Ta-Nehisi Coates has a good article at theatlantic.com on Bernie Sanders’ position on reparations for slavery. Here is a link to the article:
www.theatlantic.com/...
Some background on the subject: In an interview with Nando Vila (a correspondent for the media network Fusion), Sanders was asked whether he supported reparations for slavery. Here is a link to a video of Sanders’ answer:
According to Sanders,
No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do.
So I think what we should be talking about is making massive investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free, basically targeting our federal resources to the areas where it is needed the most and where it is needed the most is in impoverished communities, often African American and Latino.
Moreover, in an interview that Sanders did today (January 24) with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” Todd asked Sanders about his position on reparations. Here is a link to the full transcript of today’s “Meet the Press:”
www.nbcnews.com/...
Sanders’ full interview with Todd starts about one-third of the way down the page. Here is the full exchange between the two on the issue of reparations:
CHUCK TODD:
Well, you have been calling for political revolution. And there have been some critiques of it, though, that you're sort of narrow in where you call for revolution. Ta-Nehisi Coates, one of the more respected thinkers in the civil rights movement these days, wrote in The Atlantic, ‘Why aren't you for reparations because of slavery for African Americans when you're calling for economic justice on so many other levels? Why do you stop short on that issue?’
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, for the same reason that Barack Obama has and the same reason I believe that Hillary Clinton has. And that is, it is absolutely wrong and unacceptable that we have so much poverty in this country and it is even worse in the African American community. That African American kids, between 17 and 20, who graduate high school, have unemployment rates and underemployment rates of 51 percent.
That 36 percent of African American children are living in poverty. This is an issue that we have got to address. And my intention, as president of the United States, is to be very aggressive in dealing with those issues, to put our kids to work rather than see them go to jail. To improve our schools. That's what we have to do. And I think that's what the American people want.
CHUCK TODD:
I understand that. But you didn't answer the question of why you weren't in favor of reparations.
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, again it's the same reason that the president is not. And I think--
CHUCK TODD:
And what's that reason?
BERNIE SANDERS:
--that Secretary Clinton is not. We have got to invest in the future. What we have got to do is address poverty in America, something that very few people talk about, and especially poverty in the African American community and the Latino community. And if you look at my record and if you look at my agenda, raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour, creating millions of jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure, focusing on high rates of youth unemployment. I think our candidacy is the candidacy talking to the issues of the African American community.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, let me ask you, though, many African Americans, they hear that, and some will say, ‘Okay, he's talking about major economic justice. But an African American hand raises his hand and he says, ‘Well, can't get that through Congress. You can't deal with this because it's politically very difficult.’ A lot of your other plans are going to be politically difficult, if not impossible.
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well, look. This is what I think. That is looking at politics today as a zero-sum approach. And what I am trying to do in this country is to say, ‘You know what, in the last election, 63 percent of the American people didn't vote. 80 percent of young people didn't vote in the midterm election. That is why the rich get richer. And that is why billionaires are able to buy elections.’
What we are trying to do say that in an American democracy, maybe it's a radical idea, but Congress should represent working families and the middle class rather than just wealthy campaign contributors. So Chuck, what I am trying to do now, is change the dynamics of American politics. Bring millions of young people, working-class people, in to stand up and fight for their rights. When you do that, yes, we can raise the minimum wage. We can create jobs. We can make public colleges and universities tuition-free. That is what we have got to do.
At first, Sanders dodged Todd’s question. Sanders didn’t say why he didn’t support reparations. But the last paragraph of the exchange may have been Sanders’ answer, namely he wants to win the presidency, and he thinks that coming out in favor of reparations would hurt him in terms of voter turnout, which could cost him the election. Maybe Sanders is worried that if he is in favor of reparations, it would hurt him with working-class whites.
However, Coates, who is an expert on reparations for slavery, wrote a moving, illuminating and detailed article on the subject for The Atlantic entitled “The Case for Reparations.” Here is a link to the article:
www.theatlantic.com/...
On this subject, I strongly agree with Coates and strongly disagree with Sanders. The U.S. should, I believe, implement reparations for slavery. Slavery, Jim Crow and racism have been devastating to the African American community. These scourges have contributed to conditions in which it is extremely difficult for large percentages of African Americans to realize their best potentials or even to have a good human life relative to what a good human life can be in the world in the beginning of the 21st century. To give an idea of some of the challenges that the African American community currently faces, consider these statistics:
- 28 percent of African Americans are living in poverty in the U.S. That is about 11 million people. In comparison, about 10 percent of Caucasians in U.S. are living in poverty.
- 38 percent of African Americans under the age of 18 are living in poverty, compared to 14 percent of Caucasians under the age of 18.
- 45 percent of young African American children (under age 6) are currently living in poverty, compared to 11 percent of young Caucasian children.
- About 12 percent of African Americans are currently living in “deep poverty”—household cash income of less than half of the U.S. federal poverty threshold. This is compared to 4.3 percent of whites.
- If current incarceration rates continue, 1 in 3 African American males can be expected to spend some time in jail or prison in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 6 Latinos males and 1 in 17 white males. Here is a link: www.huffingtonpost.com/..
- African American life expectancy in the U.S. is 74.6 years, compared to 78.9 for whites—a 4.3 year difference.
- In the U.S., the infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) for African Americans is 11.3 percent, compared to 5.1 percent for whites and 5.1 percent for Latinos.
Moreover, if one has good reason to believe that doing X is more likely (than doing not-X) to help those individuals who are able to make the fewest number of choices, then it is, at the very least, very important for one to do X. For example, if a child is going hungry and I have food to feed the child and keep it from going hungry, then, prima facie, I should feed the child. Moreover, if African Americans would have more resources (than they do now) to help children and the members of the community who are able to make the fewest choices (for instance, the elderly and the disabled), then most African Americans would do so. We see this effect with public schools, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Reparations are efforts to compensate people in the present for wrongs done to them in the past. Reparations, although partly a response to past wrongs, could have positive effects in the present and future. Reparations made by West Germany and Germany have helped many Jewish people following World War II. According to a New York Times article, as of 2012, Germany has paid about $90 billion to Jewish victims of Nazi crimes. Here is a link:
www.nytimes.com/...
Moreover, the U.S. federal government made reparations to each Japanese American who was a surviving victim of internment camps during World War II. In 1988, Ronald Reagan signed a federal law (entitled the Civil Liberties Act) which helped bring this about. Each of these victims was issued a formal apology by the federal government and given $20,000 in cash. Here is a link to an article by NPR’s Bilal Qureshi on the law:
www.npr.org/...
I don’t know exactly what form reparations for slavery should take, for instance, whether it should be direct cash payments or something like Medicare for all African Americans. And I don’t know who exactly should be given the goods and/or services and what procedures the government should use to distribute the good and/or services. For instance, should Black Caucuses in state governments be given the money by the federal government and then the Black Caucuses decide who gets the money and how much? Or, should community groups like the NAACP and the National Urban League be given the money and have them decide who gets it and how much? Or should there be direct cash payments to each—or most—African American living in the U.S.? And probably some African Americans (for instance, billionaires) shouldn’t be given money. But some sort of reparations should be implemented. Why? Not only to improve their present status, for that is important for anyone that is in dire straits. In addition, because when institutions—such as slavery, Jim Crow and racism—systematically harm a group, members of that group deserve compensation for that unjust harm.
And one thing that should be part of the reparations is a meaningful apology by the federal government for slavery and Jim Crow. Reparations accompanied by a meaningful apology would have a more positive lasting impact than for what might look like buying “forgiveness.” With a meaningful apology accompanying material recompense, African Americans finally would be—and feel that they were being—treated more justly by the U.S. government and U.S. society.
We have laws that require us to compensate those injured due to our neglecting our civic duty to shovel our sidewalks after a storm. Likewise, when our past institutions are to blame for avoidable harm, our society and its government should rectify the past wrongs by providing present benefits. There is much else to decide democratically—who should do the compensating, who should receive reparations, and who should decide these matters. But the moral injunction is clear: compensation should be paid to innocent victims.
Of course, in general, Native Americans face historical discrimination and circumstances that are at least as challenging as those that African Americans do. But that would not be a reason not to implement reparations for slavery and Jim Crow for African Americans. It would be a reason to implement reparations for both groups. Analogously, the fact that Native Americans face challenges that are at least as difficult as those faced by African Americans doesn’t mean that we should not have Medicaid for African Americans. It means we should have Medicaid for African Americans and Native Americans.
Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in South Africa, Peru and throughout the world have reckoned with their country’s past wrongs not only by truth telling, trial and punishment, and remedying the causes of wrongs, but also finding ways of effectively and fairly compensating victims for some of the damages done. It is important that we as a people compensate the past wrongs (commissions and omissions) of our governments.
As for Bernie Sanders, I strongly believe that right now he should change his position on reparations for slavery. I suspect that after he reflects and reasons about the matter he will realize that the federal government should implement reparations to better rectify the past wrongs of slavery and Jim Crow. He is a reasonable person with a great concern for the less privileged. However, he might be reluctant to change his position now because he might be worried about being accused of being a “flip-flopper.” But he should change his position anyway. First, it is unlikely that changing his position on this issue now would reduce his chances of winning the Democratic nomination or the general election. He needs more African American and support from other people of color than what he has now in order to have a realistic chance of being the Democratic nominee. Second, politicians have changed their positions before without it hurting them in an election. For instance, after getting re-elected in 1936, FDR pulled back on the New Deal in order to reduce government spending and save money. This triggered another economic downturn. So, he changed course and started spending again, and then the country continued to move out of the Great Depression. Good for FDR! Who cares if he was a “flip-flopper?” His second position was right. Moreover, Barack Obama’s changing his position on gay marriage didn’t seem to reduce his chances of getting re-elected President in 2012.
Moreover, it is good for people to change their public positions on a subject if they come to realize that their previous position is false or less good. For instance, it is good that segregationists stopped being segregationists. And it is good that Copernicus changed his public position on whether the sun revolves around the earth. Of course, it would be ideal if 100 percent of a person’s beliefs were true by the age of 18 and that the person never has a false belief thereafter. But the next best thing is to stop believing that a false belief is true as soon as one has reason to believe that it is false.
Finally, even if Sanders’ changing his position on reparations would hurt a little his chances of getting elected President, he still should change his position on the issue. Reparations for slavery are important. And even if it is a little harder for him to win the presidency, that is okay. His standing for what is right is more important than his giving himself the greatest chance possible of winning the presidency. For instance, Harry Truman may have had reason to believe that desegregating the armed forces would reduce his chances of getting elected President in 1948. And he desegregated the armed forces anyway. And it was the right thing to do!
Moreover, Hillary Clinton Press Secretary Brian Fallon recently mentioned the issue of reparations in an interview in a way that made me wonder if Hillary Clinton might be open to coming out in favor of reparations during the campaign. According to Fallon,
We’ll see over the coming weeks if he can explain these plans that he has laid out on health care. He hasn’t said how he would achieve a single payer system. He couldn’t even get a public option with an entirely Democratic congress. When it comes to something like reparations, he dismisses it as completely unfeasible.
Here is a link to a video of the interview:
www.dailymotion.com/...
Perhaps Clinton, in her campaign for president, would consider coming out in support of reparations for slavery, or at least for a having a national dialogue on the issue. If she would do that, I still would very likely support Sanders for the Democratic nomination. But if she were to come out in favor of reparations and win the Democratic nomination, I would work harder for her than ever in the general election. This is an important issue. Since the dawn of the country, the African American community has been treated unbelievably unfairly by U.S. society and governments (local, state and national) and that unfair treatment is still going on in a significant way today.
Additionally, it is hugely important that we change society so that a candidate’s chances of getting elected to public office are not reduced by his or her changing a position on any given issue. The current ethos probably often keeps people from coming out with a position that is inconsistent with an earlier position, even if they know that the subsequent position is better than the prior position. This results in a stilted discourse and more obstacles to people realizing the truth.
