Posted on 08/13/2003 6:57:47 AM PDT by bedolido
While doing my weekly shopping at the Jewel-Osco, I overheard a very unusual conversation. It was between two young baggers who were talking about an article one of them had read regarding President Lincoln. Both men happened to be black. One of them informed the other that President Lincoln cared nothing about blacks and was actually a racist. I was stunned. I wanted to interject a million things to their discussion but I didn’t. Instead, I silently watched the checker ring up my order. The incident immediately brought to mind the old commercial from the seventies where tears run down the eye of an Indian brave as he paddles across a river filled with pollutants. I felt like that Indian as I listened to President Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, badmouthed by a couple of assistants in a grocery store.
This was the same Lincoln who, during a triumphant walk through Richmond, told a group of bowing slaves to get up because the only king they should bow to was Jesus Christ. I wanted to explain to the clerks that men should be judged by the standards of the days in which they live. Some of Lincoln’s opinions may seem outlandish today, but during the 1860’s he was one of the most enlightened men on the continent. By the standards of the nineteenth century, black Americans had no better friend than Abraham Lincoln.
Race is the biggest taboo issue in America today. Almost everyone acknowledges this but acknowledgement does not make our dialogues any smoother. I discovered this for myself the other day after I wrote a column about rap music. It was a favorable elaboration upon one wrote for City-Journal by John McWhorter. Based on my observations of urban youth, I supported McWhorter’s claim that rap music keeps blacks down through its celebration of pointless rebellion, violence, and nihilism. I received many irate responses. One of them turned into a ten email debate with a reader. By the end of the discussion, we knew a great deal about one another and, vicariously, quite a bit about discussing race in America.
Our little dispute could well have been a microcosm of the nation as a whole. It is unfortunate that I, and numerous other Caucasians, do not always emphatically state our views when asked. Yet, there are major hazards to beware of when addressing race. You never know what the reaction of the person you’re speaking to may be and no one wants to get fired over a conversation.
I could tell that the young man at the other end of the server was not used to dealing with white people like me. He only knows whites who defer to him and agree when he says that he has been wronged. He has been conditioned into thinking that all whites will apologize for their ancestry. I, absolutely, and under no circumstance, will ever apologize for my ancestors. In fact, thank G-d for my ancestors! I wish there were more Americans like them.
He began our exchange by telling me that I shouldn’t be writing about rap music at all as I don’t know anything about it. He also believes that there is nothing wrong with it and that it doesn’t harm anyone. I countered by stating that, while it’s true that I don’t know all the names of the famous rappers, I have unfortunately been subjected to a ton of it and know firsthand adolescents who emulate the words and actions of their favorite stars.
The dialogue went downhill from there (if that’s possible). There was practically no common ground between us, yet I think that is how it should be. White Americans, if they honestly responded to the claims of black separatists and black powerites, would hear little with which to agree.
Most Caucasian Americans are hard-working and middle class. There are very few like Bill Gates or Paul Allen. Most of us make a decent wage and are content with it. We oppress no one. No ancestors of mine were in the United States before 1910, but, even if they were, it would be superfluous as I personally have committed no wrongs to anyone. I told the young man that white guilt is one of the most pernicious influences within our society. Although this white guilt has not hurt our economic success, it has made many whites regard themselves as being morally inferior to the rest of the population.
He made the point that “institutional racism” is the reason many blacks “have not made it.” I told him there was no such thing. It is a creation of the university Marxists who have substituted “African-Americans, Hispanics, women and gays” for the word “proletariat.” The entire concept of “oppressed” and “oppression” is merely idiotic Marxist claptrap. It’s a product of juvenile leftists and should be disregarded. Besides, if there were such a thing as institutional racism no blacks would have ever made it. They’re be no Cedric the Entertainer’s, Deion Sanders’, Tiger Woods’ or Halle Berry’s. If there were any truth in the flawed rubric of institutional racism, all the aforementioned successful blacks would have been poor sharecroppers rather than cultural icons.
We, of course, also clashed on affirmative action. He regarded it as a prerequisite for black success. He said, “The Supreme Court finally got it right.” I, on the other hand, think, “The Supreme Court wrote more legislation.” Clearly, affirmative action is one of the reasons blacks have not been more successful since 1970. You can’t put an average student in Cal Tech and expect them to flourish. They fail and the race hustlers could care less how the experience impedes their future development. Even more grievous, is that affirmative action gives racism the imprimatur of the state. A federal stamp of approval compounds its evil.
Towards the end of our exchange, the reader admitted that he felt blacks should not have to work more than one job and do overtime to get ahead in life. Their route should be more direct. He felt long hours were for immigrants and that “we’ve already played that game.” He argued that blacks have put their blood and sweat into this country’s infrastructure and deserve reparation for their effort.
Honestly, I have no respect for this argument whatsoever. The request for reparations could not be less valid. Blacks in America already have the world’s greatest reparation: United States citizenship. Every single one of the reader’s racial cousins in Africa, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, would kill to be in his shoes. They would stow away in a mouse trap just to get here and have an opportunity to be Americans. Most of them fantasize about an existence without murderous kleptomaniac dictators and having children who are free from disease. America is opportunity and blacks are no different from whites in that we all should be forever thankful that we somehow got to these shores.
I discovered that I profited greatly from this reader. Christopher Hitchens, in his fascinating book, Letters to a Young Contrarian, informs us that the great thing about argumentation is that both sides refine and modify their positions which doing it. I hold this to be true and my exchange with the young man is evidence of it.
In this particular argument, I realized something that I never had before. Clearly, it is conservatives like me who care about poor blacks (most, in fact, are middle class) as opposed to the pseudo-liberals. We offer them the best route for advancement. We want to challenge them and make them stronger. We resist the desire to infantilize them. By treating them like adults and inculcating responsibility through achievement, they will prosper just as every other group of Americans have before them.
My opponent, perhaps unconsciously, wants them to stay poor so he can continue to berate America and critique our way of life. Were their lot to suddenly improve, he’d have no positions and no identity.
Before this conversation, I never realized just how much that I am rooting for poor black folks. I want them to be as productive as everyone else and to “make it” in America. I want no less for them than I do for myself. It would please me to no end if all our citizens were grateful for what they have. No white people get anything out of a major percentage of the population being resentful and angry.
Racial harmony can only be achieved if we treat one another as individuals and not as members of fictitious classes. If you want to be oppressed you’ll find a way to be oppressed, and such a condition damages society as a whole. Racism is wrong in any of its manifestations. We will never all get along if we continue to pretend that some of us, due to the melanin content in our skin, are better than others. Period.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Bernard at bchapafl@hotmail.com .
"You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?"
The Supreme Court ruled in the Prize Cases that the secessionists had the status of foreign combatants even though they were domestic.
President Lincoln clearly had the power to issue the EP.
Or would you rather it not have been issued?
Your heroes all thought of the slaves as property -- not human at all, right?
Walt
Sorry, I don't follow you. Could you restate this?
Was it moral to not free those slaves he could have while to issue a decree freeing those slaves over which he had no control?
To free a man from slavery is always a moral good. That Lincoln's EP did not free all men does not mean that it was a bad thing, just that it was not a perfect thing.
It was flawed and self serving. That you wish to ascribe glory to that is fine.
We are humans. Everything we ever achieve is flawed. That doesn't make our achievements worthless. That's making the best the enemy of the good. If only the most pure of motivations are worthy, how are we to progress at all?
Then secession is an illegal act? Surely the colonists went outside English law in making their rebellion.
Walt
This is an "either/or" question that cannot be answered so simply.
Anti-slavery was a big part of the platform he was elected under, but it was not the whole of the man. He did not ask for the war, but he had the sworn duty, as President, to preserve the Nation. To that end, he bent all his efforts, and with the hindsight of today, I thank the Lord it was preserved. The evils of the 20th century would have crushed a divided America.
I admire him for doing his best to serve his Nation in the job he was elected to do. A lesser man would have broken.
Long a supporter of abolition, he ran for President as a member of the idealistic, young Rebublican Party. He was elected due to his more politically popular opponants splitting the vote, only to have half of his Nation rise up in war. He spent his whole time as President with this struggle, enduring untold amounts of personal attacks from within his own side, while dealing with the Southern secession and war.
During this he experienced the loss of a beloved son, a succession of incompetant field commanders early on, enormous pressure from Europe to lift the blockade, and riots in the North. Add the unprecedented carnage that was introduced by a combo of outdated tactics and modern weapons.
Yet, he persevered in his duty. Then when, victorious at last, he could set his hand to peace and healing, he was murdered in front of his wife by a coward casting himself as a patriot.
The stuff of Epic Tragedy, the flawed Hero to weep for. Shakespeare could have written it.
Many of course would argue that.
I know. I've read them. Haven't seen a convincing argument yet that passes Occam's Razor. Let me know if anyone comes up with anything new, like primary source evidence that supports them.
Until then, it's just Lew Rockwell agitprop. The Lost Cause types seem to need a villain to make them seem validated. Trouble is, most of the big figures of the Civil War, on both sides, were just doing what they saw as the demands of God, Duty and Honor. Lincoln, Lee, Grant, Davis; they were more alike than different.
Many of course would argue that.
President Lincoln is often bashed by the neo-rebs for supporting a constitutional amendment in his inaugural address that supported the maintenance of the domestic institutions of the states, i.e. slavery. What this shows of course is that he bent over backwards to avoid war.
The slavers had their slaves, but that wasn't enough. Only -expansion- of slavery would keep their ponzi scheme going. Lincoln opposed expansion of slavery, so war was the only option the slave power saw to maintain their slave empire.
They sowed the wind, and they reaped the whirlwind.
Walt
I couldn't say it better than this:
"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it."
A. Lincoln, 3/4/65
Walt
He had the sworn duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Lincoln wanted to return the freed slaves back to their homeland, the land from which they were forcibly removed. That was very noble of Lincoln.
And four days before it he called on General Butler's advice for carrying out colonization.
PS. Show me one instance where Lincoln called for "deportation".
Happily.
"With deportation, even to a limited extent, enhanced wages to white labor is mathematically certain. Labor is like any other commodity in the market---increase the demand for it, and you increase the price of it. Reduce the supply of black labor, by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and, by precisely so much, you increase the demand for, and wages of, white labor." - Address to Congress, December 1, 1862
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.