Reparation

Reparation has become a thorny issue; can it be explored rationally without immediately jumping to one side or the other?  Let’s begin with a simple definition—reparation: making amends for a wrong, by money or otherwise helping (offering assistance).  The question being asked in America: ‘Are members of the black race entitled to compensation for the injustice of slavery’?

Before continuing, I take a brief side trip in history.  For eons slavery was a norm for society, usually a rather local issue.  To quote the International Slavery Museum: “For more than 2000 years people in many different parts of the world forced their fellow humans into slavery.”  

The character of slavery changed as capitalism emerged in Northern Europe in the 16^thCentury; it gave rise to the institutionalization of slavery.  Rather than remeining local, vast numbers of people were captured, gathered and shipped far away. 

The majority of those enslaved were from central and western Africa where slavery was historically widespread.  The captives were sold to Western European slave traders and shipped to America under horrible conditions and then offloaded and sold at auction.  This became known as ‘the transatlantic slave trade.’  It went on from the 1600’s to the 1900’s.  Only in the 1800’s in Europe and America did it come into question as a moral and political issue.

Denmark was the first nation to ban the import of slaves in 1792, becoming law in 1807.  The French colonies abolished slavery in 1848 and in the 1860’s the issue of slavery brought America to the bloody Civil War.  On January 1, 1863 President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves.

The slaves were technically freed, but the injustice caused by slavery continued through decades of segregation and the resulting social inequality has never been directly addressed. The issue of reparation asks that we as a nation address it.  Some point to Holocaust survivors being financially compensated—but that is a different issue, those are individuals who experienced direct suffering whereas there are no longer people alive who experienced direct suffering from slavery.  Yet, just looking around you will see it is indisputable that blacks are still suffering societal injustice.  Some individuals have succeeded against the odds, but the majority has not.  

It does not make sense nor is it reasonable to consider direct financial payment to descendants of slaves from several generations ago, but it would make sense to compensate for the societal injustice with a societal response by providing free education or skills training to any low income black family who requests it.

This is a call for a consciousness change to recognize the decades long injustice and offer assistance—reparation—for the wrong that had been done. 

Standing vs Kneeling

I’m not a sports enthusiast and I don’t support any team.  I consider myself a loyal American and I’m concerned about the controversy over standing vs. kneeling during the national anthem at football games.

The issue first arose as one or two players, then whole teams, chose to kneel rather than stand during the playing of the anthem to bring attention to the injustice toward blacks that is still present in our society.

I want to address the heated arguments claiming that kneeling is insulting and disrespectful to our flag.

As far back as history goes, kneeling has always been a sign of reverence and respect—subjects knelt before kings, people kneel to pray, a man kneels to ask for a woman’s hand in marriage . . . kneeling does not disparage, it is in no way disrespectful.  In this instance it is a request that our nation face the imbalance that is still present in our society.  Those accusations of disrespect arise from resistance toward facing those prejudices that still mar our nation. 

Too often in recent times protests have resulted in violence—in which case the good of the justice sought, is lost to the injustice of the destruction that ensues.  Martin Luther King Jr. awakened our nation to peaceful protest—the method used by Gandhi and Mandela to win freedom and justice in their countries.  Our segregation battle was won by sitting at lunch counters, taking a seat in the front of a bus, and a peaceful march of thousands . . . kneeling at the games is in the same category, and I praise it.

Clearly the imbalance and injustice we are being asked to look at is very real and multifaceted, it will take time and agonizing efforts to resolve, but let us look at the peaceful way this protest is being expressed and admire the courage of those ‘stepping outside the box’ to bring it to light.

Martin Luther King Day

2016,  MLK Day—I’m reading the classic book, Jesus and the Disinherited by the brilliant black theologian Howard Thurman whose work influenced King.  It reminded me of my blog of 11/27/14, ‘Ferguson’s Accomplishment’.  In it I stated the Ferguson event “desecrated the memory of MLK, a true black hero honored by all people regardless of race.  He emerged from a society much more deeply steeped in prejudice, yet he brought non-violent pressure to right the injustice of segregation.”

I stand by my statement that the Ferguson’s riots dishonor his memory.  It was clear that MLK stood on the side of a just cause; blacks were innocent victims of institutional prejudice, yet he led peaceful protests and the million-man-march never resorting to violence and brought about the desired change.  With Ferguson 'the right’ is less clear; there is blame on both sides . . . are the police ‘trigger happy’ when it comes to black youth?  I think it is clear that is true—yet that is not the only consideration . . . the function of a police force is to maintain order in society; their effectiveness requires that society respect and support their authority.  Over the past few decades a ferment of anger, disrespect and hatred grew among black youths against police.  That hatred was echoed in the rap-music of insults and calls to oppose police . . . ‘kill the pigs’.  The police, when their authority is not respected or supported, tighten their reactions against perceived violations.

I thought I understood the duel nature and shared blame for the violence in Ferguson but Thurman helped give me deeper understand of the disinherited people’s anger, he explained the why and how of it—I quote his book:

            Pg. 69:  “Hatred in the mind and spirit of the disinherited, is born out of great bitterness—a bitterness that is made possible by sustained resentment.”

            Pg. 70:  “your hatred gives you a sense of significance which you fling defiantly in the teeth of their estimate of you.”

            Pg. 72: “thus hatred becomes a device of which an individual seeks to protect himself against moral disintegration.” (the devaluation he sees in the eyes of the strong).

            Pg. 74:  “Every expression of intolerance, every attitude of meanness, every statute that limits and degrades, give further justification for life-negation on the part of the weak toward the strong.”

Thurman gives insight to the genesis of the anger and hatred that is found among the disinherited—but sees its true nature beyond the violence it births—

            Pg. 76:  “hatred destroys finally the core of the life of the hater.”

Martin Luther King heard Thurman’s message and understood its truth.  He refused to accept disinheritance and used the strength of truth and justice to wage his fight, winning the ear and respect of all who value justice.

We are still seeking the way to co-exist.  There are two roads to the future;    

--will we choose the way of Ferguson through hatred and violence?

--Or Thurman’s and King’s way through peaceful insistence upon what is right and just?