I would like to suggest that the Democratic Party seek to make “amends” for the crimes of slavery and racial discrimination, rather than grant any form “reparations”.
Reparations, if I understand the term, would involve a one-time award of damages to black Americans for the racial crimes committed against them and their ancestors, including those who were slaves. Valid objections can be made to reparations on grounds of principle and of expediency.
On grounds of principle, it can be objected: that any award of damages would be arbitrary in value; that reparations would trivialize our country’s race crimes by suggesting that an award of damages could balance them out; and that reparations would tempt white America to believe that the issue of racial justice had finally been settled once and for all.
On grounds of expediency, it can be objected that: it would further alienate millions of white voters who already feel that the Democrats are allowing members of minority groups to “cut ahead of them in line”. If the Democrats are to prevent the rise of successors to Trump on the authoritarian and xenophobic right, it must win at least some of these voters back.
Amends, on the other hand, would consist of permanent changes of behavior, such as: putting an end to racial discrimination in housing, education, and jobs; ensuring that the criminal justice system treat blacks the same as whites; and remaining vigilantly opposed to language and actions that disparage blacks.
Making amends is obviously more radical in nature, and involves more work, than awarding reparations. But it acknowledges that we cannot buy our way out of our past but must confront whatever in it contradicts our country’s founding principles — those words about all men being created equal and being equally entitled to life, liberty, and happiness.
I just learned today that the author is a longtime progressive friend and a learned scholar and writer!
I don’t know that the Democratic Party is the party to do this alone. I think it is a comprehensive issue that is subtended by the entirety of the populace. No doubt you mean to say that the Democratic Party should take the lead, and maybe this is true, but we should examine what that means. We risk further, and furthermore dangerous, divisions if we allow a significant portion of the population the notion that they had no part in the proffer of either ‘amends’ or ‘reparations.’
‘Amends,’ as I understand the term, refers to changing ones own behavior in the face of ones own crimes and misdeeds. Democrats did this in the 40’s when the Dixiecrats forced the question upon them after which the Dixiecrats, by and large, folded themselves back into politics in the Republican Party. Those who remained Democrats, Robert Byrd for example, later explicitly renounced their prior behavior.
Reparations, on the other hand, recognizes a wrong done to others and committed by others, for which, collectively, the country may remain responsible but no longer culpable, A subtle distinction, perhaps, but necessary. It need not be ‘one-time’ in the sense of writing a check. Rather it would perhaps take the form of a large fund from which could be drawn specific amounts used for specific purposes.
Just a nit about your timeline — the Dixiecrats were forced out of the Democratic Party in 1968, in the aftermath of the famous 1968 Chicago Democratic convention. The GOP welcomed them and the GOP “Southern Strategy” was born. The south has been solidly Republican since then (with the significant exception of Bill Clinton).
I agree that so far as I know there is no requirement that “reparations” be a one-time event.
I agree with Ms. Warren that the same compelling arguments in favor of reparations for the abuses of slavery also apply — in some cases far more clearly — for the genocide we committed against American Indians (the American Indians I know prefer that term to “Native Americans”).
What seems clear enough to me from history is that white Americans acquired breathtakingly huge amounts of wealth by plundering the resources, labor, and lives of both slaves and American Indians. We enslaved, murdered, raped, tortured, and abused them. We bought and sold slaves — including children — as property. Slaveowners routinely raped their slaves (it was not a crime during the slavery era, and slaves were the property of their owner). American Indians were treated similarly, and many were captured and sold into slavery.
The American government systematically betrayed and ignored pretty much every treaty and other legal commitment to American Indians. In the unusual cases where American government promised to compensate tribes for their lands, those promises were ignored.
The question, therefore, is not so much whether horrific acts were committed against these peoples. The question is, instead, what if any obligations we now have to them.
“The way to kill a man or a nation is to cut off his dreams, the way the whites are taking care of the Indians: killing their dreams, their magic, their familiar spirits.” William S. Burroughs
I have no problem with the notion that the ‘States Right Party’ which started in the 1940’s (Strom Thurmond ran for Pres on the Dixiecrat ticket in 1948) took some time to be fully expunged by the Democrats. My previous example, that of Robert Byrd, didn’t fully denounce his prior behavior until the early 1970’s. So, I’ll amend the statement, to wit, ‘Democrats [started] this in the 40’s when […]’
I’ll see your significant exception of Bill Clinton and raise you one James Earl Carter, although I’ll allow that the pivot around which both these two turned was the GOP. The latter trying (and failing) to lead the Republicans to the promised land on the strength of his earnest and honest religious beliefs and the former (mostly) failing to triangulate his way into manipulating the GOP to do the right thing. Either way, their lodestar, was Southern attitudes and norms, if not the GOP outright..
Good point. Yes, I suppose I mean that the Democratic Party should take the lead on this. (Who else would?)
And I guess I don’t really understand what form reparations, as opposed to amends, could take in a way that would be productive. What would be the good of awarding every black American say $50,000 in damages when they face the same old discrimination in education, housing, jobs, etc.
At any rate, I hope that the Democratic candidates for the nomination do not all sign on to this reparations proposal before thinking it through. It would be a hard thing to back out of..
I have a different concern.
I agree that America owes reparations to both the descendants of slaves and also American Indians. I agree that this may well be a vital issue to those groups.
Does this matter to enough voters to make a difference in November of 2020?
While our institutions, climate, alliances, and economy are crumbling, I think it is somewhat foolish (not to mention arrogant) for us to talk about reparations.
Our mainstream media is already talking about everything except the issues that are most important. I’d like to see our campaigns tighten, rather than broaden, their focus.
Who else? Any American who truly and earnestly takes seriously the words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth… of which, I am told, a goodly number are Republican. At some point, cognitive dissonance becomes a burden too heavy to bear. (Silly me, I thought that point was in the George W Bush administration, but I was wrong… )
And I don’t understand how ‘amends’ can have any meaning if the person(s) who committed the deed aren’t the ones to ‘amend’ their behavior. You can’t, actually, make ‘amends’ for something you didn’t do. That’s the power of time and distance.
I would argue that the white America of today needs to make amends for the lingering and persistent inequalities in our country. Our public schools are becoming segregated again, and are not only separate but unequal. Young black men make up a disproportionate number of inmates in our jails and prisons. You know all the rest …. What we need to do — call it reparations or call it amends — is to eliminate these inequalities.
I agree, completely.
None of these things will happen while Trumpists are in power. None of this will matter while our coastal cities are under ten feet of seawater.
Please consider the following items:
– Undoing the latest Trumpist tax giveaway to the wealthy
– Imposing the wealth taxes proposed by Ms. Warren
– Providing single-payer government sponsored health care to every American
– Providing qualified publicly-funded child care to every American parent
– Providing a universal base income to every American
I think that any one of the above and pretty much any combination of several of them will do as much or more to benefit the affected groups as any of the contemplated reparations.
I think that our first task is regain and then keep the majority. Whether we are a majority or minority, I think our priorities should be roughly as follows:
1. Support and advance government programs that provide the most benefit to the largest number of people. Measure that by multiplying the number of people affected by the benefit per person and summing the result. A small gain providing to every American is better for America than a larger gain provided to a handful of Americans.
2. Oppose and dismantle government programs that do the most harm to the largest number of people. Measure that in a similar way, but of course with the signs reversed. A small pain hurting every American is worse for America than a larger pain hurting a handful of Americans.
Single-payer government-sponsored health care is an example of the first. Out-of-control wealth concentration caused by GOP economic policy is an example of the second, as is runaway global warming caused by GOP and Trumpist climate change denial.
I like your platform and it suggested to me another reason why amends would be preferable to reparations: amends would be less divisive. Much of what needs to be done to make amends to black Americans also needs to be done for the white Americans who are also suffering from the dynamic inequalities of our economic system.
Perhaps the least divisive approach of all is to simply do it.
Then, when the affected groups are clearly benefiting from it, we can point at the steps we’ve already taken.
Doing is sometimes more persuasive than talking.
Yes, we need a platform that does not divide us, one that does not pit women against men, or blacks against whites, or college degree against high school degree. The only divide that works in my opinion is us against the rich.
Even that divide is something we should be careful about.
For example, there are some who conflate “wealthy” and “high income”. That gets dicey when we start talking about “us against the rich”.
Similarly, there are some who assert that anyone who owns investment property is rich. Some assert that any business owner is rich. And so on.
I prefer “wealthy” to “rich”, and I think it’s important to be very specific about who we mean.
Of course we need to be tactful Is “anyone” who owns investment property rich? No, But if they receive all their wealth via rents on those properties, yes,they are filthy rich – or filthy wealthy.
There are differences, If you own 50 rental housing units in Somervillle and live off those rents, never lifting a finger apart from attending zoning meetings in town halls, attending political fund raisers, playing golf with building inspectors, that’s filthy wealthy. If I, on the other hand own 40 rental housing units in Boston but I spend my days fixing the plumbing, painting & cleaning units when the occupants change, shoveling the sidewalks in the winter, and so on, I’m working class rich.
Heh. I confess that this is the first time I’ve heard a distinction between “filthy rich” and “working class rich”. I’m reminded of an observation by Richard Dawkins about the distinction between religion as culture and religion as belief. He relates an event that he swears actually happened, a conversation between two Irish self-professed atheists, where one says to the other “But are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?”
The retirement strategy pursued most successfully by the many police, fire-fighters, teachers, and other public employees I’ve known here in Massachusetts is to sweat and save over a lifetime to build a portfolio of three to five investment properties (often 2- and 3-families, like 3-deckers) and then use the resulting income as a pension after retirement. Some of those friends periodically sell off a property (occasionally to family members) to monetize the capital gain.
None of those people are wealthy.
My own definition of “wealthy” is quite specific: A household where the income from assets exceeds consumption is “wealthy”. Once that threshold is met, any income from any source serves to increase the long-term income.
I agree with Ms. Warren that any household with more then $50M in assets has enough wealth that it is fair to tax those assets at 2% per year, and any household with assets in excess of $1B is “ultra-wealthy” and should be subject to a higher wealth tax.
In your example, 40 rental housing units is 15-20 two- or three-family buildings. At a generous $2M each, that’s $30-40M — comfortably below the $50M threshold where Ms. Warren’s tax will apply.
Even if somebody were to stretch that to 30 properties at $2M each, the resulting wealth tax would be minimal — 2% of the amount in excess of $50M, or $200,000/year. That rate (2% of the amount over $50M) is in the range of year-to-year fluctuations in property value and, for that matter, management fees, portfolio yields, and so on.
A sub-shop owner who employs a dozen people as cooks and counter-helpers is probably not wealthy. A retiree with a half-dozen two-families is probably not wealthy.
Our aggressive program to raise taxes on the very wealthy should bear that in mind.
Reparations are a BS issue. I’d rather spend the time debating this issue and whatever money is generated toward reparations to be spent ending modern day slavery in the US and around the world. This self-indulgent issue is more symptomatic of our narcissistic society than really trying to deal with the horror of slavery and those suffering from it’s affects today.