> That's what the Fred Reed piece did -- it relied on rational thought to
> show the foolishness of the "reparations" silliness.
My own view of "reparations" is that making me pay for the crimes
of long-dead slave owners is no more rational than holding the
descendents of the slaves responsible. I have no more control
over those events than they do. This "reparations silliness" is
much more than just silliness. It vilifies modern day whites not
for doing something wrong, but just for being the same race as
someone who did something wrong. And it gives preferential
treatment to modern day blacks not for being oppressed, but just
for being the same race as someone who was oppressed. This, in
itself, is a racially motivated injustice.
I recognize that these are the same points that Mr. Reed was
making in his article. And I recognized when he was
demonstrating the absurdity of "guilt by association" by
reversing the roles. But he played the role reversal so well
that it left me with the uneasy feeling that the sarcasm might
have been only a thin disguise for genuinely held views. I don't
know enough about Mr. Reed to know whether he is racist. But the
impression, even if accidental, is strong enough to be patently
obvious to me even though I agree with his main argument.
--- Peace, William Kitchen
The future is ours to create.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:00 MDT