 |
Commentary on the Slavery Apology
Episode #2222
Brown: Recently the state legislature passed a resolution to apologize for North Carolina’s role in the perpetuation of slavery. Since then a number of bills have been introduced and are pending in the state house and senate that propose to help remedy the years of injustice. But how? We’ll talk about these bills and the implications if they are passed next on Black Issues Forum.
Voiceover: Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting UNC-TV.
Brown: Good afternoon, everyone and welcome to Black Issues Forum. I am Natalie Bullock Brown. In April of this year the Senate and House chambers of the North Carolina General Assembly passed resolutions apologizing for the state’s role in slavery and years of legalized segregation. Since that time more bills have been introduced to remedy the lasting impacts of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation including implementation of recommendations from the 1898 Wilmington Race Riots Commission, compensation for individuals sterilized as a result of the state’s decades long eugenics sterilization program and a bill to declare June 19th National Freedom Day. We have an esteemed panel with us today to talk about some of the benefits and cost of the proposed legislation. Before we get started we would like to share with you a portion of an interview with two of our state legislators that was broadcast on UNC-TV’s Legislative Week in Review on April 27th of this year. Host and producer Eszter Vajda asked Representative Larry Womble and Senator Eddie Goodall about their views about reparations. For those who have suffered the injustices that the resolution makes apology for.
Womble: I don’t believe there is any amount of money that you could give these victims to make them whole again. But I think something should be done.
Vajda: Senator Goodall, you don’t think reparations are the right thing, why?
Goodall: Reparations, I don’t. And let me just say that 60% of those in the sterilization program were African American and 40% were white. So there were white victims also. I think reparations is a bad idea. I think it sets African Americans against their nation that actually set them free. Now the fact that slavery existed here is one thing. But slavery had existed across, of course, across the world. We now have in our country, our African Americans, if you take their income and their wealth they would be the 10th largest economy in the world. And the income of African Americans in our country is 20-50 times greater than the income of Africans. You may say that makes no sense but-and maybe it is not a good analogy but I think it is. I think African Americans have come a long way. There is a long way to go, Representative Womble. But 620,000 people died in a war, not just about slavery, but a large part of that battle had to do with slavery. So there is an investment there.
Womble: Let me say that we died in that war too. African Americans died in that war. We had to fight two wars. We had to fight the war in foreign countries so that we could have freedom here but then when after the war is over with, we came back here and found out that we were treated like second class citizens.
Goodall: Right, right.
Womble: And we still had to go in the back door. We still could not go to the movie theaters. We still could not eat at the lunch counters. But here we are fighting for freedom somewhere else and we didn’t even have freedom ourselves.
Vajda: But the question is actually-is should reparations be given to the people that-I am guessing, no one argues that there was discrimination. Should reparations be given in today’s world?
Womble: And I am saying that something should be given. We still haven’t got that old proverbial 40 acres and a mule yet. That has-and that was promised to us. And that was written down. That is part of when we talk about history, that has not been fulfilled. That promise has not been fulfilled. The other thing about it is that as I said, I don’t believe any amount of money will make these people whole again. So it’s not the money that is real important it is the recognition that this country has done something to us. You stand up and admit, yes, we have done that. Now, other things are just as important. It may be more important for an example, getting it correct in the history books, having a monument, having also this display. Also as important for us to make sure that this does not happen again. That is still a form of reparations. Reparation doesn’t always have to take the form of money.
Goodall: Let me kind of finish that. The reparations I was talking about was money. Again, let me say that I think that perpetuates a culture of victimization for blacks. I think it is politics of envy and I don’t think we need that in this country. I think we have equal opportunity, that doesn’t equate to equal outcomes. And the thought of doing this, I think, is perpetuating I think the racial flames that burn bridges, that don’t build bridges. So I’m totally against it as you can tell. We are going to disagree on this. Now the non-tangible things, if they mean something to the black community, certainly. That’s important. But I don’t think we should perpetuate. What we are trying to get away from when we talk about diversity we are trying to say let’s get away from this distinction between our colors and let’s go forward. So I think this does the opposite.
Brown: And now I would like to introduce our guests. We have with us Irving Joyner, a North Carolina Central University Law Professor who also served as vice-chair of the 1898 Wilmington Race Riots Commission. I would also like to welcome Dr. Freddie L. Parker, who is a Professor of History also at North Carolina Central University and last but not least we have with us Dean Webster, Executive Director of the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law which is a private public interest legal foundation that conducts research and educational campaigns. Welcome all of you to Black Issues Forum.
Let’s just jump right in and deal with this issue of reparations and let’s talk about in terms of money and we are going to start with you, Mr., Joyner. What are your views on whether or not reparations would be appropriate and also what Senator had to say about them.
Joyner: Well, in the law, certainly in the common law of this country there is this notion that for every wrong there is a remedy. And reparations speaks no more-to no more than the fact that there needs to be a remedy for the harm that was visited upon victims. It’s not a cultural victimization but a real victims that were made by a society and a philosophy and a political strategy that resulted in harm being inflicted upon people who were defenseless. And for those injuries there should be a remedy. If you were in a wreck down on the corner and somebody ran into your car and they were at fault, you would be entitled to a remedy for the injuries and the harm that you suffered and so that is exactly what we are talking about here.
Brown Mr. Webster, what are some of the challenges that might exist in trying to enforce, you know, if a bill was passed that said, yes, victims should receive reparations, what would be some of the legal challenges of actually enforcing that.
Webster: Irving’s analogy to the common law idea of tort which is a form of injury and of providing a remedy for the injury is I think a good one. The problem in the context of reparations for slavery is that the actual wrongdoers are specific individuals and the actual victims are specific individuals. They are not the people of North Carolina, they weren’t even the people of North Carolina back in the 1820s or whatever but they are certainly not the people that currently populate the state. So the idea of providing a remedy for a wrong and having the wrongdoer provide the remedy has a lot of value to it. The problem is that what is contemplated by this reparation system is a notion of collective guilt in which the people that are actually not guilty are being forced to pay. We would all be required to pay in as taxpayers and the recipients would not even be the actual victims but would be presumably descendants of victims. So it is a very kind of a rough way of trying to achieve justice but I think actually the result would be an injustice because of that.
Brown: Dr. Parker, what do you say to that?
Parker: I think that when we weigh in on the fact that the United States government, when the founders established a constitution in 1787 they put in that document Article I section two, Article I section nine, Article IV section two that actually sanctioned the institution of slavery and so it is a federal sanctioning. It also became a state sanctioning so the federal government and the state governments allowed for the existence of the institution of slavery. So when we come down and we talk bout it being state/federal versus individual, the individuals have the wherewithal, they have the mandate to say we can have slavery. If it were not for the constitution then we could have ended slavery. But since it didn’t happen on that end something has to be done on this end. And I think that when you put people in slavery for 200 years something has to be done even at efforts at trying to reconstruct the nation. It was a failure. And one of the primary reasons reconstruction failed was because they did not address the economics, the ability to have this right to vote, to have this right to access public accommodations. It doesn’t mean very much if you don’t have a place to rest your head. And so the failure was that there was not an economic infrastructure put in place. The old proverbial 40 acres and a mule. Imagine if every head of household had been given 40 acres and a mule. That is land and the means to cultivate that land, black America would be altogether different today.
Joyner: But I think you also have to think about it, while slavery ended at a particular point the impact of slavery continued and it continued right up until 1970, 1980 and really according to some people continues today. We had Jim Crowism which was state sponsored, state endorsed and state perpetuated and to say now that the state ought to escape liability for something that while it may not even if you argue that they didn’t cause slavery but they certainly perpetuated it by enacting laws, customs and traditions that kept a people in bondage long past the physical bondage period and that continues up until today and so there are beneficiaries of that and those beneficiaries are still alive and they are the people of North Carolina. And we are doing no more than asking for a redistribution of the taxes that we pay to go into helping to develop an infrastructure that benefits at last African Americans and those people who suffered as a result of this Jim Crowism and the slavery that occurred.
Brown: One thing that has come up in the House is a bill that has not been passed but it is dealing with state contracts and slavery profits and we have a graphic that we can show that sort of summarizes this. It is House Bill 298 and it is an act requiring companies entering into contract with state departments to examine their records for evidence of participation in or profiting from slavery. Mr. Webster, what do you think the benefit could potentially be of companies being asked to do this? I mean, how-what is that going to do if they do in fact find that there are contractors who had some involvement in slavery?
Webster: It would add to the historical record and I can see a benefit in that and there is some chance that that could provide the underpinning for an eventual Civil Rights claim for damages or something of that nature against the company’s that were implicated in it.
Brown: Anything else?
Webster: Well, anything that adds to the historical record I think can be of benefit. That is not to say that I favor the legislation but I can understand that there is a potential benefit from it.
Brown: Well, just in general let’s talk about the apology, the actual resolution that was passed and given what you have said already about the historical implications and some of the challenges, what do you think of the apology? Is it just emblematic or is it actually going to begin to address the lasting hurt that has come from slavery and hurt is just a very poor choice of words but you know what I’m saying. And, Dr. Parker, why don’t you start?
Parker: I think first of all a recognition-I mean, I would agree wholeheartedly with the apology. You need to say yes rather than saying, “Well, it happened. So what?” So the fact is that folks are saying that we understand that this did happen so we are apologizing. That is step one. And now what do you do after that? As John Hope Franklin indicated that is real nice and syrupy, it sounds good, it looks good but in terms of putting something very concrete into place-for example, I think that because of slavery every black child who wants to go to college ought to be in a position to go to college, be it a trade school so to speak, a community college or a four year college. I just think that billions of dollars should be set aside for that. In terms of putting a check in each person’s hand, I question that. But, surely, setting up an infrastructure of support in areas like employment, in areas like housing and education, healthcare, the black community is in bad shape when it comes to healthcare. And much of this-these are some of the residuals of the institution of slavery and of Jim Crow and of racism and discrimination in general.
Brown: Mr. Joyner, let me-I want to bring up another pending bill, it’s House Bill 1607 which would establish Juneteenth, National Freedom Day, what do you think about that? Does that do anything for African Americans?
Joyner: I think it helps to make the record. It acknowledges that on this specific date or in this period of time certain things occurred. So those are not money matters. It doesn’t cost anybody to recognize Juneteenth unless it becomes a National Holiday and everybody is required to close down and those kinds of things. So I think that that is kind of like an apology just to acknowledge that Juneteenth was an event, a historical moment with the lives of African Americans that people ought to respect and commemorate what occurred. So I don’t see the controversy surrounding that but I am still waiting for my check. [LAUGHTER]
Brown: Well, Mr. Webster, let me ask you because there are other ending bills. There is bill that would address sterilization compensation and there is the bill that would implement the 1898 Commission Report and there is quite a few features of that potential bill but I guess I’m wondering all of this seems to add to the acknowledgement that some wrong was done. But what really-I mean, what can be done that would actually begin to address righting the wrong. I mean, acknowledging the wrong is one thing but then how do you go about righting the wrong? I am just interested in what you might say about that especially given the work that you do at the institute?
Webster: Well, I would take the position that you look at each individual victim if that person that can be identified and have the wrongdoer compensate that victim for that victim’s actual injury and for nothing more than that. Doing it 100 years later or 80 years later is almost impossible and that it’s not something that we collectively actually have any moral obligation to tend to. We would like to have a system of law, a system that protects people from violence, that protects people from enslavement. But-and even that has compensation appropriately when there are violations. But it’s a little curious to have the legislature dealing with something that occurred that long ago. It’s also I think problematic for the legislature to be writing history or establishing an official history of anything. The evidence was not taken from the people on the other side of the issue. There was not a jury trial. I don’t think that the legislature is the appropriate forum for making those kinds of determinations. Rather the legislature establishes rules going forward. And we abide by those or we don’t abide by those and then if we do not we go-we are sent to the court system but the legislature, it has that mission and not a mission of writing history or passing upon something that happened 80 or 100 years ago.
Joyner: But the victims of the sterilization campaign are still with us. They are here. Some are 70, some are 80 and some are 90 years old. There are no descendents from those persons for obvious so there is a case that can be made for those persons who suffered this direct harm and but for the statute of limitation which now exits within the law in North Carolina they are not being compensated but I think they should be compensated and I think the legislature that enacted this law, authorized these acts to occur need to look to the taxpayer, who is the insurer of last resort for everyone to help to make those people whole as a result of the harm that they suffered.
Brown: So you do think that the legislature has a role in doing-in dealing with this?
Joyner: Oh, yeah. Because they had a significant role in causing the harm. And that was by virtue of a statute that they put in place authorizing and directing that these acts occurred.
Parker: It was the legislature that established Jim Crow laws in North Carolina, it was the legislature that established black codes immediately after slavery ended. It was the legislature that established the slave codes under which slavery operated. So the legislatures and the governor’s hands are part and parcel to the existence of the institution of slavery. Someone asked me should we blame companies today for their roles in slavery? I believe that’s the federal government's and the states government's primary role. They were the primary players in the game. They allowed for the existence of the institution of slavery, for the existence of Jim Crow laws and for eugenics laws that were passed. And so it is at their doorstep.
Brown: So Mr. Webster, just to be clear, do you feel that because there is no specific-the people who actually did this crime are no longer here, that these bills although they are a step in the right direction are really not going to be very effective ultimately.
Webster: They may be effective in achieving a confiscation of wealth from innocent people and giving it to people that may or may not be victims. But they are not going to be fair because they are going to be making guilty and punishing the innocent. And not punishing the guilty. And just as an example, if to avoid all this you could just move to another state and you would avoid having to pay for it. But if you got a judgment through the common law system that Irving was talking about against the actual wrongdoer that judgment could follow the wrongdoer to wherever they went. That avenue was available since around 1870 under the Civil Rights Act for any victim of a Civil Rights violation. And that is the avenue that could have been pursued and to try to now retroactively use these really rough methods of adjusting things is just not going to be a fair outcome.
Joyner: But if you have a legislature that can give millions of dollars to Lenovo to create a business-
Webster: We want to stop that, too.
Joyner: …interest in the state then you can take that same money and put it into the African American community in Wilmington to help them to develop and economic infrastructure into that community as a payment for the harm suffered during the 1898 race rebellions that occurred there. I don’t see the difference. All we are doing is now changing the beneficiary of the same pot of gold which now exists and which now exists basically for white businesses as opposed to minority businesses and minority businesses have suffered. It is out time at some point to become the beneficiaries of some of these goodies that exist and are passed out by our state legislature.
Brown: Dr. Parker, I am going to give you close to the last word, but I am wondering, do you think that there is any likelihood that these bills will be passed and do you think that as Dean Webster said that this is punishment for what was done, if these bills are passed, the actions that are taken as a result will be punishment.
Parker: Yeah, first of all I think there is a possibility that the bills will become law. Secondly, I don’t see the manifestations as punishment to anyone. I think that as we said earlier people along the way have taken advantage of other people and as compensation or as reparation I don’t think that it is out of order to rectify a harm, an evil that had been heaped upon a group of people who were brought here hundred of years ago against their will. So I really don’t see it as punishment to the descendents of those individuals who brought them here.
Brown: Well, I thank you very much for your expertise and sharing your views with us here today. I would like to formally thank Irving Joyner, Dr. Freddie Parker and Dean Webster for sharing their views and analysis with us and if you would like to learn more about the work of our guests or obtain a transcript of today’s show, please visit the Black Issues Forum website. We would also like to hear your feedback and suggestions so send us an email or you can call the BIFline at 919-549-7167. Be sure to meet us back here each Sunday afternoon at 4:30 for more compelling conversation. For Black Issues Forum, I am Natalie Bullock Brown reminding you to be encouraged no matter what. Have a good one.
[END OF RECORDING]
|
