The Reparations Project #3
ECL 822: Leadership and Change
Dr. Stewart Burns
Union University and Institute
Larry Ellis
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
INTRODUCTION
The American slavery dilemma seems to come and go. Most Americans still view slavery
as a Southern problem. These enlightened persons believe the myth that there was no long-term
economic gain to white America from slavery. Therefore, the issue of reparations falls on deaf
ears and callous hearts. The truth is that there are two still two Americas, one Black and one
White. The racial divide in our nation was fueled to new heights when Barack H. Obama became
the first Black president in 2008. The subsequent election of Donald Trump as the 45th President
of what Dr. Maya Angelou loved to refer to as these, “yet to be united states”, has stoked a racial
firestorm in this country. My question is this: can reparations be a metaphor for healing the racial
divide in America?
In 1969, James Forman disrupted the morning worship at the Riverside Church in New
York and read his Black Manifesto demanding 500 million dollars in reparations from White
Christian Churches and Jewish Synagogues that he deemed racist. The monies would be used to
underwrite plans for a major Black university in the South and a bank to finance programs to
start businesses and support Black workers. Especially, when they lost their jobs as a result of
participating in the revolution. The religious groups did not take up an offering. Ironically, in
1995, the Southern Baptist Convention apologized to the Black conventions confessing that
slavery was a sin and that White Christians did nothing to help the cause of justice. They went
further, stating that at times it supported laws and attitudes that harm Blacks. Once again, no
offering was collected.
In 1973, Boris I. Bittker, a Harvard professor and attorney, wrote, THE CASE FOR
REPARATIONS. Bittner explains that the federal government is responsible for reparations due
to its failure to uphold legal redress for slavery. “Reparations are necessary to acknowledge the
fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States between
1619 and 1865 and should establish a commission to study subsequent de jure and de facto racial
discrimination during the Jim Crow era” (Bittner, 1973, pp.3-7).
WHAT ARE REPARATIONS?
According to Merriam Webster, the definition of reparations is “the act of making
amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury” (Merriam Webster
Dictionary, 2019). Author William Darity (2019) defines reparations as “a program of
compensation to individuals or communities that have been subjected to grievous injustices” (CSPAN, March 17, 2019, “William Darity on Reparations and Campaign 2020”). Reparations can
be given in the form of money, benefits or both. In world history, reparations have been used to
right the wrongs that one nation or people has committed against another. In world history,
Germany has compensated victims of the Holocaust and South Africa has compensated victims
of apartheid. The United States has engaged in reparations before when they compensated the
victims of the Japanese internment and the victims of the Tuskegee experiment (Matthews,
2014). In all cases, reparations were determined to be necessary due to advocacy by the affected
group followed by political pressure applied to the government by the public. In each case where
reparations occurred, the victimized group experienced an injustice that was well-documented
and the events that took place caused extraordinary harm to many people.
On the other side, there are groups and voices who passionately oppose reparations. Richard A.
Epstein of Stanford’s Hoover Institute often ask what the point of reparations would be because
it cannot undo what happened. Epstein specifically argues that the people who would pay
reparations no longer experience the benefits of slavery that their parents and grandparents did.
Authors Peter Flaherty and John Carlisle (2004) from the National Legal and Policy Center
based in Falls Church, Virginia made a detailed case against reparations in their publication The
Case Against Slave Reparations. They provided three main reasons for the American public to be
opposed to reparations. The first reason they give is that advocacy groups have taken on the issue
of reparations to remain relevant. In the publication, they state the following:
A critical dynamic fueling the slave reparations movement is a phenomenon common to
advocacy groups: once they reach their goal, their original reason for being is not more, but they
do not want to disband so they seek another issue… Having succeeded, they are now embracing
the cause of slave reparations. (Flaherty, P. and Carlisle, J., The Case Against Slave Reparations,
Introduction page)
The second reason they give is that they believe the Constitution prohibits suing for
injuries and losses for slavery using “ex post facto laws, which are laws that criminalize conduct
that was legal when originally performed” (Flaherty, P. and Carlisle, J., 2004, p.6). The last
reason they give is the difficulty courts already have with identifying who was injured and to
what extent due to events and actions that took place over 140 years ago. The authors cite a case
in 2005 where a judge ruled that “the plaintiffs did not prove that they were personally injured by
slavery, noting that a genealogical tie to slaves is not enough to prove injuries” (Flaherty, P. and
Carlisle, J., 2004, p.6).
However, the purpose of reparations is not to be punitive. As stated by activist John
Tateshi, “[The reparations are] the legacy we're handing down to [the next generation] and to the
nation to say that, 'You can make this mistake, but you also have to correct it — and by
correcting it, hopefully not repeat it again'" (Qureshi, 2013). The statement captures the potential
for reparations to heal the pain caused by the policies of a government. When an egregious
wrong is committed against a people, reparations carries the power of healing and restoration. As
it did for the victims of the Japanese interment and the Holocaust, reparations for the descendants
of the people of the African slave trade can begin to repair the divisions and injustices that
resulted.
Understanding and embracing complexity theories may be an option to move beyond the
political stalemates towards a possible solution. Author’s Baltaci and Balci, posit that the
leadership theories of the information age are not helpful in leading in this age of chaos. “It is a
fact that despite the information age, many of the management theories and practices…cannot
move beyond the traditional-bureaucratic perspective and offer no solutions” (Baltaci and Balci,
Baltaci and Balci, 2017, p.31). Complexity leadership offers an alternative to the duck and run
approach to managing chaos to developing a knowledge-based approach to problem solving.
Complexity at its root aims at improving organizational creativity (Baltaci and Balci, 2017,
p.32). Complexity theory seeks to be adaptive, flexible, resonant and interactive using bottom up
behavior. Complexity in and of itself is not a cure all. It is a means of combining interactive
collaboration among politicians, interested groups and all Americans who are hopefully invested
in the same outcomes (Baltaci and Balci, 2017, p.39).
THE REPARATIONS DEBATE
When we look at the African slave trade, the effects both while it occurs and in years
following during Reconstruction and Jim Crow clearly show the need for reparations for its
descendants. In his well-received, much-discussed article, “The Case for Reparations,” Ta-Nehisi
Coates (2014) lays out a plan to compensate African Americans with the intent of redressing the
wrongs as well as crimes against the living descendants of former slaves. The author posits that
the disparity between White and Black Americans is due to the systemic racism that has
continued since 1619. America’s wealth was built on the trillions of hours of unpaid wages.
There is a direct correlation between the current value of some American corporations whose
original wealth can be traced directly to slavery (Coates, 2014).
With his article, Coates brought the issue of reparations into the mainstream and made
reparations a topic of national conversation. Coates’ article brought reparations to the forefront
of U.S. public discourse. On March 19, 2019, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee introduced
H.R. 40 to the 116th Congress. H.R. 40 was first introduced in 1989 by Congressman John
Conyers Jr., D-Michigan. Representative Lee stated the following about forming a Reparations
Commission:
In short, the establishment of a Commission to study reparations aim to evaluate the continuing
impact of slavery and continuing impact on most African Americans. The study would include
slavery, the Jim Crow era, segregation and desegregation. The study would include
recommendations for a formal apology, compensations and other ways and means to atone for
four hundred years of oppression. (“Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for
African-Americans Act”. H.R. 40. 116th Congress. 2019.)
Five years later, on June 19, 2019, Congressional hearings on the issue was held by the
full congress, the first of its kind in ten years. The date of the hearings was significant because
they were held on Juneteenth, which celebrates the Emancipation Proclamation Act of January
1,1863 signed by President Abraham Lincoln that freed slaves. At the hearings, Coates was a
primary presenter. Since Coates testified in Congress, many Democratic presidential hopefuls
have made reparations a talking point of their campaign platform. Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg,
Julian Castro, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mike Gravel, Kamala Harris
among others are in support of creating a Reparations Commission.
THE CASE for REPARATIONS - ECONOMICS
The strongest argument in favor of reparations is made looking at the economic benefits
gleaned from slavery and the resulting economic disparities that have occurred as a result of
slavery and the practices of economic disenfranchisement that occurred during both
Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era. Authors William Darity and Dania Frank (2003) have
worked for years underscoring the economics of slavery and the corresponding validity of
reparations. The purpose of their case study entitled “The Economics of Slavery” was to describe
the impact of slavery on the descendants of the Atlantic slave trade and to understand the
continuing influence of racism that undergirded the slave trade. It was written after the WCAR,
The World Conference Against Racism, where the United States declared the transatlantic slave
trade was a crime against humanity. The authors assert that the United States did not go far
enough, in that no mention was made of reparations.
The central question in this study is whether reparations are warranted for the
descendants of slavery in the United States. Darity gives three objectives for reparations. The
first objective is to acknowledge the injustices on the part of the perpetrator. This must include
all injustices including but not limited to physical, property and psychological. Dr. Joy DeGruy
(2017) argued that the psychological effects of slavery have been passed down through the
generations since slavery by instilling a sense of inferiority in Black people and instituting
policies and laws that reinforce that belief (DeGruy, 2017). Reparations could address this by
including social programs in Black communities to provide healing and help. The second
purpose of reparations is to provide redress, which is restitution for the effects of the injustices.
This could include financial compensation in addition to new opportunities for education,
entrepreneurship and homeownership. The final objective is closure, which is a mutual
recognition of the part of the victimized community as well as the perpetrators that the debt has
been paid (C-SPAN. March 17, 2019, “William Darity on Reparations and Campaign 2020”). In
the words of the United Nations:
The world needs to learn from its past. Only by proper mourning rites and acknowledgement of
the crimes committed can there come about the wholeness and the healing that the world needs
so much. I hope that this day is only a beginning of the collective journey towards that wholeness
(wa Thiong’o, “Learning from Slavery– The Legacy of the Slave Trade on Modern Society”).
Reparations would be the first step that leads to closure because providing it would both
acknowledge the crimes committed and prescribe actions to reverse the harm that was done.
Darity’s research asks several questions to address why reparations are necessary. The
questions include the following: did slavery provide economic benefits to the slave owners, has
the accrued value given whites an economic advantage, and did slavery and the aftermath of Jim
Crow, segregation and current inequalities adversely affect the descendants of the Atlantic slave
trade? Finally, are these descendants entitled to reparations of some sort? The author’s
hypothesis is that slavery did in fact accrue a financial benefit to whites, and further, its
subsequent practices of lynching, land theft and Jim Crow continue to impact the wealth
accumulation of African Americans and their progenity. The graph from Persistent Disparity by
authors William Darity and Samuel Myers (1998) shows how the household wealth of Blacks
continues to lag far behind Whites between 1947 and 1992:
In reviewing the literature, Darity and Frank (2003) focused on the White-Black wealth
disparity, the legal system’s undergirding of white supremacy and the labor-education gap in
America. The role of discrimination in the wealth differences between White and Blacks, racial
inequality and reparations, and finally, how white terrorists stole millions of acres of Black’s
land through fear, intimidation and murder.
The studies supported the findings with substantiated data drawn from multiple sources.
The fact that both Darity and Frank are reputable economists lend credibility to their research.
On the one hand, both scholars are African American, which may lead one to infer that they may
be biased, in that their family or friends may benefit, if they themselves do not. On the other
hand, opponents of reparations state that whatever advantage(s) that slavery may have given
whites, it has long been dissipated by set-asides and racial equality.
African Americans have also seen a marked diminution of land ownership over the past
sixty years. The loss of land coupled with the widening gap in the White-Black wealth ratio has
led to psychological and family disorientation. Further, the proliferation of mass incarceration
due to poverty, the breakdown of the African American family, drug usage and despair has
heaped dysfunctionality on the race. In addition, to the conclusions that can be drawn from
Darity and Frank (2003), there remain additional studies to be done. The 13th-15th Amendments,
that banned slavery, granted citizenship and the right to vote to Negroes were undermined before
they could take effect. The authors made the case for the economic advantages that slavery, Jim
Crow and the aforementioned tactics to keep Blacks in servitude to the white race, and some
form of reparations are past due. In fact, the thrust of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Rights
work was based on the facts of this study and others like it. A formulation of a Reparations
Commission is a good first step. Hopefully, this is not an election ploy. As in the words of
Baptist (2014), the half has never been told
THE CASE FOR REPARATIONS – HOUSING
Housing has been affected negatively by blacks when it comes to reparations. Since the
early 1900s there have been many incidents that show where discrimination, theft, and deceit
have all played a role in how land ownership has been unequally distributed amongst blacks as
compared to other races and ethnic groups. In an article titled “42 Million African Americans
Own Only 0.33 Percent of America’s Lands”, Foster (2013) explains “The apex of African
American land ownership was over 100 years ago in 1910 when African America owned almost
20 million acres” (p. 1). This is a hint of the wrongdoings that we have evidence of as injustice
towards blacks that helps explain the negative impact of housing in the United States.
The laws that were established such as The National Housing Act of 1934, The Housing
Act of 1937, and The Fair Housing Act of 1968 are just a few that were established to help make
housing an equal opportunity for blacks, in some fashions ended up being a blessing and a curse
in a sense. The National Housing Act of 1934, also known as the National Housing Act of 1934
was created to redline neighborhoods. The intention to redline neighborhoods may have seemed
like a noble solution, but later became known as mortgage discrimination. “This practice, also
known as mortgage discrimination, began when the federal government and the newly formed
Federal Housing Administration allowed the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to create
“residential security maps, outlining the level of security for real-estate investments in 239 cities
around the United States” (Hillier, 2003).
The Housing Act of 1937 was set up to be a precursor to help forming public housing
units. “This piece of legislation occurred during the New Deal era and provided the basis for
future public housing programs and allowed for the creation of 160,000 units for public housing”
(Huttman, et. al., 1991). These public housing units would later lead to many issues in the black
community to add on to reparations. These housing units would breed segregation, rather
intentional or not. “Additionally, this public housing program allowed for the Federal Housing
Authority (FHA) to provide carious monetary funds to local housing authorities to aid with the
building and development of these units” (Momeni, 1986). These units would be commonly
known as “the projects”. These housing units would provide for no wealth building, but instead
sort of cripple or keep individuals at a place of complacent. “Despite providing low budget
housing options, this act created greater racial segregation in housing because the majority of the
poor population at the time consisted of minorities” (Momeni, 1986). “However, the African
American population currently has the second largest minority group in the United States, still
experiences the greatest residential segregation compared to other minority groups (Iceland,
2009). There seems to be evidence that there are residential areas that are more segregated than
others. “The older industrial cities of the Midwest and Northeast experience the highest level of
black-white residential segregation, while the newer metropolitan areas of the South are
experiences lesser level of black-white residential segregation” (Iceland, 2009). What an
interesting finding, when the South is where most black farmers established the land they were
given and made attempts to keep it within the family to pass down for generational wealth.
Because blacks tried to keep their land in the family to help maintain wealth, should
provide good enough reason for reparations. One such family that demonstrates a case for this is
the Allen family of Hilton Head, North Carolina. Douglas explains in her article, “But as the land
enters its 120th year in the family, the Allens are struggling to hold on to it. As such, the land is
classified as ‘heirs property’, a designation that makes it vulnerable to being sold without the
family’s full consent” (Douglas, 2017, p. 3). This is just one family from history that had to
struggle with this fight of land preservation and wealth building.
The Fair Housing Act of 1968 would play one of the biggest roles in housing and how it
makes the case for reparations. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 could be found of faults
throughout the history of housing issues in our country centered around blacks and even up to
modern day. The responsibility of the FHA was founded to help prevent the discriminatory
practices of refusal of sale and loans to African Americans. It would later become the same
organization that was behind more discrimination issues.
These are just a few of the laws that seemed to have been created to help blacks but
ultimately created more issues in housing that pleads the case for Reparations. The history of our
country has been very unfair to say the least for African Americans and housing. This unfairness
lingers today with real-estate discrimination and home ownership. Blacks today still struggle
with housing and have a desperate need for reparations in housing. “Research shows that homes
in majority black neighborhoods do not appreciate as much as homes in overwhelmingly white
neighborhoods. This appreciation gap begins whenever neighborhood is more that 10% black,
and it increases right along with percentage of black homeowners” (Brown, 2012, p. 2). Another
clear indication that there has to be some help for the wealth gap that exists for black
homeowners.
Even if African Americans fall into the wealthy category, there is a high chance that they
will have a lesser value of their home. “A 2001 Brookings Institution study showed that “wealthy
minority neighborhoods had less home value per dollar of income than wealthy white
neighborhoods” (Brown, 2012, p. 2). This validity of this research indicates that this is a hard
truth which again, supports reparations. “The Brookings study was based on a comparison of
home values to homeowner incomes in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas, and it found
that even when homeowners had similar incomes, black-owned homes were valued at 18% less
than white-owned home; The metropolitan areas were home to 58% of all whites and 63% of all
blacks in the country” (Brown, 2012, p. 2). These very discouraging statistics show that blacks
don’t have high chances of investing in housing and building wealth while such unfair indicators
show us that race is heavily influenced.
Today we do have some improvement of some African American housing improvement.
“The largest landowner in the country is John Malone, owner of Liberty Media and something
few know is he was the second largest shareholder in Black Entertainment Television behind the
founders of Bob and Sheila Johnson” (Foster, 2013, p. 2). Compared to where we came from, we
see that African Americans are still in the fight four equal housing but have such a long way to
go.
PREAMBLE of the Independent Democratic Freedom Party (IDFP)
The Independent Democratic Freedom Party (IDFP) grew out of the same spirit that
drove Fannie Lou Hamer to sit in a seat in Washington D.C to change conditions in the state of
Mississippi. We the of persons of this modern-day IDFP exist to right the wrongs of slavery, Jim
Crow, the new Jim Crow which is mass incarceration and all laws, ordinances, and statues that
marginalized the descendants of the Atlantic Slave Trade. We further affirm that the current
democratic party structure is as steeped in mediocrity as was the 1964 party that supported
Lyndon Baines Johnson. In addition, the current President Donald Trump supports the same
party platform and policies that have thwarted the advancement of people of color. Moreover, the
progressives in the democratic party areas supportive of the “gradualism” policies of the
Dixiecrats of the 1960s, who believed that time, the court systems and the Christian faith would
gradually change America. The nation would fulfill the tenets of the United States Constitution
eventually. The era from 1619 to 2019, some four hundred years has left African Americans,
psychologically traumatized, socially immobilized and politically ostracized. We formed the
IDFP, with the hope of forming a more perfect union. Whereas, in the words of the hymn that
Dr. Martin Luther King quoted, “free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.
To that end, the IDFP exists.
The topic of reparations has been and continues to be a controversial and confusing
political issue in the United States. In 2016, the topic of reparations had no traction with either
the American electorate or their representatives. The lack of support and divisiveness of
reparations in the electorate was reflected in the platforms of the top Democratic candidates in
both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns
TENETS of IDFP
-
We at the IDFP believe that reparations is the only solution that will right the wrongs of
the past, allow Blacks to forgive our oppressors and allow all of us as Americans to forge a new
America that truly seeks equality for all its people.
-
We believe that reparations must address inequality in housing by providing a trust fund
for the descendants of African Americans that will provide them with the financial means to
become homeowners, an opportunity that has been denied them since slavery ended. Reparations
must also work to recoup the acreage that was taken from African Americans during
Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era and restore them to their rightful owners.
-
We believe that reparations must address inequality in education by providing full student
loan forgiveness and full scholarships to attend schools and universities that have either profited
from slavery or denied Black students admission due to Jim Crow laws and racism.
-
We believe that reparations must address inequality in economic opportunities by
providing a trust fund that will allow the descendants of the Atlantic slave trade to apply for
entrepreneurship grants to start businesses that will both give them equal opportunities to
become financially successful and generate more wealth for their communities.
-
We believe that reparations must close the wealth gap between Blacks and Whites
through the distribution of lump-sum payments to adult descendants of the Atlantic slave trade in
addition to “baby bonds” for children and youth descendants that will be distributed when they
reach the age of 18.
-
We believe that reparations must close the gap in medical care between Blacks and
Whites by providing full medical insurance coverage free of charge to all descendants of the
Atlantic slave trade in order to address the myriad of health issues that have occurred as a result
of the poor treatment endured during slavery and the Jim Crow era and the lasting legacy of
racism that exists in the medical care system today.
-
We believe that reparations must address the psychological issues that developed as a
result of slavery known as Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome (DeGruy) by providing access to free
mental health services that will treat and heal Black families and communities.
-
We believe that reparations must address the Black veterans, many of whom suffered and
died in service to a country that did not treat them as equals during or after their service, through
the establishment of an office dedicated to ensuring access to all services listed above including
specialized care to address racism within the military.
-
Lastly, we believe that reparations must finally address the needs and concerns of a
subgroup that is often forgotten: Black women. Historically, they have carried the burden of
slavery in addition to the oppression of patriarchy, chauvinism, and sexism. In order for
reparations to fully heal the wounds of slavery, we believe that reparations should include indepth studies about the impacts of slavery and Jim Crow on Black women and develop a plan to
address the needs that are identified if they are not covered by above programs.
CONCLUSION
The political environment that exists today provides supporters of reparations hope that
public support will eventually lead to Congressional action. The cash payment proposal for
reparations does not appear to have traction despite the increased support. However, many
alternative proposals for reparations have been reflected in the economic proposals of
Democratic presidential candidates, like housing and educational benefits directed at
marginalized communities including the Black community. If the policies that have been studied
and shown to effectively close the inequality gaps are not enacted, it is clear that the
representatives elected in 2020 along with the subsequent political pressure will determine
whether the other proposed solutions that address poverty and inequality as a whole instead of
focusing specifically on the Black community will be as effective.
In sum, the restorative actions already being taken by local governments and community
advocacy groups must be accompanied by reparations. Reparations will be key to heal the pain
caused to the descendants of the African slave trade in the United States. The debate about
reparation often reaches a stalemate over how it will be financed. The recent article in the
Washington Post on elite universities has begun to acknowledge their role as beneficiaries of
slavery and the subsequent laws and practices that continue the white advantage. For example, at
Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., “students pushed for their school to pay reparations
for slaves once sold by the school after voting to impose a $27.20 per-student, per-semester fee
to fund reparations to the descendants of the 272 slaves owned and then sold by the school”
(Crump, 2019). The author Ben Crump also argues that “elite universities can accelerate the
United States’ slow trek toward atonement for slavery by dedicating some of their wealth –
amassed on the backs of enslaved African-Americans – to struggling HBCUs” (Crump, 2019).
Along with universities doing their part in healing, there are several proposals for how to
finance reparations that will address the issues its opponents bring up. In “Reparations are
essential to eliminating the substantial wealth gap between black and white Americans” from
The Conversation, the author Christian Weller (2019) state the most effective methods for
payment would be “baby bonds” where every child born in the US would receive an interestbearing account that would receive annual payments until the child turned 18. They stated that
this would be the most effective method, “clos[ing] 24% of the gap by the time people retire”
(Weller, 2019). If the laws ensure that the funds used to pay for the baby bonds would come
from businesses that benefitted directly from slavery and its legacy, that would ensure that only
the direct beneficiaries of the profits from slavery would be impacted, leaving out the innocent
bystanders like small businesses, individual taxpayers or groups that are also disadvantaged. In
my opinion, the benefits of reparations far outweigh the challenges of enacting or paying for it.
The enactment of reparations in Congress signed by the President of the United States will help
even the playing field, which will benefit the whole of society. It will take moral courage for
leaders in our nation, both Black and White to forge ahead toward a better America and a
brighter future. As Dr. Martin Luther King taught us, we are all caught in an inescapable web of
mutuality.
REPARATIONS & POLITICS
The topic of reparations has been and continues to be a controversial and confusing
political issue in the United States. In 2016, the topic of reparations had no traction with either
the American electorate or their representatives.
The lack of support and divisiveness of reparations in the electorate was reflected in the
platforms of the top Democratic candidates in both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns. This
sentiment was reflected by the top Democratic candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and
Bernie Sanders. When asked about reparations, Barack Obama made the following statement:
I fear reparations would be used as an excuse for some to say we’ve paid our debt and
to avoid the much harder work of enforcing anti-discrimination laws in employment and
housing, lifting people out of poverty, improving public education and rehabilitating
young men coming out of prison (Atkinson, “Reparations: Where the 2020 Democratic
candidates stand”).
The lack of support from Obama disappointed many in the African-American community.
Even as the first viable Black candidate of a major political party, Barack Obama did not support
either the concept or enactment of reparations. The reasoning he gave provided key insights
into the political climate at the time. He believed that the concept of reparations was limited to
financial payments and ignored other proposals for reparations that addressed the issues he
brought up. His statement during the primaries foreshadowed his choice not to champion HR 40
or other reparations proposals. At the conclusion of his presidency, many African American
groups and prominent African American figures criticized him for not championing the causes of
African Americans. In the words of author Ta-Naheisi Coates in his article series in The Atlantic,
“The country’s first black president never pursued policies bold enough to close the racial wealth
gap” (Coates, “How Barack Obama Failed Black Americans”).
Obama’s Democratic opponents shared the same position on reparations. Candidate
Hillary Clinton made the following statement on reparations:
I think we should start studying what investments we need to make in communities to
help individuals and families and communities move forward. And I am absolutely
committed to that. There are some good ideas out there. There’s an idea in the
Congressional Black Caucus about really targeting federal dollars to communities that
have had either disinvestment or no investment, and have had years of being below the
poverty level. That’s the kind of thing I’d like us to focus on and really help lift people up.
(Atkinson, “Reparations: Where the 2020 Democratic candidates stand”).
Clinton’s view on reparations provided more specifics than Obama but still limited the
view on reparations to financial payments specifically. Like Obama, she chose to run on
addressing communities in distress overall instead of African Americans specifically. Unlike the
two frontrunners, Bernie Sanders made statements specifically opposing reparations. When
asked on his position on reparations, “Sanders, in particular, was criticized for focusing his
opposition on the fact that reparations were “divisive” and would not pass Congress” (Lockhart,
“The 2020 Democratic primary debate over reparations, explained”). His focus on the bill’s
viability in Congress summarizes the view of candidates in 2016. The issue of reparations did
not have enough public support to force politicians to treat it seriously, which led to general
statements of support for policies that addressed inequality but no statements of support for
reparations specifically.
The climate of the 2020 presidential campaign has shown that the electorate has moved
towards supporting studying reparations, representing a major shift in public opinon from 2016.
A comprehensive poll done by Gallup in summer 2019 shows the following levels of support by
political affiliation:
Overall, support for reparations currently sits at 29% for providing cash payments to
black Americans who are descendants of slaves (Younis, “As Redress for Slavery, Americans
Oppose Cash Reparations”). This is an improvement of 15% from the last poll they conducted
on the same topic in 2002 (Gallup, “Race relations”). The upward movement in support is
credited to strong support amongst Millennials and the increase in support in the Democratic
party in the United States. Democrats support for reparations is 47% while Republican support
is at 8% and Independent support is 32% (Younis, “As Redress for Slavery, Americans Oppose
Cash Reparations”).
This shift in popularity among Democrats is reflected by the platforms of most 2020
Presidential candidates. Vox author P.R.Lockhart characterized the climate of the 2020
Democratic campaign as follows:
When 2020 presidential candidates first began discussing reparations in February and
March, it marked a turn in a primary contest in which black voters and their continued
concerns about the economy are expected to play a significant role. That the attention to
reparations has remained so prominent in the months since speaks to a series of
changes that have occurred in recent years — namely, the increased academic
understanding of and public attention to the ways the history of slavery and
discrimination have fueled disparities like the racial wealth gap, which shows that the
median white household is 10 times wealthier than the median black one (Lockhart,
“The 2020 Democratic primary debate over reparations, explained”).
In addition to the Democratic electorate making reparations and racial inequality an
issue, public pressure has increased thanks to new voices in Congress and lobbying efforts by
groups promoting reparations like N’COBRA and a congressional hearing on reparations that
brought elevated reparations from a local Black-only issue to a national conversation. N’COBRA
(which stands for National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America) is the most vocal
group in favor of reparations, hosting summits and conferences nationwide about the subject.
They describe themselves as “the premiere mass-based coalition of organizations and
individuals organized for the sole purpose of obtaining reparations for African descendants in
the United States” (N’COBRA website). Another key group in bringing reparations into the
national spotlight is Reverend Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. In April 2019, the National
Action Network held its annual conference where every presidential candidate in attendance
was asked specifically to address reparations and what they would do to work towards
economic equality. In June 2019, when H.R. 40 was introduced, unlike previous years, a
hearing was held where the case for reparations was made by impassioned speakers like
Senator Corey Booker, author Ta-Nehisi Coates, and actor Danny Glover. The hearing led to
extensive media coverage of the issue, becoming a popular conversation on political talk shows,
in print and on social media. These three factors did not exist in 2016 and has moved the issue
of reparations beyond a Black issue to an American issue that every American must examine
both individually and in the representatives they support.
The 2020 Democratic presidential candidates’ views on reparations reflect the 50-50
support found by Gallup in their poll of Democrats and those leaning Democratic. As of
November 2019, the polls show four leading candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential
race: former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders, and
Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Warren and Buttigieg have expressed the same view on reparations.
They both support both H.R. 40 and the companion bill presented in the Senate by fellow
presidential hopeful Senator Corey Booker but do not support the proposal for reparations by
cash payments. Buttigieg stated that, “I haven’t seen a proposal for a cash transfer that people
would be able to come together around and view as fair.. but I absolutely believe that we need
to have some kind of accounting for the persistent racial inequities today that are there by
design because of past and present racism” (Lockhart, “The 2020 Democratic primary debate
over reparations explained”). Both candidates have also stated that their economic proposals
(Warren’s “American Housing and Economic Mobility Act” and Buttigieg’s “Douglass Plan”)
addresses the same issues as reparations without being as divisive (Lockhart, “The 2020
Democratic primary debate over reparations, explained”).
In contrast, Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders have taken less
mainstream positions on reparations. Biden made the following comments in 1975 when asked
about his position on reparations:
I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather... I feel responsible for
what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation. And I’ll be damned if I feel
responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago. (Wright, B.C.T., “Where All The
Presidential Candidates Stand On Reparations, In Their Own Words”).
At the September 2019 Democratic presidential debate, Biden was asked if his
comments in 1975 still reflect his views on reparations today. Infamously, he chose to answer
by stating his support for reforming education then commented that more social workers are
needed to visit Black homes and made suggestions that many people took as criticisms of how
Black parents are raising their children (Thompson, “2020 presidential debates: Joe Biden
baffles with answer to question about slavery reparations”). If you dismiss the comments about
Black families, his statement appears to reflect his beliefs that the focus must be on addressing
the systems as a whole rather than specific populations. However, it is notable that Biden has
yet to address reparations directly and has taken steps to avoid the topic since 1975.
Similarly, Senator Bernie Sanders views on reparations do not reflect the mainstream
views of Democrats. When asked if his views on reparations in 2016 have evolved since 2016,
he replied that “there are better ways to do that than just writing out a check” and, when asked
by his competitors about his support, has asked for clarification on what they mean (Lockhart,
“The 2020 Democratic primary debate over reparations, explained”). The stances he has taken
in 2019 appear to be unchanged from his views in 2016, that the policies he supports will
address poverty overall which will help close the economic and opportunity gaps reparations
seek to address.
In sum, the political environment that exists today provides supporters of reparations
hope that public support will eventually lead to Congressional action. The cash payment
proposal for reparations does not appear to have traction despite the increased support.
However, many alternative proposals for reparations have been reflected in the economic
proposals of Democratic presidential candidates, like housing and educational benefits directed
at marginalized communities including the Black community. If the policies that have been
studied and shown to effectively close the inequality gaps are not enacted, it is clear that the
representatives elected in 2020 along with the subsequent political pressure will determine
whether the other proposed solutions that address poverty and inequality as a whole instead of
focusing specifically on the Black community will be as effective.
Resources
Atkinson, K. (2019, April 13). “Reparations: Where the 2020 Democratic candidates stand”.
AXIOS. Retrieved from https://www.axios.com/reparations-2020-presidential-candidates02cce9ac-082e-4777-955b-33c8196e64c0.html.
Coates, T. (2016, December 22). “How Barack Obama Failed Black Americans”. The Atlantic.
Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/how-barack-obamafailed-black-americans/511358/.
Gallup. (last updated July 2019). “Race relations”. Retrieved from
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/race-relations.aspx.
Lockhart, P.R. (2019, June 19). “The 2020 Democratic primary debate over reparations,
explained”. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/policy-andpolitics/2019/3/11/18246741/reparations-democrats-2020-inequality-warren-harriscastro.
N’COBRA Website. https://www.ncobraonline.org/.
“Polls: 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination” (Last updated November 24, 2019).
RealClearPolitics. Retrieved from
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential
_nomination-6730.html.
Younis, M. (2019, July 29). “As Redress for Slavery, Americans Oppose Cash Reparations”.
Gallup. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/261722/redress-slavery-americansoppose-cash-reparations.aspx.