Monday, April 21, 2008
I was recently reading an editorial in which the author seemed to be in favor of the idea of "reparations" for slavery. As a supporting argument he used the payout to the former inmates of the World War II internment camps into which our government, in it's finite wisdom, decided it would be a good idea to move our citizens who were of Japanese descent. You know, in the interest of "National Security". This is faulty logic and deliberate self deception at best and outright flaming stupidity at worse. The two situations are completely different. Sure, they were both atrocities that should never have happened, but there is a big difference between the two. Namely, some of the victims of the Japanese internment camps were still alive when the payout was made! There is no one alive today that was a victim of legal U.S. supported slavery. Not one! The thirteenth amendment, which officially ended slavery, was passed in 1865. So, unless there are a bunch of folks over the age of one hundred and forty-three running around (anything is possible) there is no one today that was a victim of this horrible crime.
The idea that because someone in someone's family tree was a slave and therefor deserves reparations is nonsensical in the extreme. If we accept that argument as logically sound then we, logically, must accept the flip side of that argument: If someone in someone's family tree was a criminal, then they should be punished for their crime. Sounds silly, huh?
Now I am not talking about race relations here or even prejudice. I am specifically talking about the crime of slavery. If we wanted to get into a pissing contest, I am sure we all have our stories about how we have all at one time or another been the victim of racism and prejudice. I do. Don't you? We all do and trying to use them as a justification for reparations is just plain stupid. It muddies the waters of thought and distracts one from the actual issues involved.
I realize that my position is not a politically popular one and I am sure I would be considered a racist by some for thinking this way. All I can say to those who would jump to that conclusion is this: prove me wrong. Show me, in a calm, logical manner how the argument for reparations is sound. I realize it is much easier to fling accusations than think out a position but it does not make one correct, merely part of the problem.
Logic just does not support the argument for reparations. But since when has humanity been interested in logic. This is just another example of the distraction technique used by our various corporate and political masters to keep us distracted from actual issues that are relevant to today's world. It is a power play, just like most things. Get folks to focus on the suffering of the past they tend not to notice the suffering of the present. We are a painfully myopic species and, black, white or plaid, that is our biggest failing.
Rant Over... For Now
Just sharing
12 years ago
1 comment:
Show me, in a calm, logical manner how the argument for reparations is sound.
How's this:
The descendants of American slaves are, today, substantially disadvantaged--in both tangible and intangible ways--because of the legacy of slavery.
Meanwhile, all Americans today enjoy substantial benefits from our history of slavery.
Ergo, reparations for slavery, in the sense of trying to address this manifest injustice, make good sense.
I've tried to make very simple, but entirely true, statements here. I can certainly elaborate if you question any of the facts I've referred to.
I'm not an advocate of reparations, at least in the crude form of cash payments to the descendants of slaves. I do think, though, that there's a strong argument here for addressing the legacy of slavery.
there is a big difference between the two. Namely, some of the victims of the Japanese internment camps were still alive when the payout was made!
Some of the victims were still alive, but that's not a big difference between the two cases.
Why? Because payments were also made to the descendants of these victims, in cases where the victims themselves were already dead. So that's a strong precedent in favor of slavery reparations, or at least for not rejecting them on the grounds that the original victims are dead.
we, logically, must accept the flip side of that argument: If someone in someone's family tree was a criminal, then they should be punished for their crime.
Except that slavery reparations aren't punishment. We all agree, presumably, that punishing people for the crimes of others is morally wrong.
However, compensating people for what was done to their ancestors is a principle that's widely accepted. Your post cites the example of reparations to the descendants of U.S. WWII concentration camps. And I think the general principle is accepted by many people: that if something is taken wrongly from one family, those who inherit the ill-gotten gains may need to return them to the family that should have them.
Post a Comment