Ibyx asked a question in the comments to yesterday's reparations post that was quite good, and honestly I like my response to it (narcissism is not evil—remember that), so I decided to elevate the whole thing to a post. [P6: this series being a reprint, the "comment" is transcribed into the body of The Reparations Discussion: Day 1.]
The question(s):
As a white jewish liberal female who is in some sense feels neither "us" nor "them" in this particular case [though I would never deny the privilidge my skin color affords me] I have found the concept of reparations a little odd when I have heard it discussed by folks advocating on its behalf. It just feels a little off to me. I mean, no how no way is the white american establishment going to get behind any serious cash dispersal to black americans across the board. And I don't see any feasible way to ensure appropriate investment in the black community the way that Earl describes. I think the idea of reparations is a good one -- if only because it would mean an official acknowledgement and taking responsibility. But I can't see any realistic way to move forward that has a snowball's chance in Hades.
If you actually had an administration which was willing to at least discuss the issue *in principle* then maybe you develop some kind of model. I don't know, maybe college scholarships across the board???
As I write this I realize I am missing the point of this post a little. I get that. I could just erase this but I want to wrangle with the issue and try to get my head around what it means to make reparations. What Prometheus advocates in this post is what I want for all folks -- regardless of skin color. As a progressive liberal does that mean that because resources are limited it is morally incumbent upon me to advocate that that black americans get first dibs? Like if we can't afford universal healthcare then we should at least provide for black americans? [I am not being flip... I can see a real moral case that could be made here.]
My response:
I've noticed this government doesn't do a damn thing on principle. The government responds to pressures applied by the people. Sometimes those pressures are electoral; all too often they are financial. In neither case will the government formulate a clear stance on an issue before the people do so and act on that stance. That's why reparations proponents can't wait for an accomodating government to consider this. They must create a clear analysis and compelling platform in order to draw enough support to exert the pressures government responds to.
My position is, keep in mind that the damage caused by official government actions must be addressed. As a progressive liberal you need to see that resources are artificially limited and uncreating those limits will allow a government policy that addresses this to be shaped.
Now if the necessary actions for Black folks are things you'd like to see for everyone, fine. Add that to the mix that you're pushing for. But frankly, that's not the case. Black people are in a different position relative to the society as a whole than white folks are so the required actions will be different of necessity, though the result may be the same.
So I say, push for the correct results for everyone, but don't pretend the same actions will have the same results when applied to different conditions. Give Black people what we need to draw even with the rest of society, and don't let those efforts be blocked by false claims of racism.
Comments
|
Let me throw something into the mix here. Why not try pushing the resolution of another smaller reparations issue first, to see if any precedence or pattern might arise from the resolution. For instance: the Hawaiian Islands were stolen by the U.S., clearly occupied when its queen was put under house arrest and eventually deposed. The Hawaiians never received reparations for the land that was taken from them (never mind the devastation to their culture and race!). What if the Hawaiians were used (so to speak) as a pilot for reparations? In some respects it may be easier to tackle Hawaii first because the value of land underpins the reparations; yet one of the largest issues is the oppression of the Hawaiian race under the subsequent occupation. Surely in resolving this problem there will be some hints on how to address the issue of reparations for African-Americans? The mainland may also not be as threatened by the concept of Hawaiian reparations because Hawaiians are waaayyy over there and not living next door; might make for less confrontation in dialogue. ??? [Disclosure: As an heir and assign of Hawaiian descent, I do have a vested interest in this concept.]
|
|
"So I say, push for the correct results for everyone, but don't pretend the same actions will have the same results when applied to different conditions. Give Black people what we need to draw even with the rest of society, and don't let those efforts be blocked by false claims of racism." I *loved* this point -- very clear and very well put -- and I think, easy to miss.
|
|
Well, Rayne, it sounds like Hawaiians, like most indigenous people, have a strong reparations case. I don't think it would be useful as a "test case" for Black folks. Each reparations case is unique… that we use the single word for all of them is an accident of language and in fact an obstacle to understanding. See, you have to consider three points in each case: establishing damage, establishing liability and determining recompense. Such an analysis shows the African American and Hawaiian cases to differ greatly. The Hawaiian case actually has a precursor, which is the Amerind case. And there are other reparation cases that have been successfully prosecuted, like the Japanese WW II internments and the Rosewood race riots. If precident was helpful, the Rosewood case would make the Tulsa, OK case a slam-dunk. But Tulsa doesn't want to do anything beyond setting up a statue or some such. I'll say this, though: given the value of the land that was stolen, I'd say you have about as much chance at getting back the true value of what you've lost as I have. Prometheus 6
|
|
My rather round-about point was that Hawiians should ask for both actual damages and punitive damages; while only pennies on the dollar might every come of actual damages, the issue of punitive damages is put on the table and quantified, the argument hashed out in public venue. This would provide more ammunition for black reparations. More precedent certainly cannot hurt, particularly if it doesn't serve to heighten conflict between larger groups. It would certainly be preferable to have genuine integration into a holistic society that no longer sees people as more or less worthy of membership, a society without socially contructed barriers -- but after 50, 100, 150 years, does it really look like that will happen without a serious nudge or two, a few more opportunities for real national introspection on race and ethnicity? I honestly don't think that Hawaiians will ever see any reparations -- but at least Hawaiians would have the satisfaction of publicly airing the loss of their sovereignty as a nation and as individuals. Might still be of benefit to other U.S. occupied entities...like Iraq.
|
|
We have no dispute Rayne. And I feel a serious discussion of reparations would be that nudge, that real national introspection. As I said, it sound like Hawaiians got the same shaft Amerinds did. But I don't think the Hawaiian reparations case would help the African American one any more than the Amerind case does. I think it should be pursued, though. Prometheus 6
|
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
