Dishonest Conversations
Dishonest
Conversations
Every
summer, as the 4th of July approaches, we pause and measure the
greatness of our nation. The 4th is the best time for American
historians because it illuminates so many topics. It also gets one’s juices
flowing in anticipation of an exciting summer course.
In preparation for my classes there
is always a silent debate over what to teach and why? Should I say something
different this term, and what in the universe is influencing this decision? For weeks, I was fixated on the 50th
anniversary of the moon landing. It
seemed the Apollo missions of 1969 demanded my greatest attention. Many of the
Apollo heroes are still alive and about six were born in New Jersey. That connection
could be a great tie-in to give the class some relevancy.
However, current events and not the
past started to capture my attention. Unfortunately, this year’s motivators are
the words of Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell. It is unfortunate because the
leader of the United States Senate just happened to make a slip of the tongue
on an important African American holiday. Or did he?
On Juneteeth, the day that slaves
in Texas learned that they were free, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas
re-introduced H.R. 40 legislation. When
asked for a response, the Republican senator from Kentucky denounced the
concept of reparations stating: ”…it would be pretty hard to figure out who to
compensate.” He concluded by adding that
none of us currently living are responsible for what happened years ago and
that America made up for slavery by passing Civil Rights legislation and
electing Barack Obama.
To many African Americans this was
the type of dog whistle typically associated with less savvy politicians. The
Republican Party, the one that McConnell leads, has remained engaged in
weakening the Civil Rights legislation since the 1980s, and it was Senator
McConnell who instantly pronounced that he wanted to make Senator Obama a
one-term president.
Weeks later, Senator McConnell
continued the conversation by drawing on his heritage and confirming that he is
a descendant of slave owners. However, he raised this issue to also suggest
that he was not alone in this legacy-that he also shared it with President
Obama. He said: “You know, I find myself once again in the same position as
President Obama…We both oppose reparations, and we both are the descendants of
slaveholders.”
By framing the point that President
Obama’s white ancestors owned slaves
appears to be a weak gasp at saying that since Obama does not support reparations
and as McConnell does not support reparations that African Americans demanding
reparations do not have a case. Like the
rest of the nation, McConnell knows that Obama’s American ancestors are of
European not African heritage. Furthermore, is dishonest to tell black people,
many of whom are products of the generations of white slave owners rapping
African slaves, that there is an equivalency between the European American and
African American experiences. In fact such an argument is galling to the millions
of people that have struggled to bring this argument from community
conversations to the halls of Congress.
The concept of reparations as
framed by Senator McConnell is not popular. According to national polling, 68%
of all Americans do not believe the government should pay the descendants of
slaves. Only within segments of the
African American community is reparations perceived in a positive light. However, as long as politicians continue to
denounce reparations in this simplistic manner the divide between supporters
and detractors will remain racially fixed.
Unfortunately, the reparations
debate is not just about slavery. It is also about property, property rights,
and constitutionally given rights. This fight is equally about the events that
transpired after emancipation as well as those that occurred during the century
of American bondage.
Slavery and the continuation of the
slave trade play an important role in the formation of the American
Republic. While historians debate the
mindset of the Founding Fathers, the facts provide a different context.
At the time of the Revolution there
were slightly less than a million people of African ancestry in America and
about two-thirds of them were enslaved. Blacks
in the North were both free and enslaved.
Over time, the majority of northern blacks gained their freedom, but the
North did not offer true equality. Most northern blacks could not vote and many
could not own property. The majority of those held in bondage resided in the
South where they were roughly 40% of the population. This region also did not
offer full citizenship to those who were not owned.
By the end of the Civil War nearly
6 million people of African heritage lived in America. Two-thirds of these
people had been enslaved and when emancipated had little beyond the clothes on
their backs and what they could carry. They lacked employment, money, housing,
food, and education – the basics that would enable them to become productive
citizens in a nation. Without property or with limited property, blacks had
little to no wealth to transfer to future generations. By force, not by choice,
they remained poor in conditions that often were slightly better than
enslavement. Peonage existed in America from the 1870s until the 1930s and the
majority of its victims were black men, women and children.
Between 1865 and 1970, many of the
descendants of the enslaved had little beyond the basics and although the
Constitution made them citizens of the nation, they lacked the rights believed
held by all Americans. Millions of black southerners were subject to state
provisions that denied them the rights to sue, vote, serve of juries, testify
against whites, or keep their property. For over a century they were the
victims of violence from local vigilantes to national organizations. And, the courts and the Congress refused to
protect their civility and humanity by enforcing existing laws or passing new
ones including anti-lynching laws. Black
Americans lived in sheer terror for over a century after emancipation.
In 2019, over 154 years after the
end of slavery, there are clear indicators that reveal African American lives
have been harmed by that institution and the politics of emancipation. Glaring
inequities exist between the races that are a direct result of systematic
racism that arise out of Antebellum America.
The calls for reparations were not
a product of the modern Civil Rights Movement, but has a history that is linked
to the Harlem Renaissance of Marcus Garvey’s UNIA and W.E.B. DuBois’ NAACP.
However, the most enduring personality associated with this cause is Audrey
“Queen Mother” Moore. A southern
transplant, long-time Harlem resident and former Garveyite, Queen Mother Moore gained
prominence in the 1950s, as she demanded reparations for all victims of African
slavery. She asked for 1) self-determination for African Americans, 2) land, 3)
financial reparations and 4) that the American government provide relief for
all African Americans who wanted to resettle in Africa.
What’s important in this conversation
is that such ideas were part of the main currents of African American thought. Countless
blacks considered relocating to Africa with the support of the American
government. And the government
considered giving reparations as well. For example, Field Order 15-the 40 Acres
and a Mule mandate, Abraham Lincoln’s proposed black colonization, the Dyer
Anti-Lynching Bill are forms of reparations.
At various points along the
timeline, SNCC, CORE, the New Republic of Africa, Black Panthers, the New
Republic of Africa, the Nation of Islam, Stockely Carmichael, Ron Dellums, Malcolm
X, Martin Luther King, Jr., Shirley Chisholm, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., W.E.B.
Du Bois, and Rosa Parks supported one or more of these reparation concepts. Pan
Africanists in the Caribbean (Walter Rodney) and in Africa (Kwame Nkrumah) equally
debated similar ideas in their fights for independence from European
colonizers. South Africa’s ANC, led by Nelson Mandela was influenced by African
American activists.
These proposals are now seen as
extreme and far left of center, but they were prominent in the 1920s well into
the mid-1970s. Yet they did not get to the fringe without the concerted efforts of white politicians. However, they are not
associated with the current Reparations Bill. Yet, people like McConnell
and others deceived the public by associating these demands with HR 40.
The Reparations Bill, also known as
H.R. 40 is a proposal to form a commission to study and develop reparations
proposals for African Americans. This
Act, first proposed in 1989 by Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, is a
political model of ideas framed by abolitionists during the Antebellum era. In
many respects, Conyer’s bill is a holistic examination of white oppression of
people of color. It is also the American equivalent of South Africa’s Truth and
Reconciliations Commission.
Reparations are not a new concept.
European nations have made reparations to victims of World Wars and genocidal
conflicts. Colonized nations in Africa and the Caribbean have demanded
reparations from European powers, the Palestinians have demanded reparations, and
more recently Asian nations have demanded reparations from Asian nations,
including China and Japan, that invaded their homelands.
Conyers and his supporters wanted
the nation to acknowledge its role in a heinous slave trade, and in refusing to
uphold laws protecting black citizenship and equality after the Civil War.
Their arguments can take many forms
but all they point to the distinct current socio-economic differences between
whites and blacks. They allege that the
United States government deprived African Americans of their rights in two ways
throughout their existence on American soil. Foremost, that the government
denied human rights to Africans while holding them in bondage, and distributed
the profits of slave labor among members of the white race. Additionally,
following emancipation, whites continually kept the profits of black labor and
denied black citizenship, especially the right to vote and the right of due
process in the courts.
Despite compelling examples and
illustrations of how white America thrived from black labor, many white
Americans refuse to accept the evidence.
Their positions consistently follow the same patterns: 1) these events
happened long ago and no one alive today participated in these events, 2) the
members of my family/families did not benefit from such actions, 3) my family
are immigrants and we are recent arrivals to America and did not contribute to
these terrible crimes, and 4) haven’t black people already received enough?
Such replies often suggest white
privilege as a way to dodge the issue. It is: “I’m not guilty and therefore I
don’t want to admit guilt and have to pay for the sins of others.” However, we
are already facing some of these issues in select settings so why not address
them on a national level? America had to apologize to Japanese Americans who
were placed in concentration/interment camps during World War II. It had to
apologize to Native Americans and continues to do so in the guise of casino
development on Native American lands. In
reality, the United States has already paid reparations to some groups and will
continue to do so.
Corporations from railroads to
banks are far ahead of the national government when it comes to African
Americans and reparations. They have made reparations from income gained
through slavery by providing college scholarships to African American students.
Several states have also taken initiatives by apologizing for their roles in
the slave trade. However, the McConnell perspective is that we don’t need to
acknowledge the facts in a public forum.
I think the answer is somewhat simple. McConnell is afraid of the social and
financial prices that would be paid and how that might affect poorer white
Americans in southern states. African Americans would be the largest group that
has to be addressed. If an economic cost were determined it would be far
greater than the $25,000 given to Japanese Americans. McConnell fears that in this political climate
any conversation on reparations will cost him his coveted position in the
Senate.
A real conversation cannot begin if
people are not willing to take the first step. I realize that white Americans
don’t want to see themselves as beneficiaries of our national racism. They don’t understand why this issue has
traction in 2019, but that is because white America has not learned real
American history. Like McConnell, they
chose to believe a lie that all is well. They fear that they will have to
suffer financially for the sins of the past. However, a jail term or a fine
does not necessarily repay a crime. There are moral consequences for every
action. Some of those consequences are the elections of very vocal members of
Congress who will challenge the old guard and call them racists!
These conversations are difficult. South
Africans had to meet on a level plane to discuss the past. It was painful and it changed the course of
the nation. Yet, if South Africa can do
this, why can’t the United States?
The road to normalcy starts outside
of politics. It is the job of historians and other higher education instructors
to provide the source material for P-12 educators to enlighten our
children. Reparations are not the old
joke of giving African Americans $20,000 and a Cadillac.
Hence, to my great displeasure, I cannot
avoid current events in presenting American history. Rather, I must inform my
students that Senator McConnell is mis-educating them and you as well.
Our class will commence with a short article in Atlantic by
Ta-Nehisi Coates. I will provide it here
as well for those who have not read it.
Maybe we can be the forces that start the honest conversations.
The Case for Reparations
Comments