|
Episode #1801
Issue of Reparations
Host: Natalie
Bullock-Brown, Host
Everett: Professor Robinson Everett
Darrity: Dr. William Darrity
Parker: Dr. Freddie Parker
Host: Reparations:
what are they, and what are the pros and cons? A discussion
from North Carolina Central University, tonight, on Black
Issues Forum.
Voiceover: This program
was made possible by contributions to UNC-TV from viewers
like you. Thank you.
[THEME MUSIC]
Host: Good evening.
I'm Natalie Bullock-Brown and this is Black Issues Forum.
Tonight we're on the campus of North Carolina Central University
where we will be having a very special town hall meeting and
talking about the issue of reparations for African-Americans.
What are they, what's the legitimacy of them and what do we
need to know about them, after all? We're going to get to
our discussion in a moment but first I want to introduce our
distinguished panel of guests. First we have Dr. Freddie Parker,
professor and chair of the Department of History at North
Carolina Central University. Next we have Professor Robinson
Everett, Professor of Law at Duke University. And we also
have with us today Dr. William Darrity, Professor of Economics
at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, Professor
of Public Policy at Duke and Director of the Institute of
African-American research at the University of North Carolina.
Now, we are also joined by a group of distinguished students
and faculty from North Carolina Central University and we're
very happy to have all of you here. Now, we'll be taking questions
from the floor during our discussion tonight, but first I
want to start off with helping us to understand what exactly
are reparations. And I'm going to start with Dr. Freddie Parker
if I may. Could you explain what reparations are?
Parker: Natalie, essentially
reparations represent an effort on the part of a nation, a
state, county or municipality to make payments or compensate
a group of individuals who have been ill-treated by that particular
nation, state or group.
Host: Okay. Now Dr.
Darrity, I understand that you feel that the rationale for
reparations, which is I guess firmly planted in slavery, really
needs to extend beyond slavery and into and through the Jim
Crow Era. Could you talk a little bit about the history of
reparations in light of that?
Darrity: Yes, reparations-the
primary justification people offer for reparations for African-Americans
does center on the history of slavery in the United States;
but in the period after the Civil War, with the closure of
Reconstruction, we had close to a century of apartheid conducted
in the American South, and that period of apartheid in the
American South, also under the label of Jim Crow practices,
included lynchings, property appropriations, the maintenance
of a dual system of education, and intense discrimination
against African-Americans. And I think if one were making
a case for reparations, just as strong a case can be made
on the basis of that 100 year period of history, as the entire
period of slavery. Finally there's ongoing discrimination
and stigmatization of African-Americans in the United States,
which provides a further justification for reparations.
Host: Professor Everett,
let me get you in here. I understand that you have some questions
about just exactly why reparations might be needed for African-Americans.
Could you elaborate on your-
Everett: I have some
concerns about the practicalities of it in terms of defining
the group of those that should receive and those that should
pay. The history is so extensive that it makes it much more
difficult to calculate who is at fault and who should be the
recipient. For example, much of the discrimination occurred
at times before many immigrants arrived in the United States.
To what extent should they be taxed or burdened with a responsibility
for reparations. So with respect to the prospective recipients,
once again there is such, at the present time, an intermixture
of persons and an effort to acquire a sort of an American
identity rather than that as African-American or Hispanic-American
and so forth, that I think there's a some very practical problems.
Finally I think that in the long run, reparations may turn
out to be divisive and thereby tend to defeat the objective
that they seek to accomplish. They seek to accomplish the
objection of bringing people together. I think that instead
they would have a divisive effect. So as a result, to me it
seems that there are distinguishing features that would differentiate
the situation here from that involved, say, in some of the
payments to Japanese-Americans who were relocated during WWII,
things of that sort.
Host: Thank you. Let's
bring up an FSG we have. It's a graphic of some of the groups
that have received reparations in the past. We know the Japanese-Americans
have received reparations from the American government. The
German government has paid out reparations to survivors of
the Holocaust. Native Americans have even received reparations
from the American government. Dr. Parker, who should receive
reparations out of the African-American community and who
should pay for them?
Parker: It is my firm
belief that the federal government supported the institution
of slavery. The Constitution, established in 1787 and approved
by the colonies in 1789, established the institution of slavery.
Article 1, Section 2; Article 1, Section 9; Article 4, Section
2 of the Constitution. And so the government itself is responsible
for that. If newspapers are advertised for runaway slaves,
and for the purchase and the sale of slaves, they did so because
the government allowed that to exist. The infrastructure itself
was already in place, and so the government is responsible
for that. So it seems to me that the people who should be
compensated for that, of course would be the descendents of
those slaves, and I would like to see those people compensated.
I was saying earlier that you look around Durham, North Carolina
and you see that black people live in deplorable conditions,
in terms of housing. We need to set up a fund that will deal
with that problem. The problem of education-and as Dr. Darrity
pointed out, it goes beyond the institution of slavery. We're
talking about 137 years of oppression in many, many different
ways, from lynching to Jim Crow to overall discrimination
and racism. So those people who are affected by that are clearly
identifiable.
Host: Well, Dr. Darrity,
let me go back to something that Professor Everett said, he's
wondering what is the objective, what's going to be gained
by these reparations. And there have been arguments against
reparation saying that welfare and affirmative action, other
such government policy, have begun to repay African-Americans.
What would you say?
Darrity: Well, Affirmative
Action is not a compensatory program to address past injustices.
Affirmative Action is in place to address ongoing discrimination,
and it actually has not been utilized that vigorously in the
United States on a continuous basis. In fact, we observe the
erosion of the use of Affirmative Action now. Welfare is a
universal program applicable to people who qualify for it
based upon an income means test, and it's not at all intended
to compensate for past injustice, it's to address ongoing
poverty today. So neither one of those programs really are
programs of reparations. I'd also like to address the question
of who should pay and who is responsible for paying and who
should be the recipients. It's clear to me, as Dr. Parker
suggested, that it should be the descendents of enslaved Africans
in the United States. And I would say that you should specifically
say that people who can demonstrate that they are descendents
of enslaved Africans in the United States and can also demonstrate
that they have self-identified as Black, Colored or Negro
in the period up to 10 years before the adoption of a reparations
program, would be the recipient population. What about who
should pay and the responsibility of immigrants who have come
here in the aftermath of slavery or came here after the inauguration
of Jim Crow? Well one of the reasons they came to the United
States was because of the perceived attractiveness of the
economic and social climate of the United States and that
climate was a consequence of the use of the involuntary labor
of Africans in the United States to build the economy into
the form that it takes today. Moreover, new immigrants, particularly
if they're phenotypically white, benefit from the conditions
of white privilege that exist in the society, and so I see
them as equally responsible for meeting the reparations bill
as any other non-African-Americans in the United States.
Host: So you're saying
that Caucasian-Americans should be-all-should be responsible.
Darrity: Yes.
Host: Okay, we want
anyone in the audience to join in this conversation at any
point, but Professor Robinson Everett, let me come back to
you and ask, should, in light of what Dr. Darrity and Dr.
Parker have said, do you think that possibly a financial compensation
would be valid for African-Americans? Do you feel that there's
some other sort of compensation that would serve the means
to an end of reparations for African-Americans that would
be appropriate?
Everett: Well I certainly
think the views they've expressed have to be taken into account.
On the other hand, I think there are several questions that
still remain to be raised. With respect to the immigrants,
many of them came because they were persecuted in their home
country, that's why they're here and not because of the attractiveness
of the United States. So that I think lumping everybody together,
other than African-Americans, has some flaws to it. More important
to me is to look forward, rather than backward. There are
a limited number of resources. I don't know exactly how this
would be raised by taxation or otherwise, assuming these proposals
for reparations were followed through on. But where is the
money going to from? Okay, the finite amount, and if it's
being put into the reparations then that's money that's not
available for things like welfare, for education. I think
our approach should be a forward-looking approach, trying
to rectify the situation that exists today, putting resources
into raising education, providing housing, etc., etc., which
will in the long run I think benefit to a considerable extent,
the descendents of the slaves. Because, take Durham as an
example, certainly a higher percentage of the persons living
in poverty here in Durham are African-Americans and many of
them are descendents of slaves I would assume. But on the
other hand, I think the important thing is to look at them
not in terms of the history of the ethnicity but look in terms
of the needs for housing would-
Host: Professor Everett,
I'm sorry, let me cut in real quick and get Dr. Parker back
in here. Are we talking about specifically and only economics?
Is that what we African-Americans need to be compensated for?
Are we talking about self-determination? What are we talking
about when we talk about reparations?
Parker: My philosophy
is that if the government had done in 1865 what they should
have done, we wouldn't be talking about this today. So they
failed. Reconstruction itself was a failure because they were
so bent on trying to give black folk civil rights, and the
right to sit beside somebody on a toilet seat, that they overlooked
the fact that you needed an economic infrastructure. If the
40 acres and a mule is something that we talk about, but had
that become a reality then we wouldn't be where we are today.
So for the most part, it's a failure because of a lack of
an economic infrastructure. So essentially we are talking
about economics.
Host: Let me ask Dr.
Darrity this. As Professor Everett was saying, other cultures
have come here, but because of persecution, because of economic
opportunities that they saw in America, and one thing that
I'd like to throw out here that came from a web site called
FrontPageMagazine.com that is against reparations, points
out that Black American gross domestic product would make
it one of the world's 15 wealthiest countries. It also says
that the Black American poverty rate at 22% still sounds high,
but that percentage is at an all-time low, and a few years
ago a Fortune Magazine poll found that corporate blacks felt
optimistic at the prospect for corporate upward mobility.
So if African-Americans have not really had the same opportunities
to benefit from the foundation, the economic foundation, that
our ancestors who were enslaved built, what, in light of these
statistics, how do we resolve this?
Darrity: Well I think
that the central issue for me is not one of producing unity
per se from reparations, but closing the significant gap that
exists between African-Americans and the majority of the U.S.
population. And what those statistics you mentioned overlook,
is that the central large disparity that exists economically
in the United States is wealth, the possession of property
and assets. That's the biggest disparity between blacks and
non-blacks. If we were to look at income disparities for families,
black families on average have about 65-70% of the income
of white families. But when we start talking about wealth,
that is real estate, bonds, stocks and the like, black wealth
holdings are on average in the vicinity of 20-25% of white
wealth holdings. That's a substantial gap. It would seem to
me that the only way that can be addressed is by a form of
a redistribution of wealth that could take the form of a reparations
program.
Host: Okay, thank you
very much. We have a question from the floor. Quickly, your
question, thank you.
M: Yes, thanks. My
name is Preston Barnes; I'm an A&T grad. My question is
that at work a friend of mine said that, well, we shouldn't
ask for reparations. I said what about if you don't get paid
Friday? Then multiply that by your lifetime. I don't think
that he has a right to speak for black people in terms of
what we should not get because I think everyone who was denied
their wages as slaves probably sent up a prayer saying that
one day I hope this will change with the future generations.
Host: Thank you very
much. I'm sorry to cut you off. Professor Everett, what would
you say in response to that comment?
Everett: I have no
specific response but I am concerned, going back to some of
the comments a moment ago, I'm concerned about what we have
in terms of drawing distinctions between persons in poverty
of one group or another. As for example, here in Durham at
the present time we have a lot of Hispanic Americans who are
living in very poverty-stricken conditions, as well as many
white Caucasians. So you ask yourself, well what is going
to be the practical effect of saying, well we're taking resources,
turning them over to one group, and not providing for others
who have a very distinct financial need. I guess the old saying,
show me the money, is the key and that seems to be the key
here, how to redistribute wealth. To me it seems that the
potential for increasing social divisiveness as a result of
this is so great that the reparations would do more harm than
good. I think certainly-
Darrity: Virtually
every social policy has differential effects on different
segments of the population. Some social policies have been
specifically targeted for groups in the form of compensation,
for example, the decision to provide Japanese-Americans who
had been subjected to internment with compensation. The decision
to compensate some groups of native American tribes that have
been recognized for treaty violations. All of those are instances
where it seems entirely justifiable and appropriate to do
so. Somehow when we get to the issue of compensation of African-Americans,
everybody flinches, and I'm not really sure why. I don't see
any differentiae specifica between saying that there was a
serious injury associated with internment in American concentration
camps during WWII, versus the long history of discrimination
and slavery that colors the past of African-Americans.
Host: Professor Everett,
before we get your response, let's get another audience question.
Yes?
M: Nate Hayes, psychology
major at North Carolina Central. I hear like a lot of talk
as far as like economics, as far as like paying back. And
I actually did a report on this last year at my last school.
And I would think a better way as far as like a better solution
for reparations would be like you think about the future,
our younger generations, as in terms as far as free education,
college education. As far as like I think another solution
is not paying taxes for about ten years, what you make is
what you own. I think that would be a good way, because you
think about it, as many African-Americans as we have, as many
people that suffered from reparations, it would be, you're
talking about the trillions, as far as like money paying back,
at least, you know. So why not affect the younger generations
that are really going to benefit from it.
Host: Thank you for
your question. Dr. Parker, in light of what this young man
has just said, will reparations, especially if they are economic
reparations, what will they fail to remedy, what sort of things
will still be left undealt with?
Parker: I don't know.
I don't think that reparations represent a cure-all. I don't
think that they will be designed to bring all black people
together. I think that essentially we have a past that says
that you were in slavery, you have a past that says that you
were discriminated against. And when you look at the history
of black folk in this country, one of the reasons we are where
we are is because of the economic gap. And the education gap.
I agree 100% that we need to set up several billion dollars
to send every black person in this country who wants to go
to college, to college. We're owed that, without a doubt.
And that will do much to deal with many of the social ills
that exist in this society.
Host: Professor Everett,
let me get back to you, and what about this whole issue that
Dr. Darrity brought up, of people seeming to have a problem
when it comes to the idea of African-Americans receiving this
sort of compensation or reparations? I thought you had a response
to that.
Everett: Well I think
that there is a feeling in many quarters that the group to
be receiving the reparations is so ill-defined that it's distinguishable
from a situation of the group of Japanese who you can identify
a specific time period, this happened between 1941 and '44,
'45. I think that's one factor. With respect, say, to an Indian
tribe, you've got a relatively small number, you've got a
specific treaty violation. There again, you can define the
recipients and you can define the injury that was done. So
I think that's a distinguishing feature. Interestingly, I
was just reading something the other day about how, with respect
to payments being made to the Seminoles, there is a controversy
in that tribe around the "Seminoles" and the "Black
Seminoles." And there never had been any problem there
apparently among Seminoles, however they were characterized,
until this money came into the picture, and then the distinction
was being drawn, so that I think the money can have a very
divisive effect when it's allocated to a particular group,
and particularly, you know if you were the descendent of an
immigrant who fled from Russia from the Czar and came to the
United States, you'd say well why in the world should I be
paying anything through taxes or otherwise for the group of
slaves, I had nothing to do with it and my ancestors had nothing
to do with it. If you were from New England area and had ancestors
who had fought in the Civil War to try to obtain freedom for
slaves, you'd figure, why in the world should I be paying
for it?
Host: Professor Everett,
I'm sorry, hold that thought. We need to get one more question
from the floor. Yes?
M: How are you doing?
I'm Lawrence Martin, junior here at North Carolina Central
University. I was wondering if you thought that earlier you
said that you would think that white Americans should pay
for reparations; do you think that would cause a greater hatred
or a greater dislike or envy from other groups of Americans?
Host: Okay, if I'm
understanding your question correctly, you're wondering if
other cultures would look at African Americans specifically
and would be jealous or have ill will towards African-Americans
as a result of reparations?
M: Yes, similar to
what he was saying, them paying for something that they had
nothing to do with.
Host: Okay, Dr. Darrity,
would you like to respond?
Darrity: Yeah, two
responses: one is I'm not certain what the marginal effect
would be. I mean it's not clear that there is a great deal
of overwhelming warmth that is felt towards any kinds of claims
that African-Americans make in this society. But the same
argument has been made about Affirmative Action increasing
stigma. Recipients of Affirmative Action presumably get stigmatized
by having gotten their positions, because it's perceived that
they got them without merit. But I would argue that the degree
of stigma that's directed towards African-Americans is extremely
high, regardless of whether or not you have Affirmative Action.
So similarly I'm not certain how much a reparations program
would alter that. But I do want to comment about this question
of the immigrants who came because they were persecuted elsewhere.
Certainly that's true, but they didn't necessarily have to
come to the United States. There are many other countries
that they could have opted to go to where they would not have
been subjected to the persecution they faced in their home
country. So there was something that attracted them to the
United States, and I would argue it's the infrastructure that
exists in this society, in many dimensions, that's a consequence
of the history of the use of African-American labor that was
unpaid and involuntary.
Host: Thank you, Dr.
Darrity. One more question from the floor. We're running out
of time.
F: It's just a comment,
and I'm totally against reparations because when, if we get
reparations, after we would spend the money, we'll be back
to the same situation that we were in the beginning. And we
will definitely spend the money, because we are consumers.
And I'm really totally against it. And those things-
Host: I'm sorry, thank
you for your question. Dr. Parker, I'm going to give you the
last word. We only have a few minutes. What would you say
in response to that?
Parker: I think if
the government would set reparations up the way that I think
is best, that we wouldn't have a situation where folks are
going out, spending money, buying big cars and that kind of
thing. You would have an infrastructure set in place that
would allow people the opportunity to do that if they wanted
to do that. That some people who believe that black folks
should be given a check; there are others who believe that
an infrastructure should be set up for various programs, social
programs that go way beyond welfare. And that is exactly what
I would like to see in place.
Host: Would you like
to respond?
Darrity: Yeah, I mean
clearly you could develop a reparations program that was aimed
at institution building, rather than necessarily handing people
a paycheck. However, I think there is a paternalism involved
in saying, we're not going to do this because we're afraid
of how people will choose to spend the money. That certainly
has not been the case where reparations payments have been
made to other groups.
Host: Thank you, Dr.
Darrity. One sentence, Professor Everett, just to capsulize
all this.
Everett: I think the
potential harm from reparations program is so much greater
than the potential benefit to anyone, that it should be rejected.
Host: Thanks so much
to all of you who have sat here and participated in this Town
Hall meeting. Thanks so much to our guests: Dr. Freddie Parker,
Dr. William Darrity and Professor Robinson Everett. We are
so grateful to you for being here and sharing your insightful
comments with us. Of course, amazingly we are out of time
but if you are interested in learning anything more about
this issue or about our guests and the work that they do please
go to our web site at www.unctv.org/bif. We also want to hear
from you, so please call us with your comments and suggestions.
You can send those to us by email or you can call us at 919-549-7167.
We are hoping that you will join us for Black Issues Forum
every Friday evening at 9:30 PM. I'm Natalie Bullock-Brown
and I'm hoping that you will be encouraged no matter what.
Have a good evening.
[THEME MUSIC]
|
