2014-IBW Press Release

October 3, 2014 Press Release This year’s Reparations Issues Forum at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s Annual Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C. was simply an awesome event! With Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, serving as the Honorary Host, an overflow audience was treated to a series of substantive and powerful presentations calculated to strengthen the Reparations Movement in the Caribbean and the U.S. Congressman Conyers has championed the cause of Reparations in the Congress by consistently introducing HR-40, the Reparations Study Bill, since 1989. He welcomed the speakers and audience, which included several Ambassador from the Caribbean Diplomatic Corp., by restating the importance of “sustaining a dialogue on the legacy of slavery” as a means of achieving meaningful racial justice and reconciliation in America. Don Rojas, Director of Communications for the Institute of the Black World 21st Century, introduced the Honorable Camillo Gonsalves, Foreign Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and the Keynote Speaker and Special Guest Sir Hilary Beckles, Chairman of the CARICOM Reparations Commission. Speaking on behalf of Prime Minister Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, who was unable to attend the session, Foreign Minister Gonsalves provided a comprehensive historical background and rationale for CARICOM’s bold, unanimous decision to demand reparations from the former European colonialists for Native genocide and African enslavement.   He stated that the demand for “reparatory justice” has become the cornerstone of the domestic and foreign policy of his country. Fresh off a recent speech on reparations delivered to the House of Commons in Great Britain, Sir Hilary Beckles passionately detailed crimes against Native People and enslaved Africans committed by European colonialists and the gross exploitation that is directly responsible for the underdevelopment of Caribbean nations today. CARICOM’s Ten Point Reparations Program is designed to compel former colonialists to “clean up the mess” they left as a burden for “independent” Caribbean nations. Then, in a tribute to Congressman Conyers for his leadership on reparations, Professor Beckles brought the audience to its feet by proclaiming a “Conyers’ Decade of Reparatory Justice” as a theme to galvanize the Reparations Movement in the U.S. and beyond. Atty. Nkechi Taifa, Senior Policy Analyst, Open Societies Foundations, joined in praising Congressman Conyers for his steadfast and uncompromising work on the issue of reparations. She also acknowledged the milestone contributions of the National Coalition for Reparations for Blacks in America (N’COBRA) and numerous activists and organizers alive and deceased who kept the issue alive among African Americans and people of goodwill. Atty. Taifa reminded the audience of the basic definition for reparations as “the repair of the cultural, spiritual, psychological and physical damage done to a subjugated or oppressed people.” Ta-Nehisi Coates, Senior Editor, The Atlantic, is a recent convert to reparations whose brilliant and compelling essay The Case for Reparations has introduced a new generation to the concept. He stressed that the process of “extraction” of wealth and opportunities from Africans in America has never been accidental but an ingrained and devastating dimension of the evolution and development of the American nation. If reparations are to be won, this reality must be an integral part of the dialogue. He urged the audience not to be dissuaded by arguments about the feasibility or practically of the concept but to be motivated by the necessity to achieve justice. Kaimi Wenger, Law Professor, Thomas Jefferson Law School, who has written on the subject, referenced some of the legal cases that have been filed to advance the cause of reparations. He suggested that it is important to “think outside the box” in devising legal and political strategies to intensify education and advocacy campaigns to strengthen the movement. Professor Wenger encouraged the audience to never give up on this worthy cause. Dr. Ron Daniels, President of the Institute of the Black World 21st Century, enthusiastically embraced Professor Beckles’ proclamation of a “Conyer’s Decade of Reparatory Justice.” He suggested that it is a powerful and appropriate theme to motivate members of the Congressional Black Caucus, civil rights/human rights, faith, labor, civic and fraternal leaders to recommit to promote HR-40 in honor of the visionary and courageous work on reparations by the Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus. Dr. Daniels also took the occasion to announce an agreement in principle for IBW to host an official meeting of the CARICOM Reparations Commission in the U.S. at a mutually agreeable time in the near future — most likely in New York City. In addition, he indicated that IBW will create an African American Reparations Commission based on the CARICOM model. This Commission will take up the task of formulating a Reparations Program as a focal point for creating greater public awareness and mobilizing/organizing to advance the struggle to achieve Reparatory Justice in the U.S.   After formulating a Preliminary Program, the Commission would conduct regional hearings for community review, comment and input before adopting a Final Program. Dr. Daniels said the African American Reparations Commission will be a representative and inclusive body of fifteen women and men beginning with the selection of organizations and leaders who have been in the forefront of the Reparations Movements as well as notable leaders who support the concept. N’COBRA, December 12thMovement, Nation of Islam, Dr. Iva Carruthers, Dr. Conrad Worrill, Dr. Ray Winbush, Atty. Nkechi Taifa, Professor Charles Ogletree, Dr. Claire Nelson, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Danny Glover, Dr. Julianne Malveaux, Susan Taylor, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill and Ta-Nehisi Coates are among the potential Commissioners mentioned. IBW estimates that a budget of $150,000 will be required to finance the first year to eighteen months of the work of the African American Reparations Commission. “Black people and those sympathetic to the cause will have to finance this initiative,” Dr. Daniels explained. “We can’t expect corporations or foundations to underwrite a campaign for Reparations for Black people. In the spirit of the Honorable Marcus Mosiah Garvey, IBW is counting on contributions from the people to finance this Initiative.” Emily Moore, a retired educator, tennis instructor and community activist from New York, stepped up to the plate to write the first check for $1,000 toward the goal of $150,000! Obviously moved by the many tributes and calls for a “Conyers’s Decade of Reparatory Justice, in his concluding remarks Congressman Conyers remarked that “this Reparations Forum has been the most substantive since I began introducing HR-40. I expect great things as we move forward.”

Marriage is living and Most Weddings are Poor Planning?

I wish I never had a wedding.

Sure, the day was great. It was fun and I was happy. But I was miserable for at least four months prior and a long time after. I spent thousands of dollars on one day. I could have put that money into a retirement fund, into a home, into a car or many other practical things. I think back about that time in my life and I had nothing but negative feelings. I regret having a wedding because it scarred me emotionally, it made me an angry person for too long and it wasted a lot of my money.

Twenty-Five years later, and I wish I did everything differently.

It's not that I regret being married. No way. My husband is great. It may not be all rainbows and butterflies every day, but I enjoy my life with him. He gets me, he lets me do my thing and I like being around him. I just wish we skipped the whole wedding thing.

I was always the girl who had dreams of her big day!  I had marriage dreams, career dreams and having a family dreams and was convinced I would have it all. Marry young, have my children young, maintain a career and family. Since I am already 50 and I have been married twenty-five years now I think I did well.

When my husband proposed, I said "Yes”. I knew he loved me and would provide for me for the rest of our lives together. 

I know this sound too good to be true.

I was in 25 years old and was stressed enough about finding a job to support myself. Now I am throwing wedding planning into the mix. We really loved each other with his "we can make it work" attitude convinced me that yes, we can plan this wedding.

When it came to the wedding planning, my biggest problem was being a fan of party planning.  When it came to parties, I want my favorite people to show up.  My mother had a whole different idea…some of my favorite people and most of her family and friends. What is that?

I thought I had high the jack pot when a graphic designer friend of my then-fiancé’s offered to do our invites as her wedding gift to us. I told her our colors and ideas I had, excited to see potential mock-ups. Days went by and I heard nothing. I found examples of invites I liked in the bridal books and sent them over to her, hoping she would respond to a follow-up call. I got a quick brush-off response. This went on until there were two months left before our wedding and I had to say "If you can't make this happen, you need to please, please, please let me know." She couldn't or wouldn’t make it happen.   Luckily, our families were wonderful, creative and had a whole lot of imagination.   We used a make-your-own invitations model. We enlisted bridesmaids and family members to churn out, address and stamp 200 invites on a Saturday night. While we had a technical difficulty with the printer halfway through, we were successfully able to get all the invites finished in one evening. Family and some friends actually mean well.

When it came to my relationship with my bridesmaids, I wanted to treat them as best as I could. We were all either in young, recently out of school or had low-paying or no paying jobs and I did not want them to spend a lot of money on me, especially on a dress, so I paid for their dresses as a gift from me. I thought the bridesmaid dress concept was great. Most of them are tacky, expensive and no matter WHAT the bride tells you, there is no way you are going to wear them again. I wanted my bridesmaids to have dresses that they would and could have a slight potential to be worn on multiple occasions.   I ended up finding the dresses while flipping through a copy of pattern book one day. It was a rainbow color full-length strapless dress made out of chiffon material. I thought it was perfect, gorgeous, and comfortable, would look good on all body types and could be worn multiple times.

Unfortunately, my concern did not translate to a particular bridesmaid. While I wanted to give my bridesmaids a pain-free experience, not all of them wanted to return the favor. There were complaints about the dresses, my organization and much resistance when it came to my wishes for what I wanted for my bachelorette dinner party. All this, even though they knew the amount of stress I was going through with a wedding I was extremely excited about.

My bachelorette dinner party, in a word, was "breath breaking." My best friend and my mom tried so hard to give me the happiest night of my life, and I thank them so much for everything they did. They really were my saving grace during everything.

For the dinner party, I wanted to go to a male strip joint, after dinner. Unfortunately, two bridesmaids felts uncomfortable going and refused to get into the limo that was waiting.  I said, to them “If you don't want to go to strip club, that's your choice”.  

Eventually, I made the compromise that we would for get about the strip club and just enjoy riding in the limo that was waiting for the dinner party after the dinner.

Something that has stayed with me for years is:  you know how the bride is not supposed to pay for her drinks during the bachelorette dinner party? Well, guess how many drinks I had. One.  In six hours. I bought myself the one because it was becoming clear nobody was going to get me any drinks. Being young and unfamiliar with how bachelorette dinner parties work, I thought it was OK.

Now that I am older, I realize there is a special place in for guests who do not make sure the bride always has a drink in her hand and leave the bride and groom parents to pay their drinking bill.

Between the planning, the clashing with others involved and the whispers going on behind my back, the amount of stress I was going through was so intense that I gain 10 pounds leading up to the wedding. So many brides go on wedding diets, but my dress was already a size 14, so there was not much weight I could gain.   My dress that once fit great was now too small. I had to rush out to the dressmaker and have the seams loosen up.  

Even today, I have emotional scars from my wedding experience. While I have made up with one bridesmaid and our relationship is great, I have completely cut the other out of my life. I can no longer look at my own wedding photos with her in them without getting upset about the things she did to me in the past. And not just during the wedding. Looking back, this woman actually said to me she preferred hanging out with another person other than me because, she said "It takes the pressure off me   being less attractive all the time and I have been jealous and envious of you all of my life because I never knew my father." How sad.

I mean, think about that. I at one time could not look through my own wedding photos and be happy because of this person. I spent a lot of money on those photos, and for what? Thinking about that alone filled me with regret.

Today, I forgive her and right not I have let it and her go….my life, my family, and my friends are enough.

This article is an excerpt from the book to be published by Ruby Mae Chapman, entitle 

Life’s Interruptions.

Headed for the Little League World Series---The Jackie Robinson All-Stars!

The Jackie Robinson West All-Stars are headed to the Little League World Series, marking the first time a team from Illinois has gotten this far in more than a generation.

The Jackie Robinson West Little League team defeated all their opponents at the regional tournament in Indianapolis and Saturday's victory meant they advanced to the Little League World Series.

The 11- and 12-year-old boys representing several South Side neighborhoods will be the first all-African American team representing Chicago in the Little League World Series since 1983.

2014-DreamKeepers in France for 13 days!

Our last stop of the trip was at:

The Moulin Rouge is the number one show in Paris, if not the whole of Europe.  We did not want to miss our chance to see the world-renowned showgirls and French Cancan dancers strut their stuff on the Moulin Rouge's historic stage.

 For 110 years, the most legendary French cabaret has welcomed millions of spectators who have come to admire the famous French Cancan, and we were not disappointment.

Le Moulin Rouge is world famous thanks to its French Cancan, and immortalized by the painter Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. The sumptuous shows at the Moulin Rouge feature feathers, rhinestones and sequins, fabulous settings, original music and of course... the best Champagne in the world.

Many international stars have performed on stage at the Moulin Rouge including Ella Fitzgerald, Liza Minnelli, Frank Sinatra and Elton John. They have all put on exceptional shows, following in the footsteps of French celebrities such as Maurice Chevalier, Jean Gabin, Edith Piaf and Yves Montand.

 Next year is Italy....Keeping the Dream live.....Join us as we travel around the world....DreamKeepers!

Is Come Sense.. Common?

Is not Common Sense Enough?

 We have all seen very successful people who didn’t appear to be very bright. Yet, when the window of opportunity opened up, they knew what to do. What do these people have that extremely intelligent people lack? Could it be common sense?

I know a number of people who have very high IQs. In fact, I know a gentleman who was classified as a genius at the age of four. When you speak to him, you know in less than five minutes that he is super smart. However, he appears to lack certain human relation skills. As a result, he is having a difficult time finding a job and is currently sleeping out of his car.

It seems, while intelligence is important to be successful, the ability to make things work is far more important. Perhaps it is because some highly intelligent people have a tendency to let everyone around them know they are the smartest person in the room. That kind of intimidation interferes with productivity. The smart person’s intelligence is used as a weapon, which results in many people licking their wounds after a conversation with them. In other cases, people are resentful and find a way to even the score.

On the other hand, there are people who have a propensity for creating a vision, enlisting others to support them and then create an environment that many people want to be part of. These people may not possess high IQs. They are the people who focus on workability. Furthermore, if these individuals are super smart, they develop the people around them. Instead of using their intelligence as a weapon, they may ask questions that will empower people to look at circumstances from a new perspective. They may even stretch people by asking them to accomplish goals that are over their head. Why? It creates coaching opportunities. In addition, when the person finally completes the task that was once too difficult, that person has increased their confidence, skills and competencies to take on something new.

Conversely, people who solely rely on being super smart managers rarely have the patience to coach someone up. They usually complete the goal themselves while thinking everyone around them is an idiot. As you can imagine, working with a very intelligent person who lacks people skills can be frustrating for everyone. So how do you deal with them?  Do we use their negative energy to empower us?

If done without maliciousness, straight talk can help eliminate the intelligent person’s disempowering behavior. You may have to say something like: ‘every time you speak to me that way I feel like I have no value to you. When I don’t feel valued, I am not motivated to work hard. If I am brutally honest with you, you just seem like a sore loser who wants to win at everyone’s expense. That’s unfortunate because you are so smart. And I like working with smart people. I like you. It’s your pejorative remarks that are uncalled for.’ If I am not careful with my words, will they think I am jealous?

While I understand it may take guts to speak directly to another person this way, at the same time, there are many cases when the best thing you can do is tell a person they are jerk. In all likelihood, no one has said it to them and they may have a false sense of security.  Am I to believe that jerk s do not know they are jerks?

Relying solely on high intelligence can be limiting. The ability to make things work can be more valuable to create successful relationships, teams or organizations. When people work well together, it is a great feeling for everyone. However, to get there, it can be messy. If you are willing to take a stand for yourself and others without invalidating another, it can be a great tool for creating an empowering work environment.  Let's Strive for Win/Win!

Is having commons and using common sense enough?

What do you think? I’m open to ideas. Or if you want to write me about a specific topic, connect through my blog http://ask-ruby.blogspot.com/

Mental Feng Shui---Lesson for the Heart

Mental Feng Shui 

This is without a doubt one of the nicest good luck forwards I have received. Hope it works for you -- and me! 
Lotus Touts: You have 6 minutes 
There's some mighty fine advice in these words, even if you're not superstitious. This Lotus Touts has been sent to you for good luck from the Anthony Robbins organization. It has been sent around the world ten times so far. 

Do not keep this message. 
The Lotus Touts must leave your hands in 6 MINUTES. Otherwise you will get a very unpleasant surprise. This is true, even if you are not superstitious, agnostic, or otherwise faith impaired. 
ONE. Give people more than they expect and do it cheerfully. 
TWO. Marry a man/woman you love to talk to. As you get older, their conversational skills will be as important as any other. 
THREE. Don't believe all you hear, spend all you have or sleep all you want. 
FOUR. When you say, 'I love you,' mean it. 
FIVE. When you say, 'I'm sorry,' look the person in the eye. 
SIX. Be engaged at least six months before you get married. 
SEVEN. Believe in love at first sight. 
EIGHT. Never laugh at anyone's dreams. People who don't have dreams don't have much. 
NINE. Love deeply and passionately. You might get hurt but it's the only way to live life completely. 
TEN.. In disagreements, fight fairly. No name calling. 
ELEVEN. Don't judge people by their relatives. TWELVE. Talk slowly but think quickly. 
THIRTEEN! ... When someone asks you a question you don't want to answer, smile and ask, 'Why do you want to know?' 

FOURTEEN. Remember that great love and great achievements involve great risk. 
FIFTEEN. Say 'bless you' when you hear someone sneeze. 
SIXTEEN. When you lose, don't lose the lesson. 
SEVENTEEN. Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; and Responsibility for all your actions. 
EIGHTEEN. Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship. 
NINETEEN. When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it. 
TWENTY. Smile when picking up the phone. The caller will hear it in your voice. 
TWENTY- ONE. Spend some time alone. 
Now, here's the FUN part! 

Send this to at least 5 people and your life will improve. 1-4 people: Your life will improve slightly. 

5-9 people: Your life will improve to your liking.
9-14 people: You will have at least 5 surprises in the next 3 weeks 
15 and above: Your life will improve drastically and everything you ever dreamed of will begin to take shape. 
A true friend is someone who reaches for your hand and touches your heart.

Reparations for slavery debate in the United States

Reparations for slavery debate in the United States Reparations for slavery is a proposal that some type of compensation should be provided to the descendants of enslaved people in the United States, in consideration of the coerced and uncompensated labor their ancestors performed over centuries. This compensation has been proposed in a variety of forms, from individual monetary payments to land-based compensation schemes related to independence. The idea remains highly controversial and no broad consensus exists as to how it could be implemented. There have been similar calls for reparations from some Caribbean countries[1] and elsewhere in the African diaspora, and some African countries have called for reparations to their states for the loss of their population.[2][3] U.S. historical context[edit]The arguments surrounding reparations are based on the formal discussion about many different reparations and actual land reparations received by African-Americans which were later taken away. In 1865, after the Confederate States of America were defeated in the American Civil War, General William Tecumseh Sherman issued Special Field Orders, No. 15 to both "assure the harmony of action in the area of operations"[4] and to solve problems caused by the masses of freed slaves, a temporary plan granting each freed family forty acres of tillable land in the sea islands and around Charleston, South Carolina for the exclusive use of black people who had been enslaved. The army also had a number of unneeded mules which were given to settlers. Around 40,000 freed slaves were settled on 400,000 acres (1,600 km²) in Georgia and South Carolina. However, President Andrew Johnson reversed the order after Lincoln was assassinated and the land was returned to its previous owners. In 1867, Thaddeus Stevens sponsored a bill for the redistribution of land to African Americans, but it was not passed. Reconstruction came to an end in 1877 without the issue of reparations having been addressed. Thereafter, a deliberate movement of regression and oppression arose in southern states. Jim Crow laws passed in some southeastern states to reinforce the existing inequality that slavery had produced. In addition white extremist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan engaged in a massive campaign of intimidation throughout the Southeast in order to keep African Americans in their prescribed social place. For decades this assumed inequality and injustice was ruled on in court decisions and debated in public discourse. Reparation for slavery in what is now the United States is a complicated issue. Any proposal for reparations must take into account the role of the, then relatively newly formed, United States government in the importation and enslavement of Africans and that of the older and established European countries that created the colonies in which slavery was legal; as well as their efforts to stop the trade in slaves. It must also consider if and how much modern Americans have benefited from the importation and enslavement of Africans since the end of the slave trade in 1865. Profit from slavery was not limited to a particular region: New England merchants profited from the importation of slaves, while Southern planters profited from the continued enslavement of Africans. In a 2007 column in The New York Times, historian Eric Foner writes: [In] the Colonial era, Southern planters regularly purchased imported slaves, and merchants in New York and New England profited handsomely from the trade. The American Revolution threw the slave trade and slavery itself into crisis. In the run-up to war, Congress banned the importation of slaves as part of a broader nonimportation policy. During the War of Independence, tens of thousands of slaves escaped to British lines. Many accompanied the British out of the country when peace arrived. Inspired by the ideals of the Revolution, most of the newly independent American states banned the slave trade. But importation resumed to South Carolina and Georgia, which had been occupied by the British during the war and lost the largest number of slaves. The slave trade was a major source of disagreement at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. South Carolina’s delegates were determined to protect slavery, and they had a powerful impact on the final document. They originated the three-fifths clause (giving the South extra representation in Congress by counting part of its slave population) and threatened disunion if the slave trade were banned, as other states demanded. The result was a compromise barring Congress from prohibiting the importation of slaves until 1808. Some Anti-Federalists, as opponents of ratification were called, cited the slave trade clause as a reason why the Constitution should be rejected, claiming it brought shame upon the new nation.... As slavery expanded into the Deep South, a flourishing internal slave trade replaced importation from Africa. Between 1808 and 1860, the economies of older states like Virginia came increasingly to rely on the sale of slaves to the cotton fields of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. But demand far outstripped supply, and the price of slaves rose inexorably, placing ownership outside the reach of poorer Southerners.[5] Proposals for reparations[edit]United States government[edit]Some proposals have called for direct payments from the U.S. government. One such proposal delivered in the McCormick Convention Center conference room for the first National Reparations Convention by Howshua Amariel, a Chicago social activist, would require the federal government to make reparations to proven descendants of slaves. In addition, Amariel stated "For those blacks who wish to remain in America, they should receive reparations in the form of free education, free medical, free legal and free financial aid for 50 years with no taxes levied," and "For those desiring to leave America, every black person would receive a million dollars or more, backed by gold, in reparation." At the convention Amariel's proposal received approval from the 100 or so participants,[6] nevertheless the question of who would receive such payments, who should pay them and in what amount, has remained highly controversial,[7][8] since the United States Census does not track descent from slaves or slave owners and relies on self-reported racial categories. Various estimates have been given if such payments were to be made. Harper's Magazine has created an estimate that the total of reparations due is over 100 trillion dollars, based on 222,505,049 hours of forced labor between 1619 and 1865, with a compounded interest of 6%.[9] Should all or part of this amount be paid to the descendants of slaves in the United States, the current U.S. government would only pay a fraction of that cost, over 40 trillion dollars, since it has been in existence only since 1789. The Rev. M.J. Divine, better known as Father Divine, was one of the earliest leaders to argue clearly for "retroactive compensation" and the message was spread via International Peace Mission publications. On July 28, 1951, Father Divine issued a "peace stamp" bearing the text: "Peace! All nations and peoples who have suppressed and oppressed the under-privileged, they will be obliged to pay the African slaves and their descendants for all uncompensated servitude and for all unjust compensation, whereby they have been unjustly deprived of compensation on the account of previous condition of servitude and the present condition of servitude. This is to be accomplished in the defense of all other under-privileged subjects and must be paid retroactive up-to-date".[10] On July 30, 2008, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution apologizing for American slavery and subsequent discriminatory laws.[11] Some states have also apologized for slavery, including Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina. Duke University public policy professor William "Sandy" Darity said such apologies are a first step, but compensation is also necessary. In April 2010, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates in a New York Times editorial advised reparations activists to consider the African role in the slave trade in regards to who should shoulder the cost of reparations.[12] Ex-colonial governments The full cost of slavery reparations prior to 1776 would be borne by the governments of the European countries (Spain, the United Kingdom, and France) who governed North America at that time[why?]. One additional problem is that the governments in power in the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe are not still in power now. France, for example, has gone through several forms of government since it was last a colonial power in North America. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to hold the current French government liable for the enslavement of Africans that previous governments encouraged and benefited from between the 17th century up to the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Private institutions[edit]Private institutions and corporations were also involved in slavery. On March 8, 2000, Reuters News Service reported that Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, a law school graduate, initiated a one-woman campaign making a historic demand for restitution and apologies from modern companies that played a direct role in enslaving Africans. Aetna Inc. was her first target because of their practice of writing life insurance policies on the lives of enslaved Africans with slave owners as the beneficiaries. In response to Farmer-Paellmann's demand, Aetna Inc. issued a public apology, and the "corporate restitution movement" was born.[not specific enough to verify] By 2002, nine lawsuits were filed around the country coordinated by Farmer-Paellmann and the Restitution Study Group—a New York non-profit. The litigation included 20 plaintiffs demanding restitution from 20 companies from the banking, insurance, textile, railroad, and tobacco industries. The cases were consolidated under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court dismissed the lawsuits with prejudice, and the claimants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On December 13, 2006, that Court, in an opinion written by Judge Richard Posner, modified the district court's judgment to be a dismissal without prejudice, affirmed the majority of the district court's judgment, and reversed the portion of the district court's judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' consumer protection claims, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion [1]. Thus, the plaintiffs may bring the lawsuit again, but must clear considerable procedural and substantive hurdles first: If one or more of the defendants violated a state law by transporting slaves in 1850, and the plaintiffs can establish standing to sue, prove the violation despite its antiquity, establish that the law was intended to provide a remedy (either directly or by providing the basis for a common law action for conspiracy, conversion, or restitution) to lawfully enslaved persons or their descendants, identify their ancestors, quantify damages incurred, and persuade the court to toll the statute of limitations, there would be no further obstacle to the grant of relief.[13] In October 2000, California passed a Slavery Era Disclosure Law requiring insurance companies doing business there to report on their role in slavery. The disclosure legislation, introduced by Senator Tom Hayden, is the prototype for similar laws passed in 12 states around the United States.[citation needed] The NAACP has called for more of such legislation at local and corporate levels. It quotes Dennis C. Hayes, CEO of the NAACP, as saying, "Absolutely, we will be pursuing reparations from companies that have historical ties to slavery and engaging all parties to come to the table."[14] Brown University, whose namesake family was involved in the slave trade, has also established a committee to explore the issue of reparations. In February 2007, Brown University announced a set of responses[15] to its Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice.[16] While in 1995 the Southern Baptist Convention apologized for the "sins" of racism, including slavery.[17] In December 2005, a boycott was called by a coalition of reparations groups under the sponsorship of the Restitution Study Group. The boycott targets the student loan products of banks deemed complicit in slavery—particularly those identified in the Farmer-Paellmann litigation. As part of the boycott students are asked to choose from other banks to finance their student loans."[18] In 2005, JP Morgan Chase and Wachovia both apologized for their connections to slavery Social services A number of supporters for reparations[who?] advocate that compensation should be in the form of community rehabilitation and not payments to individual descendants Arguments for reparations Accumulated wealth[edit]In 2008 the American Humanist Association published an article which argued that if emancipated slaves had been allowed to possess and retain the profits of their labor, their descendants might now control a much larger share of American social and monetary wealth.[21] Not only did the freedmen and -women not receive a share of these profits, but they were stripped of the small amounts of compensation paid to some of them during Reconstruction. The wealth of the United States, they say, was greatly enhanced by the exploitation of African American slave labor.[22] According to this view, reparations would be valuable primarily as a way of correcting modern economic imbalance. Precedents[edit]Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, the U.S. government apologized for Japanese American internment during World War II and provided reparations of $20,000 to each survivor, to compensate for loss of property and liberty during that period. For many years, Native American tribes have received compensation for lands ceded to the United States by them in various treaties. Other countries have also opted to pay reparations for past grievances, such as the German government making reparations to Jews and survivors and descendants of the Holocaust.[23] Arguments against reparations[edit]Relocation of injustice[edit]The principal argument against reparations is that their cost would not be imposed upon the perpetrators of slavery who were a very small percentage of society with 4.8% of southern whites (only 1.4% of all whites in the country)[citation needed], nor confined to those who can be shown to be the specific indirect beneficiaries of slavery, but would simply be indiscriminately borne by taxpayers per se. Those making this argument often add that the descendants of white abolitionists and soldiers in the Union Army might be taxed to fund reparations despite the sacrifices their ancestors already made to end slavery. In the case of Public Lands, European colonizers killed or forcibly relocated[24] many Southeastern Native American tribes. One argument against reparations is that in assigning public lands to African-Americans for the enslavement of their ancestors, a greater and further wrong would be committed against the Southeastern Native Americans[25] who have ancestral claims and treaty rights to that same land.[not specific enough to verify] In addition, several historians, such as João C. Curto, have made important contributions to the global understanding of the African side of the Atlantic slave trade. By arguing that African merchants determined the assemblage of trade goods accepted in exchange for slaves, many historians argue for African agency and ultimately a shared responsibility for the slave trade.[26] Identification of victims and of levels of victimization[edit]Identification of actual descendants of slaves would be an enormous undertaking, because such descent is not simply identical with present racial self-identification. And levels of actual victimization would be impossible to identify; had freed slaves been given their recoverable damages, they may have followed different patterns of marriage and of reproduction, and in some cases would not have made their offspring the sole or even principal heirs to their estates. (Opponents of reparations refer to the lost wealth of slaves as “dissipated”, not in the sense of simply having ceased to exist, but in the sense of being untraceable and transmitted elsewhere.)[citation needed] Comparative utility[edit]It has been argued that reparations for slavery cannot be justified on the basis that slave descendants are subjectively worse off as a result of slavery, because it has been suggested that they are better off than they would have been in Africa if the slave trade had never happened. The slave population in the US grew six-fold after the importation of slaves was ceased. In all other countries the slave population either did not increase or declined. This was because the treatment of slaves in the US was generally very good - birth survival rates exceeded that of poor whites and was twice that of their native Africa. In addition, each state had laws against the abuse of slaves and many religious groups rigorously enforced them. In Up From Slavery, former slave Booker T. Washington wrote, I have long since ceased to cherish any spirit of bitterness against the Southern white people on account of the enslavement of my race. No one section of our country was wholly responsible for its introduction... Having once got its tentacles fastened on to the economic and social life of the Republic, it was no easy matter for the country to relieve itself of the institution. Then, when we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe....This I say, not to justify slavery – on the other hand, I condemn it as an institution, as we all know that in America it was established for selfish and financial reasons, and not from a missionary motive – but to call attention to a fact, and to show how Providence so often uses men and institutions to accomplish a purpose. When persons ask me in these days how, in the midst of what sometimes seem hopelessly discouraging conditions, I can have such faith in the future of my race in this country, I remind them of the wilderness through which and out of which, a good Providence has already led us.[27] Conservative commentator David Horowitz writes, The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. The GNP of black America is so large that it makes the African-American community the 10th most prosperous "nation" in the world. American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were taken.[28] Legal argument against reparations[edit]Many legal experts point to the fact that slavery was not illegal in the United States[29] prior to the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified in 1865). Thus, there is no legal foundation for compensating the descendants of slaves for the crime against their ancestors when, in strictly legal terms, no crime was committed. Chattel slavery is now considered by the overwhelming majority in the United States to be highly immoral, though it was perfectly legal at the time. However, opponents of this legal argument contend that such was the case in Nazi Germany, whereby the activities of the Nazis were legal under German law; however, unlike slavery, the German activities were precedented by the Allied Powers following WWI, which could not rule against the German government then due to lack of precedent, but could do so afterward following WWII on the basis of this established WWI precedent. Other legal experts[who?] point to the fact that the current U.S. government did not exist prior to June 21, 1788 when the United States Constitution was ratified. Therefore, they say the U.S. government inherited the institution of slavery, and cannot be held legally liable for the enslavement of Africans by Europeans prior to that time. Figuring out who was enslaved by whom in order to fairly apply reparations from the U.S. government only to those who were enslaved under U.S. laws, would be an impossible task. Some areas of the South had communities of freedman, such as existed in Savannah, Charleston and New Orleans, while in the North, for example, former slaves lived as freedman both before and after the creation of the United States in 1788. For example, in 1667 Dutch colonists freed some of their slaves and gave them property in what is now Manhattan.[30][31] The descendants of Groote and Christina Manuell—two of those freed slaves—can trace their family's history as freedman back to the child of Groote and Christina, Nicolas Manuell, whom they consider their family's first freeborn African-American. In 1712, the British, then in control of New York, prohibited blacks from inheriting land, effectively ending property ownership for this family. While this is only one example out of thousands of enslaved persons, it does mean that not all slavery reparations can be determined by racial self-identification alone; reparations would have to include a determination of the free or slave status of one's African-American ancestors, as well as when and by whom they were enslaved and denied rights such as property ownership. Because of slavery, the original African heritage has been blended with the American experience, the same as it has been for generations of immigrants from other countries. For this reason, determining a "fair share" of reparations would be an impossible task. Another legal argument against reparations for slavery from a legal (as opposed to a moral standpoint) is that the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits has long since passed. Thus, courts are prohibited from granting relief. This has been used effectively in several suits, including "In re African American Slave Descendants", which dismissed a high-profile suit against a number of businesses with ties to slavery.[citation needed] Another argument against reparations (though this is not a legal argument) is that few African-Americans are of "pure" African blood since the offspring of the original slaves were occasionally the progeny of Caucasian male masters (and a variety of White males) by means of rape, concubinage or threat and forcibly slave-breeding of African female slaves.[dubious – discuss] Reparations could cause increased racism[edit]Anti-reparations advocates argue reparations payments based on race alone would be perceived by nearly everyone as a monstrous injustice, embittering many, and inevitably setting back race relations. In this view, apologetic feelings some whites may hold because of slavery and past civil rights injustices would, to a significant extent, be replaced by anger.[citation needed] The Libertarian Party, among other groups and individuals, has suggested that reparations would make racism worse: A renewed demand by African-Americans for slavery reparations should be rejected because such payments would only increase racial hostility...[32] A leading work against reparations is David Horowitz, Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Reparations for Slavery (2002). Other works that discuss problems with reparations, include John Torpey, Making Whole What Has Been Smashed: On Reparations Politics (2006), Alfred Brophy, Reparations Pro and Con (2006), Nahshon Perez, Freedom from Past Injustices (Edinburgh University Press, 2012). There is also a technical problem with identifying those who should be entitled to exemptions because of their ancestral opposition to Slavery. In particular, there was a significant Anti-Slavery Resistance Movement among the German and Mexican Texans during the Civil War [2] which effectively negated the gains from New Mexico [3] by choking off supplies.