Black Reparations: It is Time for America to Fulfill the Promise, continued

In 1989, Congressman Conyers introduced a bill (HR 40 - Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act) into Congress. The "40" in the bill's title is a reference to the forty acres that blacks were promised but never received. HR 40 requests Congress "to acknowledge the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to examine the institution of slavery, subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes" (HR 3745 (1989)). So far, no action has been taken by Congress to address the demands of the bill. This failure to act or decide on a course of action is representative of the nation's inability to come to terms with the question of compensation for the wrongs done to African Americans and – perhaps more importantly – a reluctance or unwillingness to do so. In spite of this, Conyers has pledged to re-introduce the bill at each session of Congress, until the proposals are passed into law.

On the other side of the reparations debate, some opponents argue that it is unrealistic and unfair to hold the current generation accountable for actions taken and crimes committed by ancestors long dead. After all, Egypt is not being required to compensate the Jews for crimes committed against the ancient Hebrews by the Pharoanic regime. Boris Bittker in The Case for Black Reparations acknowledges that this type of argument is not "easily rebutted" (Bittker 10). However, he counters that black reparations must not be viewed as compensation for atrocities committed during the centuries of slavery only. He suggests that if slavery had been replaced by an overall banning of racism and by equality for blacks, blacks might have been more forgiving, and this issue might not have been so contentious.

Unfortunately, though, slavery was replaced by the Supreme Court decision (Plessy v. Ferguson) that ushered in the so-called Jim Crow laws. These laws further relegated the Negro to a position of inferiority and further established white supremacy. Discrimination against blacks because of their race was "systematic, unrelenting, authorized at the highest government levels, and practiced by large segments of the population" (Bittker 21). Although it is true that some white individuals were uncomfortable with the Court-approved segregation that this decision imposed on blacks, there was no "public challenge" (Bittker 17).

It is difficult to compute the exact impact of segregation in dollar terms. In presenting his "Black Manifesto" in 1969, John Forman stipulated that Christian churches and Jewish synagogues owed blacks $500 million. It is not clear what criteria he used to arrive at this amount. Perhaps a realistic starting point, though, for computing the impact of segregation in dollars might be a comparison of educational opportunities and facilities in (poor) predominantly black neighbourhoods and predominantly white neighbourhoods. School segregation has produced a generation of academically under-qualified blacks, and this has directly influenced their "earning capacity" (Bittker 61).

Apart from the educational and economic impact of slavery and racism, any discussion of the impact of slavery and racism would be incomplete without an examination of their psychological effects on the victims. Victims of Hitler's Holocaust have been compensated for the "psychic injury" resulting from discrimination against them. And American courts have continually awarded compensation for emotional damages resulting from slander and other psychological abuse (Bittker 61). A sociologist questions, "How does one calculate the cost of . . . the stigma of perceived racial inferiority? The severity of slavery's injury is far more profound than any cash transfer will be able to reverse" (Winbush 61). He highlights the emotional damage the whites inflicted on blacks by forbidding them to establish family structures. Surely these damages suffered by blacks in America deserve recognition and compensation also!

The complexity of the impact of slavery and racism on American blacks has stymied the discussion on black reparations. Proponents of reparations have been unable to decide on an appropriate compensation mechanism. This is not surprising, considering that there is surely no one mechanism that can adequately and totally address the issue. An Indian spokesman suggests that the Indian Commission established in 1946 "to rule on claims by Indians" might serve as a model to address black reparations. Bittker rejects this proposal, however, recognizing that the group loyalties felt by the indigenous tribes is not evident among black Americans. He cites the diverse "ethnic and tribal groups" from which blacks are descended. Unlike American Indians, who managed to "preserve the structure and emotional attachment that characterized their separate tribal organisations," blacks were separated from other members of their families and tribes (Bittker 74-75). Any attempt at identifying tribal affiliation would be too complex and costly.

Apart from the diversity in ethnicity, African Americans are also divided by differences in economic status, outlook and organisational ties. In fact, some black opponents of reparations are "insulted" at what they view as a suggestion that all blacks are victims, citing the economic progress that some blacks have already made (Winbush 167). This might have stemmed partly from the images of black welfare recipients and the reluctance of some blacks to be identified with this group. Even some needy blacks are offended by the idea of receiving handouts from the government. One thing is certain, though: many blacks do not enjoy economic stability.

Oftentimes in the discussion surrounding black reparations it is assumed that reparations can only take the form of monetary compensation. But this provides a very narrow view of reparations. It is the opinion of this writer that reparations can and should take various forms. Surely, in addition to monetary compensation, reparation can take the form of an honest investigation, an apology, or even a memorial.

Any type of compensation will have its limitations. In this day of advanced media coverage even an apology might not be heard by all. A memorial (e.g. a museum) might not be accessible to all, even if such a memorial were erected in every state. Attempts at group compensation will also have drawbacks, as some needy individuals and families will invariably "fall through the cracks." However, all forms of compensation should be pursued. And since education is the key to economic advantage, one method of compensation can definitely take the form of better educational facilities with highly qualified teachers, day care centers, and after-school and recreational facilities. Criteria would need to be established to qualify individuals for such aid.

Naturally, most forms of compensation require money to implement. So, any discussion on reparations must also include a consideration of who should be responsible for payment of compensation. "The collective responsibility of our government cannot be denied" (Winbush 72). Affirmative action and the welfare system might have been effective when they were initiated, but they now carry a stigma that has weakened their effectiveness. Besides, the approval and qualification process for recipient of welfare assistance is intimidating and humiliating. In addition to the government, though, other institutions that profited from slavery should be held responsible.

<next page>