We should move past debating the appropriateness of Afrikan reparations

Dear Editor,

 

Should we not move past the question of debating the appropriateness of Afrikan reparations if it is known that:  (a) American Indians received reparations in the form of cash payments, land, and tribal recognition; (b) New Zealand’s Maoris got a multimillion dollar award and forest concessions which saw  seven tribes becoming the largest forest owners in New Zealand; (c) the allies received reparations from Germany by way of the Treaty of Versailles which formally asserted Germany’s war guilt; (d) Japan had to pay reparations after World War II which saw the United States removing capital goods from Japan and the USSR seizing Japanese  assets in from Manchukuo, while other Asian nations received reparations from the Japanese through the negotiation of individual treaties with those nations; (e) since 1951 Germany has paid more than 102 billion marks in federal reparations payments to Israel and in addition has paid out billions in private and other public funds including 75 million marks by German firms in compensation for wartime forced labour; (f) in 1983 the US Congress passed a remediation law for the Japanese Americans whom the US government had put into internment camps during World War II.  It created a foundation for educational and humanitarian purposes and established a $1.5 billion dollar fund for the payment of reparations to survivors of the camp.  (g) Slave owners received £20 million for the loss of labour due to Emancipation; (h) East Indian Guyanese saw Indians in  Guyana receive land and other state assistance in return for forfeiture of the right to return to India and contracted sums for return passages; (i) Portuguese reparations through Ordinance 28 of 1858 which saw the enactment of the Registration Tax which was used to pay Portuguese businessmen who suffered loss as  a result of the Angel Gabriel riots; (j) the Haitians had to pay France reparations after having defeated the French in their war for their freedom.

In light of the above, reparations are overdue for Afrikans in Guyana and the real question should not be the ‘why’ of reparations for Afrikans but rather the ‘how’ and ‘how much.’  Caricom’s language is curious if not instructive when it says that reparations are “non-confrontational and conciliatory.”  Have not Afrikans been conciliatory and is it not necessary to challenge the greed and prejudice which led to our enslavement?  What does it spell for the post-reparations international world order?  Caricom’s posture here does not exude confidence but appears to be an apology for seeking justice.

What do we say of the breadth of vision and magnanimity of a body of political leaders predominantly Afrikan who include in as sensitive and unique an issue of “Reparations” for the Afrikan arising from the slave trade and chattel slavery, native genocide?  This has not happened in any of the instances mentioned in the opening paragraph; Jewish reparations did not include Afrikans who suffered in the camps even though Germany had an official policy against Afrikans at home and in occupies territories. The American Indians were not concerned about the sufferings of the American Africans in their claim nor were the planters, East Indians and Portuguese in Guyana.  The allies weren’t concerned about the damage done to Afrikans as a result of their ‘world war.’ Was not Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia sufficient an atrocity to demand some attention?

I find it queer and sufficient justification for the correctness of reparations for Afrikans, when anyone at all challenges the validity of the Caricom’s claim.   We have taken our seat at the table of justice; we await the arrival of those who must inevitably join us. Act responsibly, support reparations.

 

Yours faithfully,
Jonathan Adams