DISCUSSION FORUM

You need to check your balances some more, not just wallow in guilt. If slavery was such a national sin, what do you say to the 350,000 white northerners who died in the civil war to free the slaves? The apologies from the senate and the house assume blame for all Americans, which is wrong. Not all American perpetrated slavery. To try to connect all Americans to slavery because they benefitted is like saying all American are guilty of trafficking in illegal drugs - we all benefit in some variation of Kevin Bacon's six degrees of separation.

As a white Northerner with ancestors who participated in abolitionist efforts and who fought in the civil war, I reject any responsibility for slavery. However, I do agree that those state that did allow slavery owe something to the descendents of of that trade. My solution is that all folks who can prove slave heritage should get free higher education, 4 years of college - NOT cash reparations.

Peter, no American alive today perpetrated slavery. The Senate apology wasn't about assuming blame, but about apologizing as a nation for what the nation did.

Nor is anyone trying to blame Americans for slavery because we all benefit from that history today. Instead, that fact is being used to help Americans to properly understand how we got to this place, and to decide what to do about it.

On the Civil War, the short answer is that those white northerners were fighting to preserve the Union. The North couldn't even agree on ending slavery until 1865. And ending an evil practice hardly absolves a person, or a nation, of responsibility for what has been done.

You say you reject any responsibility for race in our society today, because of your ancestors. How do their actions impact your responsibility, any more than if they had been slave owners? Speaking of which, weren't they? Slave-owning was quite common in the North, while abolitionism was a minority sentiment until around the time of the Civil War.

I appreciate that you are open to the idea of carefully calibrated compensation to the descendants of slaves. However, you're mistaken if you believe that the responsibility for slavery rested primarily with the southern states. You refer to those states which allowed slavery--that's all of the original thirteen states, for instance.

You guilt runs deep, Mr. Dewolf Perry, but do not impose it on all Americans. Not all of us share in the sins of your forefathers, so not all of us need to share your guilt, or in your effort$ to make thing$ right.

The Senate apology wasn't about assuming blame, but about apologizing as a nation for what the nation did.

What the nation did was split into two halves, and fight to the death many times about slavery. Do you think the southerners were fighting about nebulous political philosophies? They were fighting to keep their way of life and their slaves, whose free labor funded that way of life.

Nor is anyone trying to blame Americans for slavery because we all benefit from that history today.

As a white male I get blamed for everything that is wrong with this country, every day. Non-whites are routinely portrayed as the victims, so someone must be victimizing them - surely must be the white man. Yes, whites ARE being blamed, constantly, and the drumbeat of cash reparations gets louder every day - stop in at the NAACP sometime. If the treasury can print up a trillion dollars for the white-owned banks, why not another trillion for reparations, hmmmm?

On the Civil War, the short answer is that those white northerners were fighting to preserve the Union.

That's YOUR 'short answer', and that of every revisionist historian (and college perfesser!) who tries to assuage his personal sense of guilt for having white skin. The facts were very different for the 350,000 men who died to right the wrong of slavery. Do you have any notion of the value of the lost incomes of those men must be? Be sure to count, as well, how much was spent by the North directly on the war. Read some northern newspapers from the era and you'll realize how strong the sentiment against slavery was, especially in religious communities - which were most common at the time.

You say you reject any responsibility for race in our society today, because of your ancestors.

No, I said I reject any responsibility for slavery, because my ansectors supported abolition, and fought in the war to free the slaves. We have never been thanked by the black community, and now you want me to pay money for reparations for a wrong that my forebears fought to right? Doesn't that sound a bit unjust to you? It like folks blaming the firefighters for their house burning down, then asking for them to pay to rebuild it!

However, you're mistaken if you believe that the responsibility for slavery rested primarily with the southern states.

No, you are mistaken in trying to impose a responsibility on me. You sound very much like a naive 20-something who believes everything his college perfesser told him. As I said, please get a more complete picture - the civil war wasn't primary about state's rights - do the research yourself, don't just listen to socialist potificators nestled in their trees of academe. Please.

You guilt runs deep, Mr. Dewolf Perry, but do not impose it on all Americans.

Peter, I don't feel any guilt about what other people have done in earlier eras. Why would you think that I do?

What the nation did was split into two halves, and fight to the death many times about slavery.

It's true that the South was fighting in large part to preserve the institution of slavery. What does this tell us, aside from the fact that the nation paid a terrible price for its actions? The North was equally responsible for slavery, and shared fully in the benefits, as well.

As a white male I get blamed for everything that is wrong with this country, every day.

Then I suggest you take that issue up with those who believe in blame on the basis of race, and not with the rest of us.

the drumbeat of cash reparations gets louder every day - stop in at the NAACP sometime.

I don't believe the NAACP supports reparations for slavery, Peter.

That's YOUR 'short answer', and that of every revisionist historian (and college perfesser!) who tries to assuage his personal sense of guilt for having white skin.

That's the shared opinion of every Civil War historian that I've run across, both white and black, and it has nothing to do with anyone feeling guilt on account of their race.

Those Civil War casualties simply weren't incurred because the soldiers thought they were fighting to end slavery. That sense of clarity about the moral purpose and ultimate practical aim of the war didn't arise until very late in the war, and to a significant extent, not until after the war was over.

Read some northern newspapers from the era and you'll realize how strong the sentiment against slavery was

Actually, northern sentiment was deeply divided on the war, Peter. That's why abolitionists were so controversial, and why there were public demonstrations on both sides of the abolition question. It's also why Congress during the war was unable to agree on abolition until 1865. It's not hard to understand this, once you acknowledge that much of the northern economy was tied directly to southern slavery, even in 1860.

I said I reject any responsibility for slavery, because my ansectors supported abolition, and fought in the war to free the slaves.

I stand corrected. It was my inference that because you're rejecting any responsibility for the consequences of slavery today. I still believe that's what you're saying, but you're right, it's my interpretation.

In any event, I would be interested in the details of your ancestors. How do you know they supported abolition? Did all of them? Did they really march off to war in the hope of freeing the slaves, even though the Union couldn't agree on whether or not to do so once the war ended?

We have never been thanked by the black community, and now you want me to pay money for reparations for a wrong that my forebears fought to right?

The "black community" certainly did thank the Union soldiers in the 19th century for their sacrifices, but I can understand why few people pay much attention, today, to those long-dead soldiers and how they helped to prevent the nation from continuing its evil ways.

However, no, I don't want you to pay money for reparations for that wrong, whether or not your ancestors helped to correct it.

It like folks blaming the firefighters for their house burning down, then asking for them to pay to rebuild it!

No, I think it's more like folks deliberately setting fires, then agreeing not to start them anymore. Then complaining that they haven't been properly thanked and that the victims haven't stopped asking for compensation.

Reparations is a very hot topic these days, and you will note that the press was very careful to not ask Candidate Obama about his views on the matter - his answer would have either alienated huge swaths of various constituencies, or would have forced him to give a political non-answer.

NAACP: http://www.naacp.org/advocacy/theadvocate/rat_sped/july_07/reparations/index.htm

In that paper Dr. Powers essentially defines reparations as compensation paid by the defeated nation to the victorious nation, or to the victims of the defeated nation. By this logic, the Southern states would owe a debt to the North, and/or to the manumitted slaves. For proponents of reparations to support the notion that northern states should pay as well would be for them to recognize no state borders (boundless guilt, as so many seem to revel in). And by that logic, the question must be asked: If Northern states owe reparations, why doesn't Canada? They benefitted as much as northern states, didn't they? The question must also be asked: Why does California have to pay? And of course, to whom must it be paid? Do we measure skin color? The logic as well as the logistics fail immediately.

Then, if the all grandsons have to pay for the sins of a few grandfathers, we are setting a legal precedent that will kill us all. To wit: Many blacks have performed genital mutilations on their women, both here and in the old country. If the above legal precedent stands, all black men must be held responsible for this atrocity, and will promptly have to give all their reparations money to their women.

The concept of cash reparations does not stand up to even a laymans' scrutiny - sharp legal minds would have field day with the notion. However, as I have said: the thing most needed in the black community is a highly educated generation, one that will not have so much disdain for brains as today's black youth seem to have - see Dr. Bill Cosby on this one. Cash reparations will just be massive extension of the welfare state, which is finally being seen for what it is - immensely detrimental to the long-term accomplishments of black society. It is the age-old concept of teaching a man to fish, rather than giving him one. Free higher education for a whole generation of slave descendents is overdue, and will be the most equitable and complete recompense.

Peter, I regret that you didn't see Senator Obama's position on reparations when he was running for president. It was a carefully nuanced and worded statement, as you might imagine, but it rejected the notion of cash payments for slavery in favor of race-neutral programs to ensure that all Americans, regardless of background, have equal opportunities to prosper and to contribute to the nation's well-being.

As for the NAACP, as I said, I believe that organization has no position on reparations. You've linked to an essay on their web site, in which Dr. Powers offers a detailed examination of the reparations movement, both in the U.S. and abroad.

As for the southern U.S., you can certainly argue that they could have paid war reparations after the Civil War. Others, I'm sure, would argue that the southern states paid dearly after the conflict.

In any case, this has nothing to do with the question of reparations for slavery, which existed in both north and south for centuries and in which both regions were deeply complicit. The northern U.S. was innocent of slavery for only a handful of years before Emancipation. It simply isn't possible to pin moral or financial responsibility on the south alone.

Simply consider that it was U.S. laws which allowed slavery to exist, not simply state laws. And that slavery was, in fact, permitted under the laws of all of the original northern states.

I think you raise a better argument by suggesting that perhaps California shouldn't pay. However, I'm sure that reparations advocates would point out that it was the nation which was responsible for slavery, and the nation which benefited. There is no sound principle for dicing up the nation and making only the eastern half pay for thae nation's choices long ago. California has reaped its share of benefits from slavery, and while it had no choice about that, we're talking about financial restitution here, not moral accountability.

You raise an even better argument when you allude to the logistical issues involved in paying money to the descendants of slavery. I suspect this is why the reparations movement has, by and large, moved beyond the notion of cash payments to descendants.

Your argument that black Americans should be held accountable for the actions of people in foreign countries, because they are of the same race, deserves no comment. No one here is endorsing the notion that white people should pay for the crimes of others on account of their race.

At the end of your argument, interestingly, you seem to be wholeheartedly endorsing reparations, albeit of the modern variety concerned with such issues as education rather than cash payments. I'm not sure whether you're serious, but the idea of free higher education for a generation of black Americans is further than I would be willing to go. It would also seem to violate your concerns above about the entire nation bearing the cost, and about treating people differently on the basis of race. It would, however, address squarely one of the lingering disadvantages brought about by our sordid history of slavery and Jim Crow racial discrimination.

Thanks,

James

Mr. DeWolf Perry:

Does my 8-year-old daughter share the burden of responsibility and guilt with which you would saddle her? How about my wife, whose parents came to America from Romania and Czechoslovakia in the 1930s? How about the tens of millions of immigrants who arrived after the civil war was over? They 'benefitted from slavery', yet they played no direct part. Where is their responsibility?

Please answer my earlier questions: What do you say to the 350,000 descendents of the white northerners who died in the civil war to free the slaves? You arrogantly question their motives from decades away - what metric would satisfy you that these folks were 'properly' motivated?

And, how much in the way of reparations are due to the descendents of the Union soldiers who died, or maybe just got maimed?

And, how is Canada not also responsible? What exactly are your parameters for determining responsibility?

And, can you not see the philosophical parallels between reparations for slavery and reparations for genital mutilation? Race is not central to the latter issue, gender is; please don't try to cloud the matter, and it certainly DOES deserve comment.

Your attempt to burden all Americans with the responsibility of slavery is fundamentally lazy, and seems to be an attempt to spread the weight of your 'guilt' onto others so that it doesn't crush you. If you want a just application of reparations, you must do the legwork, and find all bona fide descendents of slavery, as well as all the descendents of the slaveowners, and do the actual math. You ask who is to pay for free higher education - I say the descendents of slaveowners. (Also, I have mentioned no concerns about 'treating people differently on the basis of race' - it happens at every moment of every day, all around the world, and has for millenia. It is a reality with which I've made my peace, like the one where I get blamed, as a white American, for all past, present, and future wrongs suffered by non-whites.)

I'm mostly interested in leaving for my daughter a country where she is not also relentlessly blamed her whole life for being an oppressor.

Thank you for reading.

You've asked a lot of questions of me directly, and have been clear that you expect them to be answered. That's fair, and I'll certainly do my best.



If you're asking my opinion, neither your daughter, nor anyone else, should feel any guilt for the actions of other people. And the only responsibility any of us should feel is for addressing the problems of our own society today, as members of that society.



I'm glad that you are able to acknowledge that these tens of millions of immigrants, and their descendants, have benefited substantially from slavery.

I also think you're right to suggest that the implications of that fact are far from simple. I do believe, however, that this isn't about finding people who played a "direct part" in American slavery. No such people exist today, of course, yet our society faces the problems passed down to us by the 19th century United States. We have all benefited from slavery, while not having chosen to do so, and we must each decide what responsibility we have to address the injustices in our own society caused by the same historical events which generated those benefits.



I answered that question, as you can see above. Those northerners simply did not die to end slavery. I'm not questioning their motives; they did not claim to be fighting for a cause which hadn't even been decided. (The North struggled throughout the Civil War to decide whether or not slavery ought to be abolished if the Union won, and only decided to do so early in 1865, long after almost all soldiers had enlisted or been drafted.) Contemporaneous accounts indicate that Union soldiers were fighting to preserve the Union, to defend their communities, and for assorted other purposes.

Even if they had died to end slavery, though, how does that answer the nation's responsibility for its practice of slavery over generations? How would simply ending that immoral practice close any question of accounting for the harm done?



Canada is not responsible for the practice of U.S. slavery, is it? Canada is responsible for social injustices in its own society, and especially when those injustices are the result of its own actions as a nation.



It may deserve comment, but I'm not sure what you're asking. Genital mutilation is an accepted practice in many traditional societies, and is sharply condemned in most modern societies. If you can find a society in which people today are suffering inequality because their ancestors underwent genital mutilation, then I agree there is a strong parallel.

Now, why is genital mutilation relevant here? It isn't practiced by Americans of any race. It's practiced elsewhere in the world, and by some recent immigrants to this country.



This argument would be more convincing if I exhibited any sense of personal guilt for the sins of our nation's past. But I don't, which is why such personal attacks don't usually make for good arguments.



You would extract reparations from the descendants of slave owners? I would think that they would be quite unhappy, since most are not exactly wealthy today. Would you also seek reparations from those whose ancestors, like mine, benefited from slavery in other ways? That amounts to a majority of the entire U.S. population.

I realize that you aren't actually advocating reparations of any kind, but then, neither am I. My point is that we should be honest about where the benefits from slavery reside today, and that is with the American people, not with the descendants of a few wealthy southern plantation owners.



No one should simply accept that people are sometimes treated differently on the basis of race--any more than any of us should accept that you, as a white person, are blamed for anything you haven't personally done.