Julianne Malveaux’s Commentary

 

THROUGH A SHADED LENS
BY JULIANNE MALVEAUX
                                                         

                                                                                                           

 

            Ooops, I did it again!  I promised myself, six months ago, that I wouldn’t talk reparations with white people.  Why?  They just don’t get it, the argument gets heated, and my blood pressure rises.  And, until more African American people support reparations (the Congressional Black Caucus is not even unanimous on legislation to simply study the issue), the reparations movement is likely to flounder.

 

But last year a Chicago alderman held a set of hearings on reparations, and she followed up her hearings with a conference early this Black History Month. In other cities, and in a couple of states, through books and articles and a working group that includes star lawyers like Johnnie Cochran and Harvard’s Charles Ogletree, the reparations issue is hot, hot, hot.  So what is a good-natured pundit to do but weigh in on an issue that gaining space in the public discourse?

 

            After all, how is it that African Americans are 12 percent of the population and hold just 2 percent of the nation’s wealth?  Part of it has to do with the unequal allocation of goods and services that we bring to the table.  We can’t earn interest if we have no principal.  Once upon a time, when we had put nearly 200 years of labor into our nation, we wanted little more than 40 acres and a mule.  And we got less than that – 40 lashes and the shaft.  We don’t have the wealth because we never had the basis.  Slavery robbed us of the fruits of our labor, but at the same time, the great migration empowered others.  Here is what Dr. Martin Luther King said about the years after slavery:

 

            “In 1863 the Negro was told that he was free as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation being signed by Abraham Lincoln.  But he was not given any land to make that freedom meaningful.  It was something like keeping a person in prison for a number of years and suddenly discovering that this person is not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted.  And you just go up to him and say, “Now you are free,” but you don’t give him any bus fare to get into town. You don’t give him any money to get some clothes to put on his back or to get on his feet again in life.”

 

King goes on to talk about ways our nation supported new immigrants in the post-Civil War years, “At the same time the nation failed to do anything for the black man, through an act of Congress it was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the Midwest which meant it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.  But not only did it give the land, it built land grant colleges to teach them how to farm.  Not only that, it provided county agents to further their expertise in farming.  And to this very day thousands of these very persons are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies every year not to farm.  And these are so often the very people who tell Negroes that they must lift themselves up by their own bootstraps.”

 

            Reparations mean repair, fix, and clean it up.  Why does white America so resist cleaning it up?  I get letters from folks who say, “get over it,” as if the indelible stain of our past is something to get over.  Or notes from folks who tell me that their ancestors fought in the Civil War to free my ancestors and that ought to be enough.  They use strong words; say black folks spit on their sacrifice if we insist on reparations.  They trample on our broken dreams of 40 acres and a mule, and then they say we do not have the right to repair.  We do.

           

            Here is what intrigues me most.  Some folks see the reparations conversation as real and legitimate, or at least not offensive.  Others are ready to throw down and say that any mention of reparations is an affront to them.  I went on Fox News to talk with John Gibson and the conservative David Horowitz about the reparations issue on Monday, and in just 24 hours got about a dozen e-mails, almost divided 50-50. The white folks thought me angry and rabid, the black folks thought me reasonable and focused.  How could two groups of folks see the same conversation so differently?  Part of it has to do with the fact that some ears close and eyes narrow when the word “reparations” is mentioned.  Do they think there is no reason to fix, repair, or make amends?  Or, do they think that all is right between African Americans and whites in the 21st century?

 

Back