Fri 5 Dec, 2008
“We have come to cash this check”
Comments (23) Filed under: RemediesTags: Civil rights, Martin Luther King Jr., Reparations
In another sign of the nation’s hyper-sensitivity around the issue of reparations for slavery, the architect of the forthcoming national memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr. revealed this week that King’s memorial will be censored to remove a key passage which has been used rhetorically in support of reparations.
The memorial to the nation’s leading civil rights figure, to be built on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., will have a crescent-shaped wall engraved with passages from King’s speeches and sermons.
Architect Ed Jackson, Jr.revealed, at an event to raise the final funds for the memorial, that they have chosen to remove a central line from the historic speech in which King announced, “We have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”
King’s speech is built in part around the theme of coming to the nation’s capital to cash a check, which he explains consists of “a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
While some reparations supporters have used King’s words in arguing for financial compensation for the nation’s past, King uses the metaphor of a check only to speak of gaining intangible rights and privileges previously enjoyed only by white citizens.
In his remarks on the decision, Jackson asserted that the words weren’t removed in order to avoid fears today about compensation for slavery and discrimination. On the contrary, he said, the issue was that the passage would be unnecessarily divisive in a future in which race would be irrelevant:
For future generations, it should represent all Americans. We also felt that in the year 2050, this whole thing about black and white, won’t even exist.
bobbo says:
I posted a few hours ago that I was against reparations. I am also against censorship-especially of one of the greatest speeches ever given. That passage is part and parcel of the entire speech. Just as "divisive" as "I have a dream" for all the same reasons.
Maybe its no more wrong than characterizing the nation as being "hyper-sensitive around the issue of reparations"?
But our culture is devolving into one of constant shock and outrage, demands and lies. For all the "sensibilities" that exist, I think it is "ok" to carve in granite less than the whole speech as long as this passage is not the ONLY thing left out==and that the entire speech is available or referenced somewhere in the monument?
James says:
I'm glad to see, bobbo, that we agree about the value of presenting Dr. King's words in their entirety, rather than editing his speech to avoid perceived sensitivities.
Now, what makes you disagree with my suggestion that the nation is "hyper-sensitive around the issue of reparations"?
After all, the speech was altered precisely to avoid any suggestion, even a mistaken one, that King was proposing reparations. Doesn't that suggest a fairly extreme sensitivity to the issue? Don't you believe that many Americans react to the idea of reparations not only negatively, but with anger or outrage? That's certainly been my experience.
I believe it's important to look at this hyper-sensitivity, since I think it suggests that there are aspects of our history which many Americans are deeply reluctant to examine. This actually gives me hope, because it suggests that there is substantial progress to be made in race relations once we have a common framework for understanding our history and contemporary circumstances.
bobbo says:
Now, what makes you disagree with my suggestion that the nation is “hyper-sensitive around the issue of reparations”? /// Because the only evidence you present is the obvious lies of Architect Ed Jackson. HE might be hyper-sensitive, or maybe only sensitive. His lack of respect for Dr King does not say a single thing about the rest of the nation.
Speaking of bias – – – – – – haha.
James says:
Bobbo, you make an astonishing claim when you accuse architect Ed Jackson of "obvious lies." Do you have anything to back that up?
Jackson doesn't appear to be trying to avoid raising the issue of reparations at all. His role appears to have been to explain why the speech was edited, out of concern that the topic of reparations would be politically explosive.
I could offer plenty of examples of Americans who have expressed outrage and indignation at the mere suggestion of reparations for slavery. In fact, many people seem to become enraged at such preliminary issues as the idea that slavery produced lasting benefits for our nation, or that blacks today haven't already been compensated (or over-compensated) for the sufferings of their ancestors and the harm transmitted through the generations.
You are, of course, free to suggest that these people are not representative of most Americans, and that, therefore, the nation as a whole isn't overly sensitive on this issue.
bobbo says:
Bobbo, you make an astonishing claim when you accuse architect Ed Jackson of “obvious lies.” Do you have anything to back that up? /// Yes, common sense as even you exhibit. I agree with YOU that the REAL CONCERN is that any reference to "a check" raises to many the issue of reparations. But that is not what Ed Jackson says according to your posted material. What is posted is EXPRESSLY JUST THE OPPOSITE: "In his remarks on the decision, Jackson asserted that the words weren’t removed in order to avoid fears today about compensation for slavery and discrimination. On the contrary, he said, the issue was that the passage would be unnecessarily divisive in a future in which race would be irrelevant:
For future generations, it should represent all Americans. We also felt that in the year 2050, this whole thing about black and white, won’t even exist.
James==what do you think Jackson's real motives are? How could the issue be divisive in the future if race is THEN no longer an issue? Doesn't make any sense from start to finish.
Re "the Nation's hypersensitivity"–you have to atleast offer TWO persons sensitivity on the issue. You offered only One persons sensitivity.
How many people's opinions have to be sensitive before it reflects a national consensus? In voting–its 50% plus one. I guess if you agree with a position, it can be much less===but ONE? Just one and some unidentified others?
No.
James says:
Bobbo, I'm not sure I see how you can be so sure that Jackson is guilty of lying here. How do you know that this wasn't truly his understanding of why the decision was taken? His concern about divisiveness in the future may well be genuine, even if you and I believe this sensitivity reflects contemporary attitudes on this subject. In other words, couldn't he see matters differently than you or I do, even if he's wrong, or couldn't he be projecting his understanding of present-day concerns onto future citizens as he tries to anticipate their reactions?
As for whether or not his future vision is even plausible, I think it's conceivable that in fifty years, few Americans will pay any attention to race … but that he could worry that a monument suggesting that blacks, generations after slavery, could seek compensation from whites could provide divisive in that society. I don't happen to agree with this future vision, but I don't believe it's evidence that he's fabricating his entire explanation.
In terms of whether or not the nation is actually hyper-sensitive on the issue of reparations, I said that there are plenty of examples of Americans who become enraged and indignant at the very suggestion of reparations for slavery. If you want, you can google the term and find countless pundits and bloggers who express such feelings. I don't believe anything would be served by citing specific examples here; you can believe me or not, as you wish.
As for whether there are enough of these people to make the nation as a whole hyper-sensitive on the topic, I said that you're welcome to decide that you don't believe such people are representative of most Americans. I'm comfortable with saying that far too many Americans seem to react very negatively to this idea, and I strongly suspect, based on how they express their objections, that it's mostly not about the merits of reparations per se, but about deeply-held beliefs concerning our nation's history, how we arrived where we are today, and the nature of the opportunities and challenges currently facing Americans of different races and ethnicities.
bobbo says:
James–you ask: "How do you know that this wasn’t truly his understanding"==well, of course, I don't know. I'm just projecting my own values I guess. I would rather be seen as smart and lying, than either smart but clueless or just plain stupid. My hackles and refusal to give a benefit of the doubt starts with anyone that would censor a great speech—for any reason. That "any reason" puts Jackson in a very bad light deserving our disdain.
The kicker is as I stated above==his stated reason is illogical. When a smart, educated, capable person is illogical===what is the more likely explanation? If his concern is devisiveness in the future, then how can he memorialize ANYTHING that MLK wrote? Why does MLK have a dream????? Because the current reality is a nightmare. Any claim of trying to avoid devisivenss really makes no sense at all so I think that reveals some other intent.
Actually, I think I would make the same decision he did. A national monument is no place to encourage dissent and discord. Just the happy meal. In respect to Dr King–I would have the entire speech in small print in bronze somewhere in the monument. Let the "non-divisive" language be writ large for all to be pandered to.
YOU have his explanation a bit off kilter. Jackson says that in the future he doesn't want the reparations issue to be divisive==but he also says that in the future the black/white divide won't exist. If the divide doesn't exist, then there could be no divisiveness. Its impossible for me to think anyone would be concerned about divisiveness in the future when race is no longer an issue, but he has NO FEAR about the same issue TODAY when race is an issue?===Idiotic. Lying because you don't think the public can understand the truth is not the worst thing I can think of, but its still lying.
We can google and find a number of people who are hyper about anything you wish to name. I asked you what the percentage of Americans holding such views was needed to fairly be characterized as "our Nation." I'll wait for your answer.
James says:
The kicker is as I stated above==his stated reason is illogical. … If his concern is devisiveness in the future, then how can he memorialize ANYTHING that MLK wrote?
You can choose to believe that any portion of King's words would be divisive in a future where race has ceased to be a topic of concern.
However, I would think that King's stirring words on behalf of civic and social justice would be inspirational in such a future, rather than divisive. Of course, I also think that the censored portion of the speech would be harmless in that environment, and I suspect that the concerns of the memorial's organizers about the effect of that passage reflect contemporary concerns rather than how future citizens will react.
This doesn't mean, however, that Jackson couldn't think parts of the speech would seem natural and appropriate in such a future, while a passage interpreted as about paying compensation for past wrongs couldn't stir up trouble in a society which had moved past race but never made such compensation.
If the divide doesn’t exist, then there could be no divisiveness.
I think one could argue (I don't) that in a society where people had stopped thinking in terms of racial difference, it could be divisive to hear an argument that because of ancient wrongs, white people owe black people for the crimes of their ancestors.
I asked you what the percentage of Americans holding such views was needed to fairly be characterized as “our Nation.” I’ll wait for your answer.
I thought that was a rhetorical question, bobbo. 🙂
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to characterize what "our nation" believes, in the sense of what all of us, or a majority of us, believe individually. I'm interested in whether the nation collectively exhibits excessive sensitivity on the question of slavery reparations.
How many Americans should express outrage or anger that reparations is even raised as an issue in this country? I'm inclined to believe that the answer is very few, if they understand the underlying facts (or at least have no deeply-held misconceptions on this subject). So the fact that it seems to be more than 10% or 20%, at a minimum, suggests to me that the nation as a whole exhibits hyper-sensitivity on this issue.
bobbo says:
James–we agree on your statement: "and I suspect that the concerns of the memorial’s organizers about the effect of that passage reflect contemporary concerns rather than how future citizens will react." /// and thats what I'm going with.
The deleted (or non referenced?) part of the speech cannot be divisive or read as a request for reparations except in a charged atmosphere of racial tension. So–I don't think Jackson could think what he says. He is projecting his current concerns into the future while saying he isn't. If the races come together in the future, MLK's check will have been honored.
"Just to be clear, I’m not trying to characterize what “our nation” believes, in the sense of what all of us, or a majority of us, believe individually. I’m interested in whether the nation collectively exhibits excessive sensitivity on the question of slavery reparations." /// You think you are making a distinction, but I don't see one at all. "The Nation's whatever" is a characterization and a statement about its collective exhibition. Gee, I'm back to "words have meaning." If I say I strongly believe that women are owed reparations because of past and continuing pay discrimination is that the Nation's Sensitivity to Womens Rights and Suffering==or just my opinion? How many people have to have the same opinion before it justifies any of your gerneralizations. I think it does come down to numbers.
I'm reminded that many emotionally based issues have great force and effect, but that if you sit down with pen to paper and try to objectify them, they more often evaporate than gain credence. The notion that our Nation is hypersenstive to the issue of reparations is one such issue. Maybe those who want/seek reparations are hypersensitive===but thats the melting pot. Any third party forming around the reparations issue? Even environmentalists and libertarians have a political party and they still aren't relevant to anything.
James says:
The deleted (or non referenced?) part of the speech cannot be divisive or read as a request for reparations except in a charged atmosphere of racial tension.
I respect that you believe this to be so, bobbo. However, in my view, that's not necessarily true. Or rather, I don't believe it can fairly be read as being about reparations at all, but for those who do, I think it could be divisive in a society without racial tensions.
I could certainly imagine that in a society free of racial tension, the introduction of the notion that some citizens are owed a debt, and others owe that debt, could introduce divisions along racial lines, especially coupled with the idea that guilt or victimhood are associated not just with perpetrators and victims, but also with all members of the same race.
o–I don’t think Jackson could think what he says. He is projecting his current concerns into the future while saying he isn’t.
Bobbo, people who project like that still think what they're saying is true. They're just … well, projecting. 🙂
How many people have to have the same opinion before it justifies any of your gerneralizations.
That depends on the nature of the generalization, bobbo.
For instance, if I say that this nation believes strongly in individualism, does that mean every person in the country must believe in that value? No. Does it mean that a clear majority must? Yes, I think so.
If you say, to take your example, that you believe women are owed reparations, that's simply your opinion. The nation doesn't collectively hold that view, and it still won't if a quarter of the country agrees with you.
However, I'm saying that the nation collectively exhibits hyper-sensitivity on the issue of reparations. If, let's say, a quarter of the population becomes angry and defensive at the mere mention of the idea of reparations, does that mean there is excessive sensitivity present in our country? I certainly think so, but you're free to disagree about the meaning of any of these terms.
The notion that our Nation is hypersenstive to the issue of reparations is one such issue. Maybe those who want/seek reparations are hypersensitive ….
Hmm. Bobbo, I'm not saying that Americans are hyper-sensitive for not agreeing with reparations. After all, I'm in that camp! Nor am I saying that opponents of reparations are hyper-sensitive when it comes to, say, hearing from those who disagree with them.
I'm saying that many Americans seem to be hyper-sensitive to the very existence of an argument for reparations. Americans often react vehemently, for instance, when they learn that a legislator has introduced a reparations bill–even though, as far as they know, no one else is taking the idea seriously.
I think you're avoiding the real issue, which has been, all along, my contention that many Americans have deeply-held beliefs which are challenged by certain facts that are laid bare when reparations are so much as taken seriously.
Any third party forming around the reparations issue? Even environmentalists and libertarians have a political party and they still aren’t relevant to anything.
Why would a third party be relevant? And I believe both environmentalists and libertarians are quite significant in American politics.
bobbo says:
"I don’t believe it can fairly be read as being about reparations at all, but for those who do, I think it could be divisive in a society without racial tensions." //// I think you are missing something. When you are asked to assume a different CONTEXT that is what you have to do===not address a different context with all the old assumptions that expressly do not apply to the new context. The NEW CONTEXT: a future where racial tension does not exist. The OLD CONTEXT: giving words that "fairly read" a,b,or c and because of racial tension think those words mean D. YOU are "not connecting" or even disconnecting from the discussion to discuss the new context with old context paradigms.
Since one "flash" of mine is this very attribute of yours, let me drone on. We are having a conversation and you say: "I don’t believe it can fairly be read as being about reparations at all, but for those who do, I think it could be divisive in a society without racial tensions." And I say to you: "You shouldn't call my mother a whore!" and I get quite upset. Now, lets imagine a NEW CONTEXT where I'm not nuts. Now apply your sentence. Would it be fair to think in the new context I would complain about my mother being a whore?—-Now, be careful, we are talking about my mother!!!
James says:
YOU are “not connecting” or even disconnecting from the discussion to discuss the new context with old context paradigms.
I don't see it that way, bobbo. I think that if it's possible to mis-read King's metaphor of a "check" to refer to compensation rather than full legal equality going forward, that's as likely an error in a race-neutral future society as it is today. In fact, perhaps more so, as in the future there might be less awareness of the context in which King was speaking, and more room to leap to erroneous conclusions.
So I think I'm doing my best to set aside the current context, and to ponder how a future society might interpret these words. Of course, there's inherently a significant measure of speculation in how a hypothetical future society might view long-dead issues of race, and none of us can ever be free of the context and biases which shape our perceptions. This is simply another reason why I think the effort to alter King's speech to avoid giving offense in a future society is foolhardy at best.
bobbo says:
“We have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.” /// You have to be nuts to think this language refers to reparations. But, if you aren't lying, then I guess Jackson might not be either? You're both just "wrong." Not on a matter of interpretation, but in application. Either that, or I'm wrong in the same way, or by a lack of imagination. I've always been criticized for being too concrete in my thinking==which is funny because I'm always thinking I'm so imaginative. How does that happen?
BTW–McGlaughlin group is talking about 3 Billion "stimulus" for Indian Groups within the Current Bill==about $1000 per Indian for .3% of the Bill. The rationale is all about reparations without using the word.
James says:
Bobbo, a number of people over the years have interpreted King's metaphor as referring to reparations … and reparations advocates frequently quote those words, too.
As for whether Jackson or I are "wrong," neither of us interprets King's words in that way. We simply acknowledge that some people do … and perhaps always will.
That must be an interesting discussion about the stimulus package. I hope that $3 billion is job-creating, or it could become a serious distraction to the stimulus effort.
bobbo says:
When you ever get around to defining the terms by which reparations are due, it will be fun to see who deserves more: blacks or indians. Who has a greater grievance on an initial "gut" level?
As stated==no Nation can make its population whole for past injustice. That beast would swallow itself.
James says:
Bobbo, I have no interest in "defining the terms by which reparations are due." I don't advocate reparations, as you're well aware, and I'm only interested in covering those aspects of the issue which strike me as interesting or illuminating.
I also think that it's counter-productive to pit one group against another in that way. Is there any meaningful way in which we could say that blacks or American Indians (or women, or any other group) are more deserving of justice? If we could, would the comparative accounting tell us anything of interest?
no Nation can make its population whole for past injustice.
Nor should any nation (or government, which I suspect is what you mean here) even try.
However, I think there's an important distinction between past and present injustice. Not all injustices of the past still have significant and demonstrable consequences today.
I also think that there's an important distinction between injustice suffered in the past by any group within the U.S., and injustice in which the U.S. is complicit. There's no doubt that the U.S. government (and our society) bear a significant measure of responsibility for American slavery and its aftermath, and this raises questions that aren't present in cases of past injustice in which the U.S. is ab innocent party.
bobbo says:
I apologize. Once again I react to the "feelings" I get from reading this blog and not the clear statements you have repeatedly made. A nice little gestalt dissonance. I sincerely hope I haven't caused you any head damage? If "I" posted the way you do, I would be advocating for reparations, but it would be ambiguous. Clear statements from the source with the issue in the crosshairs should be enough to clear these things up. What can I say, I'm slow.
"Bobbo, a number of people over the years have interpreted King’s metaphor as referring to reparations … and reparations advocates frequently quote those words, too." /// I agree–and they all are wrapped up in racial tension, innocently or disreputably. I also hope that in the future race will be irrelevant.
"As for whether Jackson or I are “wrong,” neither of us interprets King’s words in that way. We simply acknowledge that some people do … and perhaps always will." /// We three agree except on the notion that people "always will." If I'm right that Kings Statement taken as support for reparations is a product of race relations, that interpretation will not exist when race becomes irrelevant. I do think you are missing that logic. To me, its as clear as mathematics, but we aren't connecting on the issue.
The 3 Billion for Indian Reservation was not well detailed–given as an example of pork that gives the Repuglicans a target to attack the Package.
"Bobbo, I have no interest in “defining the terms by which reparations are due.” /// Ok. I'll still look forward to any definitions/applications of reparations that you/me/other bloggers may submit. Always instructive to actually define, or at least give an example of, what is being talked about.
"I also think that it’s counter-productive to pit one group against another in that way." /// It wasn't my intent or interest to put any group against another==but rather to get a handle on the definition of reparations by seeing how it affected different groups. In reality, isn't that what any claim of reparations does? Pit the claiming group against the paying group? Counter-productive would have to defined also. Acknowledging responsibility is good for the soul.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"There’s no doubt that the U.S. government (and our society) bear a significant measure of responsibility for American slavery and its aftermath," /// How is this statement not a call for reparations?
James says:
Thanks, bobbo. I certainly respect that my presentation of the issue of reparations strikes you as highly supportive of the idea.
I suspect, but can't know for sure, that the reason may be that certain of the assumptions behind reparations are new and challenging for many Americans. Thus, when I speak strongly about the legacy of slavery and discrimination in this country, or when I contest some of the arguments frequently heard in opposition to reparations, it seems that many people can't hear that as anything but an endorsement of reparations. Whereas, to me, these should be commonplace observations in American life, and wouldn't necessarily lead to anything like reparations.
I do think you are missing that logic. To me, its as clear as mathematics, but we aren’t connecting on the issue.
Well, I'm certain that it's not as clear as mathematics, bobbo, regardless of who may be right.
Are you right that a statement about the descendants of slaves cashing a check could only be interpreted in a financial sense in an environment of racial tension? Perhaps. I find it hard to understand, frankly, how anyone could make such an error of interpretation. Given that people do, however, I think the cause may be sloppy thinking about metaphors and an awareness that there are certainly financial benefits and harms from slavery which have been passed down to this day. Could those errors arise as easily in an era when race is no longer irrelevant? I think so, since it doesn't take a personal sense of racial awareness to think that this is what the speaker is arguing. But that's just my sense of it, as yours is your sense of the matter.
Always instructive to actually define, or at least give an example of, what is being talked about.
I believe I did post a quick description of the major types of proposals for slavery reparations, in this comment.
Here is that discussion again:
In reality, isn’t that what any claim of reparations does? Pit the claiming group against the paying group?
Yes, but that would be pitting a group suffering injustice against a group which enjoys unearned privilege as a result of that injustice. Or else something has gone horribly wrong.
Counter-productive would have to defined also. Acknowledging responsibility is good for the soul.
I said that it's counter-productive to pit groups against each other by weighing the relative merits of their claims for justice. Not for anyone to acknowledge responsibility.
How is this statement not a call for reparations?
That statement, bobbo, says that certain institutions bear a share of responsibility for what happened, not that I believe they should now pay reparations.
This is not a meaningless distinction. For instance, surely African societies bear a share of responsibility for these events, too. Yet you don't suspect that I'm calling for them to pay reparations when I mention their complicity–perhaps because they can't afford to pay, and or because intervening events (colonialism) have wiped out the substantial benefits those societies earned from their role in the slave trade.
There are many reasons why an institution which was once (partly) responsible for an atrocity might not currently be asked to pay financial compensation. The institution might not have benefited at all, or those benefits might be long gone, or there may no longer be anyone suffering harm from that atrocity, or there may no longer be a just way to alleviate that suffering, and so on.
bobbo says:
James— this can't be fun for you, rehashing misperceptions? But it is for me, so I'll continue–I look forward to getting off my misperception of your completely neutral posting on reparations and see what else your blog has to offer.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"to me, these should be commonplace observations in American life, and wouldn’t necessarily lead to anything like reparations." /// So, in your mind, someone can agree with ALL of your factual representations and still legitimately claim that reparations are not due because of some overriding philosophical position? ((reparations in MY definition does not include those direct actions previously discussed)). I suspect that will be my position if we ever hash thru the various elements.
Types of proposals: "financial compensation to individuals who are identified as the descendants of slave" /// So, as a taxpayer, I'm supposed to make a payment to Obama's kiddies because on their mother's side they came from slaves?
Types of proposals: "Others advocate broad-based government social programs to assist those descendants of slaves (or broader groups) still struggling with disadvantage, or to improve schools, infrastructure, and whole communities." /// I thought on a different blog you said those programs that benefitted other groups made the program NOT one of reparations. ((That was an excellent example about tax refunds I'd like to get back to sometime.)) I guess here, or maybe there, you are just quoting what others have said? I still maintain general welfare is reparations sufficient to satisfy all but the overreaching.
"Other proponents of reparations advocate different remedies. One common suggestion, for example, is to allow the descendants of African slaves to enjoy free education, at all levels, for a generation." /// I support this–but mostly because I support it for "everybody." If blacks get it first, thats still several steps in the right direction. But what about all the blacks thru continuing effects of slavery and discrimination don't have what it takes to qualify to go to school? I would include Tech School, and even preschool?===again for everybody.
Another suggestion would replace free education with an exemption from taxation. /// Free education is a mandate on what the money is spent on. Exemption from taxation assumes taxable income is present. I don't like that idea==only favors the rich who by some lights have overcome the impacts of slavery. Obama's kiddies are exempt from taxation???
"Yes, but that would be pitting a group suffering injustice against a group which enjoys unearned privilege as a result of that injustice. Or else something has gone horribly wrong." /// Put me down for horribly wrong. And again===this is a direct call for reparations. This is VERY PROBLEMATIC. If its "the taxpayers" who make the payment, that includes blacks. How are they harmed yet benefited at the same time? Obama's kiddies??? "Logically" it should only be non-blacks who are assessed a special tax rather than the reparations coming from the general fund? If its the descendants of blacks who are harmed, why is it not more accurate and logical to say its the descendants of the slave owners who should pay?
"I also think that it’s counter-productive to pit one group against another in that way." /// Yes, thats clearly what you meant by the sentence but the idea of the sentence applies as I stated. Not the same situation, and other issues impinge, but pitting one group against another does apply.
"That statement, bobbo, says that certain institutions bear a share of responsibility for what happened, not that I believe they should now pay reparations." /// I disagree. If one is "responsible" for a harm, one has an obligation to cure it. Any other formulation empties the word/concept of "responsibility" of all its meaning. If A is responsible for a harm==he should make his compensation regardless of what other responsible parties do or don't do.
James says:
So, in your mind, someone can agree with ALL of your factual representations and still legitimately claim that reparations are not due because of some overriding philosophical position?
In my opinion, someone could agree with all of the factual issues discussed in this blog, and still legitimately oppose reparations on any number of grounds.
So, as a taxpayer, I’m supposed to make a payment to Obama’s kiddies because on their mother’s side they came from slaves?
That would be one variant of slavery reparations, yes. It's perhaps the least easy to justify, however.
I thought on a different blog you said those programs that benefitted other groups made the program NOT one of reparations.
No, if you'll recall, I was much more specific in explaining why I didn't think that the Great Society programs of the 1960s amounted to reparations for slavery. We needn't rehash those arguments here, but they included the fact that most of the benefits of those programs went to whites, the fact that those programs didn't begin to redress the lingering harm to blacks from slavery and discrimination, and the fact that those programs weren't intended or aimed, even in part, at addressing such harm.
I still maintain general welfare is reparations sufficient to satisfy all but the overreaching.
I find this position puzzling, since general welfare programs haven't begun to address the racial disparities in this country caused by slavery and discrimination.
“Logically” it should only be non-blacks who are assessed a special tax rather than the reparations coming from the general fund?
Perhaps. It would depend on how you want to define the group to be paying reparations. If you believe, for instance, that all blacks today ought to receive reparations, and that all whites ought to pay them, then perhaps you would favor such a tax.
If you believe, on the other hand, that all Americans today enjoy benefits from slavery, then you might want to tax all Americans, in proportion to their income or wealth (that is, their share of those benefits). That sounds more like turning to general tax revenues than to a special tax on all but black citizens.
why is it not more accurate and logical to say its the descendants of the slave owners who should pay?
Because, by and large, the benefits of slavery aren't concentrated today in the hands of the descendants of slave owners.
I disagree. If one is “responsible” for a harm, one has an obligation to cure it.
I'm fine if that's your moral philosophy, bobbo. Just so long as we understand one another: the idea of being moral responsible for having done something is distinct from the notion of being obligated to take a particular action, in a particular situation, to atone for that responsibility. I gave several examples of reasons why one could be morally culpable and yet not be obligated to make amends, especially in any particular way.
bobbo says:
hahah– I feel like Michael Dukakis: "Why am I losing to this guy?"
Well done. I'm going to clear my mind. Wanted to watch Book Tv this morning about the Atlantic Slave Trade but its been pre-empted. I'll review you blog on the same issue. I think I did see the TV program 2-3 years ago that you had some involvement in? I don't think I would like to visit that slave detention center on the East Coast of Africa, although I have seen the slave auction buildings in Charleston South Carolina–the difference between stone and wood? Some things are too palpable.
James says:
The documentary I'm in, Traces of the Trade: A Story from the Deep North, debuted on PBS in June, and has been rebroadcast on individual PBS stations from time to time in the months since.
My distant cousin, Tom DeWolf, wrote a book about that experience (Inheriting the Trade: A Northern Family Confronts Its Legacy as the Largest Slave-Trading Dynasty in U.S. History), and he has appeared twice on BookTV programs which are periodically rebroadcast. One is an appearance in Bristol, R.I. as part of his book tour, and the other is a panel discussion on the slave trade as part of the Harlem Book Fair. So it may have been one of those broadcasts that was scheduled for yesterday morning.
I can tell you that visiting slave forts along the west coast of Africa was an incredibly powerful experience. You're right, there's something very permanent and moving about stonework; I think it may have to do with the sense that stone buildings truly endure through centuries of activity.
Nicole says:
Wow! Both of you, James and Bobbo, seem to really believe the claims you are making. Personally, though, I am more swayed by James's argument. It has been very useful in my research on political discontent, and I am shocked to see your debate continued for so long. I have discovered, through your conversations, among others, that when someone truly believes or wants to believe something, it is difficult to change his mind, for the simple reason that he will not listen. Just imagine, what would it be like if instead of tuning in to others' opinions for the sole purpose of proving them wrong, we opened our hearts and minds to enlightenment on our parts? It seems to me that your entire correspondence, as well as those of many prominent political figures, is simply grounded on attacking the disagreeing party. I hope in the future, our nation, including the both of you, learn to respectfully listen and keep your cool, if not out of reverence for the other party, then for your own well beings. I was disappointed to find that politics today are so political, if you will, or so meant to disparage another's opinions and intelligence, but ultimately I learned a lot from this exchange. Thank you for posting your conversation on this website; it was very helpful and revealed a lot to me about the state of our nation, both politically and interpersonally.