From time to time, an issue that’s been around for a while suddenly leaps to the forefront of public attention and takes on a new, energized life of its own. In the early stages of the anti-apartheid demonstrations in Washington, no one knew that minority-rule in South Africa was about to come to an end. And few thought that if Nelson Mandela were ever released from prison—if they believed he would be released at all—he would become president of South Africa.

This weekend, supporters of reparations for Blacks are gathering in Washington, D.C., in hopes of keeping the issue in the public eye and, more importantly, improve its chances of becoming a reality. And like those early anti-apartheid marchers, they are not discouraged by talk of Blacks never receiving reparations from the United States government.

In the past, the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations (N’COBRA), Rep. John Conyers and activists such as Richard America have been among the lonely voices demanding reparations for the more than two centuries of slavery and another century of slave-like degradation and segregation. They have remained vigilant as others have attempted to marginalize them and their cause.

But in recent years, support for reparations has broadened to the point that the idea can’t be dismissed by summarily attacking its supporters. The likes of Richard America and attorney Adjoa Aiyetora have now been joined by Dorothy Height, of the National Council of Negro Women, Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree and William Lucy, of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Randall Robinson, the former head of TransAfrica, sparked more public debate by writing a book on the subject titled, “The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks.”

What was roundly dismissed as a radical idea in the past is not considered radical anymore. Not when the Bush Administration wants to eliminate affirmative action. Not when other countries are offering atonement for their past behavior. Canada has made financial amends with Japanese Canadians, Austria has doled out $25 million for Holocaust survivors and even the United States has paid $1.2 billion to Japanese Americans wrongly interned during World War II.

Unlike countries that have embraced their African links, such as Cuba and Brazil, the United States still has difficulty owning up to its exploitation of Africans brought here against their will. With people such as Ward Connerly willing to carry their water, they prefer to pretend that racism doesn’t exist anymore. If it does exist, some argue, its racism against White people. And they make those specious arguments by using the very statues designed to assist Blacks, such as the equal protection clause of the constitution, and turn them against African-Americans.

So, it’s no surprise that some Americans are unwilling to even discuss the merits of reparations. Conyers introduces a bill every year—HR40 (as in 40 acres and a mule)—that would establish a commission to study possible legislation at the federal level. But the measure never gets out of committee.

While there appears to be growing support for reparations among African-Americans, few White politicians will even discuss the subject.

“This is the subject that at the national level nobody wants to talk about,” Conyers said at a TransAfrica forum two years ago. “This is America’s secret and, at the same time, most sensitive political problem of race that now comes together when we raise questions of reparations that lead many people to move toward the door, to exit as quickly as they can.”

Not all Whites are moving toward the door. One group is called CURE—Caucasians United for Reparations and Emancipation. Acting in the tradition of White abolitionists, the group’s statement of belief and purpose declares: “We see the United States as immoral from its very foundation because of the lie of white superiority and the commission of the crime of slavery, and we dedicate our lives to fundamental change within ourselves, and in our society.”

A paper published by the Human Rights Watch notes, “We begin with the premise that slavery, the slave trade, the most severe forms of racism associated with colonialism and subsequent official racist practices such as apartheid in South Africa or the Jim Crow laws in the United States are extraordinarily serious human rights violations. If committed today these would be crimes against humanity.”

Correction: They were crimes against humanity then. And it’s a crime to pretend that we are serious about solving the race problem in America without acknowledging in a formal way that the remnants of slavery are still with us.