Smartest Argument Against Reparations From Black Civil Rights Activist
Bob Woodson: Embracing reparations debases blacks, raises troubling questions. Support for reparations recently voiced by three of the Democratic 2020 presidential candidates is yet another insult to black America that is clothed in the trappings of social justice. Because their declarations were strategically timed during the waning days of Black History Month, it is important to examine the issue of reparations fully through a clear lens of history.
The matter is not as simple as its advocates makes it appear.
Reparations are offered to compensate the descendants of black slaves who suffered at the hands of their white oppressors, who were able to build wealth and derive privileges that were passed on to their progeny. Advocates argue that it is the legacy of slavery that explains the current wealth gap between blacks and whites in America, and assume that the suffering of those early generations somehow can be monetized in a yet-to-be-determined amount.
By this reasoning, for the sake of social justice, all whites in America today must be willing to contribute to such a compensation fund or be labeled as racist. In this calculation, all blacks living in America belong to the class of “aggrieved victims” and, therefore, qualify for reparations.
In truth, the lines of demarcation become blurred when deeper consideration is given to who qualifies as a villain (payer) or a victim (payee).
According to research by historians Henry Louis Gates Jr. and R. Halliburton, Jr., since the founding of our nation, the ownership of black slaves was not the exclusive domain of whites. In fact, blacks bought and sold fellow blacks from 1654 until the beginning of the Civil War.
In 1830, about 13.7 percent of the black population (319,599) was free. Of these, 3,776 owned 12,907 of the total slave population of 2,009,043.
The first known person legally declared to be “in permanent bondage” involved a case brought to the courts in Virginia in 1654. Anthony Johnson, one of the country’s first black slave owners, had five indentured servants. One of them was a black man, John Casor, who had fulfilled his time of indenture and sought his freedom. Johnson and his wife sued in court and the judge ruled in their favor that Casor was in bondage for life. This was the first known legal sanction of slavery other than as a means of criminal punishment.
Though some blacks purchased other blacks for humanitarian purposes, including family members, many others enslaved fellow blacks for their own economic benefit. One insidious example was the action of members of the Free People of Color in New Orleans, slave owners who offered to fight against the Union Army. According to research by Noah Andre Trudeau and James G. Hollandsworth Jr., in May 1861, the governor organized the “Native Guards of Louisiana,” and these black slave owners took an oath to fight to defend the Confederacy. Eventually, their ranks swelled to 1,000.
The matter is not as simple as its advocates makes it appear.
Reparations are offered to compensate the descendants of black slaves who suffered at the hands of their white oppressors, who were able to build wealth and derive privileges that were passed on to their progeny. Advocates argue that it is the legacy of slavery that explains the current wealth gap between blacks and whites in America, and assume that the suffering of those early generations somehow can be monetized in a yet-to-be-determined amount.
By this reasoning, for the sake of social justice, all whites in America today must be willing to contribute to such a compensation fund or be labeled as racist. In this calculation, all blacks living in America belong to the class of “aggrieved victims” and, therefore, qualify for reparations.
In truth, the lines of demarcation become blurred when deeper consideration is given to who qualifies as a villain (payer) or a victim (payee).
According to research by historians Henry Louis Gates Jr. and R. Halliburton, Jr., since the founding of our nation, the ownership of black slaves was not the exclusive domain of whites. In fact, blacks bought and sold fellow blacks from 1654 until the beginning of the Civil War.
In 1830, about 13.7 percent of the black population (319,599) was free. Of these, 3,776 owned 12,907 of the total slave population of 2,009,043.
The first known person legally declared to be “in permanent bondage” involved a case brought to the courts in Virginia in 1654. Anthony Johnson, one of the country’s first black slave owners, had five indentured servants. One of them was a black man, John Casor, who had fulfilled his time of indenture and sought his freedom. Johnson and his wife sued in court and the judge ruled in their favor that Casor was in bondage for life. This was the first known legal sanction of slavery other than as a means of criminal punishment.
Though some blacks purchased other blacks for humanitarian purposes, including family members, many others enslaved fellow blacks for their own economic benefit. One insidious example was the action of members of the Free People of Color in New Orleans, slave owners who offered to fight against the Union Army. According to research by Noah Andre Trudeau and James G. Hollandsworth Jr., in May 1861, the governor organized the “Native Guards of Louisiana,” and these black slave owners took an oath to fight to defend the Confederacy. Eventually, their ranks swelled to 1,000.
Category
🗞
News