More Catholic bashing of reparations

MEMO TO FR. JOHANSEN, Neither MLK nor Mr. X would have been sickened by what took place on Saturday at the mall in Washington, D.C.

Fr.Robert Johansen of Thrown Back Blog has this to say on the Slavery Reparations rally in DC over the weekend.

The Legacy of Martin and Malcom?

Saturday afternooon, in our nation's capital, a rabble of leftist True Believers gathered for a rally (LRR) in support of Slavery Reparations. The rally was not well-reported, perhaps because, in the greater scheme of things, it was not well-attended. Only about 2,000-3,000 demonstrators showed up, which, in Washington demonstration terms, is insignificant. But the insignificance of the reparations movement has not prevented it from gaining a certain degree of acquiescence, if not support, from the establishment left.

Such "luminaries" of the self-appointed black leadership as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have expressed their support for slavery reparations. Advocates of reparations have thrown out figures of 50 to 100 billion dollars, as well as grants of large tracts of land, as starting points for negotiations. And who would supervise how these monies and lands are distributed? Well, ahem, people like Jesse and Al, of course!

Advocates of reparations cloak their arguments in rhetoric about the "stigma" of slavery and the "systemic effects of racism", etc., ad nauseam, but their cause has all the subtelty of a mugging, and about as much moral legitimacy. But the demonstrators tipped their hand about their true motivations when one of the leaders, New York City council member Charles Barron, said, "I want to go up to the closest white person and say, `You can't understand this, it's a black thing,' and then slap him, just for my mental health." So, Mr. Barron's "mental health" requires that he abuse white people. Who, then, I ask, is the racist?

The problem with "reparations" for slavery, as people like economist Walter Williams have pointed out, is that none of the proposed recipients of reparations is, or ever was, a slave, and none of the people from whom the reparations would come is, or ever was, a slave owner. Every former slave or slave owner has been dead for at least 60 years. By the reparations logic, Americans whose ancestors died in World War One should be able to extract settlements from the descendants of Austro-Hungarian Imperial soldiers. The argument is absurd. My family never owned a slave: my forbears all came here long after slavery was abolished. By what logic do I owe reparations? What about recent emigres from Poland or Russia? What "obligation" do they have to pay reparations? All of these questions and problems are ignored by the Reparations muggers because they expect to extract their demands from the government.

And in that we see the true origins of the Reparations movement. Reparations are really a new cover for the old redistributionist-socialist agenda. The failure of socialism and the obviously corrosive effect of redistributionist schemes has not deterred those who are desirous of lining their nests with feathers plucked from others. The champions of reparations are the same old leftists who championed the wonders of the Sandanista regime in Nicaragua and the glories of Castro's Cuba. They have merely covered their marxist fantasy in dashikis and dreadlocks. And does anyone seriously believe that, if they got what they wanted, we would hear no more from them? Rest assured, they would come back for more.

The problem with investing one's identity in victimhood is that victimhood is a fundamentally weakening and disabling phenomenon. One can, in a sense, never find the limits to one's own victimhood, and therefore, find limits to the demands one's victimhood imposes on others. You can never have enough of being a victim. To be a victim is to cede your power and moral authority to others, and the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons will always be waiting to take that power and use it for their own ends. The advocates of reparations are either cynical opportunists or dupes. The dupes are victims, but of their own supposed leaders.

Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, I'm confident, would have been sickened by what took place in Washington on Saturday.


Here are a couple of comments from his page on his post

Comments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am paranoid about being paranoid. Is this movement just a bunch of whining people getting media coverage, or is this ball of dung really rolling?
-- Therese

-- # Aug 19 2002, 12:57 pm e-mail

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an interesting fact about reparations. The descendents of black africans who were brought to America forcibly as slaves are twenty times better off economically than the descendents of those who were left behind. That by no means implies that the kidnapping and enslaving of their ancestors was not a horrible crime. But doesn't it imply that, if reparations are due to any contemporaries, it should be paid to the descendents of those left behind by the descendents of those who made it to America?
-- Matt
-- # Aug 19 2002, 12:55 pm


After previous discussions on anti-multiculturalism and the issue of slavery reparations and some of the reaction I noted in the St. Blogs community (note, I say some, by no means all or most, even though I think many), I decided to no longer respond to or deal with any of those issues in my blog. I did, however, ask one question at the end of my post in reaction to Mark Sullivan's "bone in the nose" cultures post. The answer to that question for me has had to be in the negative; a move purely out of conscience and self respect.

I broke my self imposed rule here, though, to note that here we have a priest saying things and encouraging certain comments. I am a reasonable man and I understand that valid disagreements occur, however it is the insensitivity to the issue that is of concern to me.

In an email response to one of my postings on reparations, Barbara disagreed with me, however, she did note that she was sympathetic to my concerns. I found her response, along with some others which were quite charitable, acceptable forms of disagreement. But, again, my primary concern is the insensitivityof many Catholics to an issue that is so close to and painful to many.

In the postings that I have seen against reparations, people tend to bring up a variety of other situations in which our logic would demand that these people deserve reparations. Now, I may disagree with these examples, but what I shouldn't do is stoke any fires because all these situations are dear to someone's heart. For instance, I disagree with Fr. Johansen's example of similarly demanding reparations for his an cestors who died at the hands of Austro-Hungarian soldiers, but it would be unChristian to dismiss the real pain he may have or his demand for reparations as undercover socialism or something similar.

Anyway, back to my lunch of skillet macaroni and beef with a quarter cup of steamed sliced green olives and . . .