Reparations: What precisely is there to support? (op-ed)
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was asked if he was in favor of “reparations for slavery”.
He gave one answer that I’ll divide into two parts.
Part one, “No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive.”
This part disappointed Ta-Nehisi Coates author of The Atlantic article titled: The Case for Reparations: Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty five years of racist housing policy.
I’ll divide Coates’s subtitle into two parts.
1). Slavery
2). Three counts of discriminatory policy after emancipation
Coates believes Sanders’s statement contradicts the radicalism of his campaign. Coates wondered how Sanders could be pessimistic about reparations but opportunistic about other policies that would meet the same bipartisan hostility in congress.
That’s a fair observation but there’s a fallacy not so obvious.
On the surface Coates’s righteous indignation is aimed at what appears to be avoidance of the issue because it could hinder growing support for the Sanders campaign. But behind the righteousness lies admittance that the cause is unrealistic.
Coates’s argument seems to be reparations is just as unfeasible as the rest of Sanders’s proposals therefore Sanders has a moral obligation to remain consistent and champion reparations in a campaign of unfeasibility.
Coates said, “If not even an avowed socialist can be bothered to grapple with reparations, if the question really is that far beyond the pale, if Bernie Sanders truly believes that victims of the Tulsa pogrom deserved nothing, that the victims of contract lending deserved nothing, that the victims of debt peonage deserve nothing, if this is the candidate of the radical left -- then expect white supremacy in America to endure well beyond our lifetimes and lifetimes of our children.”
But Sanders said he didn’t support reparations for slavery.
Coates didn’t mention slavery in his diatribe. (That’s why I divided his subtitle) Coates’s argument was case specific. (And these specific cases don’t involve all descendents of slaves. That’s why a Washington Post columnist said, “Coates himself has been vague about what kind of reparations he supports.)
Now here’s the question for anyone that wants to take the case for reparations beyond academic arguments. Is it possible for a politician to oppose reparation for slavery but want to remedy the legacy of discrimination whether the policy or program is labeled reparations or not?
Part two of Sanders’s reparation answer was, “The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do … We should be talking about … Making investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free.”
Sanders supporters say their campaign promotes race-neutral policies aimed at reducing inequalities. They also address police shooting, the war on drugs, the minimum wage, and affordable childcare, and Sanders supporters believe these investments would overwhelmingly benefit African Americans and be similar to reparations.
Coates stated these positions “address black people not so much as a class specifically injured by white supremacy, but rather, as a group which magically suffers from disproportionate poverty … This is the class first approach originating in the myth that racism and socialism are necessarily incompatible.”
Coates continued, “Reparations is not one possible tool against white supremacy. It is the indispensable tool against white supremacy.”
This statement leaves one question: If reparations are paid will it end white supremacy?
If the answer is no.
Then what precisely is Bernie Sanders suppose to support?
But if the answer is yes, then what is the implementation plan?
And if the academics don’t have a plan (Beyond H.R. 40 Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act) again what is Bernie Sanders suppose to support?
First published in New Pittsburgh Courier 2/3/16
He gave one answer that I’ll divide into two parts.
Part one, “No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive.”
This part disappointed Ta-Nehisi Coates author of The Atlantic article titled: The Case for Reparations: Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty five years of racist housing policy.
I’ll divide Coates’s subtitle into two parts.
1). Slavery
2). Three counts of discriminatory policy after emancipation
Coates believes Sanders’s statement contradicts the radicalism of his campaign. Coates wondered how Sanders could be pessimistic about reparations but opportunistic about other policies that would meet the same bipartisan hostility in congress.
That’s a fair observation but there’s a fallacy not so obvious.
On the surface Coates’s righteous indignation is aimed at what appears to be avoidance of the issue because it could hinder growing support for the Sanders campaign. But behind the righteousness lies admittance that the cause is unrealistic.
Coates’s argument seems to be reparations is just as unfeasible as the rest of Sanders’s proposals therefore Sanders has a moral obligation to remain consistent and champion reparations in a campaign of unfeasibility.
Coates said, “If not even an avowed socialist can be bothered to grapple with reparations, if the question really is that far beyond the pale, if Bernie Sanders truly believes that victims of the Tulsa pogrom deserved nothing, that the victims of contract lending deserved nothing, that the victims of debt peonage deserve nothing, if this is the candidate of the radical left -- then expect white supremacy in America to endure well beyond our lifetimes and lifetimes of our children.”
But Sanders said he didn’t support reparations for slavery.
Coates didn’t mention slavery in his diatribe. (That’s why I divided his subtitle) Coates’s argument was case specific. (And these specific cases don’t involve all descendents of slaves. That’s why a Washington Post columnist said, “Coates himself has been vague about what kind of reparations he supports.)
Now here’s the question for anyone that wants to take the case for reparations beyond academic arguments. Is it possible for a politician to oppose reparation for slavery but want to remedy the legacy of discrimination whether the policy or program is labeled reparations or not?
Part two of Sanders’s reparation answer was, “The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do … We should be talking about … Making investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free.”
Sanders supporters say their campaign promotes race-neutral policies aimed at reducing inequalities. They also address police shooting, the war on drugs, the minimum wage, and affordable childcare, and Sanders supporters believe these investments would overwhelmingly benefit African Americans and be similar to reparations.
Coates stated these positions “address black people not so much as a class specifically injured by white supremacy, but rather, as a group which magically suffers from disproportionate poverty … This is the class first approach originating in the myth that racism and socialism are necessarily incompatible.”
Coates continued, “Reparations is not one possible tool against white supremacy. It is the indispensable tool against white supremacy.”
This statement leaves one question: If reparations are paid will it end white supremacy?
If the answer is no.
Then what precisely is Bernie Sanders suppose to support?
But if the answer is yes, then what is the implementation plan?
And if the academics don’t have a plan (Beyond H.R. 40 Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act) again what is Bernie Sanders suppose to support?
First published in New Pittsburgh Courier 2/3/16
Comments
Post a Comment