Posted on 05/10/2002 8:46:45 PM PDT by mhking
By Michael King
A New Visions Commentary paper published May 2002 by The National Center for Public Policy Research, 777 North Capitol Street NE #803, Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/371-1400, Fax 202/408-7773, E-Mail Project21@nationalcenter.org, Web http://www.project21.org. Reprints permitted provided source is credited.
For fans of science fiction and mysteries like me, the acronym TANSTAAFL means a lot. It refers to the notion that if something is too easy it is either too good to be true or has much larger and harsher consequences down the road.
When it comes to the reparations debate, black America needs to learn about TANSTAAFL: "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch." Many of us believe the government "owes" us reparations for the years of slavery in the United States and British Crown Colonies. Members of the so-called "black elite" such as former TransAfrica head Randall Robinson and Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) hold this view.
Robinson authored The Debt: What America Owes To Blacks in which he lays out his case for government reparations for black Americans. Conyers repeatedly introduces legislation for reparations payments to the descendents of slaves in the United States.
Robinson and Conyers hang their hat on the concept of "40 acres and a mule." It's the failed Reconstruction idea to give freed slaves 40 acres of farmland and a mule to plow it. This notion, championed by General William Sherman after the Civil War, was vetoed more than once by President Andrew Johnson. The misconception of a government promise to provide land and labor to emancipated slaves persists today.
On talk shows from coast to coast, people sell the sizzle of a payment in the form of land, money or both. Hucksters set up scams, promising to create a massive class action lawsuit to force the government to "enforce their own promise." You must, however, pay them fees in advance "to help defray legal costs." Others claim to offer reparations payments if the gullible simply provide their credit card numbers.
When people point out the fallacies related to the reparations debate, and they are black themselves, they are derided as sellouts, "Uncle Toms," "Oreos" and far worse names. They are told they have forgotten who they are and that they are helping the "white devils" keep the black man down.
But these people seek to point out rational and reasonable truths: there are no living slaves left. If the government gave money to every descendent of every slave, the government would quickly go bankrupt. Finally, if the government were to make payments, how could the government determine exactly who descended from slaves and who descended from free blacks in the north, free citizens from other countries or whose ancestors immigrated after slavery was abolished?
In the rare instances where reparations were paid to ethnic groups for past injustices, they were paid to the individuals to whom the injustices were inflicted or immediate family. I know there isn't a single slave and probably no immediate family member left alive to receive government reparations from when slavery was legal for less than 100 years.
That's right. Slavery was legal in the United States for only 89 years. It may not have been right in the eyes of God, but it was right and legal in the eyes of the law of the era. Should the government apologize for slavery? Yes and no. Yes, apologize for the wrongful treatment of the countless blacks enslaved in this country. But no apology is necessary for the fact that, at that time, it was legal. You don't see the government apologizing for not granting women the legal right to vote prior to 1920. This situation is regrettable, but really no different.
Moreover, we, as a people, should forgive and move on. By dwelling on the past, we are doing nothing short of wallowing in our own self-pity. From the reaction I get when I suggest this, you'd think I had thought it was right and proper to beat your children or your dog with a sharp stick.
All I want people to do is think rationally and get away from the emotionalism that the so-called black leaders are using to rabble-rouse us.
Trying to goad, push and blackmail the government into paying out what amounts to a winning lottery check to black America is nothing more than trying to get something for nothing. And, as we all know, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Michael King is a member of the African-American leadership network Project 21 and an Internet and radio broadcaster in Atlanta, Georgia. He can be reached at mhking@bellsouth.net and http://www.geocities.com/mhking1/.
Note: New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21. A downloadable photo of Michael King is available at http://www.nationalcenter.org/StaffP21MHKingHead.jpg.
Actually they don't even need to apologize for it. True slavery was (and still is) a crime in the eyes of God, but if you want to direct your wrath somewhere point it back at Africa where slavery is practiced to this day, and to Saudi Arabia (where it was legal until 1968 I believe).
The American blacks in this country, while their ancestors worked, bled and died in slavery, are the recipients of an excellent inheritance; they are here and not in Africa.
Also I think 600,000 dead from the Civil War repaid in blood any debt that was owed to the slaves.
You are absolutely correct in one thing though; TANSTAAFL :)
Secondly, this statement You don't see the government apologizing for not granting women the legal right to vote prior to 1920. is not entirely true. In the late 1700's and early 1800's, many states allowed women to vote. Eventually, the attitude became that every family had one vote, and the man who headed the family cast the vote for that family. In this sense, denying women the vote was in no way morally equivalent to the wrongs of slavery. In some states, women who headed a family (typically widows) would cast the vote for their family unit. I believe at the time that the amendment was passed giving all women the vote, several states had already granted women the right to vote. You may already know all of this, and it doesn't lessen the point of the commentary. However, sometimes these details can be helpful in an argument.
WFTR
Bill
Just how many times to you think would be fair?
How did you arrive at the 500 votes per second?
And what is this bit of propaganda doing here?
Plus, I have read that most states north of the Mason-Dixon Line passed laws restricting or eliminating slavery within their borders by soon after 1800 which tells me that there was widespread sentiment against slavery at least in the North all along.
the infowarrior
No argument from yours truly. I've always rated it as his best...
the infowarrior
Of FEDERAL land...
Son offa Gun! Laz, I think you might have cut the Gordian Knot with this one. I'll pass it on...
With a little work, I'll vote for it myself.
I'd rather Little Richard Penniman have that land than Little Richard Gephardt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.