40 Acres and a Mule

Tyler Cowen points to Melinda Miller's interesting research into whether following through on plans to give freed slaves some land would have made a difference in long-term racial gaps. In this paper (PDF) she looks at a unique population of former slaves held by the Cherokee Nation, which "was forced during post-war negotiations to allow its former slaves to claim and improve any unused land in the Nation’s public domain," and finds some substantial effects.

Comments

I think it would be a good idea for more of the more accessible academic studies be highlighted on blogs. Well, that is, if the journal they're published in allows free access.

Posted by El Cid | December 11, 2007 3:19 PM

YAY MINDY!!!!!

I'd just like to point out that she's on the same fellowship as me. :-D

Posted by Mr. Noah | December 11, 2007 4:32 PM

Last Friday, my family and I drove the 300 mile trip from Las Cruces to Clovis, NM to attend our son's State Championship football game. It's a beautifully spiritual drive, and as the hours pass, it's almost impossible not feel the vastness of time that has passed over these lands, and it puts the tininess of human existence into perspective fast.

As we passed through the 8000 foot high mountains of the Mescalero Apache Reservation, I, too, found myself contemplating the same line of thought as Mindy's paper. The Mescalero are considered "wealthy" by locals because they operate a successful casino and resort area in the state, from which they split the proceeds with members of the tribe in a monthly stipend. Yet, poverty and social problems are endemic there, mostly because in order to gain what few resources they have, many natives end up living on the reservation, segregating themselves from the rest of the state's population, rather than "come into town". There are few opportunities for them if they stay, and they often feel a lack of connection with the communities to which they do emigrate. These are decent, intelligent and good people, and yet, even with all the natural beauty and financial resources they have, are still struggling miserably with the atrocity we as a nation committed on them.

It dawned on me that Native Americans and African Americans, although having two separate histories, actually are pretty much in the same boat in our country in 2007. What if, instead of what we DID do to these two populations we had instead given them prioritized access to homestead land, all over the country? Not shoving them onto self-segregated reservations, or leaving them to drag themselves out of the geographical containment of the very societies that enslaved them, but allowed them the freedom to relocate and populate the nation in a balanced way? Would we have had more integration, especially in the non-urban areas of the country where racism is still reinforced by low numbers of minorities? Would they have had a better chance of becoming self-sufficient and successful? Would I actually see a reflection of their actual demographic proportions in our my own communty (they hold about 2% of our county's population)? Would I have more rich, cultural diversity in my children's schools? Hispanics, who owned land after the Gadsden Purchase, are not only the majority in my city, but are equally represented across the economic strata. What missed opportunity did the United States AGAIN blow? The world will never know.

Posted by ella | December 11, 2007 7:47 PM

For a very good book on this, check out Tiya Miles' THE TIES THAT BIND: THE STORY OF AN AFRO-CHEROKEE FAMILY IN SLAVERY AND FREEDOM.

Let's just say I don't think it will be high on the Tancredo-Christmas-shopping list, inasmuch as it shows the inextricability of race, colonization, and power in the United States.

But for those of you actually _interested_ in this underknown chapter of American history, it's a great selection. Very literary and powerful.

Posted by Ben Cronin | December 12, 2007 6:00 PM