Daily Lobo Column
By now, almost everyone on college campuses throughout the nation has heard about David Horowitz's views on why reparations should not be made to African-Americans for slavery.
Most have heard how his advertisement was so inflammatory, racist and terrible that it sparked protests on some campuses where it ran while other campus newspapers refused to print it at all.
Much is already being said about the foolishness being displayed by students who are willing to steal newspapers and lead protests to prevent people like Horowitz from expressing his right to free speech. The idea that college campuses have become spawning pools for left-wing extremists bent on suppressing unpopular opinions is quickly gaining ground.
The biggest problem is that these students are unwilling to meet Horowitz on equal terms and address his comments with well-reasoned logical rebuttals. When they lower themselves to the level of petty thugs to get their way, any intelligent observer has to wonder if they are doing it because they are truly that angry or if they can't form an intelligent response because they can't.
Anyone who has been following the news knows the basics of Horowitz's stance, which are listed in his advertisement "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks - and Racists Too."
Little more than this is told. What more needs to be said? The man doesn't support the government subsidizing people whose skin color is the same as that of people who were treated unjustly long ago. Obviously he is a racist and a bigot, right?
An actual examination of Horowitz's reasoning yields interesting and thought-provoking results. Not merely the ravings of a racist nutcase, his writing is well thought out and sensible. While the debate about Horowitz's First Amendment rights on, the merits of the actual argument go largely unmentioned.
The idea behind reparations for slavery is that, somehow, the wrongs of 150 years ago can be put right by having the descendants of the wrongdoers - in this case, white Americans - give money to the descendants of the wronged - black Americans. Once this transfer of wealth has been completed, the evils of slavery will have been erased. America can put its racially divided past in the past and move on into a purely egalitarian society such as the one Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed of.
So, what's wrong with poking holes in this theory? Doesn't it sound a little flimsy to begin with?
First and foremost, why should anyone ever be held responsible for the crimes of someone else? If your parents, your grandparents or your ancestors living in 2000 B.C. committed a crime, why should you have to pay the penalty for it? Why should anyone be forced to account for the crimes of someone whose skin color was the same as theirs five generations back? How is that ethically different from picking people randomly off the street and punishing them for crimes they didn't commit?
How could such a policy be implemented fairly? Exactly who would pay? Would background checks have to be done on everyone to determine if they had slaveholders in their past? Perhaps DNA testing would come in handy as a means of identifying those to be punished. And even if someone living today is a descendant of someone living in the South during the Civil War, how can it be known for certain they played a role in the existence of slavery? Most southerners at the time didn't own slaves - they couldn't afford to. Not all slave owners were cruel.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Demonizing all Western Europeans as evil, slave-owning racists is one of the worst distortions ever applied to history. If not for the Western European philosophies of the Enlightenment, who is to say that slavery wouldn't still exist? It was men and women of European descent who formed the core of the abolitionist movement.
Slavery has existed since before the dawn of recorded history, and yet there had never been a movement to free slaves simply based on humanitarian ideals.
What evidence of negative effects resulting from slavery is still having a significant impact on African Americans today? How can it be said that slaves, after they were freed, were at a significant disadvantage in the American workforce?
Unlike "white" immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Germany and Eastern Europe, most freed slaves could already speak English, had families in America and had experience in American farming and industry. Not only that, but why is it so incredibly taboo for Horowitz and other conservatives to point out the simple fact that life for the average African is far worse than that of the average African-American?
Above all, why are issues such as this used to further divide American society? How can anyone think that creating any policy along racial lines will lead to a more tolerant, integrated society? How will being obsessed with the wrongs of the past help us move forward into the future?
