Posted on 08/17/2004 5:58:48 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
One day after their first meeting, U.S. Senate hopefuls Barack Obama and Alan Keyes were back on the campaign trail again Monday.
Speaking at a news conference at the Hotel InterContinental in Chicago, Republican Keyes added to his now familiar talking points his stance on slavery reparations.
Prompted by a reporter's question, Keyes gave a brief tutorial on Roman history and said that in regard to reparations for slavery, the U.S. should do what the Romans did: "When a city had been devastated [in the Roman empire], for a certain length of time--a generation or two--they exempted the damaged city from taxation."
Keyes proposed that for a generation or two, African-Americans of slave heritage should be exempted from federal taxes--federal because slavery "was an egregious failure on the part of the federal establishment." In calling for the tax relief, Keyes appeared to be reaching out to capture the black vote, something that may prove difficult to do, particularly after his unwelcome reception at the Bud Billiken Day Parade Saturday...
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I would call it the tradition of slavery - up until the civil war, a class of people were treated as sub-human and like chattel. That is a 'tradition' that lasted across generations. Understating that harms our credibility as conservatives.
Overstating it is a problem also.
The tradition ended, which was a good thing. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a tradition that the USA institutionally endorsed.
You are 100% correct about the african american community not being well served by the liberal establishment.
But that has almost nothing to do with it - reparations redress the legacy of slavery to the people attached to the legacy. The reparations benefit would be extended t a wealthy person or a poor one.
Where anyone is today (or who they vote for) has nothing to do with it.
I'm in. LOL
I like that idea.
Nope, nothing in life is free, so when Keyes says his reparation tax cuts won't cost anybody anything, I'd like to see him show that. I'd also like to see if he's considered the following: how many people are descendents of slaves, how many are employed, what their income is (average, median or whatever those statisticians use), what is the projected dollar amount of loss of tax dollars over two generations (using 25 years for each generation) adjusted for inflation, stuff like that.
Wow. You really believe in going back a long time! ; )
It's only a legacy, really, because some people need a scapegoat to blame for their lack of success in life - "My great-grandfather was a slave, so it's not my fault..." - so, the legacy of Slavery continues on.
I have no sympathy for Blacks today with regard to the slavery that occurred 100+ years ago. None. Nada. Zip.
They can get over it, move on, make something of themselves, and enjoy all the fruits that our society has to offer, or they can wallow on in their own self-imposed mental plantation and be a slave to their feelings of "Why try? The man will just hold me down".
It's an individual choice. Let them choose. It's not up to me or you.
Not really - slavery was being practiced into the 1860s. It's 2004, 140+ years or so from that time.
A person born in slavery in 1860 could have lived into the 20th century (1910-1920 without problem).
Their children likely lived well into the 20th century and may have been around to eyewitness the civil rights movement.
Their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are our neighbors, coworkers, soldiers, and others we work with and know today.
That really isn't that long a time.
I believe you mean "descendants of slaves", not "ancestors of slaves". (Hence the wink.)
I agree with almost everything you said. The responsibility is theirs to make something out of themselves - clearly any person regardless of color has more opportunity to make something of themselves in 2004 than they have ever had.
At no time did I suggest that any individual person's lot in life is not their responsibility. Anybody who seriously blames the legal status of their great-grandfather for the fact that he can't hold down a job, he is uneducated, or she can't have a productive relationship is severely avoiding taking responsibility for their lives. Nothing we can do will help them.
That being said, redressing for a past wrong (which is undeniable) has almost nothing to do with current status. We are talking redress, not improving their quality of life today.
Don't confuse the two distinct issues.
I disagree with you in that the USA institutionally supported slavery well after other civilized nations rightfully abandoned it. That is a national shame, no question. And yes, I do feel very bad that that tradition fed a legacy of bigotry that is felt by african americans to this day.
I do think the goal should be for folks to take responsibility for their lives and improve their lives. I don't feel much sympathy for someone who doesn't do that, I agree with you there.
By The Leader-Chicago Bureau (admin@illinoisleader.com)
CHICAGO -- Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes has just released a statement clarifying what appeared to be a surprising position he took at a news conference yesterday.
"I think a cogent argument could be made for reparations in principle," Keyes is quoted as saying to reporters yesterday, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
The Chicago Tribune expanded:
Keyes gave a brief tutorial on Roman history and said that in regard to reparations for slavery, the U.S. should do what the Romans did: "When a city had been devastated [in the Roman empire], for a certain length of time--a generation or two--they exempted the damaged city from taxation."Keyes proposed that for a generation or two, African-Americans of slave heritage should be exempted from federal taxes--federal because slavery "was an egregious failure on the part of the federal establishment."
The response from conservatives was immediate. "Who downstate will now vote for Keyes?" wrote IllinoisLeader.com reader Randall Mead of Springfield today. "I certainly won't."
This afternoon, Keyes released the following statement, clarifying his position:
I have consistently opposed the effort to extort monetary damages from the American people. As I have argued in the past, the great sacrifices involved in the Civil War represented the requital in blood and treasure for the terrible injustices involved in slavery. In this form the so called "reparations" movement represents an insult to the historic commitment that many Americans made to the end of slavery, which included the sacrifice of their lives.I have also consistently maintained that the history of slavery, racial segregation and discrimination did real damage to black Americans, left real and persistent material wounds in need of healing.
In various ways through the generations since the end of slavery, America has tried to address this objective fact, but without real success. This was at least in part the rational for many elements of the Great Society programs of the sixties, and for the original and proper concept of affirmative action developed under Republican leadership during the Nixon years.
Unfortunately, the government-dominated approaches of the Great Society, which purported to heal and repair the legacy of historical damage, actually widened and deepened the wounds. They undermined the moral foundations of the black community and seriously corrupted the family structure and the incentives to work, savings, investment, and business ownership.
The idea I have often put forward to address this challenge involves a traditionally Republican, conservative and market-oriented approach: removing the tax burden from the black community for a generation or two in order to encourage business ownership, create jobs and support the development of strong economic foundations for working families.
This has the advantage of letting people help themselves, rather then pouring money into government bureaucracies that displace and discourage their own efforts. It takes no money from other citizens, while righting the historic imbalance that results from the truth that black slaves toiled for generations at a tax rate that was effectively 100 percent.
I have also made it clear that while I believe that the descendants of slaves would be helped by this period of tax relief, my firm goal and ultimate objective is to replace the income tax, and thereby free all Americans from this insidious form of tax slavery. It is well known that this is one of the key priorities of the Keyes campaign.
In response to Keyes' statement, conservative Jack Roeser of Family Taxpayers Network told IllinoisLeader.com, "I expect Keyes would say this is one of those interesting subjects to be talked about among people sharing ideas. Reparations is an impractical concept. Everybody in every category has been wronged in one or the other, and you cannot single one out."
Roeser continued, "Keyes is a man of ideas, and I expect he gets into discussions like this that are proper in their proper place, but that he would never vote for reparations. The problem with American politics is that people don't get into deep discussions."
© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved
______What are your thoughts concerning the issues raised in this story? Write a letter to the editor at letters@illinoisleader.com and include your name and town.
Yep thats exactly what I meant, thanks! Haha! I have posted so much on this thread and am trying hard to keep it straight, so thanks for the good natured rib! ;-)
You're absolutely right about that and I also agree that it's foolish and counterproductive for conservatives (or anyone, for that matter) to believe (or pretend to believe) otherwise.
I really think that their is no constitutional bar to this benign form of discrimination designed to redress issues of slavery for the descendants of slavery.
Well, you could right about that, too. It's just that we need to be sensitive to the existence of constitutional questions raised by any statutes which on their face make distinctions on the basis of race, ethnicity, ancestry and most other immutable personal characteristics.
How would you feel about a sixty percent surtax on the incomes of anyone who is a lineal descendant of, say, Richard Nixon or maybe Franklin Roosevelt? Bill of attainder? LOL. I don't know. Or, how about if the Congress exempts from taxation anyone who is a lineal descendant of a member of Congress?
I don't know how they might treat stuff like that, but I do see some issues!
Anyway, it's been nice chatting with you. ;-)
Yes - again, I distinguish 'legality' from 'wise policy.'
Those examples you gave would almost certainly be illegal and unwise policy, though.
There are legit policy questions, to be sure. But I do strongly agree with your sentiment - " it's foolish and counterproductive for conservatives (or anyone, for that matter) to believe (or pretend to believe) otherwise." I really do wish more consrvatives could just accept this and fashion policy with that in mind. It would go a long way to establishimh credibility and moral authority on the matter.
Thanks for the wonderful conversation and good thoughts! Excelsior!
I think we only disagree on the one point - that a tax exemption for african americans with ancestors who were slaves is a good idea. We disagree there.
How about those of us who had ancestors that were hunted down with the intent to be exterminated? Shouldn't I receive a tax exemption for that? It's part of my people's legacy.
One could say that the American Indian experience in America is unique... Once conservatives embrace that idea...
But, the difference is, I don't expect, nor want, nor do I call for, reparations or special tax breaks because of that legacy. I just want the government to leave me alone and allow me to sink or swim on my own...
"If you can get any of these southron types to admit that their ancestors owned a slave that is."
Considering that the war was 140 years ago, I would guess all but the eldest forum members would have to go back 5-6 generations to find ancestors who were adults pre-'61 (and thus possible slave-owners).
At 5 generations the theoretical number of ancestors is 32, and at 6 generations it's 64...in reality in many cases these numbers would be smaller due to intermarriage (i.e. marrying your third cousin, etc, which is not uncommon at all in a rural, pre-industrial society.) Additionally, MANY white southerners have some indian ancestry, and that would need to be taken into consideration as well.
Finally, many of those 'southron' types (myself included) are at least partially descended from the irish and scottish-irish immigration in the mid to late 19th century. Many Irish immigrated and joined both armies in the civil war, and the predominance of anglicized gaelic names (scots or irish, as well as welsh) in many communities speaks volumes about this. Those of us whose *traceable* ancestry (usually by last name) leads to an immigrant, such as mine (scotch-irish, sullivan) cannot even claim to have had adult ancestors in the south prior to the civil war, though it is very likely some unknown other branch of the tree was here.
How is someone supposed to know about the slave-owning status of their great-great-great-great-grandancestors x32 or whatever? Can you tell us about all of your direct ancestors alive in 1861? Some of them may have owned slaves. Are you descended from a 'southron' type?
Otherwise agree with your reply....one interesting consequence of your proposal would be if immigrants from modern-slavery countries (i.e. sudan) were found liable for the slaveowner descendant tax.
I agree - we are most likely in wide agreement with that one distinction.
For native americans, the USA did institutionally try to conquer their land (and in fact, succeeded), and did try to exterminate those fine folks..
But the problem in raising the native american experience in this case, which is admittedly unique, is that to an extent reparations WERE made with the establishment of the Indian Reservation system.
Now, maybe we can agree or disagree that it was a good idea, or a good idea executed poorly, or whatever, but an attempt at reparations was made and to an extent, still stands to this day.
So in that respect, the native american experience and the setup of the reservation system (right or wrong) is actually a historical precedent for some kind of reparations for slaves. It isn't part of a case against slave reparations - in fact, it's part of the case for it.
"Yes, by all means look where it will move the discussion on reparations. To a level where it does not belong. Giving benefits to people for actions done before they were born and which did not materially affect them is the height of stupidity."
Agreed...the potential for extrapolation with regard to much more recent events is simply absurd, if any public figure would simply present it as such....lemme see
Obviously some compensation is in order for those descended from mexican residents of the american west before the US annexed it. As with the reparation H arguement, the fact that said descendents are better off now than if they were in mexico will be ignored. Residents in the former R. of Texas area may be entitled to double-dip compensation. Hawaiians might have a much more credible case, having been denied a chance to be banana-island monarchy until someone else came along to overthrow the queen (maybe the english?)
Europe has so many possibilities that it is too much for words. Of course, with the modern EU superbeauracracy's attitudes, some of the most absurd ideas may be taken seriously in the not too far future (like the compensation for prussians displaced after WWII poland redraw and forced to have a chance to live outside of the iron curtain)
You're probably right. It's been an interesting thought experiment, though.
I am an Independent Conservative by any definition you would like that doesn't include 'compassionate' in it, because we all know that Conservativism inherently is evil and not compassionate.
RINOs are the anti-Conservatives by all expressions I've seen...oh, they have no problem going left to defeat the POTUS. Jeffords...RINO TRAITOR OF AMERICA. Snowe, Collins, McScumbag, Jeffords, all holding the POTUS and the GOP hostage to the RINO LIBERAL position.
So, yes. And have a nice day...
No point in Conservatives striving for virtue anymore I guess.../sarcasm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.