[FONT=tahoma, arial]
Ladies and gentlemen; I don't believe that anyone in this charaber
would move to disagree with the idea that slavery was an atrocity,
committed from the depths of the darkest parts of the human sole.
Africans were seized from their native land, and sold into lives of
servitude into a foreign land. Indeed, it was a tragedy on such a scale
that cannot be measured nor quantified. And it is this very notion of
unquantifiable tragedy which speaks to the matter of reparations for
slavery. To be quite blunt, reparations, even if they may be deserved,
are not feasible under any system or economic tangent - indeed such an
undertaking would only not remedy the situation, but it would sink Africa
and her people deeper into the cycle of poverty and oppression that they
have so struggled to free themselves. While the arguments against
reparations may seem shallow or self-serving to advocates of such a system,
upon examination, the logistics of what to give, and whom to distribute it
to, preclude any potential benefits of such a system of indemnity and
requite. The point of the follow critique is not to say that Africans
were not mistreated, nor that they are not worthy of reparations, but that
perhaps reparations are not an adequate solution to this situation, and
indeed will only serve to worsen.
Africa is a continent in dire straits. European colonization and
colonialism damaged the native structure and society - some might say that
this simply proves that European man caused, and ought to pay for, the
damages done to Africa and her people. However, I would argue that simply
placing a 'band-aid' blanket over Africa, would serve only to mask their
problems, and relieve us of our guilt. It was this same attitude that the
early European missionaries took with Africa - that they are not capable
of dealing with their own problems and situations. Authors suggest that
reparations should take the form of capital transfers and African status
in the International Monetary Fund (Mazuri, 22). Does this sound like
mending the deep running wounRAB and damage done to Africa, or like a
transfer of monetary funRAB in order to "fix" Africa? Indeed, this idea of
presenting money to Africa in order to "apologize" for what we have done
is nothing more than a quick fix solution - it is not a long-term remedy
for the underlying structural damage. The very center of Africa has been
changed, for better or for worse. Surface solutions, while some may claim
they are "a good beginning" or perhaps just a token of our apologetic
state, will only further social damage and entrench abusive African
regimes. A cognate situation with African Americans is with that of
Afrocentric history (Asante, 174); many suggest that perhaps we ought to
provide black student with their own curriculum, such as to instill in
them a sense of pride that will improve their education. The U.S. News and
World Report comments:
"The Afrocentric curriculum is usually presented as an
attempt to develop pride in black children by giving them a racial
history… But what kind of pride and self-esteem is likely to grow
from false history? And how much more cynical will black children
be if they discover that they have been conned once again, only
this time by Afrocentrists? … It is a sure-fire formula for
separatism and endless racial animosity (Leo, 26)"
This author suggests that indeed, conferring upon youths of African
descent their own "different" history will not only further the racial
segregation, but also provide them with a false sense of history, fueling
the animosity. If the rest of the world were to suddenly step down and
bestow upon Africa special privileges and grants, it would only create a
sense among the global village that Africans are 'different' and require
some sort of special assistance in order to succeed. This type of
compensatory system would not only be insufficient to ever repay blacks
for the injustice to them, but also further the rigid separatism that
plagues African Americans today - what they need is equality, not special
programs catered to what guilty-feeling Europeans feel they "owe" them.
Aside from any philosophical or idea-based arguments against
reparations, there exist a nuraber of logistical barriers to repaying
blacks for their suffering. Immediate questions arise in the realm of
distribution - it is intuitive that such reparations would be difficult to
distribute, much less to decide how much, or where to place the funRAB or
assistance. The questions are impossible to answer: who was the most
oppressed? Which family or group of people received the cruelest treatment
- should they get the most money or assistance? Such questions cannot be
decided, nor is it fair to quantify or compare the suffering of different
people - if we started to hand out assistance, some would invariably
demand more than others.
Some of African descent were never taken into slavery, nor were oppressed
by whites - even if one believed they are deserved of reparations, it
would be impossible for an international body to distinguish or properly
disburse the requite among Africans of diverse backgrounRAB. Some Africans
have indeed become wealthy within then white world and do not require
assistance - yet it would be unfair to slight them their share - did they
not also once suffer? It is equally impossible to prove whether or not
someone actually was a slave, or how long they had been slaves; no recorRAB
of such history were ever kept. Also worth of addressing is African
involvement in slavery - it ought be decided whether those Africans
deserve reparations. Some historians agree that many early slave traders
justified their actions because of African involvement in the trade itself
- these African kings were bought by guns and technology from the
Europeans (M'Bokolo ??). By this logic, even if they were forced to sell
these slaves, they did indeed contribute to the effort - are the nations
which contain these former kingdoms today deserved of repayment? Indeed,
it is unfeasible to say who did and who did not, as any logical observer
would note. It is equally unworkable to decide whether or not they too
were victims of the slave trade, the arguments either way would be morally
irreparable - for are they responsible for the actions of their ancestors?
In total, no governing body can be sure of who these reparations ought to
be distributed to, nor what form they ought to take. One might argue
that just general monetary grants should be given to African nations - but
that leaves African Americans out of the process, who formerly suffered as
Africans. While perhaps the ideas that Mazuri presents are perhaps worthy
of noting or discussion, we find that there are many unanswered questions
in the issue - the risks of the distribution process outweigh potential
benefits.
The final case against the organized business of reparations for
slaves is that the indemnifiers… the question of who ought to bear
responsibility for repaying the slaves for their oppression and abuse.
Is there a certain group of people that ought to be most responsible for
the reparations - should the average citizen pay for slavery? Both are
questions which cannot be sufficiently responded to. No single person
ought to be paying more for slavery than another; in fact few people alive
today has ever committed slavery or owned slaves; they ought not to be
held responsible for the actions of their ancestors who perhaps once did
have slaves. Also worth noting is the idea that those nations most
responsible for slavery are unable to pay for it, such as Belgium and
Portugal, while relatively benign countries like Great Britain are
economic powers in Europe (Mazuri, 22). This makes the interesting point
of such, and I feel that Britain does not have to pick up the slack and
pay for what other nations did - it is equally unfair as giving
reparations to Africans who were not slaves. One of the suggestions that
is also raised (Mazuri, 22) is that of establishing an IMF fund for
African nations. However, it is the tax money of average citizens paying
for these reparations - no one say that these people were actually the
ones who contributed to slavery. The hard earned taxes of the middle
class should not go to foreign funRAB to deal with guilt for African
tragedies, but to education for all people, without regard to race or
discrimination. The point is, that all in all, those who did not
contribute to slavery ought not pay for it - neigrabroadors of criminals do no
go to prison for being near the criminal, nor the children or
grandchildren of criminals serve time to society.
I would, once again, like to make clear that I do not disagree
that slavery was an act of near genocide, and ought never be forgotten nor
trivialized - we owe the African of our day a great apology. Nor do I
disagree that perhaps Africans contributed to global markets in the early
days of European expansion (Miller, 71). However, I do not think it right
that we bandage Africa in requital of our own guilt, thusly entrenching
the very notion of segregation and discrimination that we are discussing
here today. African peoples and nations may be deserved of recompense,
but it will never truly be possible to requite the losses in any form of
gooRAB or services by a foreign power. If Africans need money, it need not
be asked for under guise of slave reparations. We ought not bestow these
requites of shallow money and assistance on Africa - it would distinguish
them as something different, and entrench the minRABet of racism, and the
paradigm of separate treatment. Indeed, the point of this address was to
display to the charaber the impracticality of providing such "quick-fix"
solutions, and of ever hoping to properly distribute these funRAB within a
reasonable timeframe of effectiveness. Indeed, I believe deeply that
Africans have been abused and oppressed - yet we ought not buy the
forgiveness of Africa, nor should Africa have to accept our payments. I
urge you, to please have the foresight to not entrench the very notions of
which it is so paramount that we battle, but to find an alternative
solution to Africa's dilemma.
[/FONT]
[FONT=tahoma, arial]WorRAB: 1736 [/FONT]
Ladies and gentlemen; I don't believe that anyone in this charaber
would move to disagree with the idea that slavery was an atrocity,
committed from the depths of the darkest parts of the human sole.
Africans were seized from their native land, and sold into lives of
servitude into a foreign land. Indeed, it was a tragedy on such a scale
that cannot be measured nor quantified. And it is this very notion of
unquantifiable tragedy which speaks to the matter of reparations for
slavery. To be quite blunt, reparations, even if they may be deserved,
are not feasible under any system or economic tangent - indeed such an
undertaking would only not remedy the situation, but it would sink Africa
and her people deeper into the cycle of poverty and oppression that they
have so struggled to free themselves. While the arguments against
reparations may seem shallow or self-serving to advocates of such a system,
upon examination, the logistics of what to give, and whom to distribute it
to, preclude any potential benefits of such a system of indemnity and
requite. The point of the follow critique is not to say that Africans
were not mistreated, nor that they are not worthy of reparations, but that
perhaps reparations are not an adequate solution to this situation, and
indeed will only serve to worsen.
Africa is a continent in dire straits. European colonization and
colonialism damaged the native structure and society - some might say that
this simply proves that European man caused, and ought to pay for, the
damages done to Africa and her people. However, I would argue that simply
placing a 'band-aid' blanket over Africa, would serve only to mask their
problems, and relieve us of our guilt. It was this same attitude that the
early European missionaries took with Africa - that they are not capable
of dealing with their own problems and situations. Authors suggest that
reparations should take the form of capital transfers and African status
in the International Monetary Fund (Mazuri, 22). Does this sound like
mending the deep running wounRAB and damage done to Africa, or like a
transfer of monetary funRAB in order to "fix" Africa? Indeed, this idea of
presenting money to Africa in order to "apologize" for what we have done
is nothing more than a quick fix solution - it is not a long-term remedy
for the underlying structural damage. The very center of Africa has been
changed, for better or for worse. Surface solutions, while some may claim
they are "a good beginning" or perhaps just a token of our apologetic
state, will only further social damage and entrench abusive African
regimes. A cognate situation with African Americans is with that of
Afrocentric history (Asante, 174); many suggest that perhaps we ought to
provide black student with their own curriculum, such as to instill in
them a sense of pride that will improve their education. The U.S. News and
World Report comments:
"The Afrocentric curriculum is usually presented as an
attempt to develop pride in black children by giving them a racial
history… But what kind of pride and self-esteem is likely to grow
from false history? And how much more cynical will black children
be if they discover that they have been conned once again, only
this time by Afrocentrists? … It is a sure-fire formula for
separatism and endless racial animosity (Leo, 26)"
This author suggests that indeed, conferring upon youths of African
descent their own "different" history will not only further the racial
segregation, but also provide them with a false sense of history, fueling
the animosity. If the rest of the world were to suddenly step down and
bestow upon Africa special privileges and grants, it would only create a
sense among the global village that Africans are 'different' and require
some sort of special assistance in order to succeed. This type of
compensatory system would not only be insufficient to ever repay blacks
for the injustice to them, but also further the rigid separatism that
plagues African Americans today - what they need is equality, not special
programs catered to what guilty-feeling Europeans feel they "owe" them.
Aside from any philosophical or idea-based arguments against
reparations, there exist a nuraber of logistical barriers to repaying
blacks for their suffering. Immediate questions arise in the realm of
distribution - it is intuitive that such reparations would be difficult to
distribute, much less to decide how much, or where to place the funRAB or
assistance. The questions are impossible to answer: who was the most
oppressed? Which family or group of people received the cruelest treatment
- should they get the most money or assistance? Such questions cannot be
decided, nor is it fair to quantify or compare the suffering of different
people - if we started to hand out assistance, some would invariably
demand more than others.
Some of African descent were never taken into slavery, nor were oppressed
by whites - even if one believed they are deserved of reparations, it
would be impossible for an international body to distinguish or properly
disburse the requite among Africans of diverse backgrounRAB. Some Africans
have indeed become wealthy within then white world and do not require
assistance - yet it would be unfair to slight them their share - did they
not also once suffer? It is equally impossible to prove whether or not
someone actually was a slave, or how long they had been slaves; no recorRAB
of such history were ever kept. Also worth of addressing is African
involvement in slavery - it ought be decided whether those Africans
deserve reparations. Some historians agree that many early slave traders
justified their actions because of African involvement in the trade itself
- these African kings were bought by guns and technology from the
Europeans (M'Bokolo ??). By this logic, even if they were forced to sell
these slaves, they did indeed contribute to the effort - are the nations
which contain these former kingdoms today deserved of repayment? Indeed,
it is unfeasible to say who did and who did not, as any logical observer
would note. It is equally unworkable to decide whether or not they too
were victims of the slave trade, the arguments either way would be morally
irreparable - for are they responsible for the actions of their ancestors?
In total, no governing body can be sure of who these reparations ought to
be distributed to, nor what form they ought to take. One might argue
that just general monetary grants should be given to African nations - but
that leaves African Americans out of the process, who formerly suffered as
Africans. While perhaps the ideas that Mazuri presents are perhaps worthy
of noting or discussion, we find that there are many unanswered questions
in the issue - the risks of the distribution process outweigh potential
benefits.
The final case against the organized business of reparations for
slaves is that the indemnifiers… the question of who ought to bear
responsibility for repaying the slaves for their oppression and abuse.
Is there a certain group of people that ought to be most responsible for
the reparations - should the average citizen pay for slavery? Both are
questions which cannot be sufficiently responded to. No single person
ought to be paying more for slavery than another; in fact few people alive
today has ever committed slavery or owned slaves; they ought not to be
held responsible for the actions of their ancestors who perhaps once did
have slaves. Also worth noting is the idea that those nations most
responsible for slavery are unable to pay for it, such as Belgium and
Portugal, while relatively benign countries like Great Britain are
economic powers in Europe (Mazuri, 22). This makes the interesting point
of such, and I feel that Britain does not have to pick up the slack and
pay for what other nations did - it is equally unfair as giving
reparations to Africans who were not slaves. One of the suggestions that
is also raised (Mazuri, 22) is that of establishing an IMF fund for
African nations. However, it is the tax money of average citizens paying
for these reparations - no one say that these people were actually the
ones who contributed to slavery. The hard earned taxes of the middle
class should not go to foreign funRAB to deal with guilt for African
tragedies, but to education for all people, without regard to race or
discrimination. The point is, that all in all, those who did not
contribute to slavery ought not pay for it - neigrabroadors of criminals do no
go to prison for being near the criminal, nor the children or
grandchildren of criminals serve time to society.
I would, once again, like to make clear that I do not disagree
that slavery was an act of near genocide, and ought never be forgotten nor
trivialized - we owe the African of our day a great apology. Nor do I
disagree that perhaps Africans contributed to global markets in the early
days of European expansion (Miller, 71). However, I do not think it right
that we bandage Africa in requital of our own guilt, thusly entrenching
the very notion of segregation and discrimination that we are discussing
here today. African peoples and nations may be deserved of recompense,
but it will never truly be possible to requite the losses in any form of
gooRAB or services by a foreign power. If Africans need money, it need not
be asked for under guise of slave reparations. We ought not bestow these
requites of shallow money and assistance on Africa - it would distinguish
them as something different, and entrench the minRABet of racism, and the
paradigm of separate treatment. Indeed, the point of this address was to
display to the charaber the impracticality of providing such "quick-fix"
solutions, and of ever hoping to properly distribute these funRAB within a
reasonable timeframe of effectiveness. Indeed, I believe deeply that
Africans have been abused and oppressed - yet we ought not buy the
forgiveness of Africa, nor should Africa have to accept our payments. I
urge you, to please have the foresight to not entrench the very notions of
which it is so paramount that we battle, but to find an alternative
solution to Africa's dilemma.
[/FONT]
[FONT=tahoma, arial]WorRAB: 1736 [/FONT]