MR. HOROWITZ appeared on this page two days ago with some filthy garbage he calls an opinion. The Managing Board correctly printed it on the Opinion page, but Horowitz's analysis, his research and his points are weak.
It's not the larger argument - that reparations ought not be paid to black Americans - that is at issue, because reasonable people may disagree over that. The details are what's in question, as is the method by which Horowitz would persuade us of his opinion. These details are dubious and Mr. Horowitz and his opinion - even if, in the end, you agree with his conclusion - should receive our wholesale rejection for that reason.
|
Horowitz says blacks now living in America are the freest and most prosperous black people on earth. How does Mr. Horowitz ascertain this tidbit of information without some sound evidence, which in his column is notoriously absent? Good opinions state facts that can be supported, they don't just make assertions like this. Mr. Horowitz fails to research or to identify his research for readers to critically assess, both of which are equally damnable in terms of presenting opinions honestly. This isn't a small concern; it makes everything else he has to say terminally suspect.
But let us grant Mr. Horowitz his point. So what then? Is his point that injustices are okay if they're done to richer people? By Horowitzian logic, kicking a Rockefeller's cat is cool, but don't you dare if you're talking about a one-income household with three kids. In either case, a cat croaks, and that's wrong.
Mr. Horowitz, in any event, undermines his argument by bringing this up. You see, if black Americans weren't wronged, then what is the point in saying that payment for that wrongdoing would go to those who already have been compensated in terms of enjoying the "bounties" of America's wealth? This point wouldn't need to be stated at all if there were no wrong to speak of. But we all know that there is, even Mr. Horowitz himself; that's the only rational explanation for why he might bring that issue up.
Horowitz adds to the mix that the injustice occurred over a century ago and that it was an injustice to humanity, not to a particular group. Actually, 170 years ago, no injustice was done to the slave-owners who profited extensively from owning and beating their slaves into submission to eke out higher rates of production. Slaves, however, were wronged. All of humanity today may look back and regret this, but it doesn't make it any less clear who the perpetrator and victim of the crime were.
Is there a statute of limitations on this crime? No, there shouldn't be. Mr. Horowitz fails to realize that descendents whose ancestors were slaves experienced generations of foregone opportunities, which have repercussions that can't be erased or even ignored. The effects are many subsequent years of Jim Crow laws, widespread discrimination and prejudice that only recently are being reversed.
But the harm is one for which time and changing attitudes - and the observation that black people are now relatively well off - simply isn't a decent form of compensation. This simple point on the economics of development may not have been understood by Mr. Horowitz, in which case he is simpleminded. Or it was just not mentioned by Mr. Horowitz, in which case his suppressing the issue renders him a dishonest charlatan. Whichever way you cut it, Horowitz's opinion proves shoddy on the facts and is therefore blameworthy.
Horowitz says this is about Oholding America responsible for every negative facet of black existence, as though America were God, and God failed.O Well, somebody did fail, and America seems like a fine culprit for its permitting these gross injustices. Mr. Horowitz does have a small point in that there are other culprits, but that doesn't change the fact that America is culpable for the part it played.
The silliest part of it all is Horowitz tries to play a game of semantics to define the victim out of victimhood by noting that blacks came before the Mayflower and are thus more American than other Americans. Who cares? If they were victimized by America - the one dominated by white Anglo-Saxons - then there are victims and there are persecutors, and the latter plainly owe the former.
Reparations could very well be a bad idea. I remain unsure. But one thing is clear: If Horowitz has convinced you that they're bad, then you need to think more critically about where you get your information from.
(Jeffrey Eisenberg is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at jeisenberg@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 20 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
