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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
Why am I unsurprised by this post? Knee jerk angry white male crap. Tiresome and tedious, here we go:
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.
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.
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.
No, utterly changed.
Nope, happen to have read quite a bit about it. Rather more than you I suspect.
Yes, a group of people who included freed slaves.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.)
Collounsbury answered you well, and I only have two points to add:
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.
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. ;))
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.
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.
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.
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.
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; 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.