Ocho Guest Post: White Man's Burden

Courtesy of Ocho, Ocho : Is this what they are afraid of if Obama wins? Would/could he flip the tables? Have they forgotten that his mother was white?

Comments

[Jack Klompus]

"Is this what they are afraid of if Obama wins? Would/could he flip the tables? Have they forgotten that his mother was white?"

I don't know if "they" are afraid of what you are implying. I'm not. And no, he alone couldn't "flip the tables." Of course, I'm not exactly sure what "flipping the tables" means -- but I'm guessing it has to do with African Americans either suddenly or gradually comprising the overwhelming majority of the wealthiest 5% of Americans. How (logically or otherwise) does Barack make this happen? And if that is indeed your hypothetical, let me ask you this:

If that were to happen, do you think you'll have the same amount of blacks voting Democrat? What do you suppose their attitudes will be in regards to paying heavy taxes and "spreading their wealth around?" How does this magic table-flipping agenda stay in practice once the tables have been turned? Or does it?

[Ocho Ocho]

I suggested this post because I think its totally asinine. Even if BO wanted to do this he could not. Additionally, he does not want to do it.

I am just trying to point out how idiotic even the premise of thinking that Obama would favor one race over another, or that he effectively could do so.

Who says that blacks are in favor of higher taxes and wealth redistribution now, let alone if the tables turned? Is that an assumption?

[Jack Klompus]

"I am just trying to point out how idiotic even the premise of thinking that Obama would favor one race over another, or that he effectively could do so."

Fair enough. But your question was directed at opponents of Obama. What percentage of black voters would you guess believe an Obama presidency provides a better future for the black community?

"Who says that blacks are in favor of higher taxes and wealth redistribution now, let alone if the tables turned?"

Well for one, blacks favor reparations by a huge ratio. That most likely would occur in the form of a long period of tax exemptions (as proposed by Conyers every year). Secondly, do you think more blacks favor capitalism or oppose it?

[jackie]

Well for one, blacks favor reparations by a huge ratio.

Reparations. Interesting topic.

Who is in favor here at The Grieve? Who is against?

State your reasons.

[Assman]

Well for one, blacks favor reparations by a huge ratio.

Are you serious? Who seriously wants reparations? I doubt anyone would argue with getting free shit, but who really, seriously expects acres and a mule? What black people are you talking to? Radio Raheem?

[Ocho Ocho]

Well, shit. Let's see, 40 acres and a mule in 1868 Dollars is a pretty sum today. If reparations were on the table it would be hard for me to not accept. Also reparations are for past harms not just a pure redistribution. It is compensation.

What percentage think it would help the black community? I think most think it really won't make a difference. But I think they are proud that it may happen and they are secure in the belief that an Obama Presidency will not hurt them.

Germany and Switzerland paid reparations for the Halocaust. How is that different? Now I still doubt that reparations will occur.

I am not sure if blacks favor or oppose capitalism. I have not done or read any research.

[Assman]

What percentage think it would help the black community? I think most think it really won't make a difference.

More harm than good, by a wide margin.

You get a lump sum of whatever the fuck, right? But, you've got to consider the fact that being granted this stuff for free depreciates the actual value of whatever it is on day one. Second, you've got to reconcile the fact that an entire nation of whites that are several generations displaced from slavery ALREADY feel kinda pissed off about something as minor as affirmative action. If you toss in free shit (to people that weren't slaves, by the way) on top of that, the resent would be enough to fire up a war.

And the logistics are stupid. Who would get the reparations? People who can prove their ancestors were slaves? What about whites that had one slave in the family tree? What about Jamaican blacks who got here a generation ago, but maybe had an American slave there? What about Puff Daddy?

[Jack Klompus]

"What percentage think it would help the black community? I think most think it really won't make a difference.

More harm than good, by a wide margin."

I think (but not positive) Ocho's quote that you referenced was in response to my question about how many blacks does he think would feel an Obama presidency would improve their quality of living versus a white president.

[Ocho Ocho]

Assman. Yiou are so right.

[Assman]

I think (but not positive) Ocho's quote that you referenced was in response to my question about how many blacks does he think would feel an Obama presidency would improve their quality of living versus a white president.

You got me.

[Jack Klompus]

"Germany and Switzerland paid reparations for the Halocaust. How is that different?"

If it's simply a question of an atrocity, it's the same. But it's different in these two major ways: 1.) Holocaust victims, by and large, were walking around free before they were rounded up by the Nazis. Slaves in America were slaves in Africa. Contrary to popular belief, Colonial Dwight didn't sail to Africa and capture otherwise free Africans. That doesn't mean slavery isn't an atrocity. But worldwide historical context is important when comparing the two; 2.) Racism was the primary basis for rounding up holocaust prisoners. Racism was not the basis for slavery in America. While racism was in fact exacerbated by slavery, it actually worsened after emancipation.

All that said, I don't agree with Holocaust reparations either.

[TMan]

Ah, not exactly correct. Dwight did at first and found it to be inefficient. Dwight then struck deals with warring factions to buy up captives from other tribes, thus creating a market that was otherwise not there. Some historians have argued that this market actually encouraged wars between competing groups by offering a great solution: wipe out your competitor by capturing all of their productive members and selling them to an exporter who will ensure that they never come back. Then you can become the dominant group. So, there was some complicity by colonial era Africans, but it's not accurate to say that Dwight went to Slaves R' Us and picked up a few million Africans who were already slaves.

Oh, and racism was a rampant part of slavery. A Biblical myth was even created to justify slavery. Google "Hamitic myth" for details.

There is a comparison to make here: both this country and Switzerland (particularly a few banks and insurance companies) profited from these atrocities. The agricultural wealth created in the American South was predicated on slave labor. Swiss banks and insurance companies profited by retaining the assets of Jews who were rounded up, not because of race, but religion. They also profited by refusing to pay life insurance claims for Jews who had been murdered by the Nazis.

So, why is it wrong to pay reparations? I think it's a political and economic impossibility for the US, but if Swiss banks have a clear record of holding the assets of a Parisian Jew and had refused to turn them over to the descendents of that person, why is it wrong for the Swiss government to compensate those descendents?

[Jack Klompus]

"Dwight then struck deals with warring factions to buy up captives from other tribes, thus creating a market that was otherwise not there."

Okay but Dwight is not wholly responsible for creating that new market. It wouldn't have worked without willing vendors. The point I was getting at is that there's this image painted in our collective history that Dwight landed in Africa and scooped up free Africans. That's just not true.

"Oh, and racism was a rampant part of slavery"

I'm not saying it wasn't a part of slavery. I'm saying it wasn't the basis for it; that is, slavery was not born out of racism. Slaves existed because they were available, either because they were weaker than their captors or because they were prisoners of war (as you noted). So naturally they were looked down upon by their captors. But African slave owners didn't enslave only whites, Asians, or Arabs -- and so on and so forth.

"There is a comparison to make here: both this country and Switzerland (particularly a few banks and insurance companies) profited from these atrocities. The agricultural wealth created in the American South was predicated on slave labor."

I disagree mostly. Some individuals in the South profited from slaves, sure. And some family fortunes were created with the help of slave labor. But suggesting that society as whole became wealthier thanks to slavery is wrong, I believe. For one, the North was always wealthier and more productive than the South in colonial times and were far less dependent on slave labor. And for a lot of Southern plantation owners, slaves were more a symbol of wealth than a producer of wealth.

"So, why is it wrong to pay reparations?"

It's not necessarily. I just don't think in either the case of the Holocaust or the American slavery that governments should be involved in allocating compensation. It should be between the descendants of slaves and the decendants of slave owners. But that has been too complicated it seems. So special interests (and politicians) have decided to attach any and all hardships associated with the black community as a direct result of enslavement in America. It's really more about politics than it is about solving the hardships.

[TMan]

"The point I was getting at is that there's this image painted in our collective history that Dwight landed in Africa and scooped up free Africans. That's just not true."

It is true, just not to the scale that we are lead to believe.

"And for a lot of Southern plantation owners, slaves were more a symbol of wealth than a producer of wealth."

I couldn't disagree more. The economic concept was that you could create an agribusiness (before we coined the term) by not having to pay for labor, other than the initial acquisition cost (which was defrayed because the labor pool replicated itself in time) and upkeep (meager food and shelter), most of which was produced by slave labor, on-site. Granted there were minor slave owners who owned a small handful of slaves, but the sheer number of slaves imported to the US (Brazil actually got the lion's share of the 4 million estimated slaves) compared to the US population means that there was an active, lucrative use for slaves in the agricultural side. You are correct that the North was more wealthy, but part of that can be attributed the Industrial Revolution (obviating the need for massive unskilled labor forces) and to the fact that the slave traders and ship owners who imported slaves were largely northern-owed. The founder of Brown University made a better part of his fortune that way. But the point still remains, that there was a huge profit made in the slave trade. And yet, it was the first time that the slave trade was based upon race. Notice that despite the rampant warfare in Europe, which included taking POWs, white Europeans were not sold into slavery to come work in the Americas in any noticeable scale. Not even Native Americans in the US were pressed into slavery (they were in South America, but not here).

My point is that racism didn't create the institution of slavery, but it was a direct, tangible factor in the explosion of it as a major industry. Biblical and scientific racist mythology was created to rationalize and justify it. And some of that mythology is still around, clouding how we view and deal with each other. Where do think the references.

"It's really more about politics than it is about solving the hardships"

Agreed. And that's part of the reason I think it's a political and economic impossibility. But we can't ignore that slavery was a major factor in early wealth creation in this country on both sides of the Mason-Dixon.