I assume every black person has heard about 40 acres and a mule. Doing research for this post, I actually learned details but the gist was always known: The idea of what is owed to us to make amends for slavery, Jim Crow and like-policies/laws both overt and subtle.
I'm on the fence about reparations to be honest. The sociologist in me hates the idea that reparations has become weaponized. It's cool and in, the new fad. Yet the conversation exists solely on the surface with people discussing the basis of reparations without going into particulars. The pro-crowd needs to be well versed on the subject. Know what you are asking for. Know what your value is. My side of the argument, or really just my hesitancy on the topic, stems from history. Being aware of America and how this country plays ball, the idea that anything being given to anyone on the 'bottom of the totem pole' doesn't ever actually work out. Some see green pastures ahead, I see it as par for the course. For the uninitiated, 40 acres and a mule speaks to a post-slavery 'Special Order' that sought to provide the formerly enslaved a piece of the land they toiled on. Everything appeared all set with this measure until President Lincoln's successor reversed the order giving the lands back to the slave owners. No, I don't think all would've been fixed from Special Order #15 but here you have a specific initiative with the idea that this 'good' goes to former slaves. The same can be said in the present conversation about reparations: who is to say a future President doesn't try to reverse whatever reparation is decided upon, as surely this wouldn't be executed for quite some time even if HR-40 continues on. My second warning is the phrase: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Although far from reparations (in fact still very much the act of oppression) the entire story of Native American reservations give me pause in this idea that the government will give away land and suddenly we have this fantasy level of autonomy and sovereignty. Maybe this is where my skepticism turns to cynicism but I see more Native American reservation (or really any inner city you want to select in America) than I see this real life version of Wakanda. Nevertheless, these are my initial thoughts. My pleas to handle this topic in a delicate fashion. Michael Render (professionally known as Killer Mike), creator of Netflix's Trigger Warning, had this to say: Mike drops way too many gems throughout that entire interview and I encourage you to check out the entire 26 minutes when you have the time. But in the section I used, Mike expresses the same--much better worded--caution that I share. If reparations is something tangible like the $2 million example Mike gave, what happens then? Does this $2 million reparation turn into the 'We gave you a Black president' line? Injustices will not disappear with the giving of land or the giving of money. $2 million is not the cost of Trayvon Martin or Sandra Bland. $2 million does not take back what happened to Kalief Browder or better yet the Central Park Five. I don't draw those lines of comparison to equate reparations with payment for those heinous acts but simply to introduce this into the discussion overall. Gentrification proves society doesn't have a problem with throwing money into the revitalization of cities. As such, shouldn't your push and pursuit of reparations be centered around atoning for the fear/hate that isn't so visible? If money can be burned through as Mike alluded to in the clip, and simply having the land doesn't say anything else about the state of the people on it, then shouldn't we be appealing to amending the real element of all of this that truly threatens our safety and progress: the minds of those with the power to maintain the status quo? At the Sunday meeting Mike mentioned, that would certainly be receiving my vote. Comments are closed.
|
Details
Ty FosterQuestion everything. WQHC Archives
June 2020
Categories |