... it gets more and more ridiculous
Professor Charles J. Ogletree of Harvard and others, including Johnnie Cochrane of O.J Simpson fame, have announced their intention to bring suit in a court of law to secure reparations to the African American community for the image of the offense of slavery.
This idea has been around now for over ten years. Years ago I had a rather heated discussion on the subject with a black person when I was on Prodigy. The intensity of his argument revealed a degree of anti-white brain conditioning which unfortunately is common in the American black community and is the source of energy in this venture.
No one will question the vile nature that was slavery. Over the centuries humans of all races and creeds were subjected to it. Indeed, it continues to this day! Muslims in the Sudan continue to make slaves of women and young people after the men in their villages have been killed. That is documented by the United Nations. It has at all times appeared strange to me that while they decry anything related to slavery, American blacks of Muslim persuasion honor slave trading Muslims in the Sudan. Go figure!
The Romans and the Greeks made slaves of conquered peoples. At all times in the history of the human race, there was slavery. Africans suffered more than others and were enslaved by their own black brothers to be sold for profit. Blacks enslaved blacks. Whites purchased slaves. They did not make slaves. There's a differance. Even today, slaves are made in many African countries. Mauritania is one.
In the very remote event that this idea of payment or reparations, as they characterize it, wins out so that payment is due African Americans, my question then is: how is indemnity determined? Certainly a person of mixed race is not due payment for the non-African ancestry. Millions of Americans are of mixed race. Blacks bred for years with American Indians. Sally Hemmings consorted with her master, Thomas Jefferson, and her descendants are proud,as they should be, of that ancestry. Do they get a full cut? I think not.
Next in this argument, we have black immigrants. How do we sort them out? Do we owe reparations to them? It gets a bit sticky, does it not? Who determines their racial background for degrees of indemnification? Naturally it takes on the character of a happy bandwagon with anyone and everyone not of genuine white ancestry claiming his/her cut!
The Jesse Jacksons and the African Americans of academic success have failed to consider these elements. The intellectuals refuse to recognize any degree of preposterousness with which this thrust is replete. It becomes increasingly complex as well as interesting. My view is that there is far too much that is hostile for this attack on history to gain any measure of success. In the meantime, the propagandizing continues; the brain conditioning along with it. The "if you can't beat them, join them" concept is not a factor. If that were the case, African Americans would not maintain elements of their orientation which have always been "foreign" to American traditions. Much of that orientation is rich and has supplied the country with good stuff for these many years. I consider the idea of reparations a real "no brainer" and is doomed to failure. Thanks.
September 7, 2001