because many living Americans are not descended from slave holders and because many African Americans are descended both from slaves and slave holders. However, the continuing segregation and deprivation of civic rights and economic opportunity after emancipation up until the Civil Rights movement and beyond is a good argument for some type of apology and compensation. Blacks, almost alone, were kept in an isolated and subservient position.
America in Black and White by Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom includes facts and figures demonstrating that Blacks were making more rapid progress before the Great Society program than after. These programs had the unintended consequences of unmarried motherhood and a feeling of dependency. The liberal education establishment has also weakened the effectivness of education in the inner cities. Their current resistence to vouchers and privatization shows that they value maintenance of their power more than actually helping needy students.
I do get very weary of hearing about the Blacks being descended from slaves. From what I have read in history, almost everyone else’s ancestors were slaves at one time or another and no one else had demanded to be compensated for it. No other nation compensated the descendants of slaves either.
How about the African tribal nations compensating the descendants of those other Black tribes they enslaved before the White guys showed up or compensating the descendants of the tribes they sold to these guys? I don’t hear anything about that.
What about the descendants of well cared for slaves, who, after emancipation, chose to remain as free people on the very plantations they grew up on? Not every slave owner was a savage beast, who treated his slaves like animals, killed and abused them at will or kept them in chains and fed them scraps.
In American history, many races and nationalities were abused, discriminated against, killed with impunity, worked to death and faces unjust laws. That’s how it was back then. None of them are demanding compensation, though none were technically slaves. How about the descendants of a few of the employees of the old time major companies which still exist today, that made them work for pennies an hour, in dangerous conditions, 12 hour days, treated them like crap, even beat them to death if they caused trouble and, in some cases, due to their work, poisoned them? I don’t know of any case of anyone going after the Kennedy’s because their grandpaw, who ran bootlegged hooch for them, was killed by rival bootleggers. Any descendants of railroad workers suing the rail roads because their grand father was treated like trash, lost fingers coupling the trains together, was worked nearly to death driving the engine, had to run across the tops of the cars in all sorts of weather to set the brakes by hand? I think not.
As far as I’m concerned, since almost everyone else has ancestors who were slaves in their families, compensation for Blacks is crap! Actually, it is discriminatory against everyone else, which makes it illegal.
People, I don’t even know why we bother with the slavery question at all…
The solution is simple… find all the living slaves in America, and find all the living slave-owners in America, and require the latter to provide compensation for the former.
My thought about reparations is why should the Yankee side pay as well? Personally, my great-great grandfather fought for the union and died at Chickamauga. I myself do my best not to condone racism or anything similar. If I see it, I speak up. What more could my family done during the Civil War than die? What more do they expect me to do? Why should I pay cash and accept responsibility for racism?
Until I hear an answer to that, I’ll stay opposed to reparations…the problem exists, but punishing the ancestors of soldiers who died to free the slaves for slavery isn’t a good solution. Punishing someone who is quite outspoken against racism when he sees it for racism isn’t a good solution.
evan, probably because your grandfather did not die fighting to free the slaves. The battle at Chickamauga was before the emancipation proclamation if I remember correctly.
David Horowitz’s article “Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racist Too” (which can be found at http://www.frontpagemag.com/horowitzsnotepad/2001/hn01-03-01.htm ) has generated a lot of press and controversy. What is interesting is that I’ve yet to see anybody actually counter his reasoning.
His points seem pretty valid to me, on first read. Does anyone have arguments against any of his ten reasons?
One of the most disappointing things about this whole reparations thing --whose lack of political weight makes it puzzling that it is even a subject of discussion-- is the bad arguments all around. Illogic in answer to illogic isn’t helpful.
Revtim, see the linked thread. H boy’s article is a piece of shit which just gives a bad name to opposing reparations.
Now, as I understand it, an actual legal case --as opposed to just dumb anti-white folks jawing-- would be against the US government for a failure to rid the country of slavery or some such.
There are a number of excellent arguments against this, which can be found:
Most recently at:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=64376
As well as above all Tomndeb’s points here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22399&pagenumber=2
The greatest failing point would be the near-undefinability of the class, descendants of slaves in the Americas, and then overcoming sovereign immunity and then proving some kind of liability for slavery itself.
However, there are also just plain silly and illogical arguments, such as the following:
Weary as you may be, in terms of North American history, they are the largest and for practical purposes sole identifiable group descended from slaves. Insofar as the history of black slavery still weighs on the political and social consciousness, its relevant. Slavery of the Slavs by various groups is just, for example, * irrelevant *.
Actually, I am not sure that is true, if we are talking about recent history. Regardless of its truth, it is not an argument for or against. Perhaps no other nation has compensated internal internees (in fact this is not the case, but as an example), is that a argumnent against compensation? No.
In re your use of tribe and history, please see the following:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=44817
However, otherwise, yes there are some serious issues there.
Let’s leave aside apologist histories, the majority of slaves were field or unskilled labor, speaking of the aggregate, “well-cared for slaves” were certainly in the minority (depending on how one defines “well cared for” and in any case, slavery remains wrong as a deprivation of freedom regardless of care.
Again, a stupid argument.
(In re poor labor laws and other irrelevancies, I have cut them. Again, bad argumenation.)
Lets all remember that it is the white man who ended slavery (at least here). I thing they should get a reward for that.
“White men” did not end slavery. Abololitionists did. Abolitionists came in all races (relevant to the period). As did the soldiers who fought in the relevant war. Whites, blacks etc. As such, no “race” deserves credit for abolishing slavery any more than any “race” --other than the human one-- deserves blame for it. Classical fallacy of composition.
Collounsbury, what would your take on this position be:
I don’t believe in monetary reparations for slavery as I believe it to be unfeasible. I’m self-identified white but I know that five generations back on my father’s side I have a black ancestor who was a freed slave. He married a native american women in northern Louisiana, sired a pack of kids and by concatenation, led to me. And under a lot of reparation plans would I be eligible. And, frankly, that’s ludicrous.
(I also admit to not being forced to pay for the sins of my forefathers.)
On the end of non-forced reparations, however…
I think everyone has the responsibility to ease others lives where they can. If I feel a certain responsibility to atone for slavery there are ways I can do so voluntarily. I can be kind on the street. I can make certain that, if a black person is applying for a job and I’m involved in the hiring process, he or she gets a fair shake in the hiring decision. I can, when I see racism or oppression rear it’s ugly head, to intervene where I can.
Does this make any sense? I’m not sure I got where I set out for when I started this post, but that’s the dangers of being interrupted during posting.
To sum up then: I do believe slavery was an evil. But I don’t see a way for the government of the United States to enact reparations. Given that fact, I find it’s left to the citizens to do what they can.
(I took this from that page)
“Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade was born, and in all societies. But in the thousand years of its existence, 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.”
Autumn, your source is entirely wrong. In Roman times, the slaves revolted and wanted many of the rights as the Roman citizens had, including voting rights. After a struggle they were finally granted these rights.
Jonathan, sounds more or less like my personal feelings, give or take a detial or two.
Not sure where “that page” is but the assertion is wrong.
In addition to capacitor we can add with bland historical relevance to the USA that goodly numbers of free(d) blacks in the North took part in the abolitionist movement. Only the worst kind of historical myopia (or worse) leads people to say things like this.
As there is no reason to blame “white folks” in a blanket manner for slavery per se, as some extremists do, there is equally no reason or support to claim all credit for abolitionism.
This sounds rather like a Neo-Confederate talking about blacks in the Confederate army.
Nobody ever said that there were no blacks in the anti-slavery movement. Abolitionists in the nineteenth century may have come in all colors, but most of them were white. The political philosophy which fueled the anti-slavery movement originated in Europe, and the abolition of slavery not only in the West but around the globe was due primarily to the efforts of Westerners. Africans and Asians didn’t have a moral problem with slavery, and neither did the American Indian. No one is insisting that all whites deserve credit for the abolition of slavery. But some people are insisting that all whites should get the blame for slavery and deserve to be punished for it.
To condemn the West for having practiced slavery, in which the West was far from alone, without also giving the West proper credit for having done away with slavery is historical myopia, too.
No, it isn’t just a few extremists. There are plenty of anti-white racists around, and they’re just as mean and stupid as the white ones.
Really? Pray tell how?
Whether it was explicetely stated or not the statements in this thread in re credit to “white people” and credit for abolition of slavery can hardly be read in other than racial terms.
Well, we have something of a problem of historical interpretation here now don’t we. On one hand, the racial system of the era rather systematically excluded most blacks from official particiation in movements, with some notable exceptions.
As such, we have something of a selection bias in the image which we take away from a too simplistic approach to the documentation.
However, in the context of research research indicating the “underground railroad” – which I feel quite comfortable viewing as an abolitionist/anti-slavery activity – was largely black run, with important, even key white help and protection, I question the bland assertion that “most of them were white” – not so much as a question of raw numbers but rather in terms of the conclusion you evidently wish to reach from that.
In many respects yes, although one has to note largely in reaction to the extremes which the very same political system took slavery to.
Depends: not all African cultures new or accepted slavery for example, although it was widespread. Rather too little is known about the detials to make the above generalization.
Well, that is plain false: several posters here quite clearly if probably without real forethought have posited “whites” getting credit for abolition of slavery, where “whites” is normally – to a normal reading of the usage-- understood to mean “the race.” At the same time, no one in this thread has supported whites getting all the blame. I fact I specifically took aim at this concept.
Ergo, I don’t know where your comment is directed, but it certainly doesn’t seem to engage this thread.
And who said otherwise in this thread?
You have some quantified number of the extremists which prompts this intervention? Or are you rather simply asserting your gut that there are lots of folks out there who are anti-white?
As far as I can tell, some small number of extremists are making a lot of noise. Nasty they are, loud they are, but as a percentage of Americans, even I would venture, black Americans, they are small or perhaps better certainly not a majority. Ergo, I stick to my characterization “some extremists.” I suggest unless you have some percentages or something of hard data, there is not much here beyond, at best, impressions.
If reparations were handed out whites would probably be the primary beneficiaries, whites are not as white as some may think. I have three reasons for thinking they would be the primary beneficiaries:
(1) Whites would have possession of a much more precise genealogical record. Many of which many would expose the n… in the woodpile when there is money at stake.
(2) Most blacks only associate themselves with slavery because of the color of their skin. Many that I know only trace their genealogy back as much as three to four generations and during that time none of those were slaves, and were only considered the children of slaves, again only because of the color of their skin. Unless the requirement for proof of ancestral slavery was very lax most would not receive reparations.
(3) Sad but true, the highest incident of illagitmacy is and was among blacks. This almost certainly eliminates the ability to trace ones heritage back to slavery.
Then there is the question, Who should pay? The Democratic Party that fought vigorously to keep blacks enslaved? The Jossiah Priest of the religious community that fostered the idea that slavery was ordained by God? The Irish, most of who did not arrive until after slavery was abolished? The Abolitionist and their prodigy? Me?
If this was the 1880’s or 90’s or even the turn of the previous century I would give a resounding YES! pay em. During that time it would have been very easy to identify and punish those that practiced slavery and reward those that suffered through it. Regrettably this was not done.
I think the roots (pardon the pun) of calls for reparations are purely racist. It is an attempt to get whitey, blame him for all that has happened and all that is happening. He is the blue eyed devil that some leaders use as a rallying point to secure their powerbase. One of the NOI’s break away groups the Lost-Found Nation of Islam, and the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N’COBRA) are a few of the primary proponent of reparations. You can’t have a hero unless there is an arch villain.