Should Reparations Be Made for Slavery?
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. What does the U.S. owe African-Americans for slavery? We are talking about reparations, not just apologies, but real cash. Should the descendants of slaves be paid for the abuse of their ancestors? As many as 100 corporations could face lawsuits. The first suit was filed today. CNN financial correspondent Peter Viles is going to fill us in. And, Peter, spell out the details, if you will, of the lawsuits.</s>PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Sure. Well, it is a potentially historic lawsuit, Arthel, but right now, it's also a very thin lawsuit. It argues, basically, that American corporations profited from slavery 140 years ago -- it names three corporations -- and that the ancestors or successors of those companies that are still in business now should pay back those profits to the ancestors of the slaves. Now, beyond that, the suit is very sketchy. It does not say how much money was made off of slavery, which companies made it, or how much money should be paid back to the estimated 35 million ancestors slaves here in the United States right now. It says to the court: Why don't you tell these companies to do the research, figure out how much they made off of these businesses hundreds of years ago? Then, when we find out how much money was made, then we talk about what to do about it.</s>NEVILLE: But if you leave it up to the companies, then maybe they will fudge the numbers.</s>VILES: Well, they have asked for a special independent historic commission to oversee the research. Presumably, that would stand in the way of the companies fudging the numbers. But one thing that would definitely be a problem here is, do you have records from loans you made 200 years ago, when the bank was not this bank or the bank before it or the bank before it, but four generations of legal ownership ago? I think it may be hard to some of the research and find out exactly what the value of the slave labor and the slave trade was in this country.</s>NEVILLE: How have the companies reacted thus far?</s>VILES: Three companies named in the lawsuit -- the suit promises to name as many as 100 more. Two of those three have responded. In the case of the Hartford insurance company Aetna, the suit claims that Aetna profited from slavery by writing life insurance policies on slaves, with their owners as beneficiaries. If a slave died, the owner would get the money. In response, Aetna says -- quote -- "We do not believe a court would permit lawsuits over events which, however regrettable, occurred hundreds of years ago. These issues in no way reflect Aetna today. A second defendant, CSX -- that's a railroad company in Richmond, Virginia -- is accused of profiting from railroads that were built in part by slave labor. Now, in response, CSX says the suit is -- quote -- "wholly without merit and should be dismissed. The claimant named CSX because slave labor was used to construct portions of some U.S. rail lines under the political and legal system in place more than a century before CSX was even formed in 1980." The third defendant is Fleet bank up in Boston. The allegation there is that Fleet's predecessor, Providence Bank, in Providence, Rhode Island, made loans to a man who owned slaves and therefore profited from the slave trade -- no comment yet from FleetBoston. They say they haven't seen this lawsuit -- Arthel.</s>NEVILLE: Peter Viles, thank you very much for bringing us up to speed. Now, with me here in Atlanta is Akinyele Umoja. He is an associate professor of African-American studies at Georgia State University; also with us Joe Hicks. He's executive director of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. Thank you to both of you gentlemen for joining me this afternoon. I would like to ask this question. Will these lawsuits fly? Mr. Hicks, with you first.</s>JOE HICKS, CENTER FOR STUDY OF POPULAR CULTURE: Well, more than likely, the first court this goes into, the court will throw it out. As we heard in the news report, this is a very thin lawsuit. But beyond the legalities of whether this is a proper lawsuit or not are the larger questions I am sure we will get into here about the propriety of bringing claims against people who are dead as well as those who were oppressed by slavery. What is the point in that? And the claim, of course, that today's black Americans are still feeling the effects of slavery, that intellectually is a very difficult case to make. And I have yet to hear, despite books and other speeches made, that make that case in an authoritative way.</s>NEVILLE: So, I am understanding that you're saying that they should not even proceed at all.</s>HICKS: That is my feeling totally.</s>NEVILLE: OK, Professor, I would like to hear your thoughts.</s>AKINYELE UMOJA, GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Well, my thoughts are this. When you talk about crimes against humanity, there are no statute of limitations. When you talk about Nazi Germany, no one says that Jewish people in the state of Israel should not be compensated by the state of Germany. The thing we saw earlier talked about it was legal at that particular time. Well, so was the Holocaust legal. Joe is right on one thing. These are some very serious issues. And it takes a broad discussion in terms of the United States at this particular time to come to grips with these issues that we've been in denial for, for over 100 years. We've been in denial about slavery and we've been in denial about the legacy of slavery today and the effects it has on black people today.</s>NEVILLE: Why do you think it is more palatable to talk about victims of the Holocaust than it to talk about reparations for slaves?</s>UMOJA: Well, it is less palatable inside the United States because the United States, as I said, is in a state of denial about the oppression of black people today and the legacy of slavery. So, unfortunately, rather than apologize -- because apology is important. That is where you start. In acknowledging responsibility, denial is taken forth. And then black people are blamed for the situation that black people find themselves in today. So, rather than having an honest and open discussion about this, we deny, we deny, we deny, and make it seem that it did not happen. And, in fact, the victims are blamed for the atrocities that occurred. And the legacy of those atrocities still exist today, because slavery sets a whole foundation for race relations in terms of black people inside this country and sets the foundation for what we call institutionalized racism exists today that still exists. That is why we still have red-lining. That's why we still have -- what do they call it -- racial profiling. That's why we have such a disparity in the incomes of black people and white people inside this country, the disparity in the assets between black people and white people in this country, and the large numbers of black people that are incarcerated inside the United States today. You can't deny that.</s>NEVILLE: Joe Hicks, what are your thoughts about institutionalized racism?</s>HICKS: Well, it is like talking about Santa Claus. What is institutionalized racism? The fact that people say, "Well, racism is as bad as it has ever been." And then they say: "But it's hidden. You can't see it. They are just slicker at it." Sol, it is like a shifting game here. But let me go back to what was just said about denial about slaves and denial of the Holocaust. Holocaust victims were paid by Germany and other firms. These were the direct descendants of those people that died in gas chambers. There are no people alive today who are black Americans who are from that generation. They are all dead.</s>NEVILLE: But they are talking about the repercussions of that.</s>HICKS: Hold on.</s>NEVILLE: And how can you say they not direct descendants on top of that? So, two things there.</s>HICKS: You would not deny, Arthel -- or certainly your guest there -- that the people who suffered directly from slavery are now all dead. It is an insult to claim that people like myself and your guests are people that are suffering directly from the effects of slavery to say -- the report was right. Who collects? What about the case of intermarriages? What degree of black genealogy does one need to collect on reparations? There are all kinds of questions. This in fact is an attempt to perpetuate the victimization of black Americans. It is an insult. We are not a victimized people.</s>NEVILLE: Certainly -- I am definitely not here to perpetuate any victimization. And I am certainly not here to use anything as a crutch. But I ask you this, Mr. Hicks. Your great grandfather, was he the owner of a company that he handed down to you?</s>HICKS: No, but there are a lot of white Americans who have had grandfathers who weren't the owners of companies either.</s>NEVILLE: But they also had the opportunity to have those companies that we did not. That is all I'm trying to make that point.</s>HICKS: There were capitalists and people with money that had an opportunity. My point is that all white Americans did not have that opportunity. Otherwise, all white Americans today would be very wealthy people. It is a course that you are pursuing here that, intellectually, has no end game, because you can't claim that all white Americans are in the same position as Rockefellers. They simply are not.</s>NEVILLE: I am not claiming that. I am not claiming that, sir. I am just simply talking about the playing field. That's all.</s>HICKS: I know you're not. OK.</s>UMOJA: But, Joe, isn't there is such a thing as white-skin privilege?</s>HICKS: No, there is not.</s>UMOJA: Well, maybe that's where we disagree. And I am sorry that you're under such an illusion, sir.</s>NEVILLE: This is definitely a heated debate. And Ron here is dying to tell me something. And I want to hear his thoughts. But I have got to take a break. And I'll get to you when I come back, OK? I promise you. And we'll be back in a moment.