I RECENTLY wrote a column criticizing collegiate newspapers for refusing to print David Horowitz's ad condemning reparations on slavery. My purpose in writing the column was not to support Horowitz's views, but to entertain the notion that ideas cannot intelligently be refuted unless they are brought out in the open. Suppression merely fosters the growth of uninformed opinions, and censorship is a tool of the ignorant and timid. In light of The Cavalier Daily's publication of a viewpoint article by Mr. Horowitz in Tuesday's paper, I will attempt to confront the challenge I proffered to all those who disagreed with Horowitz views. Now that Mr. Horowitz has had his opinion publicly expressed to the University community, I will endeavor to show why he is utterly wrong.
Reparations for slavery are ultimately impossible, but my point is not to prove the feasibility of such an idea. Mr. Horowitz never actually delves into the logistics of paying the reparations in his "top ten reasons" and instead argues against the symbolic principles behind the idea of an apology for slavery. I don't believe I fall in his trap when I say that it is impractical to try to come up with an amount that should be paid in reparations. Politically speaking, not even the left wing of the left wing would not even embark on the difficult task of organizing such reparations.
This does not detract, however, from the crux of Horowitz's argument. His main concern is to prove that any type of an apology to blacks is racist and unnecessary. Let's take a look at Mr. Horowitz's so-called compelling reasons of why reparations are a racist and separatist idea.
"There is no single group clearly responsible for the crime of slavery," Horowitz writes. What about the people who bought slaves, traded slaves, owned slaves, sold slaves and helped to transport them from Africa to the Americas? They may not belong to the "organized chapter for the advancement of slavery," but I think it would be safe to assume that they all had some sort of contribution in starting and maintaining the institution.
|
"There is no one group that benefited exclusively from its fruits." There is the group of planters and aristocrats who benefited from the growth of the Southern economy due to slavery. There is the group of poor white people who did not have to worry about competing with blacks for jobs, land and other necessities. There is the group of non-black Americans who enjoyed the legal advantage of having basic civil liberties and rights while slaves did not. In the words of John Hope Franklin, a member of former president Clinton's Race Initiative Advisory Board, "all Americans and no blacks benefited from slavery."
"Only a tiny minority of White Americans ever owned slaves, and others gave their lives to free them." According to Horowitz, reparations are a bad idea because they single out a group of people and undermine the unity of the country. If Horowitz is so adamant about a unified nation, then how can he argue that a unified nation should not assume the faults of the few?
After all, it would seem logical that just as a cohesive nation would move forward with its accomplishments, it would concede its errors as a nation as well. If Horowitz wants to argue that people died to free slaves, then why leave out the fact that just as many people died to keep slavery, if he does indeed want to make slavery the principal reason why the Civil War was fought.
"America is today a multi-ethnic nation and Americans have no connection -- direct or indirect -- to slavery." America is today a multi-ethnic nation and Americans have no connection -- direct or indirect -- to the revolutionary British who fought for freedom and declared independence against the British. Therefore, most Americans don't have the right to enjoy basic rights given in the Constitution.
"The historical precedents used to justify the reparations claim do not apply, and the claim itself is based on race not injury." Slavery and the racist attitude that spurred discrimination after the Civil War affected an entire race. This is also why an argument denying a causal link between slavery and the lagging socio-economic gap between whites and blacks does not work. Slavery, even if it did not affect everyone, was geared toward a particular race. Furthermore, the segregation and discriminatory attitude after the Civil War -- which was undoubtedly connected to the assumption of black inferiority that instigated slavery -- also affected an entire race.
Horowitz argues that reparations paid in the past for similar injustices were given to immediate survivors, and descendants of these survivors have no legitimate claim to such reparations. Horowitz also forgets that the U.S. government promised such reparations after the Civil War in the form of "40 acres and a mule." These reparations, however, never materialized.
"What about the debt blacks owe to America?" and "The reparations claim is a separatist idea that sets African-Americans against the nation that gave them freedom." I would think that Mr. Horowitz would also argue that former slaves should be thankful that their white counterparts dragged them away from the terrors of their family and familiar surroundings, released them from the horrors of being free men and women, and encapsulated them in the bliss of slavery. Let's not forget, Mr. Horowitz, that the same "white Christians" you praise for freeing slaves also were responsible for making them slaves.
Your turn, Mr. Horowitz.
(Faraz Rana's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached a frana@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
ONIBUDO AND SAWAYA: Police, not students, were agents of chaos
By Naima Sawaya and Nathan Onibudo | 2 days agoSaturday, the state, not students nor protesters, brought violence to this campus.
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 5 days agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | April 29, 2024The implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
