Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Peculiar Apologies
Is a perfunctory apology enough to atone for slavery? Connecticut—along with several other states—seems to think so. From the Hartford Courant:
The state Senate unanimously gave final legislative approval late Wednesday night to a joint resolution with the House that formally apologizes for slavery in Connecticut...
Even today, [state Sen. Toni Harp, D-New Haven,] said, "many African-Americans, as myself, wear the brand of slavery internally," she said, and an apology "is something that will go a long way to making things different." She said she hoped the "symbolic move" reflects "a renewed commitment" to eliminating racially related disparities in society.
The Old South's "peculiar institution" was hardly limited to the Old South. Until the mid-nineteenth century, northerners were holding slaves, transporting and milling slave-picked cotton, and (until 1808) profiting from the international slave trade. Perhaps, then, it makes sense for states like Connecticut (or institutions like Brown University) to say something about their historical involvement in slavery. New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, and Maryland have all done the same.
We can complain that symbolic apologies are just that—symbolic, and therefore probably worthless. If the alternative, though, is a state legislature approving more "proactive" measures of atonement, then please, give us us empty symbolism.
As a bonus, this line from the Courant article reads like an inadvertent jab at the slavery reparations movement:
The resolution did not allow for reparations or payments to anyone who might have been harmed by events during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
Check out Jonathan Rauch's take on what African Americans should get reparations for, if not slavery.
|6.4.09 @ 3:02PM|#
Reparations by the United States government? Great idea. Of
course, there would have to be a setoff for all the expenditures
incurred in fighting the Civil War and in occupying the South
during Reconstruction, as well as a setoff for the monetary value
of each Union soldier's life given in order to abolish
slavery.
If there was any amount still owing after those setoffs, the United
States should collect it from the governments of the descendants of
those West Africans who captured their fellow Africans and sold
them to the white slave-traders.
Gilbert Martin|6.4.09 @ 3:12PM|#
"We can complain that symbolic apologies are just that-symbolic,
and therefore probably worthless. If the alternative, though, is a
state legislature approving more "proactive" measures of atonement,
then please, give us us empty symbolism."
You know damn weil that the former is merely an attempt to set the
stage for the latter.
W.E.B. DuBois, circa 1906|6.4.09 @ 3:24PM|#
"Is a perfunctory apology enough to atone for slavery?"
First, it is the duty of black men to judge the South
discriminatingly. The present generation of Southerners are not
responsible for the past, and they should not be blindly hated or
blamed for it. Furthermore, to no class is the indiscriminate
endorsement of the recent course of the South toward Negroes more
nauseating than to the best thought of the South. The South is not
"solid"; it is a land in the ferment of social change, wherein
forces of all kinds are fighting for supremacy; and to praise the
ill the South is today perpetrating is just as wrong as to condemn
the good. Discriminating and broad-minded criticism is what the
South needs, -- needs it for the sake of her own white sons and
daughters, and for the insurance of robust, healthy mental and
moral development.
Today even the attitude of the Southern whites toward the blacks is
not, as so many assume, in all cases the same; the ignorant
Southerner hates the Negro, the workingmen fear his competition,
the money-makers wish to use him as a laborer, some of the educated
see a menace in his upward development, while others -- usually the
sons of the masters -- wish to help him to rise. National opinion
has enabled this last class to maintain the Negro common schools,
and to protect the Negro partially in property, life, and limb.
Through the pressure
W.E.B. DuBois, circa 1906|6.4.09 @ 3:26PM|#
Through the pressure of the money-makers, the Negro is in danger of being reduced to semi-slavery, especially in the country districts; the workingmen, and those of the educated who fear the Negro, have united to disfranchise him, and some have urged his deportation; while the passions of the ignorant are easily aroused to lynch and abuse any black man. To praise this intricate whirl of thought and prejudice is nonsense; to in-veigh indiscriminately against "the South" is unjust; but to use the same breath in praising Governor Aycock, exposing Senator Morgan, arguing with Mr. Thomas Nelson Page, and denouncing Senator Ben Tillman, is not only sane, but the imperative duty of thinking black men.
W.E.B. DuBois, circa 1906|6.4.09 @ 3:27PM|#
Whole thing here:
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DubSoul.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all
Reverend Jesse Jackson|6.4.09 @ 3:30PM|#
We can table the discussion of reperations temporarily. A donation of $200,000 to the Rainbow Coalition may help acheive that end.
James|6.4.09 @ 3:30PM|#
Seamus, how on earth do you figure that the cost of fighting the
Civil War should count as compensation for slavery?
The Civil War wasn't fought in order to end slavery, and Union
soldiers didn't enlist in order to fight against slavery--they
didn't even know whether the Union would end slavery after the war.
The North was deeply divided over slavery (which was, after all,
the main engine of economic growth in the North), and the Union
didn't even decide that slavery would end after the war until early
in 1865.
Even if the war had been fought to end slavery, however, since when
is merely ending an evil practice the same as compensating its
victims? Do we tell crime victims that they have been compensated
when a criminal merely agrees to stop committing crimes in the
future?
Barack Obama, circa 2007|6.4.09 @ 3:34PM|#
I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13
when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingraciating myself
to whites.
[from Dreams of My Father]
|6.4.09 @ 3:36PM|#
While I personally find apologies to be symbolic and, therefore, worthless, the fact that many institutions have been beyond reluctant in issuing them suggests not everybody feels the same way.
|6.4.09 @ 3:41PM|#
James, ending slavery was a consequence of the war, so yes, the
war should get some credit. World War II wasn't fought to end the
Holocaust, either, but surely the Allies get some credit for
that?
Any living American who wears "the brand of slavery internally"
needs to just get over it.
Rhywun|6.4.09 @ 3:45PM|#
Gradually, it is dawning on mainstream America that the
issue of reparations for slavery is not going away. -- September 1,
2001
Actually, it kind of did go away, just a few days later. Just like
Gary Condit.
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 3:45PM|#
I'm gonna side with DuBois here and go with a big no on
reparations.
But if we do end up paying reparations, how much does Obama get?
How much does Morgan Freeman get? How about Kenneth I. Chenault,
CEO of American Express get?
In another thread, you all are saying that property should not be
owned in perpetuity? How is wages for spent labor more than 150
years old any different?
|6.4.09 @ 3:47PM|#
And will the people who label themselves Korean-american or Hispanic be willing to see their tax dollars going for reparations?
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 3:49PM|#
"Any living American who wears "the brand of slavery internally"
needs to just get over it."
I agree. There was a black program on our local black radio station
some years ago that basically said that some blacks just can't seem
to shake the slave mentality.
Whenever I see a black male teen walking down the street with his
pants literally down to his knees I can't help but think -- still a
slave.
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 4:01PM|#
yes, because the manner of one's dress determines that he
has...a slave mentality?
you're a retard, CD.
|6.4.09 @ 4:01PM|#
James:
The war didn't start out as one to abolish slavery, but by January
1, 1863, it was one. (No, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't
affect the loyal slave states, but they pretty quickly fell into
line and began to abolish slavery all on their own. Delaware (where
there were hardly any slaves to speak of anyway) and Kentucky were
the only slave states left by 1865.)
Also, considering that the United States wasn't responsible for the
existence of slavery (which was already well in place when the
United States was founded), but was the cause of its destruction, I
would say that the expenditure of blood and treasure it made to
abolish the institution should count to its credit.
But if you want to give the equivalent of 40 acres and a mule to
every black American whose ancestors were slaves (which I guess
means Obama has to live on this presidential salary), can we put an
end to affirmative action and all the other ongoing efforts we keep
making to "remedy the harm caused by 400 years of slavery"?
|6.4.09 @ 4:02PM|#
Seamus, how on earth do you figure that the cost of fighting
the Civil War should count as compensation for slavery?
Mitigation of damages. By expending resources to bring the
institution of slavery to an end, the Union mitigated the damage
caused by slavery.
The present value analysis of resources expended 140 years ago is
going to be a bitch. It could wind up with the descendants of
slaves owing a pretty penny to the Union.
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 4:06PM|#
"yes, because the manner of one's dress determines that he
has...a slave mentality?"
No, it's because I have to slow up my car and go around him as he
looks at me with a ghetto glare that says, "Yeah, I'm in your way,
motherfucker."
But just like a slave, it's statistically likely that he can't read
or write and will likely die violently at a young age.
I, Kahn O\'Clast|6.4.09 @ 4:06PM|#
I agree with reparations! A billion dollars to anyone alive who was once enslaved under US law!
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 4:11PM|#
CD - you are one stupid son of a bitch. He has a "slave mentality" because he's blocking your car. You peddle in stereotypes and racism, fuckmeat. Go away.
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 4:18PM|#
"You peddle in stereotypes and racism, fuckmeat. Go away."
Right. Because in your little world, the existence of Gangster
Disciples and Vice Lords are just too scary to acknowledge. They
don't fit your happy little stereotypes. That's why you want me to
leave.
Love the ad hominems tough. Fuckmeat? Subconsciously you see me as
meat you would fuck? How oddly revealing.
|6.4.09 @ 4:20PM|#
Ironically, CD he is engaging in civil discourse when he blocks your car. He's like Tank Man...in a sense.
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 4:24PM|#
No, CD, in my world, you don't prejudge people based on the
actions of some of them in violent groups. Unless I should assume
that you're a cracker redneck in the KKK just because some
white people happen to be in the KKK?
Or perhaps I should assume you're a violent mobster, because some
white people are violent mobsters? Or perhaps I should assume that
you're a Nobel-Prize Winning Economist, because Nobel-Prize Winning
Economists in the past have been white?
Are you getting it yet?
robc|6.4.09 @ 4:30PM|#
In another thread, you all are saying that property should
not be owned in perpetuity?
I think everyone was arguing against it in that thread.
robc|6.4.09 @ 4:30PM|#
In another thread, you all are saying that property should
not be owned in perpetuity?
I think everyone was arguing against it in that thread.
Nevermind, I cant read.
|6.4.09 @ 4:33PM|#
Reparations punish people (non-black taxpayers) collectively for
the sins of some of their ancestors. What a total piece of shit
idea. Collective punishment, from the past.
That's like Israelis justifying an air attack on a house containing
the descendant of someone who was in the same room as a suicide
bomber once.
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 4:37PM|#
"Ironically, CD he is engaging in civil discourse when he blocks
your car. He's like Tank Man...in a sense."
Funny. I liked that.
Look, a significant number of black kids are told from early on
that they will not be able to succeed in America. That the deck is
stacked against them. Like the comedian (it wasn't Chris Rock, so I
think TAO will allow it) about his old uncle that sees racism in
everything, right down to the canning of black olives (green olives
come in jars). They internalize racism.
Of course TAO won't accept this because he internalizes racism as
well. That's why he's so quick to lash out at me. It's a knee-jerk
reaction. He just can't help it. Of course he doesn't want to help
it, because he's comfortable with it. Sad really. Especially since
in the posts above I have said nothing racist.
I work with black youth. Have for years. I have seen first hand the
insidious self-limitations blacks place on themselves and their
communities. Look at that cop-killer in Oakland. Guy kills four
cops. He also raped a 14-year-old as well as others. And yet the
black community in Oakland came out and marched through the streets
and rallied in support of this guy. Said he was a victim (oh, and a
really nice guy if ever you got to know him) That's just mental
illness on a community scale.
Funny when one considers that at least one of the murdered cops was
black.
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 4:39PM|#
"No, CD, in my world, you don't prejudge people based on the
actions of some of them in violent groups."
I was discussing one kid in the street, TAO. Not all black folk.
One kid.
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 4:42PM|#
"Anyway, I want you to leave because you're an ignorant
racist."
I guess Eric Holder was right.
Paul|6.4.09 @ 4:45PM|#
What would be great... I mean, really really great? If Barack Obama apologized for slavery on behalf of the federal government. I'd pay to see that.
PR|6.4.09 @ 4:46PM|#
There needs to be another word for when you apologize for something you didn't do because it's just so fucking sincere: "I'm sorry that other people that are not me were assholes".
|6.4.09 @ 4:50PM|#
If Barack Obama apologized for slavery on behalf of the
federal government.
I would be very surprised if he hasn't already apologized for
America's slave-owning history.
money hungry|6.4.09 @ 5:15PM|#
Who do I apply to for reparations for the minority kid who robbed grandma, knocked her down and broke her hip?
DJF|6.4.09 @ 5:16PM|#
"""""The resolution did not allow for reparations or payments to
anyone who might have been harmed by events during the 17th, 18th
and 19th centuries."""""
So the resolution does not allow all those 150, 200, 300 year old
former slaves to get reparations?
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 5:18PM|#
"Who do I apply to for reparations for the minority kid who
robbed grandma, knocked her down and broke her hip?"
Racist. ;0)
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 5:18PM|#
Oh Christ, CD, I just bet you work with black people.
Really, no, I believe you. I bet you call certain ones "niggers"
too, not 'cause your racist, of course, oh no, it's because certain
black people "act like niggers", right, CD? And I am sure that at
these mythical black youth homes, you tell them to stop "acting
like niggers".
Wow, you're so COOL, CD.
I was discussing one kid in the street, TAO. Not all black folk. One kid.
Bullshit you were. This is what you said:
Whenever I see a black male teen walking down the street with his pants literally down to his knees I can't help but think -- still a slave.
Unless you only ever saw one fitting that description in
your life, you were talking about more than "one kid".
You basically stated that every person who dresses like that has a
"slave mentality" because they stop your car...
You're like some kind of nervous cracker joke, you know that? Do
you clutch your purse tighter when black people walk near you, you
giant walking pussy?
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 5:23PM|#
So, CD, when you said this:
you weren't being racist then? Stating that all blacks and all
Hispanics are inferior test-takers? Oh, I know you didn't say
all, but you sure didn't rush to add "statistically more
likely, in the context of America" either, did you?
Hm, wonder why?
creech|6.4.09 @ 5:29PM|#
My ancestor suffered a bayonet wound on July 3, 1863. For next thirty years, he could only work sporadically when the wound wasn't acting up. So, let's say $10 less per week for thirty years, compounded from 1895. What am I owed?
T|6.4.09 @ 5:30PM|#
I bet you call certain ones "niggers" too, not 'cause your
racist, of course, oh no, it's because certain black people "act
like niggers", right, CD?
Hmm. Isn't it racist to say that black people can use a word but
white people can't? Just wondering...
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 5:30PM|#
And yet the black community in Oakland came out and marched through the streets and rallied in support of this guy. Said he was a victim (oh, and a really nice guy if ever you got to know him) That's just mental illness on a community scale.
The whole black community? Did they really? Every report I saw said
"dozens". I wouldn't let that stop you from proclaiming that an
entire black community has a "mental illness".
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 5:32PM|#
Hmm. Isn't it racist to say that black people can use a word but white people can't? Just wondering...
I would never say just that. What I would say is that you have a
lot of white people who think it's funny to be "nonracist" and say
"nigger" in the Dave Chapelle/Chris Rock sense, but not really
mean it in the narrow sense that word is used.
In other words, I hear some white people say "I like black
people...but I hate niggers! Just like Chris Rock!", and then, of
course, they define every black person they meet as a "nigger",
which is awfully fucking convenient.
T|6.4.09 @ 5:40PM|#
In other words, I hear some white people say "I like black
people...but I hate niggers! Just like Chris Rock!", and then, of
course, they define every black person they meet as a "nigger",
which is awfully fucking convenient.
I find it easier to just leave the
book out on the coffee table. Gets the point across without me
having to actually say anything.
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 5:40PM|#
"Oh Christ, CD, I just bet you work with black people."
I work in a major US City with kids trying to get out of gangs.
Homeless kids to. In my city blacks comprise 89% of all homeless
kids. So I see this shit up close. I know the kids who have been
gunned down and the kids that shot them.
I know you don't like my positions, TAO, because they make you
uncomfotable. But ya know, that's not my problem to sort out.
"You're like some kind of nervous cracker joke"
Cracker? Thanks for showing your racist stripes.
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 5:44PM|#
"So, CD, when you said this:
They should have known at the outset that blacks and Hispanics are
inferior test takers. It is common knowledge.
you weren't being racist then?"
It was sarcasm.
James|6.4.09 @ 5:45PM|#
Seamus,
I agree with you about the Emancipation Proclamation, except for
one key issue: it didn't determine what would be done about slavery
after the war. Congress debated whether or not it would abolish
slavery until January 1865; Lincoln's wartime steps didn't enter
into it.
Your argument that the U.S. wasn't responsible for the existence of
slavery is a highly technical one, don't you think? It's true that
slavery started before the U.S. existed, but the U.S. wouldn't even
have come into existence with slavery. Moreover, the U.S. permitted
and encouraged slavery until the Civil War, and indeed made slavery
the backbone of its economy until that time
PapayaSF, the U.S. fought an internal war, and ended up abolishing
slavery as a result. So, yes, the U.S. "gets credit" for having
finally stopped practicing slavery, but that hardly means the
nation did anything to atone for it.
You can say that blacks need to "just get over it," but the plain
fact is that black families are affected by the legacy of slavery
every day, regardless of their attitude.
R C Dean, "mitigation of damages" doesn't apply when the
responsible party takes costly action to end its own behavior. Just
think about it: you suggest that the math could mean that the
descendants of the victims could end up owing money to the nation
which perpetrated the wrong. Now *that* would be a racket.
DJF, I hope you don't seriously believe that no one alive today has
been harmed by Connecticut's involvement in slavery. Just look
around you.
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 5:45PM|#
CD - which American city would that be?
And it's not that I don't like your positions because you
don't have any. I know you think you're some kind
of modern version of H.L. Mencken, saying shocking things and
dressing it up like you're some kind of race-based version of
Dr. House..."I may be a dick but I'm good with the races,
dammit. My controversial nature proves how smart I am!", but the
truth of the matter is, is that you're just a
pissing-in-your-pants-at-the-sight-of-black-teens racist. See, you
have this confirmation bias: the more people react to me, the more
I must be telling the truth. Well, we react to your because you're
fucking repugnant.
I'll note that you tried to claim you weren't talking about all
black people, just "one kid", and I put paid to that. No response,
eh?
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 5:46PM|#
"It was sarcasm."
Because the piece itself said as much. You know, how it said the
test should be given with pictures and toy trucks and such.
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 5:47PM|#
DJF, I hope you don't seriously believe that no one alive today has been harmed by Connecticut's involvement in slavery. Just look around you.
Regardless of who has been harmed, no one living today was ever a
slaveholder, a slave, or a politician who permitted slavery to go
on. Ergo, no one is entitled to reparations. At some point, you
have to stop using the state to fuck each other over.
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 5:48PM|#
Because the piece itself said as much. You know, how it said the test should be given with pictures and toy trucks and such.
I'm sorry, so that means that the piece was saying that blacks and
Hispanics are inferior test-takers? Or is the more benign
interpretation that the writing test was wholly irrelevant to the
job at hand anyway?
Hmmm, which could it be? And which one did you latch onto?
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 5:48PM|#
"The whole black community?"
Look TAO, unlike Tony (a self-professed elegant writer) I don't
always write so clearly.
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 5:51PM|#
"You can say that blacks need to "just get over it," but the
plain fact is that black families are affected by the legacy of
slavery every day, regardless of their attitude."
Please tell us how. Thanks in advance.
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 5:53PM|#
"CD - which American city would that be?"
It's on the Mississippi River.
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 5:53PM|#
It's not unclear writing that's your problem, CD. You said
"community mental illness", and you meant it, even though the Mixon
supporters came from some obscure group called the "International
Uhurus" or something. It was "a few dozen" at "one rally" that
mostly consisted of "friends and family", and yet, you insisted on
painting the picture like all the blacks in Oakland were out
supporting a murdering child-rapist.
Do you see how clarity is WAY down at the bottom of the list?
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 5:54PM|#
"I know you think you're some kind of modern version of H.L.
Mencken, saying shocking things and dressing it up like you're some
kind of race-based version of Dr. House"
Nothing I have written is shocking, unless the reader suffers from
internalized racism.
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 5:56PM|#
"I'll note that you tried to claim you weren't talking about all
black people, just "one kid", and I put paid to that. No response,
eh?"
No. You were correct. See my "I don't write as pretty as Tony
disclaimer (ibid).
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 5:58PM|#
"I'm sorry, so that means that the piece was saying that blacks
and Hispanics are inferior test-takers? Or is the more benign
interpretation that the writing test was wholly irrelevant to the
job at hand anyway?
Hmmm, which could it be? And which one did you latch onto?"
Having never seen the test, neither you nor I can say if the
written test was relevant.
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 5:58PM|#
Even "I don't write so good" doesn't cut it there, CD. Either you knew you meant more than one black person, or you didn't. Which did you mean?
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 5:59PM|#
Having never seen the test, neither you nor I can say if the written test was relevant.
Having not met the blacks or Hispanics in question, neither you nor
I can say that they are inferior test-takers...which you went ahead
and said anyway.
Civil Discourse|6.4.09 @ 6:00PM|#
5:00 pm CDT. Quiting time. I have to catch the bus. It's full of
black folks, so I'll be shaking the whole way home.
We can pick this back up at any time.
Best,
CD
James|6.4.09 @ 6:34PM|#
Angry Optimist, whether or not reparations would be a good idea,
we all benefit from what this country took from slavery. It doesn't
matter that no one alive today was personally responsible for
slavery, as long as we aren't talking about holding anyone
accountable for their actions.
Civil Discourse, I said that "black families are affected by the
legacy of slavery every day," and you responded by saying "Please
tell us how. Thanks in advance."
Do you really not know that there is still racial prejudice being
acted out in this country, every day, as a result of our centuries
of slavery and Jim Crow discrimination? It's better, but it's
hardly gone.
The bigger effect, however, comes from the fact that black families
were left, after slavery, with absolutely nothing. They were then
subject to massive, violent discrimination for more than a century
afterward ... while huge government aid programs built the white
middle class. If one generation of a family has less, then the next
generation will almost always have less. It usually takes many
generations to become prosperous, especially without those vast
federal government programs that provided such a boost to white
families (far more than blacks have received since that time).
By Any Means Necessary|6.4.09 @ 7:03PM|#
"Either you knew you meant more than one black person, or you
didn't. Which did you mean?"
I meant all of the young black males caparisoned in gang colors. In
my neighborhood, you don't wear colors unless you are gang
affiliated. And no, not all gang kids are a threat, but a good many
are.
BTW, the bus ride home was scarier than shit. One black man said
hello to me. I nearly shit my pants.
Look, TAO, I normally don't post at home. So as soon as the
opportunity presents itself I will provide a carefully worded
representation of my views on racism in America. But for starters,
here's two points I firmly hold:
- In 21st century America (that would be USA specific),
institutional racism no longer exists.
- The root cause of the socio-economic disparity between black
folks and white folks is self-inflicted by blacks themselves.
Looking forward to our next chat.
wayne|6.4.09 @ 7:06PM|#
The resolution did not allow for reparations or payments to anyone who might have been harmed by events during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
It did, however, allow for an apology on behalf of people who have
never participated in slavery to people who have never been
enslaved. Now, that is inspirational!
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 8:53PM|#
CD/BYNM, I don't have anything to quibble about with your first point, but your second point (that blacks "did it to themselves") is so breathtakingly collectivist! "They" did it to "themselves"? No. Individuals do things, they do not do things. Black people are not monolithic.
The Angry Optimist|6.4.09 @ 8:54PM|#
James - so your point is, as white people in the past did to black people in the past, so too should we do in reverse, FOR GREAT JUSTICE?
James|6.4.09 @ 8:57PM|#
Wayne, the apology wasn't issued on behalf of anyone who wasn't
involved in slavery.
It was issued on behalf of the state legislature, which as an
institution was heavily involved in slavery.
You may not approve of this, and I respect that. It is, however, a
perfectly reasonable action, and I find it inspirational that the
state is finally acknowledging the full extent of what happened,
who was responsible, and what the consequences have been.
James|6.4.09 @ 9:00PM|#
Angry Optimist, I'm not suggesting any such action. For
starters, like you, I wouldn't want anyone to be treated well or
badly on the basis of race.
I do, however, think that we need to be honest about what happened,
and about how it affects lives today. This isn't about whether
white people today are responsible for slavery; they aren't. White
people do, however, benefit from slavery to this day, while most
black families still suffer significant ill effects from that
history.
The first step is acknowledging this awkward consequence of our
shared history, and this is why I applaud the General Assembly's
willingness to speak out now.
economist|6.4.09 @ 10:56PM|#
"but if we do end up paying reparations, how much does Obama
get?"
Actually, he pays reparations. None of his father's ancestors were
slaves, but someone way back in his mother's family owned
slaves.
economist|6.4.09 @ 11:01PM|#
"Angry Optimist, whether or not reparations would be a good
idea, we all benefit from what this country took from
slavery."
How much, really? The majority of the country's industrial base
grew after the Civil War. The majority of antebellum Southern
cotton was exported. The Civil War destroyed many of the planter
fortunes amassed through slavery. So how much benefit, really, do
white Americans benefit from slavery? My own assessment is that
there was very little, and possibly negative net benefit to the
bulk of white Americans today from slavery.
economist|6.4.09 @ 11:02PM|#
Obama also owes me money. Someone in his mom's family took Indian land, too. Not sure which tribe, but we'll just assume it was mine.
|6.4.09 @ 11:23PM|#
Why on Earth does Conneticut need to apologize for
slavery?
Thousands of Conneticut soldiers died fighting the civil war. That
ought to be sufficient.
|6.4.09 @ 11:32PM|#
since when is merely ending an evil practice the same as
compensating its victims? Do we tell crime victims that they have
been compensated when a criminal merely agrees to stop committing
crimes in the future?
When the state executes the criminals, that's usually considered
compensation. The North punished the south quite a lot for slavery,
and killed quite a lot of southerners over it.
Many notherners gave their lives to end it.
You logic would imply that society in general should pay
reparations to the families of murder victims out of tax dollars,
on the grounds that society is collectively guilty for crimes
commited by individual criminals.
The North effectively repudiated slavery, along with the vast
majority of it's residents.
Out of the majority of Americans alive today, only a tiny fraction
have fourth or fifth generation ancestors who owned slaves or
fought for the South. The vast majority of Americans aren't even
related to anyone who was involved in the civil war. Most of us are
descendant of post-Civil-War immigrants.
In order to justify reparations, you have to subscribe to the
notion of collective social guilt.
JB|6.5.09 @ 12:07AM|#
Blacks are descended from slaves should pay the descendants of
white people. They have a much higher standard of living than if
they were back in Africa.
And let's not forget who sold them into slavery in the first place:
black Africans.
James|6.5.09 @ 8:48AM|#
Economist asks how much we all benefit today from the impact of
slavery. I think it's a good question, and one that's at the heart
of the issue.
In fact, while most of our industrial base did develop after the
Civil War, economists have concluded that the foundations of our
industrial economy were laid prior to the Civil War, and depended
quite heavily on slavery. In particular, we transformed from an
agrarian to an industrial economy in the antebellum period, and we
did so by developing a cotton textile industry which depended on
cheap, slave-produced cotton and on the surplus profits from
slavery and the slave trade.
James|6.5.09 @ 8:50AM|#
Hazel, I appreciate your thoughtful arguments (aside from the
last one, of course, which denies a simple historical fact you
don't like with a four-letter word). However, I think you aren't
aware of some of this history.
For instance, the legislature apologized this week because
Connecticut had a terrible record on slavery, for more than 200
years. And while soldiers from here did participate in the Civil
War, that conflict involved slavery, but those soldiers were
fighting to preserve the Union, not to end slavery (which didn't
even become a war aim until 1865).
As for the state having executed the criminals responsible, Hazel,
those in Connecticut were just as complicit in slavery as the
Confederate soldiers who lost their lives. In any event, executing
criminals isn't compensation to the victims. It might be considered
a measure of justice, or vengeance.
In response to your argument about society paying the families of
murder victims and collective guilt, we aren't talking about
collective guilt here. I've simply been pointing out that (unlike
in the case of murder), our society chose to engage in slavery and
still benefits enormously from the wrongs of slavery. I'm not
arguing for reparations, but the benefits of slavery aren't in the
hands of dead slavers or living wealthy southerners. They're in the
hands of everyone who enjoys a U.S. standard of living, rather than
what we would have if slavery hadn't existed here.
Hazel, you also write that the "North effectively repudiated
slavery, along with the vast majority of it's residents."
Connecticut, for instance, only repudiated slavery within the state
in 1848, and then continued to profit enormously from doing
business with slave plantations in the south. Cotton from the South
was the North's primary commodity for export in the antebellum
years, as well as the key component of its industrial base.
Finally, Hazel, it's not true that most Americans aren't descended
from those who benefited from the slavery and discrimination which
were the subject of the apology. Most Americans have ancestors who
were here before the Civil War, and virtually every one of those
was complicit in slavery in one way or another. Even those who
immigrated here after the Civil War benefited enormously from the
effects of slavery and discrimination; I can explain further if
that's not clear to you.
Civil Discourse|6.5.09 @ 9:56AM|#
"Black people are not monolithic."
So you don't believe there is such a thing as distinct,
identifiable black culture in America? Because I do. And from what
I have experienced, it puts a drag on many, many black folk.
Consider the following two scenarios.
One, would be the two black kids that ride my city bus every
morning. Good kids. About fifteen or sixteen. They are both in
their high school band. Both are drummers. They practice stick
tricks and talk about girls and what not. I was tghe drum major in
my high school band and also talked about girls and whatnot at that
age, so I can't help but like them. As I said, good kids.
The second, would be the gangster disciple kid I referenced above,
who by the way was accompanied by another GD kid a year or two
younger. They were clearly GD because as mentioned previously, in
my neighborhood, you don't wear colors if you're not affiliated.
And as I said, the older kid had his pants to his knees. Not just
sagging, to his knees. He was hitting on three girls at a bus stop.
And as I said, he was in the middle of the street. And this was not
a residential street, but rather a busy four-lane road with
interior turn lanes, so effectively, it's a five-lane road. Very
busy. Just a block from the interstate. And this kid and his
younger friend are in the middle of the street and not the lane by
the curb, the middle lane. In heavy traffic, strutting like a
rooster at a cockfight. Very black ghetto culture.
Now tell me, TAO, of these four kids, which two are most likely to
succed in life and which two are going to die or end up in prision?
And what effect does the behavior of the latter two have on folks
perceptions of the former two?
Anyway, I'd like to continue this discussion, but will wait until
the next H&R topic regarding race comes up, which will give us
both time to better consider our own beliefs and
misconceptions.
Civil Discourse|6.5.09 @ 10:31AM|#
And to James, how do you reconcile yuor reparations beliefs with
what WEB DuBois (actually me) posted at the beginning of the
thread?
Oh, and I like that you don't name-call.
And to anyone offended by TAO's use of the N-word, if it helped him
to better express himself, than he -- as well as eveyone -- should
be free to use it.
Free markets
Free minds
free speech
|6.5.09 @ 11:18AM|#
I'm not arguing for reparations, but the benefits of slavery
aren't in the hands of dead slavers or living wealthy southerners.
They're in the hands of everyone who enjoys a U.S. standard of
living, rather than what we would have if slavery hadn't existed
here.
Would that everyone include blacks as well?
Are you so sure that slavery was a net economic benefit to the
country as a whole? I'm not. There's a reason why no country has
ever gotten poorer after eliminating slavery, and a reason why
slavery is still found today only in those countries most mired in
poverty - morality aside, it is a terrible economic system.
James|6.5.09 @ 12:00PM|#
Civil Discourse, I appreciate your question about reconciling
reparations with DuBois.
I'm not a supporter of reparations, but I admire DuBois's focus on
judging people as individuals and not making blanket assumptions
about them. Perhaps this is why I'm not a supporter of reparations,
and instead prefer to focus on dispelling myths about slavery and
race, so that we can at least acknowledge how we got where we are.
I think that many of the comments here indicate that people can be
deeply reluctant to abandon cherished views about their ancestors,
their society, and themselves, even when those views color how they
approach critical social issues.
R C Dean, you ask whether blacks in the U.S. today benefit from the
historical legacy of slavery and discrimination as well. Yes,
indeed they do ... although, of course, on average they benefit far
less than whites, because of that same history.
You also ask whether I'm sure "that slavery was a net economic
benefit to the country as a whole."
Not only am I sure of this, but I'm sure that slavery amounted to a
*huge* net benefit to the country. The colonial economy (north and
south) was largely based on slavery, and this is how the colonies
became rich enough and strong enough to rebel against Great
Britain.
After independence, slavery provided the single greatest source of
economic strength in both north and south. Moreover, slavery made
it possible for the U.S. to build the foundations of its industrial
economy in the antebellum years, making possible all which followed
afterward.
Now, it's true that slavery has disadvantages as an economic
system. It's not that slavery isn't economically useful in the
short term; it is, and historians have noted that slavery always
emerges where it will be economically useful, and never otherwise.
However, slavery does tend to leave societies stuck as agricultural
or commodity-producing economies.
If the southern U.S., therefore, had been a separate nation, we
might be able to say that it was harmed, long-term, because of
slavery. Slavery, because of its huge profits, kept the south an
agrarian economy for long enough that, had it been a separate
nation, it probably would have remained an agricultural or
commodity-producing nation for generations (much as the
slave-owning societies of the West Indies did).
However, American slavery had a different impact in the north,
where it caused the north to develop a robust colonial economy, and
then to explode as a commodity exporter and to become an industrial
powerhouse. Without slavery as a key ingredient, the northern U.S.
would almost certainly have been unable to industrialize until the
20th century, and then would likely have suffered the same fate as
other nations which waited until then to do so.
|6.5.09 @ 12:19PM|#
James,
Ever read "The Black Image in the White Mind: The Debate on
Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817-1914"? Great book.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0819561886/reasonmagazineA/
|6.5.09 @ 2:48PM|#
James,
I repeat "Fuck You" is the only appropriate response to your
arrogant, priggish, assholish insistence that all white people
collectively benefit from slavery to this day.
You are so amazingly full of shit, and you don't even realize
it.
Nearly every statement in your last couple of posts is a baseless
assertion thrust forward as if it were incontrovertible fact.
All white people benefit from slavery? Really? Prove it.
The US colonial economy was based on slavery? Prove it.
You havn't got shit. All you have are the equally baseless
assertion and conjectures by a bunch of equally arrogant
empty-headed leftist assholes, who don't have any more of a shred
of evidence for any of this than you do.
When confronted with a dick who states completely unfounded
bullshit as factual analysis, the only correct answer is "Fuck
You".
|6.5.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Without slavery as a key ingredient, the northern U.S. would
almost certainly have been unable to industrialize until the 20th
century,
Example. Total, baseless, horseshit, advanced as fact.
Fuck you, James.
James|6.5.09 @ 4:20PM|#
Hazel, I respect that you're reluctant to believe the historical
claims I'm making. However, I don't see how that justifies such
foul language, as if I were behaving terribly.
"Nearly every statement in your last couple of posts is a baseless
assertion thrust forward as if it were incontrovertible
fact."
I can back up everything I've said, Hazel, with detailed historical
facts and figures. These aren't wild historical claims, but are
standard interpretations of these periods.
This isn't the place to start dumping pages and pages of analysis,
but I'll try to respond briefly to each of the points you've
raised, and I'd encourage you to challenge me on any specific
points that you believe you can contest.
"All white people benefit from slavery? Really? Prove it."
How do all white Americans benefit from slavery, Hazel? Well,
virtually every single American has a higher standard of living by
virtue of living in the largest economy in the world.
Why is the U.S. the largest, and one of the most advanced,
economies in the world, rather than mired in the development
problems of most former colonies in the hemisphere?
The short answer is that we were able to industrialize early, when
most other colonies and former colonies could not. How did we pull
this off? By having vast quantities of cheap, slave-produced
cotton, at a time when industrializing meant developing a cotton
textile industry, and by having the surplus capital from slavery
and the slave trade to invest in such a huge enterprise.
This ignores other ways in which most, but not all, white families
in this country continue to benefit from the legacy of slavery and
discrimination. For instance, plenty of research has shown that the
massive federal aid programs of the 20th century, which largely
built the white middle class through money for education, housing,
job training, and small businesses, continues to pay huge dividends
to the white population, while the black families which were shut
out of these programs still face the impact of that treatment,
generations later.
"The US colonial economy was based on slavery? Prove it."
I assume you know that the southern economy was largely based on
slave labor for most of the colonial period.
As for the northern economy, the single greatest source of its
development prior to the American Revolution was supplying slave
plantations in the south and in the West Indies. Slave labor was so
profitable in the West Indies, in particular with sugar production,
that planters would pay high prices to import food and other
resources rather than devote precious labor and land to domestic
production. So merchants were able to export food and resources
like timber from throughout our northern colonies, bringing high
profits to everyone involved, from ordinary farmers and trappers to
those involved in the maritime trade itself.
This is why John Quincy Adams said that this trade to slave-owning
regions was an "essential ingredient in our independence," because
this economic development was crucial to being able to rebel
successfully.
TickleStick|6.5.09 @ 4:32PM|#
James,
You are always welcome to provide links to support your positions.
It'll save you some typing time.
I greatly appreciate you input and hope that you participate in
future threads on this or any other subject.
|6.5.09 @ 7:13PM|#
I agree with you about the Emancipation Proclamation, except
for one key issue: it didn't determine what would be done about
slavery after the war.
It determined what would be done about slavery in the seceding
states (which is to say, almost everywhere that slavery existed).
It says that those held in slavery would be "forever free." Given
that importation of slaves had been outlawed in 1808, and given
that both the U.S. and Royal Navies were enforcing the prohibition
of the slave trade as a form of piracy, the only way slavery could
be reestablished in the former Confederacy would have been by
importation from Kentucky and Delaware. I don't think that would
have worked very well. So I'd say that the Proclamation pretty much
*did* determine what the fate of slavery after the War was going to
be.
How do all white Americans benefit from slavery, Hazel? Well,
virtually every single American has a higher standard of living by
virtue of living in the largest economy in the world.
Why is the U.S. the largest, and one of the most advanced,
economies in the world, rather than mired in the development
problems of most former colonies in the hemisphere?
The short answer is that we were able to industrialize early, when
most other colonies and former colonies could not. How did we pull
this off? By having vast quantities of cheap, slave-produced
cotton, at a time when industrializing meant developing a cotton
textile industry, and by having the surplus capital from slavery
and the slave trade to invest in such a huge enterprise.
Yeah, it's good that we had slavery and were able to industrialize
early, unlike countries like Brazil that didn't have slavery.
Oh, wait. . . .
And now that I think of it, Britain industrialized before us. I
guess it must have been because slavery was flourishing there. And
Germany's industrialization in the 19th century was probably also
fueled by its successful employment of slave labor.
|6.5.09 @ 7:17PM|#
IActually, he pays reparations. None of his father's
ancestors were slaves, but someone way back in his mother's family
owned slaves.
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if some of this father's
ancestors *owned* slaves, or even sold slaves (though probably to
Arabs rather than to Americans, given that he lived in East
Africa).
James|6.5.09 @ 7:45PM|#
It determined what would be done about slavery in the
seceding states (which is to say, almost everywhere that slavery
existed).
Actually, Seamus, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued by
President Lincoln, using his authority as a wartime president. It
didn't settle anything permanently.
Congress deliberated long and hard before deciding whether to end
slavery, and only decided on the Thirteenth Amendment, after much
discussion, in January 1865.
Was the handwriting on the wall at that point, and Congress wasn't
smart enough to realize it (or wanted to seem important)? Possibly,
I don't know. The point is that this was a live political issue
right up until the final months of the war, and not a settled war
aim at all.
Yeah, it's good that we had slavery and were able to
industrialize early, unlike countries like Brazil that didn't have
slavery.
That's exactly my point, Seamus.
Brazil had slavery, but wasn't able to capitalize on it to build an
industrial base, and so it wasn't able to industrialize at all. Not
under slavery, and not afterward. This is true of countries that
never had large-scale slavery, too. They have been stuck with
"Third World" economies ever since.
The U.S., on the other hand, was able to industrialize because the
north didn't find it economically advantageous to have widespread
slavery by the 19th century, but was able to take advantage of
domestic slave plantations in the south (via slave trading,
financing, supplying, the carrying trade, etc.) in order to
industrialize.
If you can conceive of a way in which the U.S. could have developed
the cotton textile industry without slavery, or could have
industrialized without the textile industry, I'd be very interested
to hear it.
now that I think of it, Britain industrialized before
us.
Again, that's precisely the point. Britain pioneered
industrialization, which limited opportunities for all other
nations. I'm not saying that slavery is necessary to industrialize,
but that it happened to allow the U.S. to industrialize when it
otherwise couldn't (and, indeed, most nations simply weren't able
to).
Great Britain was the first country in the world to industrialize,
and it did so primarily with cotton textiles. Once it had that
"first-mover" advantage, it was extremely difficult for other
Western European nations to industrialize, even though they should
have had similar advantages to Britain. Meanwhile, almost no other
nations, anywhere else in the world, were able to do so.
It's about timing. It was barely possible to industrialize then,
with the right preconditions, and wasn't possible later, in almost
all cases.
|6.5.09 @ 8:50PM|#
I can back up everything I've said, Hazel, with detailed
historical facts and figures. These aren't wild historical claims,
but are standard interpretations of these periods.
Really? Who are these people advancing these "standard"
interpretations.
I suspect you got most of this from a freshman "sensativity
training" class during your college orientation. Where these
historial interpretations were picked up from a bunch left wing
identity politics screeds.
The short answer is that we were able to industrialize early,
when most other colonies and former colonies could not. How did we
pull this off? By having vast quantities of cheap, slave-produced
cotton, at a time when industrializing meant developing a cotton
textile industry, and by having the surplus capital from slavery
and the slave trade to invest in such a huge enterprise.
The cotton textile industry is specific to the south, and is not
the only aspect of industrialization that matters. The North was
MORE industrialized than the south, because it relied on
manufacturing, without slave labor.
It is pure conjecture to connect the two. You can come up with a
million different theories about what permits, or does not permit,
industrialization. But only in your slavery-centric universe is
slavery the key ingredient to industrialization.
Britain pioneered industrialization, which limited
opportunities for all other nations. I'm not saying that slavery is
necessary to industrialize, but that it happened to allow the U.S.
to industrialize when it otherwise couldn't (and, indeed, most
nations simply weren't able to).
Say what? Britain pioneered industrialization, therefore NOBODY
ELSE could industrialize without slavery? This is pure nonsense.
You're just making things up. There is ZERO connection between one
country's industrialization, and another's ability to do the same.
You have not established this at all, and nobody else has.
It sounds like some crazy bullshit derived from "dependency
theory", a 1960s Marxist concept.
I'd be willing to bet your entire economic analysis goes back to
some 60s-70s Marxist economic and historical analysis. Despite the
fact that Marxist economics has been discredited for over a
century, that's never stoped leftist intellectuals from using it to
interpret economic history.
James|6.6.09 @ 10:21AM|#
Who are these people advancing these "standard"
interpretations.
Well, let's start with Douglass North, for example, in his landmark
work, The Economic Growth of the United States,
1790-1860.
North is hardly a "Marxist" or anything of the kind. His economic
analysis is mainstream and he is a winner of the Nobel prize in
economics for his work as an economic historian.
Can you cite any mainstream economic historian who
disagrees with this understanding of U.S. economic
history?
The cotton textile industry is specific to the south, and is
not the only aspect of industrialization that matters.
The cotton textile industry was almost exclusively in the NORTH,
not the SOUTH.
While the textile industry is hardly the only aspect of
industrialization which matters, it happens to be the particular
industry with which Britain pioneered the industrial revolution,
and the particular industry with which the U.S. was able to
industrialize. Our later economic development in other areas was
the result of the groundwork laid by this first industry.
The North was MORE industrialized than the south, because it
relied on manufacturing, without slave labor.
The North was more industrialized because it wasn't reaping huge
profits directly from agricultural labor. As a result, the North
found a way to make additional profits in the North from that slave
labor. What else was the cotton textile industry?
only in your slavery-centric universe is slavery the key
ingredient to industrialization.
Take a look at any economic history of the U.S. that you'd like.
Prior to the Civil War, the northern economy was dominated by
businesses dependent on slavery, as was the southern economy.
In fact, the U.S. did industrialize through the textile
industry, which was dependent upon slavery for its funding and
inexpensive raw inputs.
Can you suggest how the U.S., unlike almost any other country,
might have industrialized in those years? Was there another way to
create a cotton textile industry in those years? Was there another
industry to be built at that time? Was there a way to industrialize
later, if the U.S. had remained an agrarian nation at that
time?
Britain pioneered industrialization, therefore NOBODY ELSE
could industrialize without slavery? This is pure nonsense. You're
just making things up.
I suppose I didn't spell out the argument in sufficient
detail.
Industrialization isn't a process in which each nation can engage
in turn, without regard to what has already occurred in other
nations.
Once Britain had developed an industry around textiles, it was able
to dominate the global market for textiles. Its prices were far too
good for homemade textiles to compete.
As a result, no other nation could simply begin to duplicate the
complicated industrial processes and be competitive enough to
continue the process to its conclusion. The only solution for the
few nations in western Europe which were able to do it was to take
an already advanced economic base and apply vast sums of money to
build an entire industry out of whole cloth (so to speak), while
spending additional money to keep out British textiles with
protectionist measures to allow the domestic industry to begin to
flourish and grow.
How could a new, agrarian nation across the ocean possibly
accomplish the same thing, without such resources? In practice,
what the U.S. did was to take the surplus profits from slavery and
the slave trade (the only such source of funding available to it)
to build an industry, while using its privileged access to cheap,
slave-produced cotton to become competitive early on.
It sounds like some crazy bullshit derived from "dependency
theory", a 1960s Marxist concept.
This is nothing like dependency theory, which postulates that
underdeveloped nations are held back not because of the timing and
sequencing of industrial development, but because of the way they
are integrated into the international economic system.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245