Supreme Court Ruling Strikes Down Affirmative Action: Examining the Aftermath

Affirmative action, a policy designed to address historical inequalities and promote diversity in the workplace, has been a subject of debate for decades. Proponents have asserted that Affirmative action policies can help to correct past injustices and provide opportunities for groups that have been historically excluded, helps disadvantaged groups climb the socioeconomic ladder, improve productivity and help to create a more inclusive and diverse workplace environment. Whereas opponents argue affirmative action policies are discriminatory and unfair to those who are not part of the preferred group and create a stigma that women and minorities were only hired or admitted because of their gender or skin color, which can lead to resentment and tension in the workplace or educational environment. They also point out affirmative action policies can disadvantage qualified individuals who are not part of the preferred group. Quite recently, the Supreme Court agreed with the opponents of affirmative action.

The Supreme Court struck down affirmative action programs in college admissions on June 29, 2023. The court ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities. The court’s majority opinion said that both Harvard’s and UNC’s affirmative action programs “unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points.” The decision effectively ends race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country. The decision has sparked debates about the potential consequences for minority representation in institutions and workplaces. To quote the Wall Street Journal

“There are people who say, ‘I really wish we were more diverse,’ and I’ve also seen people say, ‘Stop being so woke,’ ” says Sharp.

The removal of race as a factor in college admissions stands to change the pipeline of diverse graduates companies can hire and likely opens challenges to longstanding hiring and promotion practices, legal experts say. For managers, the challenge is about fairly assessing a job candidate’s skills or an employee’s readiness for promotion at a time when workplace diversity measures already face questions from both supporters and skeptics.

In interviews with a dozen current and former diversity and HR heads, leaders say they are hearing from employees discouraged about what they view as lost momentum in advancing people of color and underrepresented minorities after George Floyd’s murder in police custody led to greater national attention to race and inequity. Leaders say they are also facing quiet, but no less insistent, pushback from some workers, with combative questions about diversity initiatives in surveys and company town halls.

The mixed reactions cited by the Wall Street Journal are echoing across the internet. On the proponent side, there are the coincidental exits of multiple diversity officers from major corporations; among them:  Disney’s chief diversity officer Latondra Newton, Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences’ Executive VP of Impact and Inclusion – Jeanell English, Netflix’s First Head of Inclusion Vernā Myers, and Karen Horne, a diversity, equity and inclusion executive at Warner Bros. Discovery. The online controversy is that they all departed their positions as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, but that is not the case. The demand for diversity officers has been experiencing high turnover for the past few years. To quote the Wall Street Journal once more

It’s one of the hottest jobs in America—and it has a revolving door.

U.S. companies are rushing to hire chief diversity officers or elevate existing leaders to the position in the midst of pressure to address racial divisions and inequities within their organizations.

The role has long been marked by high turnover, with many in the position, known as CDO, leaving over a lack of resources, unrealistic expectations and inadequate support from senior executives, according to current and former CDOs.

They also move because they are in high demand, according to recruiters, who say average tenure is about three years.

People attracted to the position “see themselves as change agents” yet often end up disillusioned, said Pamela Newkirk, author of “Diversity, Inc.: The Failed Promise of a Billion-Dollar Business.”

Another online firestorm brewing is video evidence of how affirmative action does more harm than good, at least in the view of its opponents. Journalist Christopher Rufo posted a video of Berkeley Law School dean Erwin Chemerinsky explaining how he has secretly enacted a policy of racial discrimination in faculty hiring—which is illegal in California.

In reaction to that video, attorney Stephen Miller of America First Legal sent a legal threat letter to every law school in America threatening lawsuits if they do not comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

Its easy to see the political divide around this issue, as it has been in place since the inception of affirmative action. What is not so clear cut is how minorities have been responding to the news. Obviously, no minority group is a monolith of opinion. As I researched various sources, I wanted a gauge on what the overwhelming sentiment was for minority groups and found… none. For example, when I reviewed what the Asian community thought of the Supreme Court decision, I discovered mixed reactions. (The lawsuits that led to the Supreme Court’s ruling on racial preferences were largely brought on behalf of Asian-American students.) Some Asian Americans were thrilled with the ruling, while others lamented the role Asians played in the cases. The National Congress of American Indians expressed disappointment, as did Latin advocacy groups like Latino Justice, and Hispanic Federation. The mixed reactions from African Americans could not be more poignantly expressed than in the fiery opposition between Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson. To quote CNN, Justice Thomas said the following…

“Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color,” Thomas wrote.

“While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination,” he added, “I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law.”

In direct opposition, Justice Jackson retorted…

“Justice Thomas ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here,” Jackson wrote. “The takeaway is that those who demand that no one think about race (a classic pink-elephant paradox) refuse to see, much less solve for, the elephant in the room – the race-linked disparities that continue to impede achievement of our great Nation’s full potential.”

In her broader dissent, Jackson said that the argument made by the challengers that affirmative action programs are unfair “blinks both history and reality in ways too numerous to count.”

Although the debate surrounding affirmative action has been mostly pros verses cons, there is also a third alternative proposed by popular YouTuber Oshay Duke Jackson. His supposition is more of a separatist position, built on self-reliance. In a recent video, he addressed the supreme court decision on diversity and suggested (heavily) that the African-American community should focus on building and supporting its own economy ahead of contributing to the success of major corporations. 1,216 commentators (at this writing) tended to agree with him. Some of the comments on his latest video are…

It was only a matter of time before we lose a foothold for being “just black” in the career space. Merit means everything. “Just being” something has a time-limit especially in America. Mr. Duke Jackson is right… it is time to form corporations and buy business real-estate instead of just happy having a foothold. – @lantian99

When people are hired based off of experience, professionalism, and ability there is no need for Affirmative Action. Our ancestors accomplished so much without AA we don’t need it. We are capable. @noneedtosay7553

Jamaican here. We are a third world country, yet we produce so many scholars who get into these institutions by merit. So I completely agree with Candace. I would be so mad if I found out someone with a lower GPA than myself got a spot at Harvard over me. @potfulexpressions442

No matter your allegiance on this issue, the impact of the Supreme Court decision will reverberate for generations. Morgan Freeman famously said that he did not want a black history month. He felt that race should not be an issue and that the solution to ending racism was to stop talking about it. As I reflect on his viewpoint, I can appreciate its appeal. If companies wanted to give every job applicant an equal opportunity to achieve, why not implement a blind hiring practice based on skills assessment? For the uninitiated, blind hiring is a hiring practice that involves obscuring identifiable characteristics from a candidate’s application that are not related to job performance. Blind hiring is a way to reduce bias in the hiring process and thereby increase diversity in the workforce. A few examples of blind hiring practices are:

  • Removing specific identifying information like the candidate’s name, address, and schools attended from resumes.
  • Using pre-employment testing, when data about applicants’ skills and characteristics is collected through assessments and the results are compared to pre-set benchmarks.
  • Removing all personal and demographic information from the hiring process so hiring managers can assess candidates based on ability alone.
  • Using gender-decoding software, like Textio, to remove gender bias from job descriptions.
  • Assessing candidates based on skills testing using software like TaTiO, then inviting the top performers in for interviews.

Blind hiring practices have been implemented by major companies like Virgin Money, Deloitte, HSBC, BBC, and Google, as well as companies in every industry and of every size.

Now, am I suggesting that simply not talking about diversity in the hiring practice is the best response to the striking down of affirmative action? Am I saying blind hiring practices will quell all debate around the issue going forward? No. There is way too much monetary incentive for racism to utterly disappear from the workplace.  I’m simply saying that its worth a try and that the American culture, overall, seems to agree with me.

VIDEO: Who could have been the first black female Supreme Court Justice?

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome as well as comments on my video series - The Jim Stroud Show.

FYI: Are you watching Conservative Television of America? If so, be sure to tune in to the network on Tuesdays at 8:00 pm EST because that is when my show airs on that network. Yay! So exciting!!!


Who could have been the first black female Supreme Court Justice?

President Biden has pledged to make the next Supreme Court justice a black woman. Ironic as there was a chance to make the same history years ago but Biden blocked the effort – TWICE. Tune in to find out why. #supremecourt


THANK YOU!

Thanks for reading (and subscribing)! $$$ All tips are welcome. By the way, click here to check the archives and discover what you’ve missed. More content soon.

The First Black Woman Supreme Court Justice

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome as well as comments on my video series - The Jim Stroud Show.

FYI: Are you watching Conservative Television of America? If so, be sure to tune in to the network on Tuesdays at 8:00 pm EST because that is when my show airs on that network. Yay! So exciting!!!


The First Black Woman Supreme Court Justice

There is a Supreme Court opening and President Joe Biden has promised that the person he supports will be female and black.

I agree with the sentiment expressed by Clay Travis in the above tweet and coincidentally, so do most Americans.

I am not surprised by those poll numbers. I have said on a number of occasions that while racism exists in America, we are not a racist country. But, I digress. On the left, people are already gearing up to silence 76% of Americans by calling anyone who opposes Biden’s racial prioritizing as racist. (Wow! Who saw that accusation coming? #sarcasm) Here is a quote from USA Today columnist – Sophia Nelson.

The protestations and recriminations of the whole white male GOP establishment – the Tucker Carlson/Fox News echo chamber – that somehow this historic nominee will not be “qualified” is utterly ridiculous. Let me be more direct: From 1779 to 1967, all of the Supreme Court Justices were white men. Full stop. Men of means. Men of politics. Men of wealth. Men who, in some instances, owned slaves, voted to create and uphold racial segregation (Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson), or most odious of all, were open racists and members of the KKK (Justice Hugo Black). So please spare me and the rest of us your garbage talk about how concerned you are about qualifications and ethics, and on and on. There is no such “concern” when the nominees are white men.

Well, that’s quite a provocative statement and would certainly cause an overwhelming amount of white guilt on the masses unfamiliar with history. I suspect such an attack and the others to follow are not taking into account Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

image

Who is that? You may ask. I wondered it myself when I saw this tweet.

https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1486875989439356929

Okay, wait a second is that true? In a word, yes. Check out this quote from Newsweek.

As Laura Ingraham noted on the Wednesday edition of her Fox News show, then-Senator Biden opposed and then filibustered the nomination of Brown to the federal bench in 2003 and 2005.

Then-President George W. Bush had nominated Brown both times for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but many Democrats tried to block her from the position for her perceived libertarian views.

Brown was born to Alabama sharecroppers and grew up in the segregated South. During her college years, Brown was a single mother with views so left-wing that she later said they were almost Maoist.

Her views grew decidedly more conservative over the years, and she has defended using electric stun guns on criminals who act inappropriately in courtrooms. Brown also wrote opinions that opposed affirmative action and supported a state law that required girls younger than 18 to notify their parents before getting an abortion.

Okay, so I am prone to go down rabbit holes once I become fascinated with something and this was no exception. Just for giggles, I looked up the voting records concerning the nomination of Judge Janice Brown back in the day. Guess who also voted against (potentially) the first black woman supreme court justice? Barack Obama. Click here to see how the vote went down in 2003 and click here to see how the vote went down in 2005. And while you are at it, take note of other names on the list (ie. Chuck Schumer) and keep it as a source of amusement. Why? I predict several of the people on the list will be among those pointing out the racism in others for opposing Biden’s pick.

Now, were the Democrats being racists when they opposed Judge Brown’s nomination? I don’t think so. I think it was purely ideological. Case in point, President Obama had this to say about it.

Unfortunately, as has been stated repeatedly on this floor, in almost every legal decision that she has made and every political speech that she has given, Justice Brown has shown she is not simply a judge with very strong political views, she is a political activist who happens to be a judge.

It was purely politics back then. But today, saying EXACTLY the same words about a Biden appointee today will most assuredly be labeled racist and grounds for cancellation from polite society. Guaranteed.

Sigh.

I can’t help but wonder how things might have been if Judge Janice Rogers Brown had become the first black woman supreme court justice. Not because of her skin color or gender but because of the character of a person who said things like this.

No, America did not get rich from slavery…

Hey, can I get your opinion on something? I designed a new t-shirt that pays homage to MLK’s “I have a dream speech” where he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

I put the design on more than a t-shirt. Click here to check it out (or the image below). If you like it, please order one or give it as a gift and help spread the message that who a person is on the inside is more important than the color of their skin.

Thank you in advance!

Jim

I now return you to this newsletter, already in progress.

NOTE: At some point, before bed, I read through 50+ news sources and share my findings here. If you like it, share it. If you don’t, share it. Follow my blog now to support my work or to find new reasons to complain about it. My opinions are my own. All tips are welcome as well as comments on my video series - The Jim Stroud Show.

Today’s post is an excerpt from my newsletter – Black History Quiz. I thought I would share it as a counter-argument to a common notion taught in public schools and promoted in the mainstream. If you want to know more history that you might not have learned when growing up, be sure to subscribe to it.

DISCLAIMER FOR THE EASILY TRIGGERED: Slavery is wrong. I make no apologies for it. None of the research presented herein is intended to lessen the injustice of African slavery in America or slavery in any incarnation. If you disagree with what I have researched and decide to call me a (insert your insult here) I will say now, that you’re rubber and I’m glue. What you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Such is my present-day retort and likely my future rebuttal, should I feel so inclined. If you’re still curious as to why I posted this disclaimer, read on.

No, America did not get rich from slavery.

If using slave labor made America rich then, why were the Northern states more prosperous than the Southern states prior to the Civil War? Michael Medved answered this question in his Townhall column. I quote him below and added links to his quote so you could research what he said further and see it in context.

IT’S NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES. Pennsylvania passed an emancipation law in 1780Connecticut and Rhode Island followed four years later (all before the Constitution). New York approved emancipation in 1799. These states (with dynamic banking centers in Philadelphia and Manhattan) quickly emerged as robust centers of commerce and manufacturing, greatly enriching themselves while the slave-based economies in the South languished by comparison.

 At the time of the Constitution, Virginia constituted the most populous and wealthiest state in the Union, but by the time of the War Between the States the Old Dominion had fallen far behind a half-dozen northern states that had outlawed slavery two generations earlier. All analyses of Northern victory in the great sectional struggle highlights the vast advantages in terms of wealth and productivity in New England, the Mid-Atlantic States and the Midwest, compared to the relatively backward and impoverished states of the Confederacy.

While a few elite families in the Old South undoubtedly based their formidable fortunes on the labor of slaves, the prevailing reality of the planter class involved chronic indebtedness and shaky finances long before the ultimate collapse of the evil system of bondage.

Source: Lumen Learning

The notion that America based its wealth and development on slave labor hardly comports with the obvious reality that for two hundred years since the founding of the Republic, by far the poorest and least developed section of the nation was precisely that region where slavery once prevailed.

Thanks for reading! More tomorrow. And oh, one last thing!

All tips are appreciated…

If you like what you’re reading and want to support my work, please do so by clicking this link and being as generous as you like. It is very much appreciated. Likewise, Cash App is also an option. More tomorrow. If you have not already, click here to subscribe for free. Please and thank you.

Do Black People Owe White People Reparations For Slavery?

image

DISCLAIMER FOR THE EASILY TRIGGERED: Slavery is wrong. I make no apologies for it. None of the research presented herein is intended to lessen the injustice of African slavery in America or slavery in any incarnation. If you disagree with what I have researched and decide to call me a (insert your insult here) I will say now, that you’re rubber and I’m glue. What you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Such is my present-day retort and likely my future rebuttal, should I feel so inclined. If you’re still curious as to why I posted this disclaimer, read on.

So, today, someone shared with me this article from Fox News, “Evanston, Illinois first in US to pay reparations to Black residents” and here are some quotes from that article.

The City Council in Evanston, Ill., voted 8-1 late Monday to approve a plan to make reparations available to Black residents over past discrimination and the lingering effects of slavery.

The plan, which could be the first of its kind in the U.S., is to distribute $400,000 to eligible Black households. The Associated Press reported that qualifying households in the city of 73,000 would be eligible to receive $25,000 for home repairs or down payments on property.

Ald. Robin Rue Simmons, the lawmaker who proposed the initiative back in 2019, called the approval a first step but said more needs to be done.

“It is, alone, not enough,” she said, according to the Chicago Tribune. “We all know that the road to repair and justice in the Black community is going to be a generation of work. It’s going to be many programs and initiatives and more funding.”

Further down in the article it reads…

Qualifying residents must either have lived in or been a direct descendant of a Black person who lived in Evanston between 1919 to 1969 and who suffered discrimination in housing because of city ordinances, policies or practices.

The article reminded me of a conversation I had with a very dear friend of mine about race issues in America. (My friend happens to be white.) She asked me what percentage of black people would likely hold her personally responsible for slavery? I told her that I could not quantify a percentage but likely many African Americans would hold her personally responsible for the sins of her ancestors because of news reports like this.

Now, I’ve heard several arguments made for reparations on numerous occasions, but I tend to reject them. Why? For me, it always comes down to this – who should pay?

The topic of reparations for African Americans is a topic that has been discussed ad nauseum and typically for political advantage. Case in point, here’s a quote the Washington Times. The headline reads, “California moves to consider reparations for slavery.” The date of the article is August 29, 2020.

California lawmakers are setting up a task force to study and make recommendations for reparations to African Americans, particularly the descendants of slaves, as the nation struggles again with civil rights and unrest following the latest shooting of a Black man by police.

The state Senate supported creating the nine-member commission on a bipartisan 33-3 vote Saturday. The measure returns to the Assembly for a final vote before lawmakers adjourn for the year on Monday, though Assembly members overwhelmingly already approved an earlier version of the bill.

“Let’s be clear: Chattel slavery, both in California and across our nation, birthed a legacy of racial harm and inequity that continues to impact the conditions of Black life in California,” said Democratic Sen. Holly Mitchell of Los Angeles.

She cited disproportionate homelessness, unemployment, involvement in the criminal justice system, lower academic performance and higher health risks during the coronavirus pandemic.

Although California before the Civil War was officially a free state, Mitchell listed legal and judicial steps state officials took at the time to support slavery in Southern states while repressing Blacks.

The legislation would require the task force to conduct a detailed study of the impact of slavery in California and recommend to the Legislature by July 2023 the form of compensation that should be awarded, how it should be awarded, and who should be should be eligible for compensation.

The panel, which would start meeting no later than June 2021, could also recommend other forms of rehabilitation or redress.

A sober minded person might ask, what does slavery that happened centuries ago have to do with today’s homelessness, unemployment, health risks associated with the coronavirus and the other social issues mentioned in that quote? Outside of inciting the passions of would-be voters, what immediate benefit does it provide to the people of California?

When reparations are discussed it is typically proposed that the US government should be paying African Americans an undetermined amount of money for the suffering inflicted upon their ancestors by all the white people in America. If we look at this logically and without angry rhetoric, that argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. To illustrate that, let me share with you some inconvenient facts.

Inconvenient fact #1: Very few white people in America owned slaves.

  • According to data on White Slave Owners from a US Census Bureau 1860 Report, only 1.6 percent of whites in America owned slaves. I’ll quote that number again, 1.6. Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America. And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. In other words, 4% of slaves from Africa went to North America. The other 96% went to South America.

Inconvenient fact #2: Native Americans owned and traded in slaves!

  • According to the Oklahoma Historical Society website and Smithsonian Magazine, from the late 18th century on, Native Americans in the South, like whites, owned slaves. And, when the U.S. government “removed” the five nations to “Indian Territory” (now the state of Oklahoma) in the 1830s, they took their slaves with them, so that “[b]y the time the Civil War broke out more than eight thousand blacks were enslaved in Indian Territory.” Overall, enslaved people accounted for “14 percent of the population” of the Indian Territory, and it wasn’t until after the Civil War that emancipation arrived for some of the slaves. 

Inconvenient fact #3: African Americans owned slaves too

Should white people today be forced to pay reparations when only 1.6 percent of whites during the slavery era owned slaves? Should we demand payment from Native Americans and African Americans as well? Both groups owned African American slaves too. I could go on but, no, I’ll share a bit more.

Inconvenient fact #4: Whites Were Slaves in North Africa Before Blacks Were Slaves in America

I am quoting a 2004 article now from Ohio State News.”

A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before. In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.

Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn’t try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.

Davis’s new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan).

Now, should today’s white people demand reparations from today’s black people for the crime of enslaving their ancestors for two centuries? For some reason, lack of education mostly, so many people in America believe that America created the institution of slavery. I assure you America did not invent slavery. A cursory glance into a bible proves that. But, I digress, because I am veering off from something, I really want to say in 3 points.

  • Point #1… The Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany was signed on September 10, 1952, and entered in force on March 27, 1953. According to the Agreement, West Germany was to pay Israel for the costs of “resettling so great a number of uprooted and destitute Jewish refugees” after the war, and to compensate individual Jews, via the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, for losses in Jewish livelihood and property resulting from Nazi persecution. | That was justice and the right thing to do.
  • Point #2… When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, President FDR forced Japanese Americans to be relocated and incarcerated in concentration camps. There was no justification for this strategy and later, research proved it was motivated by fear and racism. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government and authorized a payment of $20,000 to each former internee who was still alive when the act was passed; a total cost of 1.6 billion dollars. | That was justice and the right thing to do.
  • Point #3… Reparations were paid to Jewish and Japanese survivors who were personally affected by the trauma. So, should African Americans be paid reparations? The African survivors of Slavery, who were personally traumatized centuries ago, should have been. But not the African Americans of today because who can truly know who owes what? Statistically speaking, very few whites enslaved black people, Native Americans enslaved black people, black people enslaved black people and blacks enslaved white people for two centuries. So, again, who pays?

No doubt, some of you reading this will have a problem with what I’ve shared. Perhaps, you are calling me names now. (No doubt. Its why I posted the disclaimer at the beginning.) If so, let me leave you with one final quote where a certain group is demanding social justice because of slavery. This quote is from BBC News.

The West is being asked to pay Africa $777 [trillion] within five years in reparation for enslaving Africans while colonising the continent. The African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission, meeting in Accra for its first international conference, also called for all international debt owed by Africa to be “unconditionally cancelled”.

The Accra Declaration issued at the conference says that money will be demanded from ”all those nations of Western Europe and the Americas and institutions, who participated and benefited from the slave trade and colonialism”.

The conference, co-chaired by Dr Hamet Maulana and Mrs Debra Kofie, announced plans to set up an international team of lawyers from Africa and the diaspora to pursue all legal means to collect the money. The group will also be contacting the International Court of Justice, as well as the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity for assistance.

Mrs Kofie told the BBC the reparation figure was based on the number of human lives lost to Africa during the slave-trade, as well as an assessment of the worth of the gold, diamonds and other minerals taken from the continent during colonial rule.

She says Africa’s turn has come. “We are the only group that have not received reparations. The Jewish people have received reparations. The native Americans have received reparations. The Korean comfort women and so-on and so forth,” she said.

The declaration added that all those in the diaspora, who want to return and settle in Africa, should be allowed to do so and that those who enslaved and colonised Africa should provide seaworthy vessels and aircraft for such repatriation.

The date of that article from BBC News is August 20, 1999.

Thanks for reading this far. I know it was a rather long rant today. A shorter one tomorrow. (I think. It all depends on what I read.)

Jim Stroud

P.S. Did you know that reparations were actually paid to slaves after the Civil War? This was thanks to a measure initiated by Abraham Lincoln (R). However, after his assassination, his Vice President – Andrew Johnson (D) assumed power and reversed it. Click here to listen to my podcast where I discuss that bit of history. (Or, just listen to it below.)


The header image comes from the Face 2 Face Africa article, “The shocking history of enslavement of 1.5 million white Europeans in North Africa in the 16th century.” I HIGHLY recommend it.