|
Isn't part of Sanders' economic/socio-economic platform about the issue of a wider-scale proper sharing or circulation of wealth (which has moral implications regardless of whether we do something about it or not)? Isn't part of Sanders' point that people shouldn't be pillaged and plundered by a small, exploitative, elite class that profits, in ghastly ways? That people should be valued and compensated for their work and contributions to society? And that society should share the resources and benefits its members contribute to, in a more fair way?
Is Sanders not proposing a form of reparations for the 99%?
Reparations: "the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged."
I mean. It SEEMS that *slavery* reparations would actually be very compatible with Sanders' outlook. It's not far-fetched that slavery reparations (but also other reparations that haven't been touched by this country) might be integrated into his outlook, too. I'm not sure reparations for slavery is more "radical" than what Sanders is proposing. And so, the question Coates asks: "why not, Bernie?", makes sense, just for the hell of curiosity.
Coates seems to characterize "traditional" liberal and progressive viewpoints about the political question and "analysis" of Blacks as being pigeonholed into discussions about the need to address poverty, job creation, education--
and here's the key turn of phrase--
*in lieu of reparations*
and in favor of addressing, perhaps, effects of capitalism while ignoring that White supremacy has nothing to do with it. Sanders and Clinton are the same, in that regard.
Maybe the most important point Coates raises for me: "in-lieu* economic/socio-economic policies from the liberal, left, and progressive side of life may, at the end of the day, do little to change the status quo without addressing White supremacy.
And, so, in my mind, the resistance to reparations is to be expected. It's a hypocritical blindspot. I don't think Sanders is a bad guy for it. And I'm not here to say "no" to a Sanders presidency.
White supremacy and capitalism seem to go hand in hand. I haven't heard Sanders articulate anything about how such a relationship between capitalism and White supremacy is or isn't informed by his own political persuasions and platform.
I don't think the article is about Sanders so much as it is about Coates' attempt to engage "radical" White liberal and progressive positions. I do think, much to Sanders credit, he's thoughtful and open-minded enough to consider and respond to critique, questioning, and whatever else. So. I'm actually curious and interested in what he may say.
Coates' point is well taken. Because g--damn, as Coates says:
"If not even an avowed Socialist can be bothered to grapple with reparations, if the question is really that far beyond the pale...if THIS (my emphasis) is the candidate of the radical left-- then expect White supremacy in America to endure well beyond our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children....One cannot propose to plunder a people, incur a monetary and moral debt, propose to never pay it back, and then claim to be seriously engaging in the fight against White supremacy."
Or. Maybe even be seriously engaged in socialism.
|