What, if anything, does America owe the descendants of slaves? And, if reparations are due, in what form will they come and who will pay for them?
Experts from around the country convened at The University of Memphis this weekend to discuss whether reparations should be awarded to the heirs of slaves, how the issue has been handled in other countries and problems and possibilities associated with this hot-button issue.
“We as a people have a right of redress and a right to self- determination,” said Minister Suhkara Yahweh, a long-time civil rights activist. “Our ancestors were ripped from their homeland and were denied, for years, the fruits of their labor.”
Yahweh’s remarks reflected those of many who attended the two-day discussion at the Fogelman Executive Center.
“Time alone does not heal old wounds,” said Kevin Washburn, general counsel to the Indian Gaming Commission and faculty member at the University of Minnesota Law School.
“Absolutely, reparations are due,” said state Rep. Henri Brooks (D-Memphis). “They are due for past injustices, for enslavement and forced labor, and the psychological trauma.”
Brooks authored a House resolution calling for the creation of a seven-member panel to study the reparations issue. The resolution is stuck in committee, and Brooks has not yet been able to find a sponsor in the senate.
Brooks said she hopes to “enlighten” some of her colleagues, whom she described as “not very informed and not willing to be educated.”
Some said that reparations are due because African Americans were denied, through slavery and Jim Crowe laws, an equal footing in business and education with descendants of Europeans.
“Some people say we were not on an even playing field,” said Alfred Mathewsen, associate professor and dean of law at the University of New Mexico School of Law. “I say we were not even on the field.”
Some speakers said the foundation for America’s enormous financial success was built on the blood and sweat of slaves and their descendants. And for that reason, reparations are due.
“(The U.S.) came to Africa and raped its resources, both human and capital,” Yahweh said. “No thief wants to admit he stole something.”
Admitting guilt and responsibility were key elements of the reparations debate in South Africa. In that country, the emphasis was placed on “national unity and reconciliation.” White South Africans were granted amnesty in return for their public apologies and recognition of atrocities committed against black South Africans, some of whom are to receive monetary compensation.
The U.S. has dealt with reparations before. In 1998, the federal government paid reparations Japanese Americans who were detained at internment camps all over the country during World War II.
The difference between paying reparations to Japanese Americans for internment during WW II and compensation for slavery is that many of the Japanese who were unjustly rounded up were still alive to receive the payments, said Stephen Kershnar, a professor of philosophy at State University of New York-Fredonia.
Kershnar said it is “unclear” that reparations are called for, who should pay for them and how and in what form they would be awarded.
Kershnar said the premise that today’s descendants of slaves were harmed by that institution is false, because nobody knows for sure whether the lives of African Americans today would be different had there been no slavery. Kershnar said it would be like comparing “two different worlds.”
“One problem is the notion that slavery harmed current African Americans. This is just a mistake,” Kershnar said. “There is just no sense to be made to the notion that someone would have been better off had slavery not occurred, because there is no way of knowing.”
When Kershnar asked the audience in attendance which of them had been affected by slavery, about 35 African-American students rose their hand.
Kershnar also said it might be unfair to make today’s generation of Americans pay for the sins of their fathers.
“If you injure someone, you may owe them — but it is not clear that you owe their grandchildren,” Kershnar said
An ABC News Poll revealed that 42 percent of Americans felt the U.S. should apologize for slavery. Fifty-three percent of white Americans said the government should apologize, while two-thirds of the African-Americans polled said the government should apologize.
According to George Schedler, professor of philosophy at Southern Illinois University, deciding who will apologize to who is just one of the problems associated with the reparations debate.
“If you say monetary compensation is owed, then certain questions must be factored in,” Schedler said. “Should damages be paid for what a free black man would have earned in racist 19th Century America? Or should they be based on what a free white person would earn?”
Erin Daly, associate professor of law at University School of Law, said similar difficulties arose in South Africa.
Daly said the burden of proof for determining who receives reparations was set too high and the disbursement of funds has become mired in bureaucracy. Nine years after the “negotiated revolution” ended apartheid, black South Africans still have not received funds that were promised them.
Mathewsen said that Schedler’s focus on minute details constrains a much-needed debate. A debate which should, according to Mathewsen, should include political as well as economical compensation. Mathewsen said constitutional amendments should be included so African Americans have a stronger voice in American government.
“Money alone will not fix the problem,” Mathewsen said. “We need a social contract we took part in. We can put our imprint on the social contract that makes America.”
