Reparations good, freedom of speech bad??? [Archive]

vix

03-21-2001, 10:25 AM

Interesting goings-on at my alma mater:

Last week, the editor of Brown University’s newspaper, the Brown Daily Herald, decided to run an advertisement paid for by conservative author David Horowitz. The ad, which can be found here (http://www.frontpagemag.com/horowitzsnotepad/2001/hn01-03-01.htm), lists ten reasons why reparations for slavery should not be paid to black Americans.

Minority groups on campus protested the ad by “stealing” 4,000 copies of the free paper. They also demanded that the paper give them an equivalent amount of advertising space for free. The Herald refused the request and reprinted and redistrubuted the issue which had been stolen. This story has now made national news… it was on the front page of today’s New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/21/national/21BROW.html).

The story is also getting quite a bit of press in Rhode Island. The Providence Journal, in an editorial (http://projo.com/cgi-bin/story.pl/opinion/05148051.htm) praised the Herald’s defense of freedom of speech. This story (http://projo.com/cgi-bin/story.pl/news/05157772.htm), also in the Providence paper, quotes many people who agree that the Herald did the right thing by printing the ad. (The Journal ran several other stories about the issue as well).

(Here (http://browndailyherald/) is a link the the Herald’s web site, which has been tough to load because it’s been getting so many hits.)

I’m interested to know what you think about this issue. I find myself agreeing with a few of Horowitz’s points. (For example, should recent white immigrants (such as my family) have to pay reparations to black Americans?) Overall, though, I think his presentation is inflammatory, racist, and missing the point. If race relations were not such a big issue in this country, we, and the students at Brown and elsewhere, wouldn’t be having this debate. That will be a great day.

(I can only view the SDMB in the morning so if I don’t respond, that’s why).

Thank you.

Ethilrist

03-21-2001, 10:44 AM

If his statements are correct, I agree with all of them.

gobear

03-21-2001, 11:15 AM

Horowits pints on reparations aside, I think that the actions of the Coalition of Concerned Students (CCS) shows the utter moral bankruptcy of leftists. Instead of debating the issues or submitting an article refuting Horowitz, the CCS turned to thuggery from the get-go, making extortionist threats to the Brown Daily Herald, and then stealing an entire press run when those demands were not met. The CCS seems to believe that because they oppose racism and therefore are, by definition, the good guys, they are therefore justified in any act they perform, no matter how illegal or how noxious to American concepts of free speech and a free press.

Maeglin

03-21-2001, 11:34 AM

David Horowitz knew exactly what he was doing. Surely the former hippie-turned conservative activist had a pretty good idea what happens when one drops a match on a liberal college campus. I find his cynical conflict-mongering nearly as nauseating as students' response.

Guilty, guilty, all around.

SuaSponte

03-21-2001, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by goboy
Horowits pints on reparations aside, I think that the actions of the Coalition of Concerned Students (CCS) shows the utter moral bankruptcy of leftists.
goboy, take your moral superiority and your generalizations, and, oh wait, this is GD, not the Pit. :D Let me just respond by saying the when I was in (Catholic) college, an entire run of one of the school's newspaper was similarly stolen because it ran an ad from Planned Parenthood. Do ya think it was the leftists who did that? Student activists, of all stripes, have a depressing tendency towards thuggishness.

(BTW vix, the students who stole the paper didn't infringe on Horowitz' free speech rights - only government can do that. Instead they committed theft (even though the paper was free).)

Anywho, as for Horowitz' points: (full disclosure - I am against reparations):

#2 was flat out offensive - the implication was that, because American blacks are now wealthier than Africans, slavery was a good thing for them;

#6 is simply the wrong argument - the argument in favor of reparations is that the money would have been in the hands of the black families, through inheritance, had slaves been paid for their work. And as for the West Indies, what the hell has that got to do with the argument? Presumably, the descendants of West Indian slaves would have to go to Great Britain, France, Spain, etc., for reparations;

#8 is wrong on the welfare point - welfare is equally open to blacks and whites. On the affirmative action point, the rationale for that has been the post-slavery economic discrimination against blacks;

#9 is flat out offensive. When people who have been doing something bad realize this and change their behavior, the victims of their former bad acts haven't received a "gift".

I generally agree with his other points, and I wish to god that anti-reparations peoples dump the crap noted above before they give their (and my) position a bad name.

Sua

gigi

03-21-2001, 11:49 AM

Where to begin?

Form your first link,

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and the advent of the Great Society in 1965, trillions of dollars in transfer payments have been made to African-Americans in the form of welfare benefits and racial preferences (in contracts, job placements and educational admissions) - all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances.

Welfare benefits are a form of reparation?! I thought, in theory at least, that they were to provide temporary assistance to people in need, and that most recipients are not black.

What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?

...there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans -- created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end.... If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America ...would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?

So America = white Christians? And black people did not work for their standard of living, it was benevolently given to them?

I know i don't make cogent arguments, but this is too infuriating.

Joe_Cool

03-21-2001, 11:57 AM

It's really shameful that the people who brand themselves as champions for what is right automatically resort to that sort of tactic. It's typical of extremists, though. Rather than discuss why your view is right, it's much easier to try to censor or bully anyone who holds an opposing view.

Resorting to criminal tactics, no matter how right you feel yourself to be, makes you a criminal and no better than those you oppose.

Earthworm Jim

03-21-2001, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Ethilrist
If his statements are correct, I agree with all of them.

This makes no sense to me. It's like taking the statement "The invisible pink unicorn has blue eyes!"

To which I respond

"If this statement is correct, I agree with it."

In short: Huh?

gobear

03-21-2001, 11:59 AM

Goboy, take your moral superiority and your generalizations, and, oh wait, this is GD, not the Pit. Let me just respond by saying the when I was in (Catholic) college, an entire run of one of the school's newspaper was similarly stolen because it ran an ad from Planned Parenthood. Do ya think it was the leftists who did that? Student activists, of all stripes, have a depressing tendency towards thuggishness.

What moral superiority? I point to leftists because they seem to be the ones shouting down speakers they oppose, attempting to ban articles they don't like, and generally acting like thugs. When conservatives pull the same crap,I shall bust on them as well. In the meantime, consider me duly chastised.

Regarding reparations, I think they are a bad idea, but the debate over reparations should be welcomed as a way of airing some very dirty laundry and perhaps finally exorcising the ghosts of slavery, thereby reconciling black and white Americans.

Then we can gang up on everyone else. :D

I agree with Suasponte's analysis of Horowitz's ad. The man is a racist.

Spiritus Mundi

03-21-2001, 12:48 PM

I deplore the conduct of those students who stole teh papers. The preferred way to fight a bad idea is with a better idea.

I do not agree with the implication that Horowitz' advertisement was in any way designed to promote a reasoned debate, though. While he has some valid points, the overall tone and presentation seem determinedly inflamatory.

An interesting question (to me, at least) is what is the ethical responsibility of the student paper itself. Many papers declined to publish the ad. Were they correct to do so? We seem to expect a more "open" standard from a university publication than we would from a private magazine. (We wouldn't demand that a children's magazine accept ads from a pedophilial advocacate, would we?) This seems reasonable, given the public support for institutions of higher learning. But how far does it go?

Do we criticize the universities who refused to publish this ad as censors? If so, what other advertisements would we demand they publish? A White Power manifesto? Online porn sites? Instructions on constructing explosives? Advice on how to hack protected networks? Term paper cheating services?

In this case, I think the best response would have been to publish the ad along with a detailed response to the content and tone. But while that works for an isolated case, it could be devastating if applied as a general principle. A flood of "objectionable" ads would force the paper to devote all of its space to rebutals.

I am forced to conclude that either a blanket policy of refusal (censorship!, they cry) or an element of personal judgment must be applied to each case. Given that, I find myself unable to object too strongly to those editors who refused the ad, though I might wish they had chosen another path.

Oh, and goboy

I point to leftists because they seem to be the ones shouting down speakers they oppose, attempting to ban articles they don't like, and generally acting like thugs.

Ever heard of Operation Rescue?

Your mistake was, and remains, unjustifiably generalizing the behavior of a few thugs to the large and diverse group "leftists". If I were to criticize conservatives for the sloppy thinking demonstrated by Creation Science, then I would be commiting the same fallacy.

Joe_Cool

03-21-2001, 01:11 PM

Allow me to be the first to be falsely branded a racist for failing to mince words and for saying that I agree with the 10 points.

He doesn't strike me as a racist, but as a guy who is not afraid of the consequences of speaking up with an unpopular opinion, and a guy who, like me, is tired of the "racist chic" that is popular. Yeah, it's currently in vogue to feel guilty for being white, we're all bad people, all the good guys are minorities, we owe the Indians, we owe the Blacks, we owe everybody something. Blacks (as a group. I know this is not universally true, but it is for a significant and vocal fraction) segregate themselves, both phsyically and philosophically, and black culture is pervaded with the attitude that white people are bad and oppressors, but it's white people who are at fault. It's ok for blacks to mock whites simply for being white, but just try doing the reverse. It's ok to ask whether blacks are better athletes (in fact, people generally make that assumption), but if somebody implies that whites might be better at anything is flamed mercilessly.

*@&#$@^#@% to that!

It's very common to see somebody claim something to the effect that "...the desendants of whites that 'owned' Africans aren't today directly responsible for the actions of their 'demonic' forebearers, yet they are the direct recipients of the vast wealth this horrible 'crime against humanity'..." (a direct quote from the feedback page at the above link). Now if that's so, where the hell is my part of the vast wealth? I'm not the direct recipient of anything I didn't earn myself. I have not received a single benefit of being white, and by the same token, I doubt claims that all blacks are victims of the attitudes of slavery. The only attitudes that affect blacks are their own, and the conditions that hold anybody back are self-inflicted. I had nothing handed to me, yet didn't turn to crime as my "right" because I had a hard life.

Let's face it, kids, the world is a sad and hard place, and blacks have no monopoly on hardship. Or on slavery, for that matter. The Jews have been the target of institutionalized racism and slavery probably more than any national or ethnic group in history, but I don't see them demanding money from Egypt, Syria, or Iraq.

Bottom line is that nobody is entitled to money any more than violence, job discrimination, or anything else based on race. 100 years is more than a reasonable amount of time for reparation claims to expire, because after that length of time, nobody directly benefitting from, and nobody directly affected by, the event is left alive.

And for the record, my ancestors were busy driving the French out of Mexico when the US was busy fighting over slavery, so even they had no part in it. I find the whole idea offensive.

Earthworm Jim

03-21-2001, 01:37 PM

Just wanted to make a couple of points. I hope I didn't take anything out of it's intended context.

Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi
An interesting question (to me, at least) is what is the ethical responsibility of the student paper itself.

It's interesting to me too, based on the fundamental dichotomy of the news industry:

As a private business, is it their right to set requirements that must be met before service is provided? I would say yes.

As an outlet of information, is it ethical to refuse to print an advertisement based on inflammatory content? I would say no.

A thorny issue.

Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi
[W]hat other advertisements would we demand they publish? A White Power manifesto? Online porn sites? Instructions on constructing explosives? Advice on how to hack protected networks? Term paper cheating services?

Yes. And more. Otherwise, it's not free press, but expression of the editors idea[l]s. If you choose to run a publication under the guise of free press, and charge (for example) $100 for a full page ad, then you must accept every offer for an advertisement without questioning it's content, or your press is no longer free. Any censorship, including censorship by the editor, staff, etc, limits the freedom of the media.

Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi
I am forced to conclude that either a blanket policy of refusal (censorship!, they cry) or an element of personal judgment must be applied to each case. Given that, I find myself unable to object too strongly to those editors who refused the ad, though I might wish they had chosen another path.
I am forced to conclude the opposite: A blanket policy of non-refusal must be applied. Otherwise the freedom has been restricted to the ideas "sanctioned" by the editors, the community, the university, the state, or whatever body determines the appropriateness of the ideas expressed by the advertiser.

SuaSponte

03-21-2001, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi
[W]hat other advertisements would we demand they publish? A White Power manifesto? Online porn sites? Instructions on constructing explosives? Advice on how to hack protected networks? Term paper cheating services?

Yes. And more. Otherwise, it's not free press, but expression of the editors idea[l]s. If you choose to run a publication under the guise of free press, and charge (for example) $100 for a full page ad, then you must accept every offer for an advertisement without questioning it's content, or your press is no longer free. Any censorship, including censorship by the editor, staff, etc, limits the freedom of the media.

A blanket policy of non-refusal must be applied. Otherwise the freedom has been restricted to the ideas "sanctioned" by the editors, the community, the university, the state, or whatever body determines the appropriateness of the ideas expressed by the advertiser.

WTF? Your position results in the death of a free press. It is well-recognized that the freedom of expression includes the freedom not to express. If you take away that, newspapers lose the right to express their own viewpoint. Newspapers have, and must have, the absolute and uncontested right to exercise their editorial judgment on what is printed.
Your argument makes no sense. "Censorship" (more accurately, editorial discretion) by the media limits the freedom of the media?!! That's an oxymoron.
Further, no one's freedom is limited by a newspaper saying "no" to an ad. The ad writer can always go to another newspaper, or start his/her own. Finally, even if the ad writer's "freedom" was somehow impugned, so what? In this country, we are protected from government interference, not those of private actors.

Sua

Collounsbury

03-21-2001, 02:25 PM

I have to largely agree with Sua and others on this. I for one am not a fan of the reparations for slavery idea. However, Horowitz's overall presentation and argument is racist and offensive. As for Joe Cool, if you agree with all 10 points despite several being false, then you are racist, whatever weaseling you may want aside. I rather hope that this is simply dunderheaded rhetoric on your part.

Otherwise, I'll just add a few comments:

As Sua said

#2 was flat out offensive - the implication was that, because American blacks are now wealthier than Africans, slavery was a good thing for them;

As well as logically specious for if the same Africans had not been taken into slavery, their descendants (a) might not have suffered the very nasty slave system of the southern USA (b) the Jim Crow system (c) emmigrated at a later date to a more welcoming society.

Ahistorical and I think racist in its assumptions.

From gigi's post

If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America ...would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?

In the light of the civil rights movement, Jim Crow, this is just plain offensive. Obviously they could have immigrated later and not had the present history of discrimination behind them.

...there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans -- created one.

Which is historically FALSE . I assume the author could have easily verified this, so I have to attribute this to racism. Or stupidity. You take the pick.

If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end....

This is more than slightly specious. We might equally say if not for the efforts of the self- same ethnicity(ies) the transatlantic slave trade might not have flourished... (Not to ignore others roles of course) I feel no need for congratulation for my ancestors late realization the slave trade was wrong.

This is just mind numbingly wrongheaded.

One interesting issue, however, which touches on what I think might be a better case:
Horowitz mentions West Indian descended blacks in the USA have incomes fairly close to White Americans and asks the question, offensively and stupidly stated so I'll restate, why would slavery effect the two differently.

The answer, which might be found for example in the Patterson book I cite to so frequently, is they were fairly different slave systems. Further, post-emancipation histories are different. In the West Indies one can largely (warning gross generalizations follow, I know I am sacrificing some accuracy here) say that (a) the slave descendants ruled themselves — with caveats in re mixed and planter class hold ons (b) the society was majority black, no Jim Crow system per se (c) schools were pretty darned good (d) fairly different work ethic based in my analysis on the absence of the (e) often violently anti-black and discriminatory segregationist society/social ethic.

All in all, a picture of a much healthier society for the wounds of slavery. Not perfect and a close look at the history I am sure turns up many nasty aspects, but comparatively a healthier environment. Certainly before I knew anything of the history and so forth, living in NYC I always remarked on the healthier social attitudes, work ethic, superior education of the West Indians. Cultural issues clearly.

Insofar as there might be a case for reparations, I should think that it would be found in the realm of post-emancipation discrimination and denial of civil rights. The world that produced lynching, the "legal" barring of blacks from all but the most menial jobs in most cases, etc. Not only is the picture historically clearer, one could base a more cogent case. Now, whether it would in the end be (a) worthwhile (b) fully supportable is another matter, but as an intellectual exercise I see a better case.

(In re the payment of reps, I don't see the issue of immigration as legally relevant assuming that the legal case is directed against the government. German citizens who were not part of Nazi Germany still pay taxes which have gone to payment of German reparation.)

Milossarian

03-21-2001, 02:25 PM

As noted in this Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32815-2001Mar20.html) on the subject, it hasn't just been an issue at Brown:

Of 51 schools to which Horowitz sent the ad, 21 rejected it and nine accepted it. Brown's is the only Ivy League college newspaper that has run the ad. Three other colleges, including the University of California at Berkeley, subsequently apologized for printing it. But at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where 100 protesters stormed its office, the student newspaper refused to apologize, saying it would hinder free speech.

I don't find Horowitz's list particularly hate-filled or racist. It peters out at the end - his last three points aren't nearly as strong as his first seven. I agree with gigi - the idea that welfare and other payments are a slavery reparation is dumb.

Slave reparations are ludicrous on their face. The idea isn't getting any serious discussion in Washington D.C. or anywhere else that I'm aware of. Which does tend to call Horowitz's motivation into question.

I'm sure it was to point out "intellectual fascism" on highly liberal college campuses. To a certain extent, I'd say he succeeded. (The California papers apologizing for printing the ad? What was there to apologize for? Offending certain sensibilities? The idea of paying slave reparations is highly offensive to my sensibilities.)

Challenge Horowitz's ideas. Counter his ideas. Debate his ideas. But a college campus is the last place where they should be silenced. Isn't the whole idea of a university to offer students a myriad of perspectives? Ideally, maybe, but I don't think that's what is happening out there.

I saw a piece on FoxNews on this yesterday, where Horowitz was to speak at some college campus, since this ad flap occurred. The students in the audience shouted him down. He never got to complete a sentence.

I don't see that as a good thing.

december

03-21-2001, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Maeglin
David Horowitz knew exactly what he was doing...I find his cynical conflict-mongering nearly as nauseating as students' response.

Guilty, guilty, all around.

IMHO Horowitz was intentionally provocative. So was Harriet Beecher Stowe, when she wrote "Uncle Tom's Cabin." One could describe that book as nauseating, cynical conflict-mongering, except that it helped end slavery.

The point is, Horowitz's provocations served the cause of free speech by dramatically demonstrating problems on many campuses. Supporters of civil liberties, whether on the left or on the right, should all be grateful to him.

Milossarian

03-21-2001, 02:30 PM

december

03-21-2001, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Collounsbury
However, Horowitz's overall presentation and argument is racist and offensive.

I appreciate Coll's calling H's presentation and argument "racist," rather than applying that term to the man himself. Having read several of his book, I know that H has worked mightily for the cause of civil rights. Based on actions, he is demonstrably less racist than most of us posters.

cmkeller

03-21-2001, 04:39 PM

...there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans -- created one.

Is this one even true? I'm pretty sure slavery was illegal in Mexico before it was in the U.S. - in fact, that's why (IIRC) the Texans fought to be independent of them; they wanted to own slaves.

Kimstu

03-21-2001, 04:46 PM

We hoed a lot of these beans already on beagledave's March 3 thread Daily Cal a vehicle for bigotry? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=61926) Now that the hubbub has shifted to my home campus, I still say what I said then:

Though I think the protestors' cause would be better served by not attempting to quash Horowitz's ad or demanding apologies for it, I can see why they would find his biased and disingenuous arguments annoying. There are numerous valid arguments against slavery reparations, but Horowitz seems willing to use just about any otherargument he can think of too. From a longer version (http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/2000/05/30/reparations/index.html) of his "Ten Reasons":

1. Assuming there is actually a debt, it is not at all clear who owes it.

Disingenuous. Reparations advocates are quite clear about saying that the debt is owed by the U.S. government for its complicity in and promotion of slavery, just as it was decided that the U.S. owed a debt to Japanese-Americans whom it put in internment camps. If there are to be reparations, they'll come from public monies, just as the Japanese-American reparations did.

2. The idea that only whites benefited from slavery is factually wrong and attitudinally racist.

Disingenuous. Reparations advocates are not saying that "only whites benefited from slavery". On the whole, of course, the benefits of slavery went to whites and the burdens went to blacks, but there need be no racial calculus involved in saying that the U.S. government did something wrong and so the U.S. government should pay.

3. In terms of lineal responsibility for slavery, only a tiny minority of Americans ever owned slaves.

Irrelevant. Only a tiny minority of Americans ever got any direct benefit out of having Japanese-Americans carted off to internment camps, either. Nonetheless, the government did wrong and the government had to pay.

4. Most Americans living today (white and otherwise) are the descendants of post-Civil War immigrants, who have no lineal connection to slavery at all.

Irrelevant to the question of whether the government should pay for the wrong it did. When post-Civil War immigrants became citizens of this country, they accepted a share in the burdens of its institutional history just as they accepted a share in the burden of its national debt. I don't hear any advocates for this year's immigrants defending their right to be released from the part of their tax burden that funds debt interest payments on the grounds that they "have no lineal connection" to the WWII and post-WWII ballooning of the debt.

5. The historical precedents generally invoked to justify the reparations claim -- that Jews and Japanese-Americans received reparations from Germany and the United States, respectively -- are spurious.

This, I think, has some validity. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that it invalidates the concept of slavery reparations, but there is definitely a difference between paying reparations to those who were direct victims of an injury and paying their descendants (and others who aren't their descendants) who suffered from various difficult-to-quantify consequences of that injury. One for five so far, Mr. Horowitz.

6. Behind the reparations arguments lies the unfounded claim that all blacks in America suffer economically from the consequences of slavery and discrimination.

Also a reasonable point, IMHO.

7. The renewed sense of grievance -- which is what the claim for reparations will inevitably create -- is neither a constructive nor a helpful message for black leaders to be sending to their communities.

Not entirely without merit, but weak. If reparations are a matter of justice---and I'm not convinced that they are, but there are some strong arguments in favor of them---then it's a little bit lame to respond to a demand for justice by moaning "Oh, but your whining about oppression just sounds so tacky! It would make such a better impression if you just put up with this historical injustice in a quiet and dignified manner!" Sorry, Mr. Horowitz: no justice, no peace.

8. This raises a point that has previously remained off the radar screen, but will surely be part of the debate to come: What about the "reparations" to blacks that have already been paid?

This is the "but we've already given you trillions of dollars in welfare" argument, and it's disingenuous. If welfare assistance to blacks counts as "reparations", then what do we call the welfare assistance that's been given to whites, who have been the majority of welfare recipients? If we call racial preferences for blacks "reparations", what do we call the racial preferences that have been given to non-blacks? I think Horowitz is on very shaky ground here in claiming that welfare or racial preferences count as "slavery reparations", but only when the recipients are black.

9. And this raises another question that black leaders might do well to reflect on: What about the debt blacks owe to America -- to white Americans -- for liberating them from slavery?

Yeah, right! "So okay, I kidnapped and abused you, but eventually I let you go, so you should be grateful to me!" I can't understand how anyone could think that the benefit of being released from slavery somehow makes up for the wrong of having been enslaved in the first place. In any case, the heroism of individual abolitionist whites is not relevant to the question of whether the U.S. government should be held financially liable for the wrongs of legalized slavery. It also ignores, as other posters have pointed out, the significant role played by American blacks in liberating themselves.

10. The final and summary reason for rejecting any reparations claim is recognition of the enormous privileges black Americans enjoy as Americans, and therefore of their own stake in America's history, slavery and all.

Horowitz has two arguments here: the first is that blacks in America are actually very well off compared to blacks in Africa (which ignores the question of how much of Africa's current troubles are due to its history of colonial exploitation by whites, btw), and the second is that blacks should not reject America as a mere exploiter and oppressor instead of taking their rightful place in its multicultural heritage. The first point is, again, irrelevant to the question of whether justice demands that the U.S. make reparation for its acts. The second is well worth bearing in mind, but I don't think it automatically excludes the possibility of reparations. It's perfectly possible to treasure your rightful place in your country's multicultural heritage while at the same time feeling that your government owes you something; in fact, there's probably not an American taxpayer in existence who hasn't felt that way.

So I kind of sympathize with the people who found the ad so intolerably irritating, although I personally would not have demanded its withdrawal. If I were still a hotheaded college student and read something in the campus paper as asininely, patronizingly distorted as Horowitz's Point #9, I'd probably be storming the editorial office too.

(Note: Since that last sentence bothered beagledave somewhat, I should probably add the caveat that it was mostly in jest. And I definitely don't approve of Thought Police of whatever ideological stripe stealing newspapers to prevent others from reading things that they deem offensive.)

Spiritus Mundi

03-21-2001, 05:02 PM

I am forced to conclude the opposite: A blanket policy of non-refusal must be applied. Otherwise the freedom has been restricted to the ideas "sanctioned" by the editors, the community, the university, the state, or whatever body determines the appropriateness of the ideas expressed by the advertiser.

I think Sua responded to this pretty well (thanks ;)). Let me just add that the news is necessarily filtered through the choices of editors, reporters, publishers, et.al. It has to be. Otherwise your morning paper would be roughly the size of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. I see no reason to declare advertising space to be more sacrosanct, more necessary to a free press, than the news itself.

In the extreme, such a "you must publish every ad" policy would allow anyone with sufficient means to dominate any publication with a personal position. I see no benefit to free expression from such a policy.

Joe_Cool

03-21-2001, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Collounsbury
As well as logically specious for if the same Africans had not been taken into slavery, their descendants (a) might not have suffered the very nasty slave system of the southern USA (b) the Jim Crow system (c) emmigrated at a later date to a more welcoming society.

Ahistorical and I think racist in its assumptions.

So then you claim that I, as a white man born more than 100 years after the end of slavery, have benefitted from its residual economic effects, yet my roommate (who is black) has not, even though neither of us had even a great-grandparent who was either a slave or slave-owner? Rubbish. Either we both benefitted, or neither of us has.

You and Sua are misreading point #2. It points out that the assumption that slavery created wealth for whites at large, this assumption is false. As discussed in point #3, only a very tiny fraction of whites ever benefitted from slavery, just as only a very tiny fraction of Americans have gotten rich in the movie industry.

From gigi's post

If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America ...would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts?

In the light of the civil rights movement, Jim Crow, this is just plain offensive. Obviously they could have immigrated later and not had the present history of discrimination behind them.

Seems to me that had they immigrated later, the civil rights movement would have happened later. Many people, both white and black, are racist. Therefore, the fight had to happen some time for the freedoms to be recognized. If blacks hadn't (unfortunately) been kidnapped from their homeland and brought here, then there would have been no need to fight for racial equality, and the battle and the "history of discrimination" would just have been postponed.

Do you deny that slavery has existed as long as history? It has been an institution in every major culture to my knowledge, and was always an acknowledged (if not pleasant) way of life. All of a sudden (so to speak) one group of people decided that "the way it is" isn't so great and set out to change it.

Yet you don't feel the former slaves (and their descendents) owe any sort of gratitude for the actions of those who thought slavery wrong and took action to change the status quo? They were entitled to this, and it's the white man's fault for not doing it sooner? Why isn't it the Arab's fault? Or the Roman's? Or the Hebrew's? Or even the Black man who sold his fellow Black man into slavery? You act as if slavery were unique to 18th and 19th century North America, and it was incumbent upon the "White Man" to do away with it, as was his debt to mankind. Not so. That the "White Man" accepted slavery as an institution is to be expected, as the rest of humanity always had done the same.

The difference is that the white man took steps to eliminate it. Unlike any society previous. Unless you have cites? It's obvious that Blacks had no philosophical problem with slavery, as they practiced it in Africa, as well as selling their brethren to the white slavers.

If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end....

This is more than slightly specious. We might equally say if not for the efforts of the self- same ethnicity(ies) the transatlantic slave trade might not have flourished... (Not to ignore others roles of course) I feel no need for congratulation for my ancestors late realization the slave trade was wrong.

Wait...let's look at that again: "We might equally say if not for the efforts of [white Americans and Englishmen] the transatlantic slave trade might not have flourished", but then you go on with "not to ignore others' roles."

So you first claim that if not for the white English and Americans, the slave trade would not have flourished, then you say that, well, they weren't the only ones? By making the first claim, you ARE ignoring the roles of others. Am I the only one that sees a problem here?

And the bottom line is that the government that is currently in power is the same one that ended slavery and has taken steps to improve the situation for minorities again and again ever since. So why should it owe any further debt to its citizens over this issue?

Finally, Kimstu:
Horowitz has two arguments here: the first is that blacks in America are actually very well off compared to blacks in Africa (which ignores the question of how much of Africa's current troubles are due to its history of colonial exploitation by whites, btw

How much of Africa's trouble was caused by colonialization is no concern of the US government and completely irrelevant, since it was not colonized by the US. Perhaps you think blacks should sue England and France, as well?

Alternatively, you could accept that stronger cultures will dominate and have effects on weaker ones, and that is the way of things. That seems to make much more sense.

SPOOFE

03-21-2001, 06:48 PM

It's really simple, people... all the people alive who have owned slaves owe money to all the people alive who have been slaves.

I don't understand why that can't be the end of it.

"But their descendents missed out on such-and-such amount of money!"

Yeah? Prove it.

Kimstu

03-21-2001, 07:33 PM

Joe_Cool said: How much of Africa's trouble was caused by colonialization is no concern of the US government and completely irrelevant, since it was not colonized by the US.

But it is relevant to the issue of whether and why blacks in the US are better off than blacks in Africa, which is the point I was getting at. Horowitz is trying to make a favorable comparison of the formerly-enslaved American blacks with the never-enslaved African blacks, with the implication of "see, slavery wasn't so bad for you": but that comparison collapses if we consider that the relatively poor current situation of African blacks was also strongly influenced by external domination and exploitation.

IzzyR

03-21-2001, 10:48 PM

There is some ambigouity throughout the debate over reparations as to whether the reparations are on behalf of white people or the US government. kimstu addressed this directly, claiming that "Reparations advocates are quite clear about saying that the debt is owed by the U.S. government for its complicity in and promotion of slavery". I'm unsure who these "reparations advocates" are, and don't think this issue is clear at all to many people on either side of the debate. In any event, I think it is a leap from having a government pay reparations for government actions (e.g. Nazi Germany, or US internment of Japanese Americans) and paying reparations for having failed to outlaw something. Kimstu appears to be trying to get around this issue by saying in a vague way that the reparations are for "its complicity in and promotion of slavery" , but until some direct government connection is shown I think reparations are a stretch.

Also unclear is whether the reparations are owed to the slaves themselves for the actual slavery (as in the German and American precedents) and paid to their heirs, or owed to the present day African-Americans for the suffering they are undergoing today (as a result of slavery). Different points being made seem to address either of these two disparate issues. The latter point is being addressed in the matter of welfare payments. I think Horowitz might be stretching things by claiming that these are "all under the rationale of redressing historic racial grievances". But it is true that if the damages (at least the economic ones) being claimed are the present day poverty of AAs, than the fact that the government is paying to alleviate this very problem has to count for something.

ITR champion

03-21-2001, 11:09 PM

I saw a piece on FoxNews on this yesterday, where Horowitz was to speak at some college campus, since this ad flap occurred. The students in the audience shouted him down. He never got to complete a sentence.

Lies, lies, lies. Did it ever occur to you that FNC is not an unbiased news service? Well, this proves it once and for all.

After the newspaper's flap with the ad, the Berkeley Young Republicans invited him to speak. He came to the auditorium and gave a regular length speech, and a Q&A session was supposed to follow. Of course, the first questioner accused him of racism, and the two soon began a shouting match. At this point, one of the Young Republicans decided to pull the plug on Horowitz's microphone, and once he realised what had happened he left the stage and never returned. The Young Republicans later said that they didn't expect him to leave after his microphone was unplugged.

But it's hardly surprising, at least for people who now him, that Horowitz decided to distort the events. He accused the campus administration of failing to keep things in control, even though the Young Republicans were clearly at fault. I've actually spoken personally with two people who attended the event and read two separate accounts of it. There was no large-scale attempt to shout him down.

Regardless of how you feel about the content of the ad, this is not censorship or oppression of free speech. Newspapers, including campus newspapers, clearly have the right to decide what they will and won't print. If you sent an ad for a gay rights roups to whatever paper is printed at Bob Jones University, do you think they would run it?

Collounsbury

03-22-2001, 03:19 AM

Why am I unsurprised by this post? Knee jerk angry white male crap. Tiresome and tedious, here we go:

Originally posted by Joe_Cool
So then you claim that I, as a white man born more than 100 years after the end of slavery, have benefitted from its residual economic effects, yet my roommate (who is black) has not, even though neither of us had even a great-grandparent who was either a slave or slave-owner? Rubbish. Either we both benefitted, or neither of us has.

Jim Crow, segregation, discrimination. All these do in fact have historical roots in slavery as well as being non-trivial in terms of impact on black American life, Joe. Your black and white statement, full irony here, is not supportable logically nor historically.

You and Sua are misreading point #2. It points out that the assumption that slavery created wealth for whites at large, this assumption is false. As discussed in point #3, only a very tiny fraction of whites ever benefitted from slavery, just as only a very tiny fraction of Americans have gotten rich in the movie industry.

No, ‘fraid not. You have misread both me and the larger implications. Slavery created a whole environment disadvantageous right into my lifetime for blacks. Exclusion from benefits.

In the light of the civil rights movement, Jim Crow, this is just plain offensive. Obviously they could have immigrated later and not had the present history of discrimination behind them.

Seems to me that had they immigrated later, the civil rights movement would have happened later. Many people, both white and black, are racist.

Racism is the product of certain historical circumstances. Had Blacks not been slaves in America, modern American racism would not have existed. Utterly different environment. Nor would they have been subjected to a good hundred years of post slavery discrimination and violence based on their race.

Therefore, the fight had to happen some time for the freedoms to be recognized. If blacks hadn't (unfortunately) been kidnapped from their homeland and brought here, then there would have been no need to fight for racial equality, and the battle and the "history of discrimination" would just have been postponed.

No, utterly changed.

Do you deny that slavery has existed as long as history?

Nope, happen to have read quite a bit about it. Rather more than you I suspect.

It has been an institution in every major culture to my knowledge, and was always an acknowledged (if not pleasant) way of life. All of a sudden (so to speak) one group of people decided that "the way it is" isn't so great and set out to change it.

Yes, a group of people who included freed slaves.

Yet you don't feel the former slaves (and their descendents) owe any sort of gratitude for the actions of those who thought slavery wrong and took action to change the status quo?

No one fucking bit. No more than jews owe modern germans gratitude for renouncing Nazism. In fact, its pretty fucking offensive to suggest so. Anyone who took their head out of their ass would understand this.

They were entitled to this, and it's the white man's fault for not doing it sooner? Why isn't it the Arab's fault? Or the Roman's? Or the Hebrew's? Or even the Black man who sold his fellow Black man into slavery?

Because we're talking about the USA and not Arabs --Rome? What the fuck does Rome have to do with this?-- another issue. An exercise is logic, Joe. If I say the Germans are guilty of war crimes, that does not mean I'm saying the Italians are innocent. They are not logically connected. Now, you will find some folks making that kind of argument, but since I didn't make it, don't try that little straw man with me.

You act as if slavery were unique to 18th and 19th century North America, and it was incumbent upon the "White Man" to do away with it, as was his debt to mankind.

Joe, get your head out of your ass. I'm not acting anything. North American slavery was something of a unique institution insofar as it was among the worst manifestations of the institution of slavery — to the extent one can make such statements— but I never said it was unique. And drop the fucking white man's burden crap, too. It makes you look like an ignorant ass.

The difference is that the white man took steps to eliminate it. Unlike any society previous.

Another logical error, Joe. "White" man as a category did not do anything, abolitionists, among whom we count a goodly number of freed slaves did something.

Unless you have cites? It's obvious that Blacks had no philosophical problem with slavery, as they practiced it in Africa, as well as selling their brethren to the white slavers.

Well, Joe I don't consider races to have philosophies so I more or less consider your point to be irrelevant. However, if you're really asking have their been black folks who opposed slavery, yes. Even Africans in Africa. I'll forgo cites for the moment because I really don't see the need, but don't think I don't fucking have them. (However you might try looking at works by Thorton on the "Atlantic world" as a start)

So you first claim that if not for the white English and Americans, the slave trade would not have flourished, then you say that, well, they weren't the only ones? By making the first claim, you ARE ignoring the roles of others. Am I the only one that sees a problem here?

No, my parenthetical was simply to draw attention to the fact that while I was drawing attention to the rather hypocritical assertion by H boy, in re salve trade, I wasn't going to be navel gazing. Not the most elegant expression I'll admit, but whatever.

Kimstu cleared up your final misunderstanding, so...

Jerkish positions like yours almost make me support reparations just to fuck with you.

Earthworm Jim

03-22-2001, 07:24 AM

Spiritus Mundi and Sua

FTR, The blanket policy of accepting all advertisements was based on content, not space available. I know it isn't practical. I'm certainly not advocating legislation of any kind here. These are just my thoughts.

My point was: ethically, in an ideal setting, "editorial discretion" would not use content as it's sole catagory for publishing, or not publishing, ads. I fail to see how this results in the death of free press. Further, I fail to see how this prevents the publication from expressing their views.

The press is a business which must remain profitable. I agree, as a private industry, newspapers and magazines retain the right to publish or not publish material based on their own internal criteria. However, IMHO, it is their responsibility, as an agent of the free press, to excersise "editorial discretion" as infrequently as possible.

If it came down to a choice between the two, I'd favor a blanket acceptance policy over a blanket non-acceptance policy. But either works. It's the "some ideas are OK but others aren't" policy that I don't like. Sure, from a business perspective, it's necessary to maintain the customer base. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

even if the ad writer's "freedom" was somehow impugned, so what? In this country, we are protected from government interference, not those of private actors.

Sua, I apologize, I didn't mean to imply anyone's rights have been violated. That said, so the first amendment only protects me from government. What happened to the idea of defending, to the death, your right to say things I disagree with? Does that mean it's OK for my company to fire me if I supported gay rights? How about the KKK?

Let's say I'm vocal in my support for an unpopular candidate in a local election. Is it OK for businesses to refuse to serve me based on my support for that candidate?

When, and in what ways, is it morally (not legally) all right to suppress, or punish me for excersising, my freedom of speech?

vix

03-22-2001, 08:34 AM

Thank you all for your responses, which I'm still reading. As I told one of our fellow posters, the thought of starting a thread in GD made me want to hide under my desk, so I'm glad that folks find it worthy of comment.

Here's something else on the topic, from Camille Paglia's column (http://salon.com/people/col/pagl/2001/03/21/spring/index.html) on Salon.com

The intellectual repressiveness of the current college environment in the elite schools has been recently exposed by Salon columnist David Horowitz, whose Web base is FrontPage magazine. Controversy continues to escalate over the ad opposing reparations for slavery that Horowitz tried to place in some 50 campus newspapers. The most recent episode is the organized theft of an entire edition of the newspaper containing the ad at ultra-p.c. Brown University -- a fascist tactic that every free-speech proponent should denounce.

Of course I'm not surprised, since the most viciously intolerant campus I ever visited as a lecturer was Brown, where the humanities program has been gutted by a jejune brand of feminist theory and cultural and media studies. (There's a description of my tumultuous 1992 visit in my book "Vamps & Tramps"; see the entries for Brown University in the index.)

So far, I agree with her. I don't know whether Brown is more or less intolerant than other campuses, but I know that conservative thought is not welcome there.

Then Paglia says:

Horowitz has conclusively demonstrated how limited the campus discourse has been on major issues since the mid-1980s. His courage in confronting personal abuse and unjust vilification must be admired. He is doing important work for authentic democracy.

I agree that getting people to recognize differing points of view is admirable, but I disagree with his inflammatory methods.

(Paglia goes on to say that she agrees with most of Horowitz's points.)

SuaSponte

03-22-2001, 09:31 AM

Collounsbury answered you well, and I only have two points to add:
Originally posted by Joe_Cool
So then you claim that I, as a white man born more than 100 years after the end of slavery, have benefitted from its residual economic effects, yet my roommate (who is black) has not, even though neither of us had even a great-grandparent who was either a slave or slave-owner? Rubbish. Either we both benefitted, or neither of us has.
[SNIP]
The difference is that the white man took steps to eliminate it. Unlike any society previous. Unless you have cites?

1. Cites, hmm. Well, as cmkeller pointed out before you posted, Mexico - you know, those brown people - outlawed slavery before the U.S. did, and one of the reasons Texas rebelled was so that it could keep slavery.

2. At least impliedly, you are taking upon yourself credit for the actions of some white folks in the 1860's. This does not comport with your argument that you can't be held liable for slavery, as it happened well before you were born.
This isn't a cut at you - we all take credit, and benefit from, things we didn't do. I am exceedingly proud, and owe much of my station in life, to actions the United States took before I was born. This list of events that have benefited me is endless. If I benefit from these past events, why shouldn't I also be liable for past negative events?
A person cannot logically say "we kicked Saddam's ass" (if they weren't in the Gulf) and in the same breath say "Slavery happened before I was born. I'm not responsible for the consequences." America did both things, and you are part of America.

(All that being said, I'm still against reparations, for practical reasons. ;))

Sua

Joe_Cool

03-22-2001, 11:17 AM

Collounsbury:
Thanks much for responding like a complete jackass instead of with one of the well-reasoned, intelligent posts I had mistakenly associated with your username.

I have kind of a lot to say in answer. I want to take the time to be sure that my answer is worthy of the eloquence of your post, though, so I'll get back to you in a while.

Regarding your suggestion that I take my head out of my ass, you seem to enjoy the view from your own colon well enough, so maybe we should both be on the same page.

Sua:
In what way am I attempting to take credit? And for what, exactly? Yes, I'm fairly well acquainted with "those brown people." Better than you might think.

Lemur866

03-22-2001, 11:17 AM

Reparations are a completely unworkable idea.

Just consider the question...who pays and who recieves?

The US government (meaning us taxpayers) should pay? Why? For not outlawing slavery? It seems to me that the people who should pay would be the slaveholders, not me. But the slaveholders are all dead, there's no way to get money out of them...so the reparations advocates turn to me to give them money. I am not a slaveholder, I don't owe anyone money for slavery. I can understand the notion that someone owes somebody reparations for slavery, but those people no longer exist.

Anyway, the Civil War impoverished many slaveholders. I do know that one of the major stumbling blocks to abolition before the Civil War was the idea that reparations would be owed to slaveholders...they would have to be compensated for the value of the property that the government "took" from them. At the time of emancipation I guess they decided to split the difference between paying the slaves and paying the slaveholders and left both with nothing.

Next, who gets money? Anyone who marks the "Black" square on the census form? Nowadays there is no government requirement that anyone tell the "truth" about their race, they count you as whatever race you say you are. Anyone can mark any race they want and no one cares. No, the concept of reparations to "blacks" is nonsensical, the only method that makes sense is reparations to slaves or descendents of slaves. But we all know that there are many blacks who are not descendents of slaves, and many people who think of themselves as white, native american, hispanic, or asian are descendents of American slaves.

There are a few people who could prove that they are the heirs several times removed of slaves. But most heirs of slaves cannot, since obviously careful probate records were not kept for ex-slaves and their descendents.

Anyone can claim that they are entitled to reparations based on their descent from slaves. In practical terms, I imagine half of America will end up demanding reparations. As media stories of "white looking" people discovering they are "black" and getting reparations payments start to circulate, pretty much everyone is going to try to get in on the action. And any governmental attempt to sort out these claims will be a farce and will of course be unworkable.

So the key questions of who pays and who receives cannot be answered fairly. So, reparations fails.

Manda JO

03-22-2001, 12:00 PM

First off, I want ot say that I think the distinction between holding the American government responsible instead of holding the decendents of slave holders responsible is a vital point and one we need to keep clear.

Second, I have a question: on what grouds can the US government be held responsible for slavery? Pre-civil war, slavery was understood to be entirely a state matter and the federal government couldn't have abolished it if it had wanted to (although it could have done more to prevent the spread of slavery). It took a constitutional amendment to do that and the only way to get that amendment was to either 1) increase the number of non-slaveholding states to 2/3 of the total population or 2) invade the South. So in effect, the Federal government complacency amounts to waiting on the South to start the civil war. The one power the Federal government did have--to stop to international slave trade--was acted on as soon as it became legally possible to do so.

It seems to me that one would be on much firmer ground sueing the individual states for reparations than the Federal government. I would like to see a senario of what the US Government could have done that would have made them not guilty of complacency.

Kimstu

03-22-2001, 12:55 PM

Izzy, Lemur, Manda, I'm not a reparations advocate and don't claim to know the details of their arguments. If you want to know more about who is preparing to sue the US Government for slavery reparations and what their justifications are, a good place to start might be here (http://www.law.about.com/newsissues/law/library/weekly/aa010501a.htm).

vix, though I'm not very enthusiastic about some of Brown's academic adventures in postmodernism, I have even less respect for most of Camille Paglia's comments. For one thing, her attempt to paint the entire institution as "repressive" and "viciously intolerant" because of the actions of a minority of students is, as has been pointed out by other posters, intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, anybody who wants to see the spectrum of opinion reflected in the Brown Daily Herald about these events can read the numerous articles, editorials, and letters on their website (http://www.browndailyherald.com/); they should reassure Paglia that free speech is alive and well at Brown. (I find it interesting, btw, that her example of "repressiveness" is Brown, where the campus newspaper actually printed the ad, rather than one of the colleges where the ad never even got into print. Surely ideological censorship among the decision-makers should count as more "repressive" than tumultuous ideological controversy?) BTW, Paglia's characterization of Brown as "viciously intolerant" seems to spring from the fact that during her 1992 visit to the campus, she was screamed at by hecklers. Poor baby.

And while I agree with you, vix, that the Brown campus atmosphere is strongly liberal and often anti-conservative, I can't agree that there's no outlet for conservative thought. I've read conservative student columnists in the Daily Herald and in the alumni magazine, and I've seen numerous announcements for conservative speakers, some partly subsidized by conservative/anti-liberal student organizations such as Brown for Life, Brown Libertarians, and the local chapter of the College Republicans (not to mention a number of campus Christian groups, some of whom are politically conservative). Yes, they're hugely outnumbered by the liberal groups, and yes, I've seen cases of rudeness and intolerance toward conservative students (as I'm sure you have too), but the idea that conservative thought is truly "repressed" here is just a Paglian conservative fantasy, IMHO.

Guinastasia

03-22-2001, 04:16 PM

Yeah, and then you have the radicals, like this site here:
http://www.ncobra.com

And yes, that is me on the guestbook. I know, a little bit rude. I just resent generalizations and the implication that I am personally responsible for slavery and living off of it still.

Gaudere

03-22-2001, 05:55 PM

Collounsbury:
Joe, get your head out of your ass...It makes you look like an ignorant ass.

Joe_Cool:
Thanks much for responding like a complete jackass...you seem to enjoy the view from your own colon well enough...

[Moderator Hat ON]

Ok, you two, cool it. Now. This is not appropriate.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Collounsbury

03-22-2001, 06:45 PM

Joe, we've both gotten warned. Let's step away from the mutual irritation. It happens and we're hopefully better than that. And I apologize for the tone and accept your judgement. What I was saying was (a) I thought your approach was wrong headed and counter productive,(b) my position is that factually incorrect and over the top dialogue do more harm than good. As usual Sua made the same points better than I.

To restate: Allowing H.'s factually unfounded points is wrong headed and utterly unfounded. As Sua and others have pointed out, one can critique the rep. idea from his well founded points, e.g. Izzy's post. If we step back I think we have ample ground there, w/o indulging H.s arguments.

In any case, let's not get wrapped up in bad blood. I was wrong to go over board.

Gaudere, sorry, my apologies. Bad week here in the land of lead poisoning and pyramids.

Or'n'ry Oscar

03-22-2001, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by IzzyR
There is some ambigouity throughout the debate over reparations as to whether the reparations are on behalf of white people or the US government....In any event, I think it is a leap from having a government pay reparations for government actions (e.g. Nazi Germany, or US internment of Japanese Americans) and paying reparations for having failed to outlaw something. Kimstu appears to be trying to get around this issue by saying in a vague way that the reparations are for "its complicity in and promotion of slavery" , but until some direct government connection is shown I think reparations are a stretch.

To preface my statements, let me just say that as a screaming liberal I am completely against reparations because they would require the extension of a greater opportunity to the resources of the United States to a limited group of people based solely upon race, ethnicity, or cultural history (that the government would be required to define). Notwithstanding the unworkability of such a move, I think that it would be contrary to the social contract embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that there is evidence of "direct government connection" to "complicity in and promotion of slavery" and institutionalized racism. E.g.:

Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896): Allowed for legal creation of grandfather clauses, literacy requirements and poll taxes (among other things) that effectively negated many of the strides that had been made as a result of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

Dred Scott (1857): Stated that the federal government had no right to interfere with the free movement of property, specifically slaves. The decision effectively invalidated any state laws prohibiting slavery in any state.

Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854): Established the notion of popular sovreignty as the method by which new territories joining the union would decide whether to be slave or free. It effectively negated the Missouri Compromise. Additionally it invalidated a series of treaties made with Native American tribes, thereby institutionally stealing their land.

Fugitive Slave Act (1850): Increased the ability of slave owners to pursue and recapture escaped slaves. In part, this was done by prohibiting suspected fugitives from testifying on their own behalf in hearings.

Missouri Compromise (1820): Established the notion that in western territories there would be a discrete line (36 deg. 30') south of which slavery would be possible and north of which it would be prohibited.

These are only instances in which the federal government was involved in the expansion of slavery or the empowerment of slaveholders or limiting rights for African Americans. Certainly one could point to numerous other actions taken by various states through the course of US history. Government whether it was on the state level, or on the federal level, by all branches, was complicit in the establishment and extension of slavery.

Joe_Cool

03-22-2001, 08:09 PM

Apologies all around. I get kind of rude sometimes.

What I'm trying to say is that the idea that slavery is inherently bad is unique to the last 150-200 years. Slavery has been an institution for millenia, in every society (Including Rome. That's why I mentioned it earlier, Collounsbury) since the dawn of civilization. The most common method has always been to enslave the losing side after a war, but there has also been racially-based institutionalized slavery. Does anybody really believe that Aliens built the pyramids? No way, they were built by slaves. Those things are no marvel of technology, but monuments of what can be accomplished by brute force. You put 100,000 slaves to work on any project, and it becomes trivial. Especially when you have many times more waiting to take the places of the ones who drop dead.

Nobody ever looked at slavery as something that was wrong in and of itself, only that they didn't want to be slaves. Even the bible gave specific rules for dealing with slaves and indentured servants.

Once more, just to be clear, there was NEVER thought to be anything wrong with slavery, until very recently. Then suddenly, a large number of people decided, "hey, this isn't good!" and took action to abolish it.

IMO, anybody who benefitted from that action owes gratitude to the people who did it. Not for something that was their due, but because the world, throughout all its existence, saw nothing wrong with the way things were. Then all of a sudden, we (collectively as humans) decided to stop.

I am in no way saying that all black people are in debt to all white people (after all, blacks practiced slavery as well, both here and in Africa). But I am saying that it is extremely unfairby to apply our 20th and 21st century morality to something that was "just the way things are" until the 19th century. The human race has never known any differently until now.

I hope I've explained myself a little better this time?

tsunamisurfer

03-22-2001, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Joe_Cool

I am in no way saying that all black people are in debt to all white people (after all, blacks practiced slavery as well, both here and in Africa). But I am saying that it is extremely unfairby to apply our 20th and 21st century morality to something that was "just the way things are" until the 19th century. The human race has never known any differently until now.

But grevious damage was indeed done, by any standard, and the defense that slavery "was just the way things are" does not expunge it.

Coll, though I agree with your assessment of the brutality of slavery in America, the practices found in the Caribbean were every bit its wretched equal.

Or'n'ry Oscar

03-23-2001, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Joe_Cool
What I'm trying to say is that the idea that slavery is inherently bad is unique to the last 150-200 years. Slavery has been an institution for millenia, in every society (Including Rome. That's why I mentioned it earlier, Collounsbury) since the dawn of civilization. The most common method has always been to enslave the losing side after a war, but there has also been racially-based institutionalized slavery. Does anybody really believe that Aliens built the pyramids? No way, they were built by slaves. Those things are no marvel of technology, but monuments of what can be accomplished by brute force. You put 100,000 slaves to work on any project, and it becomes trivial.

I'm not certain that your figures or your history is accurate.

1) Over the course of the last couple of millennia, there have been places where slavery was not deemed ordinary and where the institution was not thought to be usual.

2) I'm also not so certain of the notion of "racially-based institutionalized slavery" having been usual. Where else besides the New World was this the case? And please don't suggest that natives of the Americas fit the category.

3) Many scholars are uncertain that the Pyramids were built by slaves. Many, in fact, categorically deny it. What is your evidence that they were built by slaves, besides the Bible?

Perhaps this is not the proper forum for these questions. I apologize. I do agree with the initial OP, though, that the issue of reparations is a wonderful notion to discuss. And things can become convoluted.

Fern Forest

03-23-2001, 06:10 AM

ooh boy this is a long page and I skipped the last several. And I see that this is turning into some debate about reperations as well. I just wanted to make the point that a lot of the ancestors of blacks were those whites who oned slaves and who got there genes through rape and other acts. Most famously Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. I remember watching a fascinating PBS special about Blacks in America and it followed this one Black mans journey to "find" his heritage. He also did a DNA test on his Y chromosome to find out where his male line came and it turned out to be Holland I think. I remember one estimate that the average American Black who's ancestry goes back before 1865 is around 20% White. But this seems a very high number and a real number is probably VERY hard to find. Also Blacks could and did own slaves. This was mostly true before the Am. Revolution but is clearly true. So this whole issue is an extremely convaluted one that is a real minefield for anybody to step in.

H. made a very poor arguement against it. The students reacted oppresively. And H. is getting his reward for their actions, namely his name in the paper and on TV. That's one of the hardest things for protestors to learn. When it is best to let something so outrageous be quickly forgotten rather then drag it out for free advertising.

And the history of anti-slavery is actually very closely tied to the history of women's rights. Both of which have their roots in the 2nd Great Awakening of the early 19th century. Of course people have been anti-slavery before that but that's when it became a real movement and filtrated into the Victorian ethic which eventually led to the UK banning slavery in the 1830s. Before then most societies considered slavery natural, although they may have called it differently (serfs and the like)

As for the Pyramids Joe Cool, they were not built by slaves. The Nile R. floods every year and when it floods people cannot do anything because their fields are under water. Also their spiritual well being was attached to the spiritual well being of their Pharoah. So the farmers would have a powerful self-interest to make sure that their Pharoah made a proper ascent into the afterlife and since their land was flooded they had time to do it and were paid to do it. This is not to say that slaves didn't build large stone momnuments in Egypt, just not the Pyramids.

Anyhoo what a topic

Collounsbury

03-23-2001, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by tsunamisurfer
Coll, though I agree with your assessment of the brutality of slavery in America, the practices found in the Caribbean were every bit its wretched equal.

You're right, in fact in some cases worse -- my comments in re America were a bit sloppy. However, in re Carib. the post-emancipation society clearly ended up being a bit healthier, race wise.

But that's another matter.

Final factual item: race based slavery was something of a novelty created in the New World -- and indeed what we commonly think of as racism, the pseudo-biological ideas of fixed inferiority largely was elaborted as ideological justification for this.

Both are rather unique forms of the more prosiac human habit of finding foolish reasons to hate others -- or more neutrally for in-group/out-group differentation and conflict.

IzzyR

03-23-2001, 08:25 AM

Or'n'ry Oscar

The examples that you give are of the government not interfering with private citizens who caused slavery, not of the government itself doing anything about it. It is not analogous to the other reparation examples. (You would have a better case with the government's dealing with American Indians).

kimstu

Re tolerance: Only a tiny percentage of white people ever lynched blacks. Societal acceptance (of persecution) and attitudes are what it's about. Replace conservatives with gays in your description of the Brown Campus, and see if you still consider it to be tolerant.

Kimstu

03-23-2001, 09:51 AM

IzzyR: Societal acceptance (of persecution) and attitudes are what it's about. Replace conservatives with gays in your description of the Brown Campus, and see if you still consider it to be tolerant.

Izzy, I guess I must not have made myself clear. My point was that, although there are some people at Brown who are intolerant towards conservatives (such as the students who stole the newspapers with the Horowitz ad), the institution as a whole (including the majority of the students) does not extend "societal acceptance" to intolerant behavior. Yes, most people at Brown are quite liberal; no, most people at Brown do not promote or condone persecution or repression of conservatives, nor do the official policies of the institution sanction any such behavior. Therefore, I continue to maintain that it is an unfair polemical exaggeration to refer to the university as a whole with phrases like "repressive" or "viciously intolerant".

IMO, the extent to which conservatives such as Paglia overreact to a frankly liberal academic environment with appalled exaggerations about "fascism" and "repression" just serves to show how far to the right the usual American public political discourse is skewed. Paglia steps onto a campus where, mirabile dictu, many people are strongly and vocally opposed to her views and proclaim their opposition with noisy public demonstrations, and she imagines that she's dodging bullets in some Communist re-education gulag. Feh. End of hijack.