« on: March 31, 2007, 09:21:00 PM »
I'd like to get back to the original questions. My answer to it is:
No, not in and of itself. But it's part of the greater process by which the movement for reperations may be derailed, further marginalzied, etc.
I think one obstacle to the call for reperations is the rise of some percentage of the African-American population into the Upper-Middle Professional classes and especially into positions of mainstream political power. The call for reperations (putting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether that call is just) is destablizing. How could it not be? It is socially destablizing to whites because it makes them feel guilty and demands that they change the status quo. If seriously considered or implemented, such a massive transfer of wealth would be economically and poltically destablizing (again, for the moment I won't address whether or not that is good).
The more African-Americans end up in positions of power (politics, the professions, the upper-middle class in general), the greater incentive some African-American leaders (now in main-stream, white-sanctioned positions of power) have to eschew such destablizing rehtoric/policy proposals.
When the status-quo is good to you, you're gonna be good to the status-quo. Thus, the better things get for even a small portion of the African-American community, the less we'll see demands for reperations made by powerful black leaders on behalf of the entire community.
So, to answer the question, I think AA facilitates a process that leads the black community (as represented by its "mainstream" leaders) to stop calling for reperations.
Oh, and God bless Thaddeus Stevens. That man was a wonderful American.