have to write a check to anyone? Have you done any reading at all on the literature of reparations before attacking it as "socialism"? The point is to consider that there are many ways to "repair" past injustice by the state. They don't all involve writing half a check to your mixed nephew. I'm getting the feeling that you don't really want to look at it in a different light, that your mind is made up without need of further consideration—which is fine, but don't misrepresent that. And, yes, direct financial compensation has helped lift people out of poverty. It did me. Next question? I'll get back to this later.

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2006

I guess I used the wrong term when I said socialism. What I meant was that it amounts to pooling Government (i.e. the people's) resources and redistributing those resources to others. Since they spoke a lot about redressing ecomomic injustice (read "inequality"), this appears to me to essentailly mean redistributing wealth. That's what I meant by socialism; sorry if I defined it wrong. Maybe that's communism? What is that? If the "Government" is paying for reparations, then yes, I am writing a check. That's what funds the government. I am glad that direct financial compenstion helped lift you out of poverty. But has it been shown to be effective in general? I understand that direct compensation is not the only means (or even the principle means) of the proposed methods for dealing with reparations, but it is one of the methods proposed. I'd be much more happy with things like grants for education, ect, and other things that help individuals learn how to generate their own wealth, than with anything that just provides direct compensation. I think it would be much more effective, if it came to that (that is, if reparations ever really became soemthing that we decided to act on) I haven't made up my mind, I'm just throwing out my impressions. I admit that my prejudice (that is, my uninformed instinct) leads me to feel that reparations are a bad idea. And so far, my thinking is in that line too. But I'm still willing to listen and learn: I have been known to overcome my prejudices before, when my thinking went another direction.

GLB

Jul 11 2006

By the way... "They don't all involve writing half a check to your mixed nephew" That line made me laugh, Ladd. Thanks.

GLB

Jul 11 2006

Actually, I've just had a change of mind about something (sorry for all the posts) The only real question is whether or not reparations are something that we should act on, and whether or not there should be money associated with it. Once that is decided, then we don't have the right to tell anyone how to spend it. Each individual who deserves comensation SHOULD be handed a check (except for children: their guardians should get the check on their behalf). Then, if they want to spend it, or invest it, or use it for education, then that is THEIR choice. Why should it be anyone else's choice? It is their money to do with as they choose. I was agruing for effective use of the money, but that was wrong on my part. It is not my place to determine how other people choose to spend their money. It's THEIRS. This is not a charitable grant, this is compensation: that is, this is money DUE to them. So, I think reparations are a really bad idea, for other reasons I've said earlier. But IF they are enacted, we have no right to decide how the financial interests are spent. The recipients alone have that right: it is their money. I am being serious in this post. I am not being sarcastic or satirical.

GLB

Jul 11 2006

"Their great-grandfather/mother was, their great-great-grandfather/mother was but that's so far back, it's almost laughable to consider paying cash for it". I feel that the issue is now so many generations removed from the actual "fact" that it is irrelevant as relates to "pay back" at this point. Anyway, the "Great Society" of Lyndon Johnson was really what I think the spirit of reparations was all about and many of those programs are still in place and should continued to be funded. Funded after realistic assessment and clarification based on 21rst century needs. In other words reparations have been underway for a long time now and it's in place but needs to be "reginned" as it were.

ATLExile

Jul 11 2006

GLB, I think " Wealth Redistribution" may be the term you are looking for. Both socialism and communism have to do with the actual ownership of the "means of production" (land, minerals, factories, buildings, etc.). Socialism, as practiced in Europe (among other places), is often called "Social Democracy" -- Legal right to own property? Definitely! Elections and multiparty systems? Again, Definitely. As far as I can see, the essential difference between the US and "European" systems is that Europeans decided that wealth needs to be redistributed to fund those tasks and services everyone has a right to (food, clothing, shelter, medical care, unemployment insurance, etc). Canada follows the European system to one degree or another. Communism essentially abolished ALL private ownership of the "means of production". ALL farmland is owned by the government. ALL factories and non-residential buildings are owned by the government (unless it's apartments, public housing, etc). As I understand it, in the USSR, one could own the home, but not the land on it. People could own their clothes, food, and home appliances, etc. - but again, NOT anything that could be used to produce significant wealth. Hope this clears it up for you

Philip

Jul 11 2006

Thanks Philip. And sorry for my sloppiness, everyone else.

GLB

Jul 11 2006

BTW, about "Social Democracy" (i.e., what most US people call "socialism") Especially during the Cold War era, many large scale industries were under state control (large factories, large mininig operations, the banks, the train and airlines, and such). The UK government owned British Airways until Thatcher's government sold it off, same thing. While state ownership of large industries isn't a domonant theme these days, there are some traces of it that linger in Europe. These days it's more a matter of government control (but not ownership) of income and wealth via taxes for the explicit purpose of the greater societal good

Philip

Jul 11 2006

"That line made me laugh, Ladd. Thanks." "What about 40 Acres and a Mule damn it..." ok that was mine....thanks.... ; ).....

ATLExile

Jul 11 2006

Glad to be of service, GLB

Philip

Jul 11 2006

That's OK, GLB. And glad I made you laugh. I liked that line, too. ;-) I do get ornery when people trot out the "socialism" booger-bear. We need to use meaningful terms in discussion, not scare tactics and rhetoric. But, that said, we all do it, and I appreciate the apology. Otherwise, not time to engage. 'Twill return, though.

DonnaLadd

Jul 11 2006

Okay, when I checked this thread earlier yesterday, no one posted. I turn my back for a second and KABOOM, the thread blows up. Thanks! :-) Anyway, I've heard about reparations for years but always heard polarizing points of view. It's good to see the shades of gray in this discussion. As a black female, my personal view is that if African Americans were to get reparations, just cutting a check with not cut the mustard. I think it would be complicated determining exactly how many African Americans are in the U.S. Some of our black ancestors who looked white enough to "pass" assimilated into white society. Do we follow the "one-drop rule" and analyze everyone's DNA (black, white, etc.) in order to determine who gets the dough? How would a person who is 80% African react to someone who is 1% African getting the same amount of money? Should there be a pay scale based on percentage of African Ancestry? What about someone like me with African and Native American ancestry? Do I get extra? Would a dark-skinned black person be angry about a light-skinned black person getting as much since their level of suffering may not be the same? How about someone with kinky hair and someone with a looser hair texture? Keen nose versus broad nose? Full lips versus thin lips? Do we start measuring butt sizes? Where does it end? These divisions among blacks began in slavery (house slave vs. field slave), so I think monetary compensation could divide blacks further if we are not careful. The scenario above is a little on the crazy side, so I am sure that limitations would be put in place (which would still probably cause conflict), but I think that the majority of the reparations should be intangible. The government should: * Go out of their way to disprove stereotypes * Restore self-esteem by praising African American history and characteristics * Make it easier for African Americans to trace their ancestry and reconnect with our African kin * An economic boost such as increasing credit ratings by 100 points or free healthcare for a certain period * Revamp the school system so that African American history plays a more integral role in education on a more regular basis, not just February Of course, none of my suggestions are perfect, and some of my ideas would involve the assistance of professionals such as psychologists and teachers, but I hope you all get where I'm coming from. I just would like to see the day that my nephew never says again that he wished his skin was lighter becaause he thinks that would make him better. Of course I told him that he was beautiful the way God made him and "the blacker the berry, the sweeter the juice", but I want him to get societal cues that there is nothing wrong with how he looks.

LatashaWillis

Jul 12 2006

L.W. Thanks for the insight. I wish your newphew never had that thought either. I think I have the same goals as you do (even though I'm a white guy, so I'm on the outside looking in), but I'm not sure the govenment has that much of a role to play in accomplishing them. I don't know another way to make substantial perception changes in society that is more effective than the simple person-to-person, family to family changes. Individuals making daily choices about their prejudices. I think there is some role for goverment, to tweak the rules from time to time. But too much government intervention builds as much resentment as it does reconciliation. Anyway, I'd be happy with anything that works. I certainly don't want my mixed race nephew to think he is not as good as his white (and asian) family members. Nor do I want others to pick on him for being mixed race. But I know all that might still happen. Anyway, thanks again.

GLB

Jul 12 2006

'm not sure the govenment has that much of a role to play in accomplishing them. Well, certainly, the government needs to play as much role as it did in creating the problems. That's where the proof is in the details on this issue. My obsession is rebuilding neighborhoods that the government and the business world destroyed with their racist practices. If we do that, many of our expensive societal ills will lessen. On this point, I agree with Frank Melton—in theory. (He's a big reparations man if you pay attention to what he says.) Too bad he has no plan to make these things actually happen. And doesn't care to have a plan. What a waste.

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2006

"Well, certainly, the government needs to play as much role as it did in creating the problems. That's where the proof is in the details on this issue." Maybe, Ladd, but that is not an easy thread to trace. I'm happy with effective solutions: assigning tasks based on assumed blame may just forestall those solutions. As far as Jackson goes, even though I lived in west Jackson as a boy for awhile, I am mostly ingorant about the specific problems so I can't comment much. But I will say this. I think one of the sigle biggest contributions to the decline of west Jackson was the construction of I-220. I remember when that went in, and the decline accelerated shortly thereafter. It completed the circuit that allows everyone to bypass the city, and commerce dried up. That's not the only problem (by far) but I think it did contribute.

GLB

Jul 12 2006

Of course it's not "easy." Most things worth doing aren't. That does not mean that we shouldn't put our heads together and figure out ways to reverse the effects of purposeful efforts to create these kinds of problems. And the people who want to whine about somehow losing something in the process need to figure out (a) what they're gaining and (b) face that they are benefitting still from crimes perpetrated against other people. No one's talking about writing personal checks here. It's remarkable to me that people can support giving corporate welfare to industry because it might create jobs, but not investing in fixing up neighorhoods, educating people and repairing the conditions that perpetruate poverty, thus leading to high crime, because somehow that means giving a friggin' hand-out to people that don't look like them. Then the same people whine about crime all the time. What dolts. You're right about the building of highways. Many were historically placed to break up and hurt certain neighborhoods. That's a fact.

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2006

Maybe, Ladd, but not everyone is so base. I think some people just want to see results. They look at all the progams and spending that have gone before, and what has resulted? So what are we going to do, spend more? If you clean up a neighborhood, and one year later it looks just like it did before, then what have you done? I'm not really disagreeing with you (although I guess it sounds like I am). I think creative solutions are just the thing. I'm just objecting to calling all these unnamed people "dolts". There could be many other reasons for people to act and vote the way they do, that have nothing to do with racism or ignorance. Of coruse, for some that's exactly what it is. But I think you painted an oversimplified picture.

GLB

Jul 12 2006

One more thing. Not to belabor a point, but if tax money is used, then yes, we are writing personal checks. Not that that is wrong, but it is true.

GLB

Jul 12 2006

I agree, GLB, that not everyone is so base. However, many people don't even want to have the discussion or understand the issues we're talking about here. With due respect, they just assume someone wants them to write half a check. I know you're not disagreeing with me. I can see that. And I'm only calling the ones that believe what I described "dolts." Not everyone else. I can't deny that I believe it is rather doltish to whine all the time about crime and not think we should have to do a damn thing to deal with the conditions that foster it -- especially the conditions that the privileged put there in a the first place. But I apologize for calling them names. You're right—education is the goal, as tedious as that can seem sometime.

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2006

True on the tax issue; same for corporate welfare. The point, though, is that people tend to think reparations means writing a bunch of little Bush-tax-refund-esque checks to people, when that would be the least effective way to go about it. And it doesn't always mean spending tax money, either. There are many forms.

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2006

Ladd, I guess my main problem is that I'm not sure what reparations has to do witgh it. If by reparations we mean that some coompenstion is owed to individuals, then how can we do anything but write checks? Liek I said before it si THEIR money -- we have no right to choose how it is spent. But if we are just talking about tryingt to imprtove the quality of life for people in lousy circumstances, then lets just do that. Nevermind reparations -- even nevermind race. Lets just find solutions. With regard to name calling -- I think we need a separate board wehre we can post anything BUT rational argument. The goal is to be unreasonable, caustic, ridiculous, whatever. Because I agree that is is difficult-- trying to be cool-headed all the time is sort of like psychic constipation. Pass the metamucil.

GLB

Jul 12 2006

Money is the easiest way to mess things up. :)

Ironghost

Jul 12 2006

I'll agree with you—"reparations" isn't the perfect word. However, from experience, I've seen that people who oppose certain things will demonize whatever word they're called. So chasing a palatable word for people is rather a waste of time, especially when certain people will redefine what you're talking about into a booger-bear (my word o' the week), no matter what you call it. I mean, look how the words "communist" and "socialist" are misused to describe a person who isn't a right-wing extremist in today's world. So I say, let's have the converstion and stop fearing the word.

DonnaLadd

Jul 12 2006

Wow. Folks are scurred to come up in here, I guess. :-) Anybody else gonna talk?

LatashaWillis

Jul 12 2006

I'll bite. First, I'd argue that the government doesn't just owe reparations for slavery. Government-sanctioned racial injustice did not end in 1865, or even 1965. American culture is still building up the value of that reparations check as we speak, with every black child that is born into poverty or every so-called "thug" who quicksands into drug culture or every black grandfather who dies at 68 when his white neighbors will in all probability live another 10 years. The government is so far in debt that it literally could not afford to pay the amount in reparations owed to African Americans, and we should probably give up on the idea that the government can ever atone. There's not enough money in the world. It should apologize, repent, and beg for its debt to be forgiven. And that means radical changes in the way the government does things. Bring back Johnson's Great Society. Don't even think about ending affirmative action. Fund universities in large urban areas, like Jackson State University, through the roof. Allow universal health care and a free undergraduate education, including any necessary remedial classes, for absolutely anyone who wants it. Create tax incentives specifically designed to promote racial integration and fight social stratification. Integrate the schools by any means necessary--and start the process by funding public education so well that private schools have more difficulty competing with them. End tax cuts for the rich. End most forms of corporate welfare. Take seriously the plight of people in predominantly black nations, like the Sudan and the Congo, who have been ignored by the white international community for entirely too long. And when the government has done all of these things, when a person of color has about the same life expectancy and education level and average income level as a white person, then we can start talking about reparations. Until then, any targeted government proposals along these lines are, to my mind, not even worth taking seriously. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jul 12 2006

Whoops. That was quite a rant, wasn't it? :P Latasha, I will say that I'm glad that churches are apologizing for their role in promoting slavery. I think recorded apologies do show a certain amount of good will. But I also think churches should apologize for what they're still doing now. The Episcopal Church, noble though it is in apologizing for slavery, still has a serious institutional racism problem--as does every other white denomination I'm familiar with, including the one I belong to now. This problem needs to be addressed. I had the opportunity to take an antiracism course under Dr. Anita George, who works with the national Episcopal Church on antiracism issues, and I have seen enough to know that this diocese has not made a serious effort to focus on antiracist concerns. I doubt that things are all that much better in other dioceses. So this isn't just a yesterday problem; this is a today problem and a tomorrow problem. The Episcopal Church's words are beautiful, but I would like to see more actions to go with them. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jul 12 2006

Tom, That's quite a check. How do you plan on paying for that?

Ironghost

Jul 12 2006

A few thoughts... Ladd, I'm not "afreard" of "reparations". I, like you, understand that words matter, and they should be defined as precisely as possible. I also understand that words can become labels, and so (unfortunetely) can lose their power to define anything. Perhaps socialsim is one of these words. I fear that racism is another. Tom, the government is us. There is no "it". "It" is us -- and that includes the black citizens of this country. Your "rant" contains a tremendous amout of truth, but it is selective. It omits all personal responsibility for ills, and instead attributes all societal inequity to white institutional racism. This strikes me as degrading to people of color, implying that they have no power over their own choices, and hence that they are essentaily children. I am certain that this was not your intent at all, but I think that is a result. Racism is a human problem -- not a white problem. I guess nothing in your post diretly states that it is a white problem only, but I am left wondering when all ills are attributed to white racism. Why did Hutus massacre Tutsis in Rwanda? Because of a legacy of colonialism? Yes -- in part. But do we not extend to those individuals even the simple dignity of culpability for their own evils? Just a rant of my own. No solutions here -- just added information. I get nervous when important information seems to be left by the wayside.

GLB

Jul 12 2006

GLB writes: Your "rant" contains a tremendous amout of truth, but it is selective. It omits all personal responsibility for ills, and instead attributes all societal inequity to white institutional racism. With all respect, most societal inequality is due to white institutional racism and male institutional sexism. This strikes me as degrading to people of color, implying that they have no power over their own choices, and hence that they are essentaily children. We are all essentially children, regardless of race, and we were all literally children at one time, regardless of race. Racism is a human problem -- not a white problem. In this country, racism is a white problem and sexism is a male problem. Why did Hutus massacre Tutsis in Rwanda? Because of a 550-year history of ethnic conflict, which the Belgians were all too happy to exploit. But do we not extend to those individuals even the simple dignity of culpability for their own evils? We extent culpability, but there's no real dignity to culpability--and to acknowledge culpability is not to let others, who are also culpable, off the hook. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jul 12 2006

Ironghost writes: That's quite a check. How do you plan on paying for that? I would do it by repealing the Bush tax cuts, followed by moderate deficit spending. Deficit spending isn't a bad idea if it's done carefully, and if the money is used to make a solid investment; that's the whole principle behind student loans. In this case, mobility from lower to middle class will do an exponential amount of long-term good for our tax base that far outweighs the short-term detriments of deficit spending. Would it break our backs a little? Yeah. That's why it probably won't ever be done. But I'm just saying that if folks want to talk about repentance--much less reparations--then leveling the playing field is a necessary preparation for that. We aren't in a credible position to apologize for what we've done until we've stopped doing it. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jul 12 2006

Another real problem to your idea, Tom, is that you'd have to convince a majority of America to pretty much gut the economy to address these problems as you define them. We deficit spend now, on the Federal level. States don't, so they couldn't do much money wise. The other problem is you'd have to sell a nation which kinda believes Affirmitave Action is really Blacks First, then everyone else into AA2: UberNostrum. I don't believe that a dismantling of American Society and reshaping could realistically accomplished. Let's make no mistake, you're talking about shredding our Current way of life and imposing strict new guidelines on behavior, on the economy and in most every segment of society. The goverment would have to have dictatorial powers to do this. What scares me about this proposal is backlash. What about the people who wouldn't benefit? Corporations taxed out of the country, Half of Society told they've committed vast sins and forced to repent? Resentment is a problem now, among the older generation who saw the end of instutional racism at the end of the 101st's bayonets. There has to be a way past bitterness, past simple eye-for-an-eye programs. You cannot legislate this, it has to come from the human heart.

Ironghost

Jul 12 2006

Iroghost writes: Let's make no mistake, you're talking about shredding our Current way of life and imposing strict new guidelines on behavior, on the economy and in most every segment of society. The goverment would have to have dictatorial powers to do this. My bullet list ran like this: - Bring back Johnson's Great Society. - Don't even think about ending affirmative action. - Fund universities in large urban areas, like Jackson State University, through the roof. - Allow universal health care and - a free undergraduate education, including any necessary remedial classes, for absolutely anyone who wants it. - Create tax incentives specifically designed to promote racial integration and fight social stratification. - Integrate the schools by any means necessary--and start the process by funding public education so well that private schools have more difficulty competing with them. - End tax cuts for the rich. - End most forms of corporate welfare. - Take seriously the plight of people in predominantly black nations, like the Sudan and the Congo, who have been ignored by the white international community for entirely too long. Other than a poor choice of words on my part vis-a-vis "by any means necessary" (I disagree with the Green Party platform in that I don't think mandatory public school attendance and abolition of private schooling is an acceptable alternative), I don't really see any civil liberties concerns here. You're probably right about the practical impossibility of all this, but if we just took a few of these steps, I think it'd be a nice start. The gist of my post had less to do with these specific proposals than it did with my attitude towards reparations. That is to say: Before we apologize for our past behavior, let's do what we can to make it past behavior. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jul 13 2006

The Congo and Sudan echoes one big problem I have with current political debate, and it runs like this. 1. "We hate the Iraq war, we have no business being there." "Bush is a big dummy." "All Republicans are bathing in the blood of millions of innocents for a few more gallons of gas for their MegaSUV's..." ad nauseum... 2. "Wait! People are dying in the Sudan/Congo/Lebannon/Outer Mongolia! We must rush in with all our forces and impose peace!" It runs about like that. Iraq is bad, yet we should rush in all these other places. It's not logical; either we can intervene where we like or we should leave everyone alone. One or the Other! :) For the rest: - Bring back Johnson's Great Society. Did it leave? :) - Don't even think about ending affirmative action. It's gotta be tuned, otherwise we build up resentment. Resentment is like heat to an engine or computer or a fine bowl of ice cream: something we don't need. Fairness should be evident. - Fund universities in large urban areas, like Jackson State University, through the roof. - Allow universal health care and - a free undergraduate education, including any necessary remedial classes, for absolutely anyone who wants it. These fall under "and we're already Nine Trillion in debt...." - Create tax incentives specifically designed to promote racial integration and fight social stratification. This one I'd love to see a concrete plan for, if only because I think it wouldn't work. You'd have to change human nature, which would dictate that any plan designed to uplift a major section of society must also benefit one political party. - Integrate the schools by any means necessary--and start the process by funding public education so well that private schools have more difficulty competing with them. Money. - End tax cuts for the rich. ...and watch them leave for better climates. Ever wonder how much of Buffet's forture was onshore? - End most forms of corporate welfare. Financial incentives and market adjustment to stay in business is one thing, but going to Uncle Sam to fund research for your new program should be whacked. In the end, it's that I believe that any large scale govermental action towards equality will equally disenfranchise everyone in one form or another.

Ironghost

Jul 13 2006

Tom: You said the following two things: "With all respect, most societal inequality is due to white institutional racism and male institutional sexism. " "We are all essentially children, regardless of race, and we were all literally children at one time, regardless of race." You said the second quote in resopnse to my position that denying that individuals are responsible for their own choices is essentially to treat them as children. So does this mean you think that no individuals are responsible for their own choices, including white ones? And if this is so, how can "white institutional racism" and "male institutional sexism" be responsible for anything? Are those not just the collective consequences of the choices of white people and of men, respectively?

GLB

Jul 13 2006

Not scurred, LW... I posted and noone responded to my thoughts so I've just been reading. I'd like to know what everyone thinks about making religious denominations and corporate entitys bare the load of any proposed financial reparations. As I said in my previous post, many denominations condoned and participated in slavery and many of the large corporations still around today were founded on the backs of slaves. I don't think the taxpayer should have to take on the whole burden. And again, what about reparations for Native Americans, the first slaves?

Jo-D

Jul 13 2006

Hey Jo-D, My question was directed at anyone who has not posted here yet, so I apologize for not making that clear. I think it would be great for private entities to play a part, but I don't want the government to get off scot-free due to the years of neglect that led to the Civil Rights Movement in the first place. I did address Native Americans briefly, although not seriously enough, in one of my responses: Should there be a pay scale based on percentage of African Ancestry? What about someone like me with African and Native American ancestry? Do I get extra? This was under the assumption that Native Americans would receive something as well, but I didn't go into detail. Sorry about that.

LatashaWillis

Jul 13 2006

Jo-D, I have an idea of how reparations might work. As I said before, I am opposed to reparations, for various reasons. But if reparations are to be paid, here’s a way it could be done. Leaders in the black community could convene some sort of board of trustees. These trustees would establish a reparations foundation. The foundation would accept funds from citizens and organizations that support reparations. The foundation would also establish forums where those who support reparations can publicly declare their reasons for doing so. The foundation would control the funds and spend them as it sees fit. This would accomplish several things. 1) The government would exercise no control over the disbursement of reparations funds. The black community would retain all of these controls. 2) The government would not supply funds, and hence black taxpayers would not find themselves in the bizarre position of being forced to contribute to the reparations fund. 3) The opportunities for corruption and political manipulation of the fund would be severely reduced. I think this is a fair way of handling reparations. Something similar could be done for Native Americans. Again, I am opposed to reparations. I think it is a backward-looking, counterproductive, and essentially irrational concept. But if one were to try to establish reparations, I think this is a good way to do it.

GLB

Jul 14 2006

whew! it can get tiring reading all the posts before making one...one's head just fills to the brim and starts to spill over. I often wish my memory to be sharper...but alas...a few months ago a Senator or a Representative proposed a bill (i'm thinking it might have even been one from MS) that would start an indepth study into the subsequent effects of slavery on our society as they extend into today. The fact that we, as a government and subsequently as a people, refused this exercise is proof that we are not willing to face the effects of our actions. It is not a far cry to say that i am a part of my heritage. I am my grandfather and my grandfathers grandfather. The choices we make and the thoughts we have are informed through the incidents our ancestors manifested. If reparations are to be meaningful, they would have to begin with the acknowledgement that whether or not racism still exists (and i do believe it does), racism in our past, especially as it manifested in slavery, has continuing effects on our present day in the way we relate to each other and ourselves...in the state of our educational systems and opportunities for higher learning...in our law enforcement...and on and on. Our lack of self-reflection towards our racism seeps into all of our relationships where we feel implicit superiority over another. Just accepting that the effects of slavery can be seen in our society today and studying those effects will help to truly understand how we can correct the present. I don't think anyone is really worrried about the past. It is the state of the world and out relationships today that is on the table.

daniel johnson

Jul 17 2006

If reparations are to be meaningful, they would have to begin with the acknowledgement that whether or not racism still exists (and i do believe it does), racism in our past, especially as it manifested in slavery, has continuing effects on our present day in the way we relate to each other and ourselves...in the state of our educational systems and opportunities for higher learning...in our law enforcement...and on and on. Our lack of self-reflection towards our racism seeps into all of our relationships where we feel implicit superiority over another. I think this is what really makes reparations such a touchy topic. Acknowledging past wrongs is painful no matter how you slice it - racism, infidelity, sexual abuse, etc. America wears a mask to cover up as much of the ugliness in her past as possible. Until she decides to destroy that mask (and its mold), she will not heal.

LatashaWillis

Jul 19 2006

People get so caught up in the association between acknowledging past wrongs and personally being wrong. No one wants a 35-year-old white man to step up and say, "I'm sorry my great-grandfather owned a slave." What would be helpful is a 35-year-old white man saying, "I know that the effects of slavery are many and varied and persist through today. I would like to explore those effects as they apply to myself, my town, and my neighbors regardless of color." To deny that our past has molded our present is to think that each moment and decision springs forth from a vacuum...and this is just not true.

daniel johnson

Jul 19 2006

People get so caught up in the association between acknowledging past wrongs and personally being wrong. Exactly. I can't blame a white guy for beating me for a whip because he never beat me with a whip, and I was never beaten with a whip. The fact is what happened in the past has shaped our present. Ignoring that fact is like ignoring a tumor: it will continue to hinder until it is completely removed from the root.

LatashaWillis

Jul 19 2006

Here's some food for thought. I got this in a vitamin newsletter: THIS DAY IN HISTORY 1988: The US Congress votes to award $20,000 to every Japanese-American interned during World War II.

LatashaWillis

Aug 4 2006

Yeah, and the money actually goes directly to the people who were actually interned, or their direct descendants.

Jeff Lucas

Aug 4 2006

Yeah, and the money actually goes directly to the people who were actually interned, or their direct descendants. Uh huh. Freed slaves never did get anything near 40 acres and a mule.

LatashaWillis

Aug 4 2006