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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Reparations advocates offer a variety of visions for the form which reparations should take. Some hold strictly to a traditional model of financial compensation to individuals who are identified as the descendants of slaves. 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.

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. Another suggestion would replace free education with an exemption from taxation.

As far as legislative proposals, as far as I’m aware, the only legislation currently pending on reparations is John Conyer’s H.R. 40, which would merely establish a federal commission to study the issue, including specific proposals for reparations. So the door is wide open on the specifics.

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, 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?

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.

As stated==no Nation can make its population whole for past injustice. That beast would swallow itself.

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.

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.