FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3148991568> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3148991568 endingPage "175" @default.
• W3148991568 startingPage "175" @default.
• W3148991568 abstract "The Michigan Historical Review 46:2 (Fall 2020): 175-186©2020 Central Michigan University. ISSN 0890-1686 All Rights Reserved The Debate on Reparations before the Debate on Reparations at the National Black Economic Development Conference in Detroit, 1969 By Keith Dye Recent studies on the African American demand for reparations continue to call attention to the significance of the Black Manifesto, the fire-brand statement produced in Detroit in the spring of 1969.1 Public understanding of this $500 million (later $3 billion) political-economic treatise from the National Black Economic Development Conference (NBEDC) was of a fluid document that challenged the American social conscience. However, preceding the disruptive presentation of the manifesto at church services throughout metropolitan Detroit and elsewhere, the economics of reparations was a point of disagreement among its supporters prior to, and during, conference sessions. Arguments revolved around the application of reparations to establish either a “Black Capitalist” economic system, a revolutionary socialist construction or, alternatively, a hybrid system somewhere in between. This internal conflict had to be reconciled before any call for reparations could emerge as a “tax” on white America. Revisiting this contentiousness affords a core understanding of its evolution overlooked by scholars. Eschewing discussion about the validity of reparations, this article argues that the debate over economic preferences by many of the 500 conference attendees was an historical milestone in the reparation movement, whose contemporary significance rests upon this divide between moderate and radical African Americans seeking to forge a consensus economic agenda. A steering committee for the NBEDC had by early 1969 secured a range of African American organizations and individuals committed to public discussion of the issue at the affair, scheduled for April 25-27. 1 Ana Lucia Araujo, Reparations for Slavery and the Slave Trade: A Transitional and Comparative History (New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018), 144-51; Herb Boyd, Black Detroit: A People’s History of Self-Determination (New York: Harper Collins, 2017), 220-22; Brenda Gayle Plummer, In Search of Power: African Americans in the Era of Decolonization, 19561974 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 247-48. 176 The Michigan Historical Review Leading the way was the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization (IFCO), but the diverse gathering would also include the post-riot New Detroit Inc., Urban Design and Development Group, League of Revolutionary Black Workers (LRBW), Republic of New Africa (RNA), Shrine of the Black Madonna, and other groups. Among noted individuals in attendance were Fannie Lou Hamer of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, civil rights activist Julian Bond, former football star Jim Brown, economist Robert S. Browne, RNA leaders and brothers Gaidi and Imari Obadele (formerly Milton and Richard Henry), local bookstore owner Edward Vaughn, and many others. Persons spearheading the effort were longtime activists James Forman of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Reverend Lucius Walker of IFCO, Mike Hamlin and John Watson—both of the LRBW based in the city, Kenneth Cockrell Sr., Dan Aldridge, John Williams, Chuck Wooten, Renny Freeman, Luke Tripp, and other handson activists.2 The chance to direct initial start-up funds provided by IFCO and the National Council of Churches for African American economic development attracted individuals eager to include their personal organizations among those possibly to receive funding. A somewhat complicated cross-partnering of conflicting and comparable ideas distinguished the process from the start. This began when some individuals sought control over the conference debate to determine what should be the economic destiny of African Americans. To this effect a takeover was planned by persons associated with Forman, the key architect of the manifesto, including Walker, Hamlin, and Watson. This Forman/Walker faction intended to steer conference proceedings toward adoption of a socialist agenda that emphasized collectivism and equitable distribution of resources.3 In contrast to the Forman/Walker faction were persons preferring Black capitalism, the notion that the system of free markets, private enterprise and private property ownership could be adjusted to facilitate African American economic growth.4 This dichotomy represented a divide between contending ideologies, with Forman leading the way on behalf of the LRBW. SNCC members brought in from the South—along with Walker, who by then sympathized with Forman’s ideological orientation—were..." @default.
• W3148991568 created "2021-04-13" @default.
• W3148991568 creator A5064009272 @default.
• W3148991568 date "2020-01-01" @default.
• W3148991568 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W3148991568 title "The Debate on Reparations before the Debate on Reparations at the National Black Economic Development Conference in Detroit, 1969" @default.
• W3148991568 doi "https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.46.2.0175" @default.
• W3148991568 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3148991568 type Work @default.
• W3148991568 sameAs 3148991568 @default.
• W3148991568 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3148991568 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3148991568 hasAuthorship W3148991568A5064009272 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConcept C138921699 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConcept C2778896172 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConcept C6303427 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConceptScore W3148991568C138921699 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConceptScore W3148991568C144024400 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConceptScore W3148991568C17744445 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConceptScore W3148991568C199539241 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConceptScore W3148991568C2778896172 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConceptScore W3148991568C6303427 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConceptScore W3148991568C94625758 @default.
• W3148991568 hasConceptScore W3148991568C95457728 @default.
• W3148991568 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W3148991568 hasLocation W31489915681 @default.
• W3148991568 hasOpenAccess W3148991568 @default.
• W3148991568 hasPrimaryLocation W31489915681 @default.
• W3148991568 hasRelatedWork W1532531184 @default.
• W3148991568 hasRelatedWork W1574100221 @default.
• W3148991568 hasRelatedWork W1778077758 @default.
• W3148991568 hasRelatedWork W2086998054 @default.
• W3148991568 hasRelatedWork W2154080075 @default.
• W3148991568 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W3148991568 hasRelatedWork W2782966921 @default.
• W3148991568 hasRelatedWork W2800928040 @default.
• W3148991568 hasRelatedWork W3160150779 @default.
• W3148991568 hasRelatedWork W4231938959 @default.
• W3148991568 hasVolume "46" @default.
• W3148991568 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3148991568 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3148991568 magId "3148991568" @default.
• W3148991568 workType "article" @default.