Recently
I wrote a comment in response to a NYTimes online article. I write a lot of these. Often one or more a morning, before dawn usually, just like these posts. It’s
one of the benefits of the curse of not sleeping. Sometimes, I get 1-5
“recommends” on my comments (sometimes none), which is laughable as some get hundreds or even thousands, and whoever bashes me in reply often gets far more. I often hope I have time to reply when I get bashed – as after a
while they turn the reply functions off – because sometimes I feel the
commenter, in bashing me, has proved my point. Of course, on my blog, where no
one comments because it no longer allows them to be anonymous for some reason
or other, I am a king with no subjects, and no one sasses me. Actually, that’s
a shame because in the past I rather enjoyed the comments, and I’m pretty sure
the few readers I had enjoyed them more than my post.
In
any event, with respect to the article I'm writing about, within a few minutes of posting my comment on The Times,
I got 40 some-odd recommends, which interested me, not because - oh, boy, I’m
popular – but because it lets me know that even
in a fairly ideologically fixed group - and I don’t think anyone doubts that
the “typical” NY Times reader is on the liberal side – a larger than usual group of people seemed to agree. And, I guess that’s just rare.
The
article I commented on was about nuns, who belonged to an order that had
decided to atone for the deeds of those in the same order long before them,
indeed, who lived before any of them were even born. The misdeeds were slavery.
My comment was (correcting only two spelling errors because I write them before
dawn, but forget to edit before I post):
“This insistence that people today (even if they themselves buy it), are
somehow responsible for slavery b/c they have the same profession, institution
or were descended from those responsible, makes no sense. We don't do this with
anything else. We don't, e.g., expect atonement by the descendants or members
of the same club, of a murderer 200 years ago. Members of all branches of
government in the past had slaves and helped perpetuate slavery. Should, say,
Elijah Cummings, George Bush and John Roberts therefore atone for it?
This idea
of guilt or responsibility carried through genes or membership in institutions,
is no different in its core than the idea that groups of people were natural
slaves because of their skin color or religion, etc. That was something people
believed when slavery was the norm for peoples all over the world for most of
human history.
Obviously,
I am not justifying slavery or arguing that it cannot have lasting effects. I'm
saying that it is not rational in the slightest for women who decided to
dedicate their lives to a peaceful ideology to think they have anything to
atone for b/c of what people who joined that group did 150 or more years ago,
and that, generally, the idea of guilt or responsibility flowing across
generations in the genes or through membership in an institution is not only
nonsense, but dangerous nonsense - and at the very core of the idea of slavery
itself.”
This
idea of atonement for the deeds or even beliefs of others who are not us
because of a sharing of some superficial quality that has nothing to do with
the actual offense, is, as I wrote, dangerous. It is based on the falsest of
ideas, that we are not morally individual, but share guilt or responsibility
with those who have some highly intangible quality in common to us.
The
New York Times itself is a company that has, in the past, engaged in blatant
and unapologetic racism. Last year, it published an article which recognized, with
respect to Jack Johnson, the first black recognized heavyweight champion, its
own racist coverage. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/sports/jack-johnson-racism.html.
The article actually went rather easy on the Times, which had a long history of
being much more racist than I have space to write about here. The author did
not atone or apologize in the article. And, they should not have because
neither the author nor the employees at The Times today, have the same beliefs. But,
the non-apology surprised me, as The Times and its employees sometimes make
rather lame apologies for what is not racism, but what appears to mimic it by coincidence. For example, its crossword puzzle editor
recently apologized for using a word “beaner,” even though the “beaner” it
meant had nothing to do with any racism nor did the editor realize that it
could be used as a slur against Hispanics. I think he was giving a clue or
answer to a puzzle about coffee. Whatever it was, it wasn’t racist. Also
recently, the Times apologized for a cartoon featuring Trump and Benjamin
Netanyahu which it “admitted” had anti-Semitic tropes. What were these tropes?
Apparently, it included Netanyahu wearing a dog collar with the Star of David.
Obviously, they meant that Israel’s leader was Trump’s lapdog, which has been a
common way of disparaging different leaders for a long time, and certainly not
just Jewish ones. Tony Blair, Britain’s former PM, was taunted for being Bush’s
lapdog. The Star of David actually is Israel’s symbol and its use doesn’t imply
prejudice any more than a hammer and sickle used to portray a Soviet would have
been in the past. I saw the cartoon. It never occurred to me that it might be
anti-Semitic, but, for many it did. I seriously doubt the drawer of the cartoon
meant it that way.
Right
now, the issue of reparations is on the forefront again, brought back when the
Ds took over the House of Representatives in the last election. They mean it to
atone for racism, if you give it its best face (and not that they are trying to
drum up support among their base). I believe it perpetuates racism. I’m not delving
into the impossibility of actuality fairly implementing reparations (who’s
black, who’s white, who is responsible – did your family have to live here
during slavery to participate in atonement, etc.?), as those arguments are well
known and I do not think can be successfully rebutted. Even some leaders of the
movement for reparations acknowledge you can’t do it fairly.
But
there is another false premise supporting reparations I’d like to address. That
is the notion that it is not guilt or culpability that is being assigned in
order to have reparations, but the recognition that there have been some economic
benefits which some institutions and families have carried forward to this day which
were, as they say, built on the backs of slavery. I have no doubt that it is true to some extent that slaves were forced to build things that we still benefit from today. It is still a false notion. We cannot leap
from this belief in economic advantage for some Americans who had nothing to
do with slavery, even if they are descended from George Washington or a slave
trader, to the belief that they and others superficially like them, should pay reparations to other Americans who did not suffer slavery –
even if some descendants do have advantages. Forget that we cannot accurately parse
where the present-day advantages came from (it might have little or nothing to do with slavery). There is no reason that some
Americans who were disadvantaged because of the economic shadow of slavery,
should receive present-day advantages, but not someone who is disadvantaged
because his parents(s) was wrongly convicted, or suffered the consequences of
anti-Semitism, anti-Asian sentiment, etc. Nor reason that those who do suffer
from those non-slavery related disadvantages (perhaps everyone), should have to
pay towards reparations for others. We shouldn’t give in to this torture of
reason that tries to rectify past injustices by blaming innocent people for
them now, even if it makes others feel good.
Nor
can I accept the argument that slavery is different than everything else in
American history and should be treated specially. American Indians, for one
group, could easily differ. Nor could it explain
away the fact that for a while, blacks had a higher rate of marriage and
actually a greater labor participation than whites – and that has been, at one
time, since slavery.
Last, but not least, consider the powerful testimony of Coleman
Hughes, a journalist, who was a witness before a congressional hearing on
reparations in congress, should not be quickly forgotten: “Reparations by definition
are only given to victims, so the moment you give me reparations, you’ve made
me into a victim without my consent. Not just that, you’ve made 1/3 of black
Americans who poll against reparations into victims without their consent, and
black Americans have fought too long for the right to define themselves to be
spoken for in such a condescending manner.”
Yes, he can insist he is an individual with his own opinion (even if he sees himself as a member of an oppressed group),
however much someone might want to label him in order to support their political opinion. He
doesn’t want to be a victim, whatever his supposed saviors think. But, it is
not just him. Reparations rips the individuality away from everyone who participates
on either side – the givers or the receivers.
There is an unspoken sentiment held not just by some American
blacks, perhaps a majority, but by many whites and others who buy into it too,
that it’s just fine if white people, even innocent ones, are stripped of their
individuality and treated as a group, because non-white men were oppressed for so long
(and many still feel oppressed despite the change in laws and public
sentiment). They base their conclusion on the same unfair practices of judging
people as a group, not as individuals. So, if whites are now – evil – and “white
men” now considered dangerous, because there are some crazed white nationals in
our country, that’s okay with them. If a white officer or sometimes ordinary
person gets presumed guilty of murder because a black person was killed, even
if it isn’t true, we should pretend it’s true. The more ridiculous the label of
murder is, the better, because that highlights their point - group identity is what really matters. George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson (Ferguson – the shooting
of Michael Brown) come quickly to mind.
You can say my opinion is that of a privileged white man (trust me, the
privileges did not include a lot of money), but it is the opinion of many
people, some of whom, like Coleman Hughes, would benefit from this carnage of
justice where once again in our country, skin color again becomes the primary
qualification and qualities like character and merit, ability and decency, and
so on, are no longer the lessons that matter. Maybe that has already occurred.
I
couldn’t be more against guilt by association, for the sake of everyone’s individuality. Group guilt is a curse, and it should be abandoned.
