Slavery Reparations in a PC Society

Article one of a two-article series on the new book "Uncivil Wars" by David Horowitz

"Political correctness" has become the buzzword of today’s culture, especially on our nation’s college campuses. However, when it comes to the subject of race, it is almost impossible to contain the fiery emotions and long-simmering negative feelings of the African-American community.

Slavery reparations asseverate the idea that American taxpayers should pay the African-American community for the damages that slavery and segregation caused to their ancestors.

The idea has been met with thunderous support from many influential African-American politicians and community leaders, as well as a fair share of supporters from outside the African-American community.

In his controversial book, "Uncivil Wars," David Horowitz, editor of Front Page Magazine, addresses the inflammatory subject of reparations for slavery.

In support of his ideas, Horowitz drafted an ad titled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery Is a Bad Idea – And Racist Too," which was sent to 71 college newspapers around the country.

The ensuing firestorm resulted in an immediate ban of the ad from 43 newspapers, and later, an outpouring of negative press and accusations of racism against Horowitz.

In attempting to deal with this concept – one that he calls "morally questionable and racially incendiary," he set out on a speaking tour in 2001, encountering boycotts, dangerous demonstrations and verbal attacks.

Ironically, the ad’s ideas had been published in an on-line article on Salon.com nine months earlier, and while it had met with some critical barbs, it resulted in a lively, intelligent debate.

Essentially, the Ten Rules stated that since the Civil War was over, and many African-Americans were very prosperous today, why should it be the responsibility of struggling, recent American immigrants to foot the bill for these past injustices, of which neither they nor their ancestors took any part?

Nevertheless, the American university system, perceived as a beacon of liberal thought, and yes, political correctness, turned on Horowitz.

Even UC Berkeley, where Horowitz was a graduate student, a school renowned for its free-thinking and revolutionary reputation, attacked the author, who stated that after publishing the ad, a crowd of angry black students and their professor invaded the offices of Daniel Hernandez, editor of the school’s paper, the Daily Californian, and accused him of running an "incorrect" and "racist" ad, demanding an apology.

Hernandez caved, and printed an apology in the next issue. Horowitz said the apology was bogus, in that it implied that he was telling blacks "not to complain about slavery" and was merely placing the ad to get publicity for an upcoming book (which was also incorrect).

Horowitz went on to say that "the ‘Ten Reasons’ in the ad were not even an argument against reparation for slavery, but against the idea that reparations should be 'paid to people who were not and had never been slaves.'"

This scene, as well as others played out at schools such as UC Davis and the University of Wisconsin, resulted in a war of words that claimed Horowitz was being robbed of his rights to free speech.

"Horowitz’s case isn’t ironclad, and staying true to character, he makes it with in-your-face pugnacity," said Jonathan Yardley of the Washington Post. "He is within the grounds of fair political debate."

Other supporters of Horowitz’s rights to free speech included USA Today, the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune.

But in the midst of this battle, the university system was emerging as a hostile, indifferent entity that relied on "political correctness" as a defense. "Crying racism or any other ism — sexism, ageism, imperialism, homophobia, you name it — is the easy way out," said Yardley. "Instead of coming to grips with the case made by one’s opponents, just smear them with the tar of bigotry ... the American college campus is a foreign country; they do things differently there."

When it was announced that Horowitz would be appearing at Berkeley to speak, masked activists interrupted classes, including that of veteran public policy professor David Kirp, to protest both the author’s visit and the California Board of Regents’ anti-affirmative action policy.

Kirp later stated that "'Racist’ is a silencing accusation...that brooks no effective denial." He continued, "As Berkeley goes, so goes the rest of higher education: If you’re interested in honest exchanges about controversial issues in general, and about matters of race in particular, talk radio is a better bet than any campus."

The subject of slavery reparations is one not easily dealt with, and one that is bound to result in loud and intense debates. However, it would seem that many universities, the home of intellectual thought and free speech, are afraid to even approach the subject, and while Horowitz may be trying to get his audience riled up, the attitudes displayed by the colleges are strange and hostile to the subject of slave reparations.

The very notion of reparations being paid for something which occurred hundreds of years ago to people no longer alive is, to any educated mind, absurd. This is especially true when you bear in mind that any lingering negative impact to "black society" comes not as a result of slavery, but from the perpetuation of a sense of victimization. The tutelage under which these modern-day "victims" struggle is utterly self-imposed, and if not for a thriving industry built upon that sense of weakness and self-loathing from which the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton profit (and profit handsomely) the entire issue would've been closed decades ago.

Laws and cultural mores have been in place for long enough now that this "sore spot" would heal if they would just stop picking at it.

I think the meanness resides in the brother that would like to deprive his brother of his possessions even though said brother had nothing to do with first brother's circumstances. The controlling commandment should be: "Thou shalt not steal".

"The subject of slavery reparations is one not easily dealt with"
Seems easy to deal with to me. Just say no.
If slavery had never happened in America,
the millions of American black people that live in America today
would never had the opportunity to suceed as they have.

The very notion of reparations being paid for something which occurred hundreds of years ago to people no longer alive is, to any educated mind, absurd.

So, how about reparations for things that occurred only recently, where the perpetrators and victims are still easily identified?

How about reparations for our inner cities, destroyed by black rioters and looters - from LA to Cincinnati and points between.

How about reparations for the muggings, robberies, rapes, and murders, perperated in overwhelming numbers by racist blacks against innocent whites?

How about reparations for the hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of whites denied university places, scholarships, tenure, promotion, or even entry-level jobs, because of racist "affirmative action" policies?

I'll start the bidding at one trillion dollars.

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.