The comeback of Reparations
Posted by Sable on May 1, 2008
by
I haven’t written about reparations in a while, in part because other news has been consuming everyone’s attention this spring. There have been some developments: the University of Maryland’s starting a course this fall to investigate its connections to slavery. Ira Berlin, one of country’s most distinguished historians, is convening the course. And I hear rumors that William and Mary is discussing its connections to slavery as well. (I did write about Harvard’s non-investigation recently and a little about a potential lawsuit by Sally Hemings’ issue to get access to Thomas Jefferson’s grave and here a few weeks ago.)
But perhaps–and I’m really tentative about this–the reparations movement is shifting dramatically. Look; it’s no secret that the movement is challenged politically–(only a small percentage of white people are in favor of “reparations” for slavery–by which they mean huge cash payments to individuals, regardless of need. No one that I know who is a serious scholar of reparations is thinking in those terms. I think that’s just a way anti-reparations writers have of making the movement look foolish. That’s a discussion best left for another time.
There is one place, though, where the movement has had an effect. I think talk of reparations has shifted discussion of race. President Bush’s moving speech at Goree Island in 2003, where he acknowledged that we have a long way to go to incorporate everyone in the bounties that our country has to offer, is one example of rhetoric that has been shaped by the movement.
Despite the movement’s impact on discussion, I think we’re seeing another shift in politics, outside of the reparations movement. That shift, led most recently by Senator Obama, is away from affirmative action. (The shift has, obviously, been underway a long, long time. But this is where Senator Obama’s critical–he’s signaling a shift away from race-based affirmative action. In the Pennsylvania debate, for instance, he said his daughters do not need affirmative action, but acknowledged that some poor white children do.)
So what happens now? Reparations talk has, for the better part of a decade (and at other times through our post-Civil War history), reminded us of the many ways in which some Americans have been grossly mistreated–and how that legacy is having an effect today. But that knowledge mixes in other ways with politics and morality–and perhaps, perhaps will lead to renewed calls for social-welfare programs for all people in need.
I predicted in Reparations Pro and Con that the reparations movement would be the entry point for renewed calls for social welfare programs, but that the movement might end up in non-race based programs. (I think that’s right for a series of reasons–in part political, in part moral.) And that, indeed, seems to be where this is headed. Though, as I say, I’m really tentative about this. We’ll see….
Lorie Graham (Suffolk University Law School) has posted Reparations, Self-Determination and the Seventh Generation (Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 21, p. 47, 2008) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This paper links indigenous peoples’ claims of self-determination to the right of reparations under international law. This analysis unfolds within the context of U.S. domestic legislation designed to address the large scale removal of indigenous children from their families and communities. We are just over one generation removed from the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). According to indigenous teachings on law and family, we have six more generations to consider before we can fully comprehend the impact of this landmark legislation. Yet, despite its many successes, the ICWA has its detractors. Some of the more highly charged criticisms center on claims of race matching or violations of individual freedoms. This paper suggests a different view of the law, one that seeks to analyze the ICWA within existing and emerging international human rights precepts. By focusing on the international right to reparation in the form of indigenous self-determination, the paper offers a sound legal basis for the continuation of this and similar federal legislation designed to remedy serious human rights violations against Native peoples and their children. The first two parts of the paper present the factual foundation for indigenous claims to reparations and discusses the major human rights violations that give rise to these claims. The remaining parts of the paper analyzes international reparation principles and then seeks to link those principles to various aspects of the ICWA, while at the same time identifying some of the deficiencies in the law. Both the approaching 30th anniversary of the ICWA and the current debate before the U.N. General Assembly regarding the Draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights make this a timely discussion.
James said
You write:
“There have been some developments: the University of Maryland’s starting a course this fall to investigate its connections to slavery. Ira Berlin, one of country’s most distinguished historians, is convening the course. And I hear rumors that William and Mary is discussing its connections to slavery as well. (I did write about Harvard’s non-investigation recently ….)”
It’s probably worth noting that Harvard does have a course which investigates its historic ties to slavery, just as the University of Maryland will.
Harvard isn’t pursuing an investigation through its administration, as Brown did, but neither is the University of Maryland, as far as I’m aware.
Just one more sign, as you say, that there are some new developments in this area.