Letters to the Editor.

Reprimanding Reed

Since I agree with Adolph L. Reed Jr. that reparations for slavery is a bad idea, it may seem odd that I react to his article negatively ("The Case Against Reparations," December issue). Nevertheless, I do react negatively.

Nowhere in his litany of reasons for not supporting the reparations movement was there any interest in the injustice of such a policy to those actually paying reparations, the taxpayers (minus, I suppose, those on the receiving end). Why, I wonder, does Reed leave out these payers from the focus of his concern? Is it because he so swallows his own rhetoric as to believe that "corporate elites" would do the paying? Does he really have any doubt that, however the details are determined, the primary victims of this vile scheme would be millions of ordinary Americans who bear no responsibility whatsoever for slavery?

Perhaps it's because Reed does not seem to see moral responsibility as a concept bearing any relationship at all to the actual deeds of actual individuals--that is, morality as most people understand it.

Like millions of others, my sense of elemental morality leads me to say, "Not with my money, you don't. No way."

Jonathan Burack Stoughton, Wisconsin 

Reed misses the boat entirely in his December column. He completely misreads Randall Robinson's argument for reparations. Robinson's position does not depend on a view of African Americans "as defective and in need of moral and psychological repair."

Instead, it rests on the undeniable social, economic, and political problems faced by a disproportionate segment of the African American population that are a direct consequence of slavery and racial prejudice.

Reed seems all too quick to indict "upper class blacks," who he assumes would "conduct the finely calibrated analyses that determine what forms and magnitude just compensation should take," and who would "administer whatever compromise palliatives are likely to ensue from this activity." However, Reed himself says there is a "plethora of technical problems" raised by the question of reparations. So how does he then reach the conclusion that some elite class of African Americans will administer some program for reparations?

Reed's claim that the reparations campaign would detract from more legitimate social and economic concerns is also entirely unfounded. In fact, the reparations argument is made on behalf of the very concerns Reed accuses it of dismissing--"quality heath care, the right to a decent and dignified livelihood, affordable housing, quality education."

Unlike Reed, the supporters of reparations are no longer deluded by the imaginary potential of "building broad solidarity across race" lines. They understand that African Americans have some race-specific issues and cannot be in solidarity with any other group until white America acknowledges its debt to African Americans for the injury, loss, and wrong inflicted.

Robert A. Kuykendall Greenville, South Carolina 

No Forgiveness Needed

I was appalled by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton's "We'll forgive them if we win" attitude displayed in Ruth Conniff's December column, "After the Rollercoaster Ride."

The act of forgiveness implies that someone did something wrong. I resent the insinuation that my vote for Ralph Nader needs to be forgiven. Perhaps Norton needs to be reminded that it was Nader, not Al Gore or George W. Bush, who took a strong stance in favor of D.C. statehood, a move that would elevate its constituents to full citizenship rights instead of their current status as peasants in Congress's fiefdom.

Ed Herzog Arlington, Virginia

A World of Issues

In reading your article "A World Gone Mad" (Eduardo Galeano, December issue), I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated and elated. Frustrated at the magnitude of the social issues addressed, and elated that someone was finally dealing with them.

As a young adult trying to make a place for myself, I am constantly questioning my own and other people's values. Should I pursue my interests and risk living at the edge of financial insecurity while enjoying my life and work, or should I find some regular job that pays a set wage and has benefits but in doing so resign myself to working away my life at a job for which I have no interest or passion? Am I selfish to expect to be able to enjoy my life while still managing to survive financially in this increasingly money-driven, greedy society?

But then I wonder what my worries are in comparison to working people in less wealthy countries. By boycotting Nike, the Gap, and other multimillion dollar companies that exploit women, men, and children, am I supporting the humanitarian struggle for higher wages, or am I simply helping to take jobs away from these people?

There has to be a balance somewhere between forcing these workers to completely sacrifice their jobs and demanding a fair wage for them. But I have yet to find the answer to that conflict.

Although Galeano's article does not discuss specific solutions to these social problems, it does address issues that need to be acted upon immediately. Thank you for publishing it!

Beth Carpenter Plainfield, Vermont 

Respect Hawaii's Cultural Ties

It is not only the Hawaiian who is "constantly exploited and commercialized," but the tourists, as well as all of us (The Progressive Interview, Haunani-Kay Trask, December issue).

Development is in high gear here. Currently, a handful of old corporations are selling off their vast, failing sugar cane fields and coastline holdings to rich, mainland speculators. With all the deregulation money can buy, they build wealthy subdivisions where they want (happily increasing the county tax base). The rest of us make a living in farming, the service industry, or tourism, and we pay more than $2 per gallon for gas and $5 per gallon for milk.

Regarding Hawaii's culture, let's fight corporations and leave the tourists and the "hula girls adorned with leis" alone.

Glenn Schot Hanalei, Hawaii 

Stop the Flow of Friendliness

In the December issue, Barbara Ehrenreich wittily and insightfully mocks "the civility glut" in American culture. It might be useful, though, to modify the terminology. What bothers Ehrenreich, I think, isn't civility but extreme cases of good old American friendliness.

Michael Moffatt uses the term, with the italics, in Coming of Age in New Jersey: College and American Culture (Rutgers, 1989): "To act friendly is to give regular, abbreviated performances of the standard behaviors of real friendship--to look pleased and happy when you meet someone, to put on the all-American friendly smile, to acknowledge the person you are meeting by name (preferably by the first name, shortened version) ... to greet the person with one of the two or three conventional queries about the state of their `whole self' (`How are you?' `How's it going?' `What's new?')."

The long-term solution to our friendliness kick--and for the extremes of commercialized feelings and the "aggressive hospitality" Ehrenreich cites--includes some `radical political changes, such as replacing friendliness with real respect, civility, and equality. Short-term, though, it's helpful to respond to friendliness as if the gestures were sincere. If someone who doesn't give a damn about you asks, "How's it going?" tell the person in detail and at great length. Or, if you lack the time, a simple "I have diarrhea" to a telemarketer can do wonders in stopping the flow of friendliness.

Richard D. Erlich Oxford, Ohio

The editors welcome correspondence from readers on all topics, but prefer to publish letters that comment directly on material previously published in The Progressive. All letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Letters may be e-mailed to: [e-mail]. Please include your city and state.