Views > July 15, 2003

Affirmative Denial

By Salim Muwakkil

One of the primary reasons I support the congressional bill to study the feasibility of reparations for the descendants of enslaved Africans is the need to acquaint Americans with the devastating effects racial slavery has had on African-Americans.

That need was never more apparent than during national discussions of the Supreme Court’s recent affirmative action rulings. In a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that the University of Michigan law school (and thus all colleges and universities) could constitutionally consider race as a factor in admissions. The court also ruled that the school’s undergraduate admissions point system, which awards points for certain racial identities, is unconstitutional.

Progressives applauded the top court’s law school ruling as a victory for the forces of social justice. But it was a win by default only. The law school maintained it took race into account to help produce a more diverse student body. Diversity enhanced the university environment, it argued. A slim majority of the court bought that argument, which reasoned, essentially, that minorities should be tolerated because they add texture to whites’ educational experience.

Thus it seems that even when the top court acts in the interest of social justice, its motives are tainted by assumptions of racial hierarchy. Other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, none of the other justices thought it necessary to link structural racial barriers to continued social and economic disparities between black and white Americans. These racial disparities endure, and in some cases have worsened. And remember, affirmative action was a program born specifically to help beat down barriers that cause those disparities.

Ironically, toppling racial barriers also was the raison d’être for the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that foes of affirmative action now use to justify the program’s demise. In fact, irony is a consistent theme in this debate: Not only do we have the specter of affirmative action foes quoting Dr. Martin Luther King out of context about the “content of character” rather than the color of skin, we now have Justice Clarence Thomas using the black abolitionist Frederick Douglass to bolster his anti-affirmative action point.

Quoting Douglass’ 1865 speech before the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in Boston, Thomas wrote, “All I ask is, give him [‘the Negro’] a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! … Your interference is doing him positive injury.” Thomas failed to mention that Douglass’ speech was responding to the patronizing excesses of many Northern abolitionists, who, at the time, seemed to regard freedmen as so much flotsam and jetsam of the Civil War to be handled, rather than as human beings to be supported.

This recasting of the past is becoming a routine rhetorical tactic of the shameless right, but Americans’ lack of historical perspective makes it much easier for them to get away with it. This historical ignorance is the precise target of the congressional bill I mentioned earlier.

This bill, which has been introduced annually by Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) since 1989 but languishes in committee, seeks to “establish a commission to examine the institution of slavery … and economic discrimination against African-Americans … to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies.”

Few Americans know of the legacy that racial slavery and Jim Crow apartheid has bequeathed to African-Americans. Because of that ignorance, many white Americans either are mystified by blacks’ disproportionate miseries or attribute them to some intrinsic quality (be it genetic or cultural). African-Americans often are urged to “get over” race; that is, accept racial inequities as a state of nature and shut up.

A more honest reckoning of our history would reveal the difficulty of transcending racial disadvantage without some attempt to repair the damage done to a people victimized by 16 generations of racial slavery and Jim Crow apartheid.

After all, African-Americans exist only because there was a transatlantic slave trade; racial slavery was a new species of human bondage, now considered one of history’s longest-running crimes against humanity. Slavery stole the labor of enslaved Africans for more than 250 years, and by depriving their descendants of any material inheritance—except poverty— slavery also damaged their futures.

Jim Crow apartheid blocked blacks from access to America’s fruits for a century following slavery’s demise. In fact, African-Americans were not fully enfranchised as citizens until 1965, and racial barriers erected to justify and protect slavery still to this day inhibit blacks’ social and economic mobility.

The peculiar institution also severed the ancestral sources of identity and cultural continuity of enslaved Africans, leaving them and their progeny especially vulnerable to the widespread biases of white supremacy and its corollary, black inferiority (including the negative aesthetic values of “kinky” hair, thick lips, and dark skin, as well as notions of intellectual inferiority) that still permeate American society. These Afrophobic biases are also a legacy of slavery, and may have been just as damaging to the psyches of African-Americans as the more overt injuries of social and economic discrimination were to their life chances.

The problem becomes more complex and expensive as the legacy of slavery lengthens; affirmative action is inadequate to the task, even without the equivocal dodge of “diversity.” In fact, affirmative action itself is a timid euphemism for reparations. Passing Conyers’ bill could help relieve our timidity.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Nothing happens in a vacuum. I am very sensitive to the plight of enslaved peoples across the globe. The issue of reparations & this article appears to ignore the fact that it was Africans, perhaps rival tribes, that sold Africans into slavery. There may still be slavery in W. Africa. The “deep pockets” approach is obvious & may result in some economic benefit, but the culture of slavery (that relating to this reparation initiative) did not get its start in Europe or their colonies. The market was created right there in Africa. As commentators, writers, historians, etc., it is imperative not to get caught up in what is politically correct or expedient when identifying responsible parties, nor to limit the available context.
  Thanks for this story & keep up the good work with this publication!

  Posted by steve miller on Jul 15, 2003 at 3:22 PM

  Nothing happens in a vacuum. I am very sensitive to the plight of enslaved peoples across the globe. The issue of reparations & this article appears to ignore the fact that it was Africans, perhaps rival tribes, that sold Africans into slavery. There may still be slavery in W. Africa. The “deep pockets” approach is obvious & may result in some economic benefit, but the culture of slavery (that relating to this reparation initiative) did not get its start in Europe or their colonies. The market was created right there in Africa. As commentators, writers, historians, etc., it is imperative not to get caught up in what is politically correct or expedient when identifying responsible parties, nor to limit the available context.
  Thanks for this story & keep up the good work with this publication!

  Posted by steve miller on Jul 15, 2003 at 3:23 PM

  This is an excellent analysis because it addresses the roots and on-going ramifications of the problem.  I would also like readers to be aware that since 1998 notable African-American scholars and activists have been making interventions before diverse U.N. bodies in Geneva, Switzerland, including the Human Rights Commission, concerning the long-term and on-going practices of ethnocide and forced assimilation imposed upon Afro-Descendants by the U.S. government.  These practices constitute blatant violations of U.N. Covenants and justify the placement in the near future of a Reparations Sanction upon the USA.
  Sincerely,
  Malik Al-Arkam
  www.AllForReparations.org

  Posted by Malik Al-Arkam on Jul 15, 2003 at 3:24 PM

  nothing happens in a vacuum....the issue you raise of black on black slavery is not the end of the argument.  The United states benefitted greatly from the work of the slaves, and the economy of the US was built on slavery.  Whether Africans enslaved each other is not the question, but whether the US and other countries that benefiitted from this labour and continued to suppress the freedom of the people must pay up for their end of the bargain.  Hitler may have put the Jews in concentration camps, but those that took advantage of the plight of the jews also had to pay up following the war.
  The US and other imperialist countries cannot hide behind the fact they acquired their goods from the local market...they still have to address what they did to the children of the goods and their grandchildren irregardless.
  

  Posted by grace on Jul 15, 2003 at 3:52 PM

  A related problem, and one with huge implications, is that, were the US to muster the political will and the funding to pay reparations of, say, $100,000 per person to all those who could support a claim of at least once ancestor who was enslaved, the problems of poverty would not disappear.  In fact, a fair argument could be made that they would actually be made worse.

  Those who today own land, and in particular, well-located valuable downtown land, be it in midtown Manhattan or the central business district of even a medium-sized town, are the ones who, 20 years later, would be the ones who benefited the most from reparations—and most of those people are not descendants of enslaved persons.

  Worse, the sudden inflow of such a large amount of money into the housing market would raise the purchased prices and rental costs in every town in America, leaving the next generation with a higher cost of living.

  Henry George called our attention to this mechanism 125 years ago in a book called Progress & Poverty. He recognized that maintaining private property in land—that is, privatizing land rent in the pockets of the landowners—was and is the cause of our nation’s poverty.

  (The game of Monopoly, originally known as The Landlord’s Game, was created to teach these ideas.)

  The answer, if we care about peace and justice, is to collect the land rent, instead of taking a portion of our wages.

  Once we do that, if we still have a poverty problem with a racial tilt, then reparations are the right next step—and they won’t enrich the landowners, but instead feed the common treasury.

  But collecting the land rent is the first big step to creating a level playing field and creating opportunities for real entrepreneurs (not land speculators).

  If this idea intrigues you, you might check out henrygeorge.org or google “henry george.” The Robert Schalkenbach Foundation website has useful materials.

  Posted by Wyn Achenbaum on Jul 15, 2003 at 6:14 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 39 posts.

Member Login

Also by Salim Muwakkil

• Israel’s Openly Secret Nukes
  
• The Vendetta Against Black Men
  
• A Speech Even Condi Could Love
  
• The Man or the Movement
  
• How Black is Obama?
  
• Nas: Whose Word Is This?