 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Uncivil Wars | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/10/2003 6:38 PM (GMT -6) |   | This is from Uncivil Wars by David Horowitz, a chronicle of his attempt to place an ad about reparations in college newspapers and the reaction to it:
The ad
Ten Reasons Why Reparations For Slavery Is a Bad Idea---and Racist too.
I. There is no single group responsible for the crime of slavery.
Black Africans and Arabs were responsible for enslaving the ancestor of African-Americans. There were 3,000 black slaveowners in the antebellum United States. Are reparations paid by their ancestors too? There were white slaves in colonial America. Are their descendants going to receive payments?
II. There is no single group that benefited Exclusively from slavery.
The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor has created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including descendants of slaves. The GNP of black America makes the African-American community the tenth most prosperous "nation" in the world. American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.
III. Only a Minority of White Americans Owned Slaves, While Others Gave Their Lives to Free Them.
Only a tiny minority of Americans ever owned slaves. This is true even for those who lived in the antebellum South where only one white in five was a slaveholder. Why should their descendants owe a debt? What about the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves? They gave their lives. What morality would ask their descendants to pay again? If paying reparations on the basis of skin color is not racism, what is?
IV. Most living Americans Have no Connection (Direct or Indirect) to slavery.
The two great waves of American immigration occurred after 1880 and then after 1960. What logic would require Vietnamese boat people, Russian refusniks, Iranian refugessm Armenian victims of the Turkish persecution, Jews, Mexicans, Greeks, or Polish, Hungarian, Cambodian and Korean victims of Communism, to pay reparations to American blacks?
V. The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, and the Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury.
The historical precedants generally invoked to justify reparations claim are payments to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Japanese-Americans and African-American victims of racial experiments in Tuskegee, or racial outrages in Rosewood or Oklahoma City. But in each case, the recipients of reparations were the direct victims of the injustice or their immeddaite families. This would be the only case of reparations to people who were not immediately affected and whose sole qualifications to receive reparations would be racial. During the slavery era, many blacks were free men or slave-owners themselves, yet the reparations claimants make no attempt to take this fact into account. If this is not racism, what is?
(6-10 tomorrow)
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 2/10/2003 7:39 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't know if anyone remembers when this whole thing was happening, but here's the flipside:
Ten Reasons: A Response to David Horowitz by Robert Chrisman and Ernest Allen, Jr.*
David Horowitz's article, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea and Racist Too," recently achieved circulation in a handful of college newspapers throughout the United States as a paid advertisement sponsored by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. While Horowitz's article pretends to address the issues of reparations, it is not about reparations at all. It is, rather, a well-heeled, coordinated attack on Black Americans which is calculated to elicit division and strife. Horowitz reportedly attempted to place his article in some 50 student newspapers at universities and colleges across the country, and was successful in purchasing space in such newspapersat Brown, Duke, Arizona, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, University of Chicago, and University of Wisconsin, paying an average of $700 per paper. His campaign has succeeded in fomenting outrage, dissension, and grief wherever it has appeared. Unfortunately, both its supporters and its foes too often have categorized the issue as one centering on "free speech." The sale and purchase of advertising space is not a matter of free speech, however, but involves an exchange of commodities. Professor Lewis Gordon of Brown University put it very well, saying that "what concerned me was that the ad was both hate speech and a solicitation for financial support to develop antiblack ad space. I was concerned that it would embolden white supremacists and antiblack racists." At a March 15 panel held at UC Berkeley, Horowitz also conceded that his paid advertisement did not constitute a free speech issue.
As one examines the text of Horowitz's article, it becomes apparent that it is not a reasoned essay addressed to the topic of reparations: it is, rather, a racist polemic against African Americans and Africans that is neither responsible nor informed, relying heavily upon sophistry and a Hitlerian "Big Lie" technique. To our knowledge, only one of Horowitz's ten "reasons" has been challenged by a black scholar as to source, accuracy, and validity. It is our intention here to briefly rebut his slanders in order to pave the way for an honest and forthright debate on reparations. In these efforts we focus not just on slavery, but also the legacy of slavery which continues to inform institutional as well as individual behavior in the U.S. to this day. Although we recognize that white America still owes a debt to the descendants of slaves, in addressing Horowitz's distortions of history we do not act as advocates for a specific form of reparations.
1. There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery
Horowitz's first argument, relativist in structure, can only lead to two conclusions: 1) societies are not responsible for their actions and 2) since "everyone" was responsible for slavery, no one was responsible. While diverse groups on different continents certainly participated in the trade, the principal responsibility for internationalization of that trade and the institutionalization of slavery in the so-called New World rests with European and American individuals and institutions. The transatlantic slave trade began with the importation of African slaves into Hispaniola by Spain in the early 1500s. Nationals of France, England, Portugal, and the Netherlands, supported by their respective governments and powerful religious institutions, quickly entered the trade and extracted their pieces of silver as well. By conservative estimates, 14 million enslaved Africans survived the horror of the Middle Passage for the purpose of produciúÃEealth for Europeans and Euro-Americans in the New World.
While there is some evidence of blacks owning slaves for profit purposes--most notably the creole caste in Louisiana--the numbers were small. As historian James Oakes noted, "By 1830 there were some 3,775 free black slaveholders across the South. . . . The evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of black slaveholders were free men who purchased members of their families or who acted out of benevolence." (Oakes, 47-48.)
2. There Is No Single Group That Benefited Exclusively From Slavery
Horowitz's second point, which is also a relativist one, seeks to dismiss the argument that white Americans benefited as a group from slavery, contending that the material benefits of slavery could not accrue in an exclusive way to a single group. But such sophistry evades the basic issue: who benefited primarily from slavery? Those who were responsible for the institutionalized enslavement of people of African descent also received the primary benefits from such actions. New England slave traders, merchants, bankers, and insurance companies all profited from the slave trade, which required a wide variety of commodities ranging from sails, chandlery, foodstuffs, and guns, to cloth goods and other items for trading purposes. Both prior to and after the American Revolution, slaveholding was a principal path for white upward mobility in the South. The white native-born as well as immigrant groups such as Germans, Scots-Irish, and the like participated. In 1860, cotton was the country's largest single export. As Eric Williams and C.L.R. James have demonstrated, the free labor provided by slavery was central to the growth of industry in western Europe and the United States; simultaneously, as Walter Rodney has argued, slavery depressed and destabilized the economies of African states. Slaveholders benefited primarily from the institution, of course, and generally in proportion to the number of slaves which they held. But the sharing of the proceeds of slave exploitation spilled across class lines within white communities as well.
As historian John Hope Franklin recently affirmed in a rebuttal to Horowitz's claims:
"All whites and no slaves benefited from American slavery. All blacks had no rights that they could claim as their own. All whites, including the vast majority who had no slaves, were not only encouraged but authorized to exercise dominion over all slaves, thereby adding strength to the system of control.
"If David Horowitz had read James D. DeBow's "The Interest in Slavery of the Southern Non-slaveholder," he would not have blundered into the fantasy of claiming that no single group benefited from slavery. Planters did, of course. New York merchants did, of course. Even poor whites benefited from the legal advantage they enjoyed over all blacks as well as from the psychological advantage of having a group beneath them."
The context of the African-American argument for reparations is confined to the practice and consequences of slavery within the United States, from the colonial period on through final abolition and the aftermath, circa 1619-1865. Contrary to Horowitz's assertion, there is no record of institutionalized white enslavement in colonial America. Horowitz is confusing the indenture of white labor, which usually lasted seven years or so during the early colonial period, with enslavement. African slavery was expanded, in fact, to replace the inefficient and unenforceable white indenture system. (Smith)
Seeking to claim that African Americans, too, have benefited from slavery, Horowitz points to the relative prosperity of African Americans in comparison to their counterparts on the African continent. However, his argument that, "the GNP of black America makes the African-American community the 10th most prosperous "nation" in the world is based upon a false analogy. GNP is defined as "the total market value of all the goods and services produced by a nation during a specified period." Black Americans are not a nation and have no GNP. Horowitz confuses disposable income and "consumer power" with the generation of wealth.
3. Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them
Most white union troops were drafted into the union army in a war which the federal government initially defined as a "war to preserve the union." In large part because they feared that freed slaves would flee the South and "take their jobs" while they themselves were engaged in warfare with Confederate troops, recently drafted white conscripts in New York City and elsewhere rioted during the summer of 1863, taking a heavy toll on black civilian life and property. Too many instances can be cited where white northern troops plundered the personal property of slaves, appropriating their bedding, chickens, pigs, and foodstuffs as they swept through the South. On the other hand, it is certainly true that there also existed principled white commanders and troops who were committed abolitionists.
However, Horowitz's focus on what he mistakenly considers to be the overriding, benevolent aim of white union troops in the Civil War obscures the role that blacks themselves played in their own liberation. African Americans were initially forbidden by the Union to fight in the Civil War, and black leaders such as Frederick Douglass and Martin Delany demanded the right to fight for their freedom. When racist doctrine finally conceded to military necessity, blacks were recruited into the Union Army in 1862 at approximately half the pay of white soldiers--a situation which was partially rectified by an act of Congress in mid-1864. Some 170,000 blacks served in the Civil War, representing nearly one third of the free black population.
By 1860, four million blacks in the U.S. were enslaved; some 500,000 were nominally free. Because of slavery, racist laws, and racist policies, blacks were denied the chance to compete for the opportunities and resources of America that were available to native whites and immigrants: labor opportunities, free enterprise, and land. The promise of "forty acres and a mule" to former slaves was effectively nullified by the actions of President Andrew Johnson. And because the best land offered by the Homestead Act of 1862 and its subsequent revisions quickly fell under the sway of white homesteaders and speculators, most former slaves were unable to take advantage of its provisions.
4. Most Living Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery
As Joseph Anderson, member of the National Council of African American Men, observed, "the arguments for reparations aren't made on the basis of whether every white person directly gained from slavery. The arguments are made on the basis that slavery was institutionalized and protected by law in the United States. As the government is an entity that survives generations, its debts and obligations survive the lifespan of any particular individuals. . . . Governments make restitution to victims as a group or class." (San Francisco Chronicle, March 26, 2001, p. A21.)
Most Americans today were not alive during World War II. Yet reparations to Japanese Americans for their internment in concentration camps during the war was paid out of current government sources contributed to by contemporary Americans. Passage of time does not negate the responsibility of government in crimes against humanity. Similarly, German corporations are not the "same" corporations that supported the Holocaust; their personnel and policies today belong to generations removed from their earlier criminal behavior. Yet, these corporations are being successfully sued by Jews for their past actions. In the same vein, the U.S. government is not the same government as it was in the pre-civil war era, yet its debts and obligations from the past are no less relevant today.
5. The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury
As noted in our response to "Reason 4," the historical precedents for the reparations claims of African Americans are fully consistent with restitution accorded other historical groups for atrocities committed against them. Second, the injury in question--that of slavery--was inflicted upon a people designated as a race. The descendants of that people--still socially constructed as a race today--continue to suffer the institutional legacies of slavery some one hundred thirty-five years after its demise. To attempt to separate the issue of so-called race from that of injury in this instance is pure sophistry. For example, the criminal (in)justice system today largely continues to operate as it did under slavery--for the protection of white citizens against black "outsiders." Although no longer inscribed in law, this very attitude is implicit to processes of law enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration, guiding the behavior of police, prosecutors, judges, juries, wardens, and parole boards. Hence, African Americans continue to experience higher rates of incarceration than do whites charged with similar crimes, endure longer sentences for the same classes of crimes perpetrated by whites, and, compared to white inmates, receive far less consideration by parole boards when being considered for release.
Slavery was an institution sanctioned by the highest laws of the land with a degree of support from the Constitution itself. The institution of slavery established the idea and the practice that American democracy was "for whites only." There are many white Americans whose actions (or lack thereof) reveal such sentiments today--witness the response of the media and the general populace to the blatant disfranchisement of African Americans in Florida during the last presidential election. Would such complacency exist if African Americans were considered "real citizens"? And despite the dramatic successes of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, the majority of black Americans do not enjoy the same rights as white Americans in the economic sphere. (We continue this argument in the following section.)
†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/10/2003 8:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Actually, you should read Horowitz's book before you start accusing him of diversion (which is basically what his opponents did). Most of their responses were basic name calling and nothing more.
It provoked outrage because people did not want any opposing message. Consider, for instance, this letter from Chapel Hill resident, to the Daily Tar Heel (which is the paper of the University of North Carolina), about David Horowitz's column:
"I am a 45-year-old black man. I want to commend the Daily Tar Heel for running the David Horowitz column. I have followed Horowitz's writing before he ever got involved with the reparations issue. I have studied closely his remarks on reparations, not only his ad but subsequent remarks on television and on college campuses. His remarks are not racist.
As a black man, I have experienced racism-so I know what it is. I do not hesitate to confront it (provided it's not more profitable to sidestep it) when I meet it. But there is something far worse than racism going on. That is the cravenly, knee-jerk reaction of college students to issues they don't like...
If Horowitz is wrong, it should not take a great deal of effort to expose him...Students are in college to learn, and this could be a great learning experience on how to dismantle a defective argument, if indeed it is defective...But we do not seem to have real students. We do not seem to have people who want to learn. What we seem to have is a bunch of conformist, rigid, unimaginative drones who want to make others do what they want or stop them from being heard. This generation scares me. They are too weak-minded to deal with reality...
Black people of years past put in a lot of pain, blood, sweat, and tears to attain what we have now. Its not perfect, but it is certainly better. Is this all we have to show for it, a generation of spoiled brats who'd rather coerce than think?..."
Everyone who disagrees with the status quo of what "racism" is, is a racist...
Edited by - honorman on 02/11/2003 01:28:09 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/10/2003 8:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Response to number one: the authors never address the issue Horowitz brings up: that there is no one clear group responsible for slavery. It is a historical fact, for instance, that without the willingness of Africans to sell other Africans slavery could not have existed. Are the authors going to hold African nations responsible for their part in compension of slavery? I think not.
By the way, claiming it is racist doesn't prove it so. Proving it is something else. If it's not well reasoned, it should be easy to defeat. Yet, the whole first part of the response is nothing more than a whine. Can't get to the argument until I defame those I disagree with. How pathetic.
I took apart their first point without even trying. Horowitz's argument isn't relavistic in structure and he is not saying no one is responsible. He is saying that you cannot hold one race and country responsible when there isn't one race and country responsible and, if you are going to be fair you have to (by implication) go and get compension from each.
And regardless of whether or not "the vast majority" of blacks who owned slaves purchased only their families (which is debatable), there were still those blacks who purchased slaves for slaves. Therefore, they too, should be part of those who compensate those who are asking for it.
I do notice how the authors "conveniently" overlook Africa's part in the slave trade.
Edited by - honorman on 02/11/2003 01:43:45 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 2/11/2003 3:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman:
quote:
Actually, you should read Horowitz's book before you start accusing him of diversion (which is basically what his opponents did).
Fyodor: I apologize if you felt like i was attacking your post of the Horowitz piece, Honorman. I know who Horowitz is and have studied the issue of the 10 reasons the 10 resposnes, and the 10 responses to the responses and the 10 responses to the responses to the responses of the reasons.  I never accused Horowitz of anything. Chrisman and Allen presented Horowitz with the most well known response to his 10 reasons and they continued to debate the issue publicly. Rather than presenting just Horowitz's view, I felt that a real discussion of Horowitz's article could not happen without the responses that have been publicly put forth.
†††"To have a self, to be a self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to man, but it is also eternity's claim upon him." – S. Kierkegaard
Edited by - fyodor on 02/11/2003 8:13:42 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/11/2003 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | I am sorry too. After reading the piece again, I recognized that fact. I do apologize.
I would like to add that defending Horowitz does not mean I agree with everything he wrote. My problem is more with the labeling of anyone who disagree with a certain mindset as "racist," rather than the argument itself.
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:44 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|