The Case For REPARATIONS: Why? How Much? When?

IT was 1989 when U.S. Rep. John Conyers first proposed a bill (H.R. 40) 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." Back then, hardly anyone in the country could have told you what the term "reparations" meant. Now, thanks to the relentless efforts of Conyers and others, the word cuts through the public consciousness like a buzzsaw, and the debate over how African-Americans should be compensated for centuries of slavery and discrimination is echoing loudly through town halls and lecture halls.

That wasn't the case 11 years ago. Conyers' bill languished in Congress for a decade, failing to gain enough support to warrant even a subcommittee hearing. But today, the case for reparations is like a snowball tumbling downhill--with each turn it gains momentum and size. Politicians, academics, students and activists of all stripes have signed on to the cause. The movement took a quantum leap forward on May 18 when the Chicago City Council voted 46-1 in favor of a resolution urging Congress to consider Conyers' bill. Resolutions have also been passed in Detroit, Dallas, Cleveland and Washington, D.C.

As the chorus for a national dialogue on reparations grows louder, some of the most influential Black Americans are weighing in. On the following pages, EBONY has assembled three of the reparations movement's most vocal proponents: Rep. Conyers, Chicago Alderman Dorothy Tillman, who led the drive for that city's reparations resolution, and Randall Robinson, president of TransAfrica, whose recently published book, "The Debt: What America Owes To Blacks," is a comprehensive examination of the issue. Each makes the case that the time has come for America to acknowledge that the effects of slavery linger with us today, and that the time has come to put the topic of reparations on the legislative agenda.

Why?

U.S. REP. JOHN CONYERS: (D-Mich.) Author of H.R. 40

THE concept of establishing some form of reparations for the descendants of the Africans who were held in slavery is not a new one. The subject has been locked in America's closet for hundreds of years. Since 1989, I have sponsored a bill calling for the U.S. government to hold a probing study of the issue. Only now--with the groundswell of forums and seminars on college campuses, and the increasingly vocal support of some of the nation's most respected academics and opinion leaders--has the subject gained currency in the public domain.

Part of the reason for this heightened public interest is the fact that reparations has been discussed in recent years in connection with a variety of national and international calamities. We have had talk about reparations for victims of the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, for victims of the Nazi holocaust, for Native Americans, and Japanese Americans. These discussions have fueled interest in providing reparations for victims of the American slave experience. And so the momentum began to turn in our favor.

It is important to note that my bill approaches the subject of reparations as a means of healing, rather than further dividing the country. The idea is to create a presidentially appointed commission, one that Congress would be able to weigh-in to, that would bring forward clearly qualified and impartial experts on the African-American experience to see if we could put together a very serious document to present to Congress on this subject.

We want the government to examine not only slavery, but all of the forms of discrimination which, in effect, re-enslaved the former slaves and their descendants in the post-Reconstruction era and have effects that dribble down right into the very present. I see the examination of these events as a very necessary part of healing the race problem and taking it off the agenda as the No. 1 unfinished problem in America's social and economic history.

My bill also calls for town hall meetings so that people who do not hold themselves out as experts can talk about this--as people in a democracy are given to talk about subjects that are both simple and complex--and give their views.

We recognize that we don't need a majority to move the discussion on reparations forward. Often, in fact, when we have done the right thing in our democracy, we have done it without majority support. I don't think, for instance, that the majority of people would necessarily have supported the Voting Rights Act or even the Civil Rights Act. But we want to get this issue in front of enough people so that we can say a substantial number of citizens are at least aware of it and understand the significance of having this discussion.

We also want people to understand that we are not coming forward in an accusatory tone toward any citizens or their ancestors. This is not a witch-hunt. We are not looking for people who owned or traded in slaves. And we're not trying to penalize people for things that happened in another century. What we are saying is that the brutal system of slavery and its legacy of discrimination were sanctioned by our government, and it is to the government that we look for redress, not individual citizens.