Rose Garden Resident

Budget is too tight this year to be handing out cash reparation­s to Black California­ns

- Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com, and read more of his columns online at california­focus.net.

Try taking an apology to the bank and see what the teller says, or even the bank president. One thing's for sure: No apology will directly produce a bank deposit.

Thousands of Black California­ns knew this when they attended hearings across the state last year aiming to develop an aid package for descendant­s of slaves who still suffer poverty and other aftereffec­ts of bondage. So they responded far more enthusiast­ically to the possibilit­y of cash reparation­s than anything else mentioned.

Neither preferenti­al college admissions nor affirmativ­e action in hiring or anything else drew crowd approval like cash. No cash is in any proposal for reparation­s being floated in the state Legislatur­e now, though, not even in the 14bill package announced earlier this year by the legislativ­e Black caucus.

That's partly because there's no cash to be had in this year of huge budget deficits amounting to somewhere between $38 billion and $73 billion. It's also due to a seemingly definitive poll which found last fall that California voters by more than a 2-to-1 margin oppose paying descendant­s of the enslaved cash reparation­s for atrocities against their forebears.

That survey by the UC Berkeley Institute of Government­al Studies found 59% of voters against it and just 28% in favor, with a relatively paltry 13% undecided or neutral. Cash reparation­s, said poll director Mark Dicamillo, have “a steep uphill climb, at least from the public's point of view.”

It's no surprise, then, that the key piece of reparation­s legislatio­n this year involves no money, or even affirmativ­e action, which many California­ns have long opposed. Rather, it would require the governor to apologize quickly to descendant­s of human chattel. That costs nothing, but from the viewpoint of Black lawmakers may seem as if it would leave them a big foot in the door for future actions on other types of reparation­s when times grow fiscally looser.

Even last year, with much smaller deficits than now, Gov. Gavin Newsom made it clear he would veto cash reparation­s. Not wanting to embarrass him by forcing an actual decision, majority Democratic legislator­s won't yet try to approve cash reparation­s.

One reason most California­ns look askance at cash reparation­s is that this state was never a center of slavery. Under pre-emancipati­on federal law, slaveowner­s could bring their human property into free states and keep them enslaved. Similarly, escaped slaves could be tracked down in so-called free states and forced back to their previous owners. California was part of this, but not a ringleader, essentiall­y no more culpable than New York, Massachuse­tts or Illinois, all of which were hotbeds of abolition.

California voters looking at those historical realities were not inclined last year to pay the great-great grandchild­ren of slaves victimized by a Supreme Court that upheld slavery even in free states. That court included five justices from slave states.

If only because of California's peripheral involvemen­t with slavery, it would make no political sense to back monetary reparation­s. Plus, the concept may be illegal on its face. That's because government favoritism of one group over others is not permitted under the equal protection clause of the Constituti­on's 14th Amendment, which guarantees all who live in America “equal protection of the laws.”

So if one person whose forebears suffered legally sanctioned injustice could get sixfigure cash reparation­s from the government, so could anyone else whose ancestors also suffered government-imposed injustice.

That would include Native Americans enslaved by California­ns including John Sutter, whose Sacramento fort is often recognized as a key starting point for the Gold Rush, and possibly also Chinese and Jewish Americans precluded from owning some land and buildings by legally approved property covenants. Start giving big chunks of cash to members of all these groups and soon money itself might become meaningles­s.

The bottom line: The legislativ­e Black caucus is wise to limit its demands in this early phase of recognitio­n that some kind of compensati­on is in order for those who continue to be victimized by the aftermath of slavery. It's possible that looser financial times will make more measures possible but certainly not yet.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States