The concept of reparations vis-à-vis the African American community is not new. It is a notion, well traveled, much debated, occasionally promoted, and frequently dismissed...casually by some, and with malice by others. Its proponents have ranged from Abraham Lincoln to the Black Panther Party to Quakers (and me); conversely, opponents range from John Wilkes Booth to Rush Limbaugh to the contemporary GOP-Tea Party (not to be confused with Lincoln’s Republican Party), and undoubtedly a number of people I call friend.
You probably know by now that Ta-Nehisi
Coates has written (what I think is) a compelling essay, which appears in the
current edition of “The Atlantic,”
entitled, “The Case for Reparations.” You can find the article, accompanied by
multi-media augmentation, by clicking on the first link below. Though be forewarned, the piece requires some
degree of commitment to read and watch in its entirety, as the narrative alone
contains 16,000 words, spread across 10 chapters. I read them all, each and every one.
Mr. Coates lays out cogently the key
metrics that underscore the pro reparations argument. Simply put, those numbers are:
1.
Two hundred
fifty
2.
Ninety
3.
Sixty
4.
Thirty-five
One of the common reactions to even
the mention of reparations is the retort that notes how long ago the atrocities
of slavery occurred, and that is when there is even a concession that any
offense actually occurred. Cliven Bundy,
the Nevada rancher I wrote about several weeks ago, actually posited that
blacks were better off during slavery. The
point of that time sensitive reply, apparently, is to suggest that after such
an extended passage of time, we (the African American we, that is) should just
let that go!
Well, think again hombre. The numbers that Ta-Nehisi provides should
disabuse the most ardent reality deniers of that notion. Let’s revisit those numbers, complete with
what they mean. When viewed this way,
you might be surprised:
1.
Two hundred
fifty years of slavery
2.
Ninety years of
Jim Crow laws
3.
Sixty years of so-called
separate but equal treatment practices
4.
Thirty-five
years of racist housing policy
While some of the above eras
overlap, let’s be clear and stipulate that the evils represented by those
numbers cover the period from 1619 (when the first indentured servants and
slaves arrived on America’s shores) until today (or if you prefer, right here,
right now). In other words, there has
been no cessation of the crimes, only a variation of type and degree.
Coates describes the slavery era as
a war upon black families and black people.
He noted that John Wilkes Booth wrote before killing Abraham Lincoln:
“This country was formed for the white, not for the black man.
And looking upon African slavery
from the same standpoint held by those noble framers of our Constitution, I for
one have ever considered it one of
the greatest blessings (both for themselves and us) that God ever bestowed upon a favored
nation.”
Favored nation? I guess the idea of “Exceptionalism” goes
back a long ways.
In his treatise, Mr. Coates
introduces a number of characters. At
least one of them, Clyde Ross, left what Coates described as the kleptocracy (in Mississippi) to make a
life for himself in Chicago. In Chi-town
he made a stable wage, married his wife, had children; his paycheck was his
own, there were no Klansmen to strip him of his vote; he could walk down the
street without having to move or avert his eyes because a white person was
passing. Mr. Ross sought only one additional
thing to complete his entry to middle class – a home of his own.
The acquisition of this final piece
of his personal hurdle proved vexing.
Ross bought a home on Chicago’s West Side, in a community called North
Lawndale. However, he did not actually
have a mortgage. He had bought his home
“on contract,” as it was called at the time.
As such, he had ensconced himself in a predatory agreement that combined
all the responsibilities of home ownership with all the disadvantages of
renting – by signing an agreement that offered the benefits of neither. As it turned out, from the 1930’s through the
1960’s, blacks across the country were largely precluded from the legitimate
mortgage market. Such was the case with
Mr. Ross and his black neighbors in North Lawndale.
This scheme was part of a larger stratagem
known as Redlining, made even worse by policies of the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA). The FHA employed a
system that rated areas on a map from A to D.
The A rated areas were colored green, and residents therein were
perceived as excellent prospects for insurance.
At the opposite end of the spectrum were the D rated areas, coded
red. Neighborhoods where blacks lived
were rated D, and as such, were usually ineligible for FHA backing. Neither the percentage of black people, nor
their social class mattered. Ultimately,
Redlining went beyond FHA standards and spread to the entire mortgage
industry. Blacks suffered the double
indignity of being steered to Redline areas, where they were then systematically
excluded from most legitimate means of obtaining a mortgage.
Ta-Nehisi points out that the early
American economy was built on slave labor.
Slaves built the Capitol and the White House. Today, a number of policy
analysts and academics lament the deficiencies of the black family structure. Moreover, it is true there are certainly
elements that need to be shored up.
However, no serious contemporary analysis can minimize the deleterious
and lingering effects of slavery, and its subsequent kindred machinations, on
the contemporary State of Black America.
That’s right, the pervasive
destruction did not end with slavery.
Discriminatory laws served to pile on to the morass by combining the
equal burden of citizenship with the unequal distribution of the great American
bounty. This construct is so not
new. President Lyndon Johnson said in
his famous civil rights speech:
“Negro poverty is not white poverty.”
Of course, there are similarities,
but they are not the same, and they are not simply racial in origin. They are the consequence of ancient
brutality, past injustice, and present prejudice. It is unacceptable to recall the past, only
when the past is flattering. There is no
question, black history does not conform to the quintessential American ideal,
and yet, without the fully exploited contributions of Black America, there is
no America, as we know it.
Slavery’s contribution to America
the Beautiful is not merely a function of having tilled the soil and harvested
the crops. “In 1860, slaves as an asset
were worth more than all of America’s manufacturing, all of the railroads, all
of the productive capacity of the United States put together. Slaves were the single largest, by far,
financial asset of property in the entire American economy,” wrote Yale
historian, David W. Blight.
In January 1989, Michigan
Representative John Conyers introduced H.R. 40, legislation designed to form a
Commission to study the financial implications of slavery and various
reparations proposals for African Americans.
The proposal itself does not seek to enact reparations, but rather seeks
to determine the impact of the institution of slavery, and establish what it
would cost to repay such a tab.
Representative Conyers has introduced the bill every year since
1989. It has never reached the debate stage
on the House Floor.
It is worth noting that Congress has
on one occasion approved reparations. On
April 16th, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Compensated
Emancipation Act into law. The bill
ended slavery in Washington, DC, and provided compensation to slave owners for
the loss of their property. Let’s be
transparent here; what that law did not do was compensate the slaves!
At the outset of this post, I
mentioned that the problems related to practices and policies stemming from
slavery persist even in the current era.
As recently as 2010, the Justice Department filed a discrimination suit
against Wells Fargo alleging the bank had steered blacks into predatory loans,
regardless of their creditworthiness. In
2011, Bank of America agreed to pay $355 million to settle charges of
discrimination against its Countrywide unit.
In 2012, Wells Fargo settled its discrimination suit for more than $175
million. For many, it was too little,
too late. In 2009, half the properties
in Baltimore, whose owners had been granted loans by Wells Fargo between 2005
and 2008, were vacant; 71% of those properties were in predominantly black
neighborhoods.
Back to the title question; “Why Reparations?” There is little doubt that approving
reparations is a political, if not financial, impossibility…at least at this
point in time. Nevertheless, imposing
the will, the sheer intestinal fortitude to have the conversation is
important. It is essential to act on Mr.
Conyers’ bill and discover not just the scope of the actual debt, but to foster
a broader and deeper understanding of how and why black poverty is a function
of the combination of public policy and private theft facilitated by
racism. There is a lingering and unfair
notion that blacks are asking for a handout and that we have already been given
too much…when in fact, there has been a trenchant refusal to consider just how
much has been appropriated (stolen) from African Americans, from the time of our
arrival on these shores until now.
I’m done; holla back!
Read my blog anytime by clicking the
link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new
post each Wednesday.
To subscribe, click on Follow in the
bottom right hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space,
and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent
editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.
Consult the links below for more detailed
information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment