I’m not certain that your figures or your history is accurate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
vix linked to the ad in the OP. Check it out.
No, opposing reparations is not racist; the problem I had with the ad is that I oppose reparations, but I don’t want to be tarred by some of the racist things Horowitz wrote. IMHO, Horowitz’ points #2 and particularly #9 were racist, and the welfare portion of #8 was very questionable.
As for whether there is any serious consideration of reparations, that’s a hard question to answer. The idea is certainly floating around out there, and some relatively heavy hitters on the left and right have spoken out about it. Whether a serious lawsuit is ever filed, or whether Congress ever takes up the issue is anyone’s guess - me, I doubt Congress will ever debate a bill.
As for Horowitz’ motivations, I don’t know enough about him to say.
Finally, I would like to add my mea culpa. I didn’t get busted by Gaudere, but I was getting a bit testy towards Joe Cool, too. Sorry.
I read it. I don’t see the big deal. IT is an opinion against reparations. It is not saying anything bad about blacks. Why one would get so angry because someone expresses an opinion, I can’t understand. But I also do not understand why he felt compelled to pay for such a thing to be printed. My guess is that he wanted publicity; it is not like congress is considering reparations.