Getting to the Promised Land

Kevin W. Cosby is clear. The subject of his most recent book, Getting to the Promised Land: Black America and the Unfinished Work of the Civil Rights Movement, is reparations for Blacks; however, not for all Black Americans. The rightful recipients of reparations are ADOS—American Descendants of Slavery. Cosby further contends that a theological paradigm shift is necessary for the Black church to have a leading role in obtaining reparations that are due to American Descendants of Slavery. He argues for a shift from an Exodus hermeneutic to a postexilic theological mindset, shifting from a Moses model of leadership to a Nehemiah style of egoless leadership. According to the author, the Moses/prophetic type of leadership, which focuses on a single charismatic figure, is insufficient in today’s political and economic climate.

The way forward for ADOS is through a strong sense of racial/ethnic group identification. Commitment to one’s blackness is paramount. Commitment to other dimensions of our being diverts us from the central task of seeking reparations. For Cosby, multiculturalism and the like, are “decoys” that have distracted Blacks from a proper ADOS mindset. Black people must focus on Black issues and avoid the “illusion of inclusion.” Under the illusion of inclusion, Blacks in general, as Cosby says of the Black church, have fallen prey to “mission drift” (95), leaving one major unfulfilled legacy of the Civil Rights Movement, reparations for ADOS. Ultimately, the aim must be reparations, for there is “no liberation without reparations” (31). For Cosby, no other issue should occupy the time of African American leadership.

Cosby notes two major obstacles confronting ADOS leadership and community: immigration and collaboration. The author laments the grouping together of “people of color.” He notes that a number of Black immigrants are educated Blacks with good jobs. This phenomenon gives the wrong impression that Blacks no longer face systemic racism since these Black immigrants are doing financially better than some whites. Immigration has obscured the true plight of ADOS.

Cosby asserts that ADOS leadership has done a disservice to Black people by collaborating with others whose primary interest is not ADOS advancement. Other minority groups have collaborated with ADOS and seem to have benefited more from the collaboration, such as Hispanics in Chicago, who collaborated with blacks only to surpass them in terms of power and representation (19-20). According to Cosby, coalitions have proven to be disadvantageous to the cause of ADOS. Coalition partners have invariably benefitted to the detriment of ADOS because the coalition partners generally have more political/economic power than ADOS.

As much as Cosby opposes coalitions, when you are a minority group, coalitions are imperative. Reparations of the magnitude Cosby writes of would require significant government intervention, which requires compromise and coalition-building. There is insufficient support to get a reparations bill through the legislative process at the state and/or federal level. For all the talk about the “browning” of America, people of color, and African Americans in particular, lack the necessary numerical and political power to force reparations legislation into public law.

One important issue with Cosby’s argument is that the reparations he describes in his book is that they are a bold, uncompromising, unnegotiable, and unrealistic demand. He presents reparations as the panacea to the myriad problems plaguing ADOS without offering a clear, legislative path forward. Cosby ties Black people’s healing and wholeness to attaining reparations (34).  The coupling together of our healing and wholeness with reparations puts us at the mercy of those from whom we seek reparations.

Furthermore, the problem with the Nehemiah, postexilic theological motif is that the leadership that Nehemiah provided, and the work he undertook, were made possible by the oppressor, the occupier, King Cyrus. He may have been benevolent, but he was still the head of the dominant hegemonic force in the region.  

Cosby contends that “the full cost of what it means to be black in America is knowable and calculable only through a person’s lineage, as opposed to his or her skin color” (xii), but he never explains what this “full cost” is, or how it is to be calculated. Furthermore, to exclude some Blacks because of genealogy would be to discount the racism the Black immigrant faces simply because of their Black skin. White racists do not care about lineage: Black is Black.

Likewise, for a theological treatise, the book is light on theological reflection. The book might be classified as sociology of religion, or as a pastoral primer for progressive, congregational ministry, but there are far too few examples, models, and paradigms presented to be helpful as a theological work. Additionally, we are left with more questions than answers regarding reparations because Cosby never grapples with the hard issues of legislation, cost factoring, equitable distribution, and so on.

Clarence W. Davis is a PhD candidate at the University of Denver/Iliff School of Theology

Clarence W. Davis

Date Of Review:

September 26, 2022