Reparations
issue bogus
|
This
section features two articles. One in favour
of reparations for slavery, and another against. The article
against, which is featured first, was selected from a number
of letters which regard the raising of the issue of reparations
for slavery as an uninformed movement, to say the least.
Mukazo Vunda's comment on this letter
follows after that.
Reparations
issue bogus
COMMENTARY - RON WOODGEARD
By Ron Woodgeard
Having
been born on the Fourth of July in Ohio, I don't figure I owe
anybody reparations for slavery. Naturally, I can't speak for
the the rest of ya'll.
If
my ancestors fought for anybody during the Civil War, they fought
for Mr. Lincoln. Since most of my early relatives were lacking
an education, I doubt they gave much thought to the South's
insistence on keeping slaves. If they had lived in the South,
they certainly could not have afforded slaves. They were so
poor and ignorant, and their standard of living was not much
better.
I
am not going out on a limb to say that the vast number of Southerners
were in the same boat as my ancestors. A simple meal of home-grown
vegetables was just about all they ever had to be thankful for.
Meat, mostly chicken, was something that was never on the table
except maybe on Sundays. They farmed and hunted the hills in
southeastern Ohio, not terribly far from the West Virginia line.
When I first heard the idea that the ancestors of slaves ought
to be compensated, I honestly thought that if it weren't a joke,
it was a theoretical proposition.
I
was wrong. The reparations movement is out there and getting
more serious every minute. The Rev. Jesse Jackson plans to make
it his number one issue this fall. During one of what will be
many press conferences, Jackson has said, "We must make
crooked ways straight."
I've
lived in Georgia for about 45 years. I can say without equivocation
that Southerners have an instinctive desire to "do people
right." But the baloney that passes for an argument in
favor of reparations strains the patience of even the most saintly
Caucasian.
"We
have fewer services and less education," Jackson told Reuters
during the U.N. racism conference in Durban, South Africa. "We
are disproportionately jailed and killed by the state. We have
shorter life spans. We have less access to capital."
Civil-rights
lawyers are preparing lawsuits on behalf of African Americans.
The amount has yet to emerge, but is said to be more than $1
trillion. Part of their argument is that a major reason America
got fat, dumb and happy was because of slavery.
No one in his or her right mind is defending slavery, trying
to make it less horrific than it was, or excusing the thousands
of needless deaths caused by trading in human lives. Those proposing
monetary reward for slavery try to equate more recent examples
of reparations to bolster their argument.
No
matter how many times one uses the word "holocaust,"
what happened to European Jews during World War II isn't even
remotely similar. The Nazis are appropriately paying reparations
to descendants of Jews. In that case, they are able to identify
specific people and to show that their inheritance was denied.
Wealthy and middle class Jews were stripped of their property,
if they were lucky enough to live, and their descendants were
demonstrably worse off.
The
same is true for the Russian survivors of Nazi concentration
camps. Germany is paying about $6 million to two million survivors
of slavery and forced labor.
It
is also appropriate for the United States to pay Japanese Americans
who were herded into camps during World War II. They were taken
out of their neighborhoods, houses and property. They lost wages.
They had less to pass along to their families. It's possible
to follow the money.
None
of that is true when it comes to African slaves. A key factor
in deciding any reparations question is establishing guilt.
The people of modern day America may appropriately feel regret
that a handful of their European ancestors profited from slavery.
But that's not the same as owing somebody a living for something
that happened hundreds of years ago.
Not
only that, but this whole sense of victimhood on the part of
some people, including Rev. Jackson, is not useful or worthwhile
to anyone. America is the greatest country on earth, a place
where everyone has an opportunity to have a happy, productive
life. That includes the distant relatives of African slaves.
Ron Woodgeard may be reached at 744-4319 or at HYPERLINK "mailto:Woodgeard@aol.com"
Woodgeard@aol.com .
Mukazo
Vunda's comment
Firstly,
Mr. Woodgeard leads us through the poor backgrounds of his ancestors,
which, to me, without seeming to state that I think the family
Mr. Woodgeard stems from were actually a guilty party, seems
to be an emotional attempt to equate poverty with innocence.
It is as such impertinent to the matter he aims to involve himself
in, short of saying that this is the art of the demagogue.
In
the tenth paragraph, Mr. Woodgeard refers
to the people paying the owed money, present day Germans, as
Nazis. Is this a "slip of the pen", or a lack of worldly
knowledge, a euphemism for dumbness, if you like. Let us look
carefully at some facts of history, and then understand what
this means:
Nazis were crushed and forced to surrender. Those who survived
capture fled into exile, mostly to south America, or roamed,
and still roam Europe as fugitives, on false identities, always
on the go, always afraid to have their true identities known.
By calling the present German people Nazis, Mr. Woodgeard shows
his racism, and proves that the common defense that Germans
use today to describe the world's attitude towards them is true.
The present day Germans are not Nazis. They, like Mr. Woodgeard's
ancestors whom he is obviously proud of, mostly have nothing
to do with what happened in the past. Calling them Nazis is
blaming them of things they, the descendants, could do little
about, except, as the German government is doing, to clear their
name, to break the connection with the past by showing they
are prepared to give back what was taken by force. They are
distancing themselves from this past by this act, and should
be commended.
The
fact of the matter is that the German government, knowing full
well that funds and valuables robbed from Jews have seeped into
their present cash and profit boxes, have taken the responsibility
to pay the money back to the survivors, or their families, rather
than shove the issue under the carpet and hope the rest of the
world will not know they are riding on bloody money. It is actually
a cleansing act, a freeing of the conscious, and it doesn't
really matter whether the world is watching or not. This act
should come out of a well-meaning person's heart. He should
take the initiative. This is a healing process. Such acts build
better people. This is what healing the world is all about.
Apart from this is the right any wronged party has to claim
property, or resources that rightly belong to them, or, as is
the case with Africa, to call solely for reparations, which
should not be confused with compensation, even though, ultimately,
value in the form of money or services changes hands.
There
is general acceptance today that it is right that Germans compensate
the survivors of the holocaust and their families for the loses
they suffered as a result of Nazi doings, that misappropriated
valuables be returned to their rightful owners, or next of kin,
when properly traced. This is a good step for mankind. It can
be compared to an international tribunal bringing a war crimes
suspect to trial in an international court, and making sure
that justice is done. If people can be punished, or made to
see and accept the existence of circumstances that actually
tie them to wrongs in the past, and then start the process of
distancing themselves from such heinous acts, others can be
deterred from perpetrating them. Mankind can in this way spare
itself from such horrors in the present, and in future. There
should however be no double standards with regards to this issue.
All of mankind has to be included, whether they are black, white
or yellow; whether they are articulate or dumb, for this to
make any sense. All of recent history has to be taken into consideration,
especially that whose effects are still being lived. The fact
that the effects are being lived, or experienced makes this
a current issue which should advisedly not be pushed under the
carpet, but confronted now before it is too late.
The
thirteenth paragraph uses terms that
are useful for those who wish to push the matter of reparations
forward. Unfortunately, despite all the evidence out there,
some of which you will read about in the following article,
Mr. Woodgeard denies that guilt can be established with regards
to the issue of African slaves. This, to me, is similar to claims
today that the holocaust never happened. It is either that people
like Mr. Woodgeard are extremely uninformed, or that they are
right wing extremist who will go to any lengths to prevent others
from doing the right thing. I wouldn't like to live in their
world, because, you see, I am a different breed. I would prefer
to clear my conscious, if I was the guilty party, than to live
with the knowledge that my success is a result of robbery, murder,
and destruction of families, societies, and nations.
Mr.
Woodgeard doesn't seem conscious that he is separating the common
wealth of a nation from the constituent members of the nation;
the families, with regards to his situation, and doing the opposite
with regards to the Nazis. He accepts that the wealth owned
in common by Germans should be taxed for the Jews, or that the
common wealth owned by Americans should be used to compensate
the Japanese, and blatantly rejects this when it comes to the
issue of African slavery. Here, his family becomes the all important
factor. If he is conscious of this fact, then he is simply a
sorry individual out to get an advantage by whatever means necessary,
including the testing of the intellect of Africans.
That the American treasury reserves, even European reserves,
have benefited from slavery is not a secret. That, to a large
extent, present day Americans are living prosperous lives because
somebody in another part of the world had to lose his family,
and his freedom, and eventually, his life, is known. This is
a very sensitive issue which tells a lot about what the West
really is.
There
are many sides to the slavery issue, involvement by Africans
themselves included. Complex as this issue is, concession can
straiten out many facts, and possibly, heal many wounds. There
are millions of people out there who are living the lives of
refugees, suffering daily in impoverished climes, or are living
or feeling like prisoners wherever they are on this planet because
of this issue. The opening of the issue, and eventually, the
showing that people are prepared to make amends for harm done
to the victims, will ultimately be the long awaited step that
will start the healing process that all parties need, and for
much of mankind, the clearing of the stigma that they have acquired
by acceptance of a rich heritage from savage times.
All
in all, it is sad that the most powerful nations on earth have
so far failed to be a party to, or, at first notice, stand up
to this call. Ironically, Germany, the nation Mr. Woodgeard
calls a Nazi state, has shown a more positive response. America,
the avowed "best democracy" in the world (a contradiction
in terms), the supposed world police, has failed to see the
truth of the African call for reparations, while the descendants
of Nazis didn't need much convincing to see this.
Is
this a case of "who feels it knows it"?
Mr.
Woodgeard's last paragraph may be true when
world life standards are compared. I beg to differ with the
description "greatest country", but I understand what
he means by this. I have heard it said by many, in different
contexts. America is indeed the most prosperous land on earth
where everyone has a chance to live happy, productive lives.
Many people in the third world would give their all to get a
chance to live here because of this. Let us, or rather, fittingly,
let the Woodgeards of this planet not forget the what it has
taken to make this "success". If they keep this in
mind, they may probably know why the various parts of the world
are like they are today, why this gap between rich and poor
exists, why the problem of migration exists, etc.
On
the other hand, the attitude in the language he uses in the
last paragraph sounds very familiar. I have heard it from women,
and men who believe that the thing, or money, can get them anything,
even happiness. It's called Blackmail.
The
following article gives a few facts regarding this issue, and
some facts which actually establish guilt. There is more evidence
out there than this article gives, or can be put down in an
article this size.
The
drawback to the following article is the author's need to prove
that Africans were not content with slavery. This approach ignores
the fact that this is already a given. The need to be free is
not a condition that only Europeans have, but all of mankind,
and, for that matter, all animals. A caged bird will always
want to escape when the chance arises. When an animal is content
to stay domesticated it has always been battered into this state.
After repeated attempts to escape, the animal settles to the
new situation, and, most often, its brain can no longer think
of freedom, or anything useful, as a result of the constant
battering.
If not used for utilitarian purposes, the approach shows a weakness
in the writer's psyche. If such an educated mind can show this
complex, then it should be accepted that it is very widespread.
It is as a result a useful approach which should be adopted
by all who deal with such issues, and should only be dropped
when we are sure we have freed all our minds from mental slavery,
for the sake of the demoralized many whom we should never forget,
whose pride we need to restore if we are going to get any positive
input from them.
This
cruel lie is inculcated into the conscious of the subjugated
to make them accept the status of inferiority. It makes it easier
to control them.
Slavery:
What the West Owes Africans
September
9, 2001
Posted to the web September 9, 2001
Dennis
Onyango
The UN World Conference against Racism (WCAR), Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa,
ended with disagreements on what mattered most to the African
hosts; slavery, the slave trade and whether the beneficiaries
should pay for it.
Africans were demanding a formal apology from the West. But
the beneficiaries, the richest states on earth, are reluctant
to go beyond expressions of regret for fear that a formal apology
may trigger centuries of litigation.
Even
the expression of regrets was not easy to get. Only Germany
apologised to the African states that were victims to slavery.
Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer told the conference that recognition
of guilt was the way to restore to the victims and their descendants
"the dignity of which they were robbed".
The United States of America essentially boycotted the meeting
because it did not want to discuss Israel's treatment of Palestinians
and whether the North owes reparations and apology to Africa
over slavery.
The European Union and other rich states side-stepped the issue
and instead offered to boost aid to "well-managed"
African states.
The storm that has gathered over this touchy issue for years
only got darker with this "racist" anti-racism conference.
African states continued to demand reparations paid on the basis
of how seriously a country suffered from slave-trading or colonialism.
That demand got even stronger with Nobel peace laureate Archbishop
Desmond Tutu throwing his moral weight behind Africa's demands
for reparations.
"Reparations is saying: 'We are sorry, we are sorry for
what happened'. The language that is used is reparations not
compensation. How do you compensate me, I mean, for the loss
of freedom? How do you compensate me for a loved one?"
he said.
African delegates argued that the affluence enjoyed by many
in the developed world today was built on slave labour, and
that racism and poverty were entrenched by slavery and colonialism.
Legacies of colonialism
They argued that the slave trade destroyed Africa's human resources
and the lack of those human resources weakened the continent.
They reasoned that in the 16th Century there was not such a
great economic difference between Europe and Africa. Today there
is because of the legacies of colonialism and slavery which
helped to build the West's economies at Africa's expense.
For Archbishop Tutu, reparations would help soothe some of the
wounds caused by slavery. To apologise or not remains a contentious
issue. But the amount of data scholars and activists have gathered
leave no doubt that the slave trade was as destructive as it
was dehumanising and painful.
The actual number of men, women and children who were snatched
from their homes in Africa and transported in slave ships across
the Atlantic, either to the Caribbean islands or to North and
South America, will never be known. Researchers vary in their
estimates. But all are agreed the numbers run into millions.
Papers presented at a 1978 Unesco-sponsored meeting in Port-au-Prince,
Haiti, gave scary figures.
The African Slave Trade from the 15th -19th Century meeting
which looked at the trade between 1666 and1800 disclosed that
slaves imported only by the English for the English, French
and Spanish colonies numbered 3 million, 250,000 of whom died
on the voyage.
Between 1680-1786, slaves imported for the English colonies
in America reached 2,130,000. Jamaica alone absorbed 610,000.
The average annual number of slaves imported for the American
colonies reached 3.5 million while Jamaica imported 71,115 slaves
during 1752 - 1762.
An average of 74,000 slaves were imported each year for the
American colonies, or a total of 1,850,000; this yearly average
was divided up between the English (38,000), French (20,000),
Portuguese (10,000), Dutch (4,000), and Dane (2,000).
The manner in which the slaves were sold was traumatic. A search
into centuries-old US newspapers indicates that the slaves were
advertised and displayed as livestock, property or belongings.
On July 25, 1774 one advert appeared announcing: "To be
sold . . . a cargo of 170 prime, young likely healthy Guinea
slaves."
The slave trade was a contested issue even while it lasted.
In November 1841, according to accessible US papers, some 135
African slaves on board the ship Creole overpowered the crew
and murdered one man, while sailing from Hampton Roads, Virginia,
to New Orleans, Louisiana.
Led by rebel Madison Washington, they sailed to Nassau, Bahamas,
where the British declared most of them free. The US protested
that the escaped slaves remained the property of their US owners
and should be protected in foreign ports. A diplomatic controversy
followed and Ohio Congressman Joshua Giddings argued that once
the ship was outside the US territorial waters, the Africans
were entitled to their liberty and any attempt to re-enslave
them would be unconstitutional.
Slaves liked their status
Giddings was censured by the House of Representatives. He resigned,
but his constituents quickly re-elected him and sent him back
to Congress.
There have been claims that the African slaves liked their status.
But newspapers of the day and recently published texts refute
this. Details recently made public by the Historical Society
of Pennsylvania revealed thousands of newspaper advertisements
on escaped slaves, an indication that the Africans always tried
to get away.
In Blacks Who Stole Themselves, Billy G. Smith and Richard Wijtowicz
trace thousands of advertisements for runaways in the Pennsylvania
Gazette between 1728 - 90.
The writers compile numerous examples of advertisements that
appeared in just one newspaper during the eighteenth century.
Such notices contradict the argument that enslaved people were
content with their condition.
The slave owners' determination to protect their investment
is demonstrated by their zeal in pursuing the runaways. One
1847 advert read: "US$200 Reward. Runaway from the subscriber...
Five Negro Slaves."
One of the strongest indications of the Africans' hatred for
slavery was seen in what became known as the 'Amistad Mutiny'.
A Portuguese slaver purchased slaves in West Africa and transported
them to the Caribbean. The captives found themselves in the
hands of Cuban slave dealers on board the Spanish schooner Amistad.
During the voyage from Cuba, the Africans rebelled, killed the
captain and three crewmen and ordered the rest to sail to Africa.
By day the crew complied, but at night they sailed west and
finally landed near Long Island, New York, where the vessel
was seized by US authorities.
The New York Sun reported in 1839 that the leader of the slaves
was a "brave Congolese chief . . . who now lies in jail
in arms at New Haven, Connecticut, awaiting his trial for daring
for freedom." The Congolese, whose name was given as Cinqu
, is quoted as saying: "Brothers, we have done that which
we proposed . . . I am resolved it is better to die than be
a white man's slave."
To its credit, the US government appealed the case to the Supreme
Court where President John Quincy Adams argued that it was the
Africans, not the Cubans, who should be treated sympathetically
because they were free people illegally enslaved.
President Adams argued the appeal on behalf of the Africans
before the Court. He stated that they "were entitled to
all kindness and good offices due from a humane and Christian
nation". President Adams won the case in January 1841 and
the Africans were returned to Africa.
In his book, The Debt; What America Owes to Blacks, Randal Robinson
argues that slavery was a "great still unfolding massive
crime of official and unofficial America against Africa, African
slaves and their descendants in America."
Robinson argues that many rich families in the former slave
trading territories owe their wealth to the slave trade. He
points to people who built slave ships and some went ahead to
build universities. He singles out Brown University in the US.
The history of slavery recently caught up with America's prestigious
Yale University. As it marked its 300th anniversary with the
theme of "long history of activisim in the face of slavery",
three doctoral candidates at the university revealed that Yale
is ignoring the murky side of its history.
Staunch defender of slave trade
In a story published in leading US newspapers, the scholars
said Yale relied on slave-trading money for its first scholarships,
endowed professorship and library endowment. Yale honoured slave
traders when choosing figures to list as "Worthies"
on a tower at the centre of its campus in New Haven, Connecticut.
Only 40 years ago, it chose names of slave traders when it was
naming some colleges. One man it honoured was John C.Calhoun,
a former US Vice-President. According to the scholars, Calhoun
was a staunch defender of the "good" of slavery.
Of the phrase "all men are born free and equal", Calhoun
wrote: "It is utterly untrue."
Others have indicated that Spain had built a lucrative sugar
empire by importing slave labour. Bristol and Liverpool in England
developed into prosperous slave ports. Much of the wealth of
Bristol was gained by exploiting African peoples, transporting
them across the Atlantic Ocean in horrific conditions. Bristol
is still in some denial about the facts and horrors of the slave
trade. By the 1780s, when Britain shipped a third of a million
slaves to the New World, the national economy depended on the
trade.
In an article commemorating 150 years since France abolished
slavery, Le Monde said: "The course of human history is
marked by appalling crimes. But even the hardened historian
is filled with horror, loathing and indignation on examining
the record of African slavery. A tragedy of such dimensions
has no parallel in any other part of the world."
"The African continent was bled of its human resources
via all possible routes. Across the Sahara, through the Red
Sea, from the Indian Ocean ports and across the Atlantic."
The newspaper said the European Atlantic trade "was the
form of slavery that indisputably contributed most to the present
situation of Africa. It engendered the racism and contempt from
which Africans still suffer".
The intractability of these issues - along with the unresolved
question of how to describe Israel's treatment of the Palestinians
- leaves the achievements of the Durban conference unclear and
the human race probably more polarised than before.