I am generally in support of reparations, but i am in the same way that i am in support of the naacp legal defense fund. i probably don't understand half of the legalistic stuff they do, but i have a lot of respect for the players involved.

I am more or less convinced that unless and until you swallow the entire pill, the civil war, the underground railroad, the laws of the house of burgesses in virginia, bloody kansas & john brown's rebellion, the failure of reconstruction, the treaties and wars against the indians, the gold rush, the land rush, and a whole good hundred twenty or so years of history, then you are not going to understand the depth of the problem of racism.

the most important thing i've learned about race and racism in the past two years had to do with recognizing john brown. in so doing, it became abundantly clear that there has been no revisionism. let me explain:

there is a myth in popular discourse which discounts claims of racism by suggesting that 'modern standards' are too strict to apply to the founders and other american historical figures of note. if this is truly the case, then the logical conclusion is that whites *cannot* understand why they are racist. but american racism had beginnings. people had to learn to think and self-identify the way they did (and do).

it is clear to me that simplest interpretation of christianity would compel a faithful individual to resist the premises of racism. and so true christians ought to have a history of resistance. identifying this history would show americans, white americans in particular, how they could stand in a tradition of 'race men'.

most folks get bogged down with the example of abraham lincoln. lincoln was in favor of human rights for slaves, which they did not enjoy. but he was not in favor of civil rights for slaves. so the natural question is whether any american in lincoln's time knew better. certainly they would seem radical, but of course they were just as correct then as they would be now.

part of this 'anti-revisionist' myth is that the definition of racism is fluid - that whites and blacks would of necessity come up with different definitions and that the last time there was any mutual agreement was during the civil rights movement. this tends, of course, to (falsely) deify martin luther king in the same way lincoln was. issues like affirmative action get taken out of context and the acceptability of principles are subjected to realpolitik, a marketplace of ideas. wrong!

it seems to me that the only way one can be in support of reparations is to accept that certain values are permanent and not subject to statutes of limitations, marketplaces of ideas or majoritarian ethics. so i am interested to see what excuses people use to evade this matter, because most americans do agree that slavery was a horrible and unique crime against humanity which has never been made right.

i'd go beyond that to practical matters. i believe that it is within the capability of the nation to do right and put the matter to rest. very much like it is possible to jail klansmen for killing children. justice can be swift and appropriate. the question is, what do people have to learn in order to facilitate that justice?

1. i'm not surprised that the working group is framing this matter in the form of a class action suit. by presenting the matter to the american courts it acknowledges that the executive and legislative branches are incapable of accomodating this grave matter.

2. let's see what case they present. everyone is speculating now. they haven't presented their legal strategy - the case hasn't been made.

3. there's lots of history to digest, lots of research to do. it's worth it, so pass conyers bill sponsoring the research.