Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 6 - 10.9.2007.6

Continued from Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 5...

6.THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAY’S AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA. – F*** you Medved. I’m sorry but I had to say that as my anger is huge. How dare Medved say that. How could he possibly assume that?

If there were no African slaves, I feel it’s obvious there is no America as it exists today. There would have been fewer and smaller cities everywhere, incredibly less agriculture would have been grown to be traded. Less money means less arms and ships to defend America from the British, or others. Perhaps the effect means no America at all. And that means world history from that point completely changes in manners NONE are able to accurately comprehend.

But of the things I can say, my ancestors would not have died by the millions. I’m sure the children and families of those lost would have been better having their father or mother still live. I know that without slavery MILLIONS of families would never have been broken up. That would be better. I know that MILLIONS would not have had to live worse than cattle and livestock for their lifetimes, nor would they need to see their children born into an equal life and taken from them. I know that untold numbers of women would not have been raped (men too for that matter), and their children from these forced encounters viewed as non-existent. I know that untold thousands upon thousands would not have been mutilated and murdered for sport or as punishment for trying to be free or not doing their job properly.

I can imagine that the word N***** might not have the same meaning it does today and has for centuries. I can imagine that I would not be treated as an object of fear as I go to and from work. I can imagine that my ancestors would not have had to strive to be considered equal for 100+ years. I can imagine that my father, mother and grandparents would not have been denied a place to live solely for their color of skin.

How much are those things worth? How much more when multiplied by 346 years?

It is only the greatest level of conceit and self-aggrandizement that could allow anyone to claim that the lives of anyone is better with 346 years of racism, murder, abuse, mutilation, sexual abuse, degradation, insults, and I fear to imagine what else. If this was such a positive effect on the African Americans of today, I ask that Medved, his family and friends all be sold into slavery under the same conditions of the past for the next 346 years. I’ll even grant him just 89 years. I’ll guarantee that at the end of that time his descendant s will live in a nation of stronger economics and greater education than now. Is he willing to volunteer? Would anyone of sane mind?

But wait, your descendants will have better lives. Isn’t that worth it? According to the all-knowing and generous Medved, and those that think like him, it is. Someone give him Prozac.

**I will end this line of discussion here, but I will continue the response under another title - Real points on reparations**

Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 5 - 10.9.2007.5

Continued from Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 4...

5.WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION. – That is just insulting. Of course America did not create slavery. Medved insults the intelligence of his readers to again debate this issue. It is not the question of the existence of slavery that is in question. It is the actions of America with slavery that is the subject. Again this is obfuscation of the subject.

The blame is the fact that American slaves had no rights, unlike indentured servants, and were not considered or treated as human beings. That is indisputable. Unlike slaves throughout history, such as the Romans, the Greeks, and others where slaves were considered 2nd class citizens and were able to either integrate or elevate themselves to part of the society American slaves were considered property similar to chairs. Livestock were more ingrained in American society.

Even today, the concept of a cowboy (a term created to describe slaves that worked with cattle) and movies of them feature more scenes and plot involvement with cattle than African Americans. From start to finish it’s denial and obfuscation. Even for over 100 years after the 13th Amendment African Americans were not able to integrate into American society due to segregation and Jim Crow laws.

Perhaps if Medved considers time according to geological parameters he would be correct in saying it was a quick change. But to my knowledge there is no other society that had slaves or indentured servants (which are quite different I say again) that treated them in the same manner as American slaves. They may have been treated badly, but they were human. African Americans were not. So the comparison is flawed, because being a 2nd class citizen for 500 years (exaggeration) is not the same has being less than a cow, horse, pig, or chair for 300+.

And I will add that, if other nations had slavery, of any form at any time in history I could care less. The discussion is American slavery. The issue is American reparations for American slavery. What the Roman, or the Brazilians did and for how long is an interesting side note but it does not justify nor resolve the American issues. This may be a wonderful way to avoid the actual argument, but it does nothing to resolve it. It’s sidestepping the issue. Medved should realize that most of us can see this and should stop insulting us. Deal with the issue.



“When magistrates in Massachusetts discovered that some of their citizens had raided an African village and violently seized two natives to bring them across the Atlantic for sale in the New World, the General Court condemned “this haynos and crying sinn of man-stealing.” The officials promptly ordered the two blacks returned to their native land. Two years later [1648], Rhode Island passed legislation denouncing the practice of enslaving Africans for life and ordered that any slaves “brought within the liberties of this Collonie” be set free after ten years “as the manner is with the English servants.” ”



Oh how kind and merciful. Thank you Medved for showing me the compassion that America had at the time. 2 slaves out of MILLIONS that died in forced transit, and countless others killed on American soil, were sent home. I can sleep better now.

The kind people of Rhode Island decided my ancestors should ONLY be enslaved for a decade. Well that is better than a lifetime, how gracious of them. Too bad that the number of slaves in Rhode Island did not approach the perhaps hundreds of thousands that were sold for a lifetime of slavery during the very same time period.

Continued in Part 6...

Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 4 - 10.9.2007.4

Continued from Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 3...

3.THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASN’T GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT. – Slaves that arrived in America had a value. Those that died in the slave ships were just flotsam. To ensure profitable trips, cargo ships overloaded their ships planning ahead of time for the deaths of a portion of the Africans.

By your own admission, probably millions of Africans died and there was no accounting for them. Just as there is no accounting of the chairs that were lost on those same voyages. How many people need to be killed for how long to claim genocide? How many died in the Holocaust? How many Serbians died before American troops were sent with the U.N. to stop the genocide? In Darfur today, it is considered genocide in action with over a million dead and that has been ongoing for 4 years at least.

By your own admission slaves died en route to America for 300 YEARS, creating millions of dead, not counting untold numbers being killed once in America. Remember, you don’t need to account for, nor is it a crime to kill livestock. Slaves were less valuable than many livestock and there was no full accounting of them. How do these numbers not reach Genocidal numbers?

Is it not a genocidal act because a far smaller number of Slaves lived than the total dead? By that logic some have denied the Holocaust. That is no less an ignorant answer. Just because the total population of Africa was not killed does not make it less of a horrific and despicable act.



“By definition, the crime of genocide requires the deliberate slaughter of a specific group of people; slavers invariably preferred oppressing and exploiting live Africans rather than murdering them en masse.”



As you stated slavers overcrowded their ships because they knew as many as 1/3 would die in the forced transport. That sounds like a deliberate slaughter. Causing the expected death of hundreds if not thousands of a specific people at a time, each time they moved their ships. While you try to drive sympathy to the slavers, I fail to join in that opinion. They committed knowing Genocide, without pause since they claimed that Africans were not human.

Your further argument, implying that ALL slaves were considered as valuable as livestock, fails as well. First I’m not grateful that some slave owners felt as much pride in some of their slaves as they did their cattle or horses. The fact that some were selected as breeding stock does not make me feel better either. It is inhumane.

Further it means that some slaves were NOT given this favored status. Much like some horses and cattle were put down to improve the heard, your logic means the same happened to slaves. The loss was considered acceptable. Since the value of ALL slaves was not the same, murder of some was par for the course as it would be with any livestock.

4.IT’S NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES. – Again you lie. America was not a manufacturing economy. That is a fact. America at that time was an agricultural nation, exporting sugar, cotton, and tobacco. Those were huge cash crops. Those crops came from slave labor.



“50% of U.S. exports in 1855 were cotton”





“American cotton production soared from 156,000 bales in 1800 to more than 4,000,000 bales in 1860… the number of slaves in America grew from 700,000 in 1790 to 4,000,000 in 1860”





“New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.”



While the North made huge amounts of money from providing slaves, equipment, insurance and trade for the South, it was the crops of the South that was the source of American income until the industrial revolution took hold.

One of the primary causes of the Civil War was the fact that the North, without the agricultural trade from the South could not sustain itself. Prosperity in the North was only attained from the slave labor in the South. From 1619 until well in the 1800’s America was a farming nation that is fact. We made virtually all our money at that time from that income source, again a fact.

Another fact that needs to be noted is that Northern slaves were used to build the infrastructure that became the North. They were used to build city, streets, buildings and everything else. Similar work was done in the South. Jim Crow laws were in massive effect in the growth of the West. There is no aspect of the nation that exists today that does not have its roots in Slave labor. That is a fact.

America could not exist as it does today without slave labor. Thus all the wealth that exists today has at its roots African Americans and their unpaid work, their blood, and their inhumane treatment and living conditions. There is no amount of double talk or distraction that takes away from these facts.

Continued in Part 5...

Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 3 - 10.9.2007.3

Continued from Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 2...

2.SLAVERY EXISTED ONLY BRIEFLY, AND IN LIMITED LOCALES, IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC – INVOLVING ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE ANCESTORS OF TODAY’S AMERICANS. – Not only is this absurd, it is a lie. It is factually in accurate. American history includes and is part in parcel tied to the 13 colonies. We accept as American history everything from the first colonists beyond. In fact the ‘discovery’ of America by Christopher Columbus (who was not the first European here and thus why we are called America and not Columbia) is considered a national holiday. To deny that portion of our accepted history is to minimize everything about America.

The 13 colonies all have slavery. That is a fact. The northern colonies had more indentured servants, but there were slaves. To deny that is a lie. It is an attempt to romanticize the facts. It is also true that the northern colonies took on abolition after a time, to deny the initial action is to sidestep history. You know better.

Further the first African slaves were recorded in the American colonies in 1619, which does not mean slaves were not here before then. 89 years later as you claim, they were still slaves before the Declaration of Independence. In fact slavery existed in America from 1619 until its formal end in 1865. That’s when de facto slavery took over with Jim Crow laws and sharecropping. The Jim Crow laws were in effect, to varying degrees, as late as the 1970’s. If we only count until the Civil Rights acts (which should not have been needed if the 13th and 14th Amendments were actually enforced) then slavery lasted roughly 346 years.

Math and time do not change because you prefer to view it a certain way. If you wish to parse split hairs you can, but that does not change facts. It just allows you to view things in a manner that will let you sleep at night and live with your head in the sand.



“Of course, a hundred years of Jim Crow laws, economic oppression and indefensible discrimination followed the theoretical emancipation of the slaves, but those harsh realities raise different issues from those connected to the long-ago history of bondage.”



How can you not connect the cause with the result? Without slavery there is no Jim Crow. As you admit, slavery continued de facto under a different name for over a century after the 13th Amendment. For something ‘indefensible’ you seem to provide many defenses.

As for your claim of



“Even in the South, more than 80% of the white population never owned slaves.”



Exactly what time frame are you using for that claim? Given the fact that slavery existed for some time in all 13 colonies, then was predominant in the south for at least the 89 years you are willing to provide for, and then continued de facto under Jim Crow, there are centuries of Whites that owned slaved for some period of time. And those that owned slave did not own just one. They owned several families, working in the fields and the homes. So to say, arbitrarily and for your conscience, that only 5% of today’s White population is descended from slave owners is a farce. I would guess that if you count from the start of slaves in America, which includes the colonies that we count as America, then I would guess that the number could be at least as high as 25%.

I submit the extended family of Thomas Jefferson. Denied acknowledgement for centuries yet proven as descendants, how many other African Americans share tied ancestries to White American slave owners going back centuries. Oh, and don’t forget that many slaves were not documented as they were not considered humans, so you cannot give an accurate guess as to who owned slaves where and when.

Continued in Part 4...

Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 2 - 10.9.2007.2

Continued from Responding to Michael Medved's rant against reparations Part 1...

As for students of history and their feelings, do you feel guilt that the Romans held slaves? Do you feel guilt that Genghis Khan ruled more of the world than any other leader? Do you feel pain knowing that the Crusades and the Inquisition happened? Does the story of the 300 Spartans become less heroic because Spartans routinely left babies thought to be too weak in the woods to die? So why should a student of history feel more or less guilt in knowing the rarely spoken facts of American history?

“the current mania for exaggerating America’s culpability for the horrors of slavery bears no more connection to reality than the old, discredited tendency to deny that the U.S. bore any blame at all.”

I’m sorry, bringing up facts is an exaggeration? You say this as opposed to the constant barrage of media, in all forms, that has for centuries claimed that America never did anything wrong. Let’s take our heads out of the sand for a moment and realize a few things. The original colonies are thought of in the most romantic of forms. Similar to how the Middle Ages are seen now. Books, movies and television shows have and continue to obfuscate the truth. When you look at old Western movies, how often are Whites portraying the Indians? How many movies ever show ANY Blacks? How many address the fact that slavery existed in America at that time? Or that Indians were given diseases blankets and driven forcibly from their homes? Who do you think is exaggerating those ‘facts’?

The fact is that these things happened. America did them. To acknowledge that is not an exaggeration. It may feel extreme because the ‘family secret’ that everyone knows and no one speaks about may feel like its being shouted when someone whispers about it, but it is not. The extremity is the degree that it is hidden from the common discussion. It’s so extreme that when the current democratic presidential candidates were asked about reparations, all except one refused to even answer at all. Talk about fear.

As for the points you make:

1.SLAVERY WAS AN ANCIENT AND UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION, NOT A DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN INNOVATION. – There has never been a claim I am aware of in my lifetime that has said Slavery is only an American idea. As I recall, my elementary education addressed the fact that Romans and Greeks had slaves. My later education made clear that Spain and England had indentured servants (which is not the same no matter how that is spun around). And there have been many movies that have further let the public know that slaves existed long before America; I believe you’ve seen the 10 Commandments with Mr. Charlton Heston.

To claim that other nations having slaves and to mention how many does not change our actions. The issue is not what happened in the Ottoman Empire, but in America. If you watch wrestling and then go out and have a fight you will not be absolved because someone else did a similar thing. You are still culpable for your own actions.

This entire argument is just a means of distraction from the original point that America had slaves. Those slaves were not considered human, as indentured servants were. They had no rights, as indentured servants did in several nations including America and Spain. They were considered on par with furniture, and livestock was often considered more valuable. What other countries did with and about their slaves has no bearing. 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

Continued in Part 3...

Responding to Michael Medveds rant against reparations - 10.9.2007.1

I want to thank my friend MichaelH and the Bakare Chronicles for bringing this post to my attention. This is long, but I feel it’s important and worth it. Please read it all.

I feel insulted, and Michael Medved is the reason for it. I would like to blow this off as a rant by a guilt-ridden ignorant man, but given the prominence and success of Medved in general that does not apply. Thus I will just have to accept that he is stupid. [Stupid is defined as wanting in understanding or as I like to say “ignorance does not know, stupid is knowing and not caring.”] Given that, I think it’s time that a better answer to his “Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery” is addressed with some logic.

Before I go there I find it quite interesting that in the comments to his post, there are many jumping on the bandwagon of Medved. I hope they are all happy to be in the same mindset and company of Georgia House Speaker Richardson, and Frank Hargrove.

It is interesting that most people I have known in life across this country don’t want to discuss slavery at all. It’s barely and poorly discussed in schools. Few who have discussed it at all have been able to remain calm in the discussion. I have observed more denial and anger from this conversation than anything else. And none have provided me reasons to change my opinion on reparations or an apology. But I will note that when someone does address these issues, especially in denying any culpability, hoardes come out to comment in agreement. To me that is just mob justification.

But I ask Medved to reply to this.

I served in the Marine Corp, as did my father in Viet Nam where he suffered life altering and permanent injuries. My father volunteered because our nation needed him. My sister served in the Army. My grandfathers on both sides of my family served in the military. I can go on with my cousins and so forth but the point comes down to the fact my family, like many others, love this country enough to give out lives for it. At the same time, we are all intelligent enough to realize that our nation has made mistakes and done outright acts of wrong over it’s history. To acknwledge this is not a bad thing, it’s just honesty. America is not a saint among nations, and for me to say that is not an attempt to

“discredit the United States and to deny our role as history’s most powerful and pre-eminent force for freedom, goodness and human dignity”

To make such a broad and baseless implication is an attempt to discredit your detractors on a basis of patriotism that is insulting and inaccurate. How dare you.

Also to belittle the plight of Native American Indians is also insulting and an attempt to justify actions taken in the past. America did not just 'displace' Indians, we removed them from ancestral lands and stuck them in swamps and barren plains, and those that refused we killed. If you wish to minimize that as ‘mistreatment’ then that is your own guilt. If you feel both these actions detract from our better actions now then that is your personal problem. I do not share your guilt and personal shame. I understand that a child may get into fights and perhaps steal, but with maturity and time that same child can become a great religious leader or hero or another form of leader.

Continued in part 2...