Doctor Scratch wrote: The stuff DCP and Schryver are saying is offensive precisely because it tries to downplay the damage that was inflicted on the people who were harmed. Plus, this is just a hot-button topic, and these guys ought to know better.
Is this "downplaying":
DCP wrote:I don't deny for a moment that the enforced servitude of blacks in the United States was a horrific injustice even at its best, an inexcusable offense against God, humanity, and the fundamental principles of the American founding. Those who advocated it and advanced it will have to account for their actions at Judgment Day, if, indeed, they haven't already done so.
Does this excuse slave ship captains or slave traders? Not even slightly. It does mean, though, that good can be manufactured from evil, that bad intentions can sometimes inadvertently lead to positive results.
No.... The part where they are trying to claim that something "good" came of slavery is the down-playing.
John Hawkins: Do you believe reparations should be paid for slavery?
Thomas Sowell: The people made worse off by slavery were those who were enslaved. Their descendants would have been worse off today if born in Africa instead of America. Put differently, the terrible fate of their ancestors benefitted them. If those who were enslaved were alive, they would deserve huge reparations and their captors would deserve worse punishments than our laws allow. But death has put both beyond our reach. Frustrating as that may be, creating new injustices among the living will not change that. (Emphasis added)
Since this came from RightWingNews, I guess it's horribly racist and biased.
I don't know why he's flatly saying that the descendants would be worse off in Africa. It kind of depends, doesn't it? I mean, what's worse: living with your fellow tribespeople in sub-Saharan Africa, having to hunt for your food and with no running water? Or getting paralyzed after a rival gang member shoots you in the back as you're walking home in some American ghetto?
This kind of thinking is racist because it continues this demonization of Africa--the whole Heart of Darkness, colonialist, "Dark Continent" sort of thing.
Actually, DCP is kind of reminiscent of Kurtz. "The horror.... The horror...."
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
The hypocrisy here is that Dan is the same person who recently lambasted Randy Bott for saying blacks were better off without the priesthood.
I have a feeling that this blog of his is already turning out to be a really bad idea. College professors elsewhere have been fired for expressing such idiotic ideas and it is becoming painfully clear now just how deeply entrenched he is in extreme Right Wing propaganda.
Ray's Source wrote:There was nothing utopian about traditional Aboriginal society, which was characterised by tribal warfare, violent punishments, sexism, superstition, and famine. The Aboriginals were essentially a stone age society, failing during a period of 50,000 years to develop any form of writing, agriculture or wheeled transport.
White settlement brought to Australia all the advantages of one of the greatest civilisations in history: democracy, law, philosophy, art, literature, science, technology, agriculture and music. All these factors have been developed over 200 years to produce a nation which is the envy of the world....
Doctor Scratch wrote:I don't know why he's flatly saying that the descendants would be worse off in Africa.
Because he likes committing the logical fallacy of argument from the conclusion.
Some notable really rich Africans Aliko Dangote Mike Adenuga Femi Otedola
They're heart broken that their ancestors weren't enslaved.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
Kevin Graham wrote:Ray, why do you think either Dan or Sowell is in a positiin to say whether or not the are much better off thanks to slavery?
What makes you or Scratch think it's "racist" to state the truth? That both African-Americans and Aborigines are generally much better off today in spite of the evils of the past? You can't see this? America wasn't the only country affected by slavery. Go study the whole history of the West Indies, from European colonisation to slavery to emancipation (1834 in Trinidad), to eventual government by African descendants of slaves. Ask them if they think they're better off in their self-governed "islands of paradise" (not without their own problems), than they would have been if they'd remained in Africa. Those who think not, usually migrate to the UK, the US, Canada, Europe, and even Australia (now being filled up with Sudanese refugee immigrants). How many of them you think are opting to migrate to the Congo, the Sudan, or even South Africa?
Kevin Graham wrote:Ray, why do you think either Dan or Sowell is in a positiin to say whether or not the are much better off thanks to slavery?
What makes you or Scratch think it's "racist" to state the truth? That both African-Americans and Aborigines are generally much better off today in spite of the evils of the past? You can't see this? America wasn't the only country affected by slavery. Go study the whole history of the West Indies, from European colonisation to slavery to emancipation (1834 in Trinidad), to eventual government by African descendants of slaves. Ask them if they think they're better off in their self-governed "islands of paradise" (not without their own problems), than they would have been if they'd remained in Africa. Those who think not, usually migrate to the UK, the US, Canada, Europe, and even Australia (now being filled up with Sudanese refugee immigrants). How many of them you think are opting to migrate to the Congo, the Sudan, or even South Africa?
You are re-framing the issue. The point being argued by Prof. P. was that "good can come of evil"--saying, in effect, that descendants of slaves are lucky to be living in the U.S. today. The issue is not whether or not the quality of life is better in the USA vs. Zimbabwe or Haiti. The issue is whether or not it's kosher to say or imply that modern-day African Americans should be thankful for slavery, because, hey--even though it was super-dooper evil and bad, you now get to live in America.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Doctor Scratch wrote: The issue is whether or not it's kosher to say or imply that modern-day African Americans should be thankful for slavery, because, hey--even though it was super-dooper evil and bad, you now get to live in America.
Did he say they should be "thankful" for slavery? He was quoting someone else:
The woman turned to my friend. "Thank God for slavery," she whispered.
Then quickly qualified:
Now, I pass this anecdote along very warily, knowing that I'm in a very precarious position (although, despite the fact that I'm white, none of my ancestors were ever slaveholders) to say anything that seems in any way positive or exculpatory about slavery. I don't deny for a moment that the enforced servitude of blacks in the United States was a horrific injustice even at its best, an inexcusable offense against God, humanity, and the fundamental principles of the American founding. Those who advocated it and advanced it will have to account for their actions at Judgment Day, if, indeed, they haven't already done so.
Maybe you need to stop spinning and just relate the facts. But no matter what DCP says or writes, there's no doubt you'll make him "an offender for a word".
