Democratic hopefuls embrace new meaning of reparations for slave descendants
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Several Democratic presidential candidates are embracing reparations for the descendants of slaves — but not in the traditional sense.
Over the past week, Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro spoke of the need for the U.S. government to reckon with and make up for centuries of stolen labor and legal oppression. But instead of backing the direct compensation of African-Americans for the legacy of slavery, the Democratic candidates are talking about using tax credits and other subsidies.
Long defined as some type of direct payment to former slaves and their descendants, the shifting definition of reparations comes as White House hopefuls seek to solidify their ties with African-Americans whose support will be crucial to winning the Democratic nomination. But it risks prompting both withering criticism from Republicans and a shrug from black voters and activists if the proposals are seen as an empty gesture that simply renames existing policy ideas as reparations.
"Universal programs are not specific to the injustices that have been inflicted on African-Americans," said Duke University economist William Darity, a veteran advocate of reparations. "I want to be sure that whatever is proposed and potentially enacted as a reparations program really is a substantive and dramatic intervention in the patterns of racial wealth inequality in the United States — not something superficial or minor that is labeled as reparations and then politicians say the national responsibility has been met."
Montague Simmons of the Movement for Black Lives, which has pushed for reparations, said the debate is "not just cash payments."
But "unless we're talking about something that has to be systemic and transfers power to the community, it's not likely going to be what we would consider reparations," he said.
For now, that's not how most Democratic presidential contenders are talking about reparations.
Harris has proposed monthly payments to qualified citizens of any race in the form of a tax credit. Warren has called for universal child care that would guarantee the benefit from birth until a child enters school. Families with income less than 200 percent of the poverty line would get free access and others would pay no more than 7 percent of their income.
Those benefits would likely have a disproportionate impact on African-Americans. But except for longshot candidate Marianne Williamson, no Democratic White House hopeful has called for financial remuneration for blacks.
Harris told reporters in Iowa on Sunday that "we have to all acknowledge that people have not started out on the same base and have not had equal opportunities to success."
Castro told The Root, a black online news site, that America "would be better off" if the government addressed the issue of reparations, which he said he would explore if elected.
And in New Hampshire on Friday, Warren said the U.S. needs to confront its "ugly history of racism" and "talk about the right way to address it." Asked whether she would support reparations for Native Americans, she responded: "It's an important part of the conversation."
Warren has been criticized for claiming Native American identity early in her career and apologized recently to the Cherokee Nation for releasing DNA test results as evidence she had Native American in her bloodline, albeit at least six generations back.
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, asked at a CNN town hall Monday about his position on reparations given Warren's and Castro's comments, said, "What does that mean? What do they mean? I'm not sure anyone's very clear." He said the U.S. must put resources into distressed communities to improve the lives of people affected by the legacy of slavery.
Sanders did not support reparations during his 2016 presidential campaign.
In terms of a direct payment, reparations could be a tough political sell. In a Point Taken-Marist poll conducted in 2016, 68 percent of Americans said the country should not pay cash reparations to African-American descendants of slaves. About 8 in 10 white Americans said they were opposed to reparations, while about 6 in 10 black Americans said they were in favor.
Republican strategist Whit Ayres said the issue of reparations is "symptomatic of the fundamental debate that is roiling the Democratic Party today."
"There is no doubt that issues of race have been and remain critically important in American society," he said. "But the idea that you resolve those issues by taking money from white people and giving it to black people will make race relations worse, not better. Republicans would love to have that debate."
Pressed on "Fox News Sunday" on whether reparations would ultimately end up in the Democratic platform, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said the issue is "something that will be discussed during the course of the presidential nominating process."
Even if Democrats are rethinking the definition of reparations, Ta-Nehisi Coates, who sparked a national debate over the issue with a 2014 essay in The Atlantic, said the recent chatter is promising. He noted that a Dave Chappelle comedy skit mocked the idea in 2003.
"It has generally been dismissed as utter lunacy," Coates said. "It's not being mocked now. Step one is to get people to stop laughing."
When Barack Obama ran to become the nation's first African-American president, he opposed reparations. But in an interview with Coates in the final days of his presidency, he didn't question the legitimacy of the concept.
"Theoretically, you can make, obviously, a powerful argument that centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination are the primary cause for all those gaps," Obama said, referencing the racial disparities faced by black Americans today.
"That those were wrongs done to the black community as a whole, and black families specifically, and that in order to close that gap, a society has a moral obligation to make a large, aggressive investment, even if it's not in the form of reparations checks, but in the form of a Marshall Plan, in order to close those gaps," Obama said, referring to the American initiative to provide economic assistance to Western Europe after World War II.
Still, he said it was politically difficult to achieve such a goal.
If presidential candidates want to prove they're serious about reparations, some proponents say they should back H.R. 40, the Reparations Study Act first introduced by former Michigan Rep. John Conyers in 1989. He reintroduced the bill every session until his resignation in 2017.
Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee took up the legislation after Conyers' departure and reintroduced the bill in 2018, but it has not been introduced in the current Congress.
"It's not wrong to say we need to cure cancer — which is what I take the support of reparations to actually be — but we don't have a full diagnosis yet," Coates said. "If you can actually get a study that outlines what actually happened, what the needs are, what the debt actually is, and how it was incurred, then you can design programs to actually address it. That gets you out of the vagaries of just saying you support reparations."
Tags
Who is online
169 visitors
Republican strategist Whit Ayres said the issue of reparations is "symptomatic of the fundamental debate that is roiling the Democratic Party today."
"There is no doubt that issues of race have been and remain critically important in American society," he said. "But the idea that you resolve those issues by taking money from white people and giving it to black people will make race relations worse, not better. Republicans would love to have that debate."
So, where would you draw the line? Since the Civil War ended in 1865, would that mean that all "minorities" who entered the U. S. prior to that time would be eligible? Irish? Italians? Polish? Germans? or just Blacks?
Hell. If anybody deserves reparations it would be the Native American Indian. Ya think?
All others, be glad you're here and not in Yemen. End of story.
Nobody alive today is responsible for these old transgressions and nobody alive today suffered under slavery or the mistreatment suffered by Native Americans.
So, where would you draw the line?
And that's another valid point. When I grew up people had problems with all sorts of other people and groups.
What this is really about is the usual concern of progressives that they maybe losing their hold on minorities. It will never go anywhere in the congress and probably cause more racial animosity, but what the hell, it's election time again.
What a crock of BS, Vic....Are you not aware of the Tribal termination act 1953/1973. Indian Boarding Schools, late 1800's through 1980's..Native relocation mid 1950/1960...The sterilization of native women by the government 1960/70.
What about the Corbel Settlement of 2014...WTF do you think that was about.
Sundown towns, racial discrimination into the 2000's....
Reparations are not a subject in the Indian community. What is, is that the government honor the treaties that they have signed with Native nations. Ones that they have violated for decades...You're aware that treaties are considered the highest law in the land aren't you.
These 'old transgressions', as you call them, are gifts that keep on giving, Vic. As long as there are people who keep the racism and hate alive, and people who teach their children to believe as they do, it will never be over.
GOOD!
Let me correct you - As long as there are people who keep GRIEVANCE and RESENTMENT alive...
Too bad that you have nothing to say about how the US Government has been as crooked as a dogs hind leg when dealing with Indian nations.
You might want to research the Tribal Termination Act by congress and what it cost Indian nations in lost land/monies and their status as Indian nations....You might learn something. Or research any of the points I listed before you comment on something you obvious know nothing about.
The topic is reparations and you just told me it does not involve the Indian community. I'm staying on topic.
That is about more than reparations Vic....I called you on it and in specific points. If you can't or won't respond it's on you...
The topic is reparations. I have no interest in discussing your grievances
Since they are facts I'm not surprised that you have no interest.
Nobody alive today is responsible for these old transgressions
OK, a little history Vic.
When the first Euro hit the North American Continent in the early 1500's, the Native American population was at "about" 120M. The Euros commented on the Eastern seaboard being a continuous light at night (Jack Weatherford, Native American Givers, Charles Mann, 1491). At that time, the Native Americans "owned" 2.33 Billion square acres of land. ("Owned" is a misnomer as the tribes/nations never "owned" the land - it was shared property of the tribes/nations and their peoples).
Today, 2019, Native Americans "own" (through the largesse of the U. S. government) 55.7 Million square acres of land with a population base of 7.2 Million. In other words, the Native tribes/nations "own" 2.1% of their previous homesteads with a population of only 2.3% of the U.S. population. (Yeah, I know - too much for such a small population, eh?)
The U. S. Constitution states, unequivocally, that, under "Article IV, Section 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Now, the U. S. government had/has entered into treaties with the 567 Federally Recognized Tribes 276 times. Not a SINGLE ONE OF THOSE 276 treaties has not been broken by the U. S. government with no recompense to the Native American tribes/nations. As one result, the Native American tribes/nations have had 2,227,000,000 square acres of land violently taken from them by a Federal government who can't comply with their own "Founding Document" that states, again, unequivocally, that all treaties made shall be the supreme law of the land.
So, yes, anyone today who works for the U. S. government is STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE OLD TRANSGRESSIONS because they are still allowing those transgressions to continue with no plans to rectify their Constitutional violations - BLATANT AND INTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS.
Let's add another caveat - NO ETHNICITY in the U.S., with the exception of Native Americans, has any laws written that states tribal members can't write a will without BIA's approval - no tribal member can own their own lands within reservation boundaries - or - well, the list is quite long - 305 separate laws DICTATE to the Native American tribes/nations what they can and can not do, up to and including - you can't write your own damn will without Fed approval.
Now, if these political grandstanders are quite serious about addressing the need for reparations, they better start with the original habitants of the North American continent and rectify what their, the grandstanders forefathers, have done to make a mockery of a peoples and then say - "Oh well, everybody knows there's no Native Americans left, so why bother."
Crock of Shyte.
Thanks for the history.
You do realize the difference between a demand for reparations and the failure of the government to meet it's commitment to promises made in a treaty?
If you need to hear me say that I expect the government keep it's promises I will, (I already agreed to your premise).
Please don't let me down. I respect your intelligence.
Actually Vic, what I was trying to do is - the call for reparations is being made for improper care/conduct/treatment/abuses of minorities (I believe that's what the call is for). The violation of the 276 treaties would certainly fall into that area - ya think?
Just a comparison.
No. A call for reparations is unjustified on the grounds I stated in post #1.2
The violation of 276 treaties is a serious matter. The government of the United States must live up to it's obligations.
Those are my thoughts. I respect yours as well.
Want to make reparations? Not just for slaves but native Americans, Hispanics, and everybody else who's been wronged in this country which is a long list? I think universal single payer healthcare could take care of it. If the US doesn't do it we, here in CA will.
AOC and Bernie.
Who's paying for it now? We are. It costs money.
Reparations for slave descendants? Crap. The effen senate is still grappling with medical care funding renewal for the first responders of 911. This is idiotic.
And, from the Native American side, my tribe/nation signed 12 "Contracts" with the U. S. government - all of which have been broken. If the government can't abide by and honor contracts written with foreign nations, why should other "minorities" be given funding when they have no contracts?
See my #1.1
I'm with you on this one---100%.
"There is no doubt that issues of race have been and remain critically important in American society,"
Don't the Dems who are advocating for the reparations see that they are just driving the wedge between the races deeper and deeper? And folks call the Repubs racist?
No one (as a majority) is ever going to vote for monetary reparations. This "topic" is just a way for right wingers to vent.
I do get a kick out of all the conservatives and libertarians who constantly whine that those who address white racism are the "real" racists. White people have very little if anything to complain about as a "race".
-
We have seen some troubling comments on Newstalkers lately that I consider to be walking right up to the "line".
Explain.
So why are left wingers in the Democratic party even bringing it up?
Most on the left wouldn't know a real racist if one were standing in front of them.
Since you don't know all "white people" why don't you quite while you are ahead? Of course the left doesn't consider it racist for a 12 year old skinny white male to be chased day in and out through the streets of Detroit suburbs by black gangs simply based on the color of his skin. I will now drop the subject before I truly say something derogatory that would get me banned.
On both sides of the political spectrum; but we all know that isn't what you meant.
Be careful about what you say to some posters on here..one has a tendency to cry to moderators to ban you from responding to him or post on one of his hundreds of "I hate Trump" seeds, simply because you call him out for his lies or challenge him to prove anything he has posted.
[deleted]
How do you decide who gets reparations? Is it just based on race/ethnicity?
Should Elizabeth Warren get reparations? Should Rachel Dolezal get reparations? Should Oprah Winfrey get reparations? Should Barack Obama get reparations?
What for? How much?
In other words, there are some people you are never going to make happy, no matter what you try.
How about staring right here?
According to the Tuskegee Institute, 4,743 people were lynched between 1882 and 1968 in the United States, including 3,446 African Americans and 1,297 whites. More than 73 percent of lynchings in the post-Civil War period occurred in the Southern states.
" the Democratic candidates are talking about using tax credits and other subsidies."
I think those Tax Payers involved, that would need to be funding Lunacy like this ……. are Dead now .
I can say for certain...… "I ...... HAVE NEVER OWNED ANY SLAVES."
Not only that, I'm certain none of my ancestors (at least going back to before European colonies were founded) owned slaves either. I think we get a pass, right?
Oh HELL NO !
We.....Some of the People.....are ALWAYS responsible for the past !
Well, reparations would certainly open a Pandora's box. Right now everyone is arguing about what 'reparations' mean. After that the thorny question of eligibility would need to be tackled.
The idea of reparations would create new divisions within minority groups because some would be ineligible. And if eligibility only requires being non-white then the idea becomes nothing more than institutional racism.
Democrats seem determined to pursue the most divisive issues they can think of. But the idea of reparations would backfire because there is no way to avoid creating divisions within the Democratic base.
Since many blacks have at least some white ancestry, I assume they will be writing themselves checks..
OK folks - getting to be that time of night (yeah, gotta get muh rest, ya know), so I'm locking it until the a.m.
Thanks for your comments and looking forward to more.
Had a good night's sleep - fed the six cats, got the wife ready for work, have had first two cups of coffee - think I'm ready.
Think of this if you will. How will the government determine who is eligible/non-eligible for the reparations? What about those who were excluded by law, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act?
Still waiting for an answer to my above questions - who would be eligible - who would make that decision?
Democratic hopefuls embrace new meaning of reparations for slave descendants
As many have pointed out, there are none of us that were alive during these times of transgressions nor were they limited only to the slave population.
In my opinion if the playing field is to be leveled it is through equal educational and economic opportunities. Now there are many that will say those conditions already exist, but in truth they do not and we all know that, admitted or not.
I truly miss the Chapelle Show.
Dave is a rare comedian - he's funny.
Hmmm - wonder what happened to the tag boxes.