Before he became a carpetbagging Republican Senate candidate, Alan Keyes had a short-lived cabel talk show called Alan Keyes is Making Sense. On a recent campaign stop in Chicago, Keyes shows where his brand of common sense can lead:
Speaking at a news conference at the Hotel InterContinental in Chicago, Republican Keyes added to his now familiar talking points his stance on slavery reparations.
Prompted by a reporter's question, Keyes gave a brief tutorial on Roman history and said that in regard to reparations for slavery, the U.S. should do what the Romans did: "When a city had been devastated [in the Roman empire], for a certain length of time--a generation or two--they exempted the damaged city from taxation."
Keyes proposed that for a generation or two, African-Americans of slave heritage should be exempted from federal taxes--federal because slavery "was an egregious failure on the part of the federal establishment." In calling for the tax relief, Keyes appeared to be reaching out to capture the black vote, something that may prove difficult to do, particularly after his unwelcome reception at the Bud Billiken Day Parade Saturday.
The former ambassador said his plan would give African-Americans "a competitive edge in the labor market," because those exempted would be cheaper to hire than federal tax-paying employees and would "compensate for all those years when your labor was being exploited."
First, I must say that I’m impressed by the fact that we have an American politician who has the intellect and audacity to tie Roman history to a public policy proposal. Second, I must confess that I find the idea to be both brilliant in its basic logic and just in its method of restitution. Keyes is right that the burden of responsibility should fall on federal shoulders. By allowing slavery to slip in during the founding, our forefathers sowed the seeds of failure that led to the dehumanization of millions of black Americans and the bloodiest war in our history. As the governing body that initially sanctioned the “peculiar institution”, the federal government is obligated to make amends.
Using the concept of tax relief as the means of reparation is also an ingenious idea. If the offending government were to pay monetary reparations it would be condoning an unjust redistribution of tax monies. By using the tax power, the government would be able to shift the burden onto citizens - including the ones owed reparations – who may not have been responsible for the injustice. Tying reparations to tax relief, however, provides a way of establishing equality under the law while sending the message that the obligations of the wronged citizens have “already been paid.”*
Alas, the idea suffers from a fatal flaw: it's about a hundred years too late. Justice delayed is justice denied and the government has long since missed its window of opportunity for providing monetary compensation. Having been abolished 139 years ago, the economic effects of slavery - if they even exist - are impossible to gauge. Besides, providing the tax relief to the descendents of slaves would only be a salvic gesture rather than an act of justice.
Nevertheless, you have to give Alan Keyes credit for being a man of bold ideas. Just a few days ago he said he would like to see a return to the pre-1913 practice of having U.S. senators chosen by the state legislatures. While I think this return to a more pure form of federalism would be ideal, I also realize that it would never happen. Like his plan for reparations, the notion has a spark of anachronistic genius but is wholly unworkable.
If it can be considered a compliment to say that a person is ahead of their time then I would praise Keyes for the exact opposite: he's a politician cursed with brilliant ideas whose time has long since passed.
(Hat tip: Michelle Malkin and Stephen Taylor)
*I should note that the idea as presented could not have been implemented since the U.S. didn’t have federal income taxes until 1913.
1
Uhhh, what?
What do you do about blacks who can't document they are descendants of slaves?
What do you do about blacks who have some white bloodlines?
What do you do about descendants of whites who were killed in the Civil War liberating the slaves, the families of whom experienced staggering economic hardship?
What about blacks who have a mother descended from slavery, and a father who emigrated?
What about descendants of blacks such as Booker T. Washington?
What about professional athletes, who make tens of millions a year? Do Tiger Woods and his children get a pass from income taxes?
Joe, I wonder if you took the time to think this one through.
posted on 08.18.2004 3:09 PM2
Kevin,
Joe, I wonder if you took the time to think this one through.
I think you missed my point. My contention is that while it would have been a good idea if it had been implemented sometime between the 1880's - 1920's, it would be completely unworkable now. Good idea, wrong century.
posted on 08.18.2004 3:15 PM3
Good idea, wrong century.
Wasn't that the idea behind the whole "a mule and 20 acres" deal?
posted on 08.18.2004 3:17 PM4
I must have missed your point. But I don't see how it was any more workable then. What do you do about Northern blacks? Or "mixed" black families, north and south? And what do you do when all the Indians come up with their hands out, asking for four hundred years of compensation versus 200?
Now, if you're saying that if only we had no income taxes at all . . . I'm with you, wherever you're going.
posted on 08.18.2004 3:27 PM5
Consider Johnson's 'war on poverty', and the billions spent on raising the state of affairs for blacks in this country.
I submit that kind of massive payments is repreations in all but the name, and thus the problem is already dealt with.
posted on 08.18.2004 3:34 PM6
Why don't we just turn Texas over to the slave-descended African Americans, and call it even?
posted on 08.18.2004 4:20 PM7
Kevin,
Well, I believe I agree with your basic points, but take issue with a couple of things.
(1) the mechanism is irrelevant.
Mechanisms are not only relevant but important. For example, is it irrelevant that we use the electoral college? How may visits are the candidates going to pay to California? I can think of may ways in which it matters -- for example, to get the benefits of reparations they would have to get a job. Kind of important.
(2) Giving the white population - whose ancestors perpetrated slavery and discrimination on the ancestors of (many of) today's blacks, and who continue to benefit from the legacy of opportunity and wealth that that created - a pass on the privileged position they inherited is ...
I appreciated your point about causation, which is why I was surprised by the causation problem presented by that statement. Three problems come to mind: (1) Slavery appears to depress an economy. It was the greater wealth and opportunities of the north that allowed it to beat the south. The south, after all, had the best officer corp. One of the legacies of slavery and racism is that the south was the poorest region in the US for over a century. Therefore, most whites today would be better off if chattel slavery had never occurred. (2) The vast majority of whites had a lower standard of living due to slavery -- even in the south. Free labor tends to depress wages. (3) I am to lazy to look it up, but how much do you want to bet that today's blacks are better off in America than they would have been in Africa. The present state of affairs in Sudan is an example. For all our faults, we are not engaged in genocide. (4) If there had not been slavery, the present Americans of African decent would not even exist. Their ancestors procreated with their specific partners because they were slaves in America.
It is weird to ponder and a bit counter intuitive, but Americans of African decent are probably better off and whites are probably worse off because of slavery. (Let me be clear about one thing -- this is not an apology of chattel or racial slavery. Such things are wrong, wrong, wrong. And, I am glad that Christians were able to persuade the nation to prohibit the terrible practice.)
One other off-topic point. You have to give Keyes one thing. He is a gifted orator. Same is true with Sharpton and Obama. J Why are the black politicians the only ones who seem to be great orators anymore? Neither Bush or Kerry could orate themselves out of a paper bad. They are actually poor orators. Why do you suppose that our presidential candidates seem to be so poor at it? Reagan was the last president that was good orator, but the last great orator to be president was Kennedy.
posted on 08.18.2004 4:50 PM8
Why are the black politicians the only ones who seem to be great orators anymore?
Simple answer to that one: the black church and a parallel history of black verbal gameplaying ("Playing the Dozens," jazz slang, jive, rap, etc.).
Verbal dexterity has a long, proud history in black-American culture (unlike for whites, who learned language by reading written texts). It started, actually, with slavery, where most slaves were deliberately kept illiterate, but where the mix of African and Caribbean languages, English, Christian preaching, and black "code" designed to fool the masters created a necessarily oral culture with a rich set of linguistic resources. Humorous language - often competitive - is a tradition of urban blacks. The preaching practice in black Christian churches has traditionally been exuberant, highly metaphorical, and highly stylized - and it carries over powerfully to non-religious speech. (The speeches of Martin Luther King, and David Alston's speech at the Democratic convention, demonstrate this: both were preachers who spoke on political topics with the same rhythmic cadence, emotive delivery, and booming style that characterizes a lot of black preaching. Alston's speech was simply the best damn war story I ever heard, delivered in Gospel style.) Those cultural patterns and oral traditions live on.
posted on 08.18.2004 5:39 PM9
"(Let me be clear about one thing -- this is not an apology of chattel or racial slavery. Such things are wrong, wrong, wrong. And, I am glad that Christians were able to persuade the nation to prohibit the terrible practice.)"
You flatter your faith. What religion was practiced by slaveholders and supporters of slavery? Many used the Bible to support the institution. Many felt that blacks benefitted from slavery because they were "saved".
What a crock.
posted on 08.18.2004 7:16 PM10
Kevin,
Your post is a bulls-eye, but the linguistics major in me can't let one inaccuracy go…
No typical speaker learns [his native] language by written texts. Most of us have a 1000 word lexicon, ruled by an imperfect but functioning grammar, and even socio-linguistic competence by the time we see our first "Dick and Jane" primer.
Written language, at its core, is recorded speech; speech comes first. Illiterates can still be intelligent and verbally impressive.
Cultures that don't have written language are free to employ (some would say are dependent upon to some degree) all the features you describe, and for blacks, oration is primary. The black teenage boys at my high school do a lot more to compete with each other verbally and impress girls with smooth talk than any other group.
Studying Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech will reveal its masterful use of rhetorical devices; but only by listening to him deliver it can one appreciate the power of black oral tradition that rests inside.
Good post, though we're wandering…
posted on 08.18.2004 9:10 PM11
I wonder, if a liberal black like Obama had suggested this idea, would you still be calling it thoughtful or would it get lambasted as a cynical appeal to black voters? I'm just asking, is it the idea you're in sympathy with, or just Keyes?
posted on 08.18.2004 10:11 PM12
Rob Ryan,
You're painting with a very broad brush, and are content to connect surface events to support an a priori conclusion without considering their underlying causes. Then you roll your eyes at the picture you've painted, having shoved the brush into canvass' hands. A little perspective is helpful here…
Slavery, practiced by a "Christian" Anglo-Saxon culture, was opposed by sincere Christian thinkers (and Joe wasn't around to list them!) like Wilberforce in England and his American abolitionist contemporaries for precisely the reason you are ignoring: deep, sincerely held belief in implicit Biblical teaching (i. e., that every human being has been created in the image of God, and as such, has personhood, dignity and intrinsic value) that could not be reconciled with the the social institution of slavery.
In England, and in America, this uncomfortable conviction was blunted, out of a concern for protecting one's priviledged social status, or for personal gain, or the culturally centristic acceptance of the prevailing social order, or even the more hubris-tainted desire to be the apple of God's eye and enjoy a special role in His dispensational grace; but when it eventually came to the surface through the courage of outspoken Christians, it could no longer be ignored. It took time and dogged effort, but Christian thought and conviction was indeed the driving force behind the abolitionist movement (and that momentum carried the Civl Rights movement, its leadership being informed and inspired by the same Christian values: I've already mentioned the very Reverend Dr. King in this thread). Secular society didn't have much use for abolition, except as a useful political wedge issue (my, how little things have changed), and I doubt it would have arisen from the same secular circles that were eager to embrace Social Darwinism, a completely racist and status-cementing ideology, just a generation later.
Certainly, Christianity has been badly practiced in many places and in many times. But the power of its central truths can can transform societies as well as purify its own Church.
posted on 08.18.2004 10:51 PM13
J. Michael,
I wonder, if a liberal black like Obama had suggested this idea, would you still be calling it thoughtful or would it get lambasted as a cynical appeal to black voters? I'm just asking, is it the idea you're in sympathy with, or just Keyes?
That's a fair question. Since I think the idea is a rather "conservative" approach to the issue I would be surprised if a liberal were to adobt it. I'd feel the same way, though, about it being a ingenious but wrong idea.
I'll admit that I admire some things about Keyes but I also think he has a hint of the tragically comic about him. I was really disappointed that he jumped into the Senate race after criticizing Hillary for the same thing. His rationalization just made him look opportunistic. While I think Obama will be worse, I don't think he deserves to win.
I also think Keyes is a good speaker who talks way too much. He would be much better if he would learn when to shut up. And after being asked about reparations would have been an ideal time to practice that. ; )
posted on 08.18.2004 11:10 PM14
Winsome:
To be fair, Christianity was the predominant religion of the time, so it's not at all surprising that the majority of slavery's supporters and detractors would be Christian. It's just as silly to blame Christianity entirely (or even mostly) for slavery as it is to give Christianity all (or most) of the credit for pushing to end it.
The evidence seems to indicate that one's religion was not terribly relevant to one's views on slavery (unless you start breaking it down by which sect of Christianity you're talking about).
posted on 08.19.2004 10:44 AM15
Rob,
You flatter your faith. What religion was practiced by slaveholders and supporters of slavery?
Virtually all religions practiced slaveholding. Except for a few pockets where it was impracticable, slavery was a virtually universal practice. It was a few Christians first in England and then in America that convinced much of the world it was wrong and worked to end the practice where it no longer exists.
posted on 08.19.2004 10:46 AM16
Kevin W,
Whites killed in the Civil War "liberating slaves" is generally a misnomer. The average yankee soldier didn't give a rat's ass about the slaves. They just wanted to punish the southern rebels. It's pretty bad when even Karl Marx says that the Civil War was about taxes and had nothing to do with slavery.
posted on 08.19.2004 10:50 AM17
Actually, Northern 'whites' did care. That is why my Great-great grandfather Strader moved to Bleeding Kansas after being saved in the 1840s Wesleyan revivals - to be an abolitionist vote.
That is why my Great-great-grandfather Smith ran off to join the Iowa 7th Calvary at the age of 16 - to free the slaves. (in reality, the 7th appears to have either fought the slavers in Missouri or was sent to Colorado to protect the Cheyenne after the Sand Creek Massacre - but that is why he joined)
Keyes was a presidential candidate before he had a talk show - and was picked up by the Atlanta police and 'driven around' for an hour or so to make sure he missed a debate, and then dropped off in a ghetto - and before that he was an Ambassador for the US. He has some very good ideas, including bringing the US back to its Declaration of Independence creedal/ideological foundation.
posted on 08.19.2004 11:04 AM18
Kevin,
Good analysis on the oratory issue. But I think we have only touched part of the issue satisfactorily. I am more curious about why white politicians seem to be so bad at it. After all, Kennedy, Churchill, FDR, Lincoln, and many other white people were great orators in the Anglo tradition. During the 19th century, people used to spend all day watching politicians given 2 and 3 hour speeches. It was entertainment. You can make a lot of hay with today's lack of attention span and need for hyper stimulation, but can you honestly say that even the 19th century folks would have listened to 6 hours of Bush and Kerry?
Jery
posted on 08.19.2004 11:36 AM19
Mike,
Marx is not exactly the best authority on the issue. If that quote was accurate, he does not appear to be very consistant. See http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
posted on 08.19.2004 11:41 AM20
The harms were and are pervasive, and the concommitant benefits to whites were and are pervasive; that continuing and definitive social fact has to be addressed as part of reparations.
And what of the enormous benefits reaped by both the European and African slave traders which enabled the whites to boost themselves into such a lasting prosperity? Do you not think that the lions-share of the debt should also weigh on the original enslavers shoulders? In order to pay for African American reparations: Would you be in favor of the US demanding debts owed by European countries (that benefited from the slave trade) to be paid or face trade sanctions or high tariffs? In order to pay for African American reparations: Would you be in favor of cutting billions of dollars of US relief (including AIDS relief) to those poor, mostly tribal, African countries which grossly benefited from the slave trade? On a related matter: Would you be in favor of doing the same to ensure that Jewish families were repaid for the terrible losses they suffered at the hands of the Nazi régime? Would you be in favor of doing this even if it meant giving reparations to wealthy Zionist families that lost loved ones? Just curious.
posted on 08.19.2004 12:08 PM21
tgirsch,
You seem to be missing a rather big distinction between those who want to serve God and those who want God to serve them. This was an issue that Christ spoke about frequently. There are Christians and there are christians, just as there are Muslims and muslims, Buddhists, and buddhists, etc. Christ talked about this a lot in his ministry -- it was a large part of the reason why the religious leaders wanted him killed. The vast majority of people in most religions belong in the second camp, and this makes such comparisons unreliable.
The fact remains that abolition was a self identified evangelical Christian movement. William Lloyd Garrison was tarred and feathered among other things. One does not risk such things without a powerful moral motivation. The movement's war cries were Leviticus 25:10, "proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof," and Exodus 21:16,"he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." Both are Bible references. See http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/abolitio_EvangelicalInfluences.asp
posted on 08.19.2004 12:14 PM22
Interesting comments and sub-topical threads. But the genius of Keyes is reflected in the "Roman" solution reference.
Reparations have been a subject of debate and conflict for at least 2000 years, it appears, and Keyes reminder to us of that perspective seems worthwhile.
posted on 08.19.2004 12:45 PM23
Not only anachronistic, but Keyes' analogy would make better sense arguing for reparations for Atlanta than for those of a particular racial designation.
posted on 08.19.2004 2:28 PM24
Winsome and JBP: What I objected to was the crediting of Christians with abolishing slavery with no mention of the complicity of other Christians in the abhorrent practice of slavery. If you can disown Christians who act contrary to your sense of right and wrong, I'd like to disown all the bad atheists like Stalin and not have them thrown in my face anymore (those guilty of this know who they are).
I know that the abolition movement was mainly driven by Christians, but it is insulting to ignore the support and sympathy of non-Christians. Emerson, who famously offended
Christians with his questioning of Christ's divinity, was an ardent abolitionist. Other freethinkers, like Stanton, Thoreau, Mill, Whitman, and many others, expressed their opposition to slavery quite forcefully.
No religion or worldview has a monopoly on virtue or morality. If most abolitionists were Christian, it is because most Americans were Christian. The same holds of slaveholders. To suggest that the secular world turns a blind eye to injustice is insulting and ignorant.
posted on 08.19.2004 3:31 PM25
Winsome:
No typical speaker learns [his native] language by written texts.
You're right, of course. I meant to say that formal composition is taught mostly from written texts (and mostly not recorded speech texts) and influences the speech of those who learn that way, while an oral culture develops different speech patterns. But in both cases, as you say, language is learned by non-written means first (explaining, among other things, why congenitally deaf children who are not taught sign language have such desperate difficulties later).
Nit for tat:
"Masterful" means "with power" (master as ruler: "master and commander"). "Masterly" means "with skill" (master as expert: "master of her trade").
MLK was often masterly, but rarely masterful. (And as a black pacifist in the pre-Civil Rights era, he might have objected to being called "master" in the latter sense!)
posted on 08.19.2004 3:51 PM26
The slaveholders were mostly not Christian, if any of them were. The Old South was a Cavalier society, and the Anglican faith most of them partook in was not seriously held. Some historians have called it a 'stoic' culture, because they sat on the stoae, or porches of the Church, but never went inside. The abolitionist small farmers were driven out by the slavers some years before the Civil War, and moved north or west.
It is not the case that someone can be a Christian and live in a mortal, civil death penalty sin, for life. That is, someone who never repents of such flagrant sin, is not a Christian.
posted on 08.19.2004 4:05 PM27
JBP:
You seem to be missing a rather big distinction between those who want to serve God and those who want God to serve them.Sorry, but that's just the "they weren't real Christians" defense. Which is convenient in hindsight, but not terribly useful otherwise. It essentially allows you to disown everything Christians did in the past that you don't like, and conveniently divorce Christianity from it. But there's certainly something there, because the language to support it was there, even if it was misappropriated.
Otherwise, what Rob said about Stalin. ;)
Puzzled:
You go ahead and think that if it makes you feel better, but that's not the way it happened. You don't get to change the definition of what a "Christian" is as it suits you.
posted on 08.19.2004 9:23 PM29
TG:
"Sorry, but that's just the "they weren't real Christians" defense. Which is convenient in hindsight, but not terribly useful otherwise. It essentially allows you to disown everything Christians did in the past that you don't like, and conveniently divorce Christianity from it. But there's certainly something there, because the language to support it was there, even if it was misappropriated."
But--that is precisely what the Almighty does, and what we are expected to do as believers. When we challenge a brother who is in sin, it is to have him repent. If he refuses, it is our obligation to further correct him, or to expel him from the body. Christians can, should, must confront wickedness in the body of Christ. And one who claims a Christian walk who is a proponent of slavery is not saved. That's all there is. And it is right for true believers to say so.
posted on 08.20.2004 10:13 AM30
As to the rest, it is surprising that someone would say that the Northerners did not "give a rat's ass" about slavery. Are you unaware of the Abolitionist movement? Was "Uncle Tom's Cabin" never written? Did hundreds of thousands of northerners die only because they wanted Charleston to be part of the union?
I will suffer much when I hear foreigners write of America, and our history. But to quote Karl Marx, who has been so spectacularly wrong about everything, just proves my point: it was only in the United States that a country bathed its citizens in blood to free a race of people. Only we had a Civil War to abolish slavery. Only our President Lincoln buried tens of thousands, and intoned that the ideals we were fighting for were for equality and for justice, and whether those ideals would endure.
posted on 08.20.2004 10:18 AM31
tgirsch, we all know you for a troll and a mocker, so why should anyone take you seriously? You surely know I am using the terms correctly, and that you are not.
posted on 08.20.2004 10:45 AM32
"I will suffer much when I hear foreigners write of America, and our history. But to quote Karl Marx, who has been so spectacularly wrong about everything, just proves my point: it was only in the United States that a country bathed its citizens in blood to free a race of people. Only we had a Civil War to abolish slavery. Only our President Lincoln buried tens of thousands, and intoned that the ideals we were fighting for were for equality and for justice, and whether those ideals would endure."
I see this differently, Kevin. I think it speaks well of other countries that they were able to abolish slavery without so much bloodshed. It reflects poorly on our society that we were not. I am a Southerner, but I'm not terribly fond of the southern mindset.
posted on 08.20.2004 9:14 PM33
tgirsch,
No it does not simply reduce to the "they were not true Christians" argument. There are better Christians and worse Christians. This is just like there are better doctors and worse doctors. All who graduate for med school and fulfill all the other requirements get to call themselves doctors, but some doctors are world renowned because they are able to successfully perform surgeries that others cannot. No one says that less able doctors are not "true doctors." Not everything is black and white.
The point remains that the abolition movement was an evangelical Christian movement.
posted on 08.23.2004 4:28 PM34
Rob,
What I objected to was the crediting of Christians with abolishing slavery with no mention of the complicity of other Christians in the abhorrent practice of slavery.
So it is wrong to credit people who self identify as Christian with acts and beliefs without pointing out all wrongful acts of other Christians? Do you apply this standard to other groups? Is it wrong to point out that President Truman desegregated the military without pointing out that George Wallace was a Democrat? Is that unacceptably flattering the Democrats? Must Truman's and Grant's names be forever linked? Is it wrong to point out that President Grand reformed the civil service system without pointing out that Nixon shamefully abused his authority with federal employees? Can I never praise anyone or any group without also pointing out their faults?
On the other hand, it appears from this that it is wrong to ever point out the faults of atheists: "I'd like to disown all the bad atheists like Stalin and not have them thrown in my face anymore (those guilty of this know who they are)."
So Rob, why do atheists get special treatment?
No religion or worldview has a monopoly on virtue or morality.
Yes, of course, I should have seen this. Saying that the abolition movement was a Christian movement implies that Christians have a monopoly on virtue or morality.
If most abolitionists were Christian, it is because most Americans were Christian. The same holds of slaveholders.
I will stipulate for the sake of argument that most abolitionists were Christian merely because most Americans were Christian. Nonetheless, that is irrelevant to the point that most abolitionist thought slavery was wrong because of their Christian beliefs.
To suggest that the secular world turns a blind eye to injustice is insulting and ignorant.
Well, it sometimes does. So do the major religions at times. This is a fact. How exactly does knowing this fact make me ignorant?
Nevertheless, what does this have to do with the fact that the abolitionist movement was an explicitly Christian movement?
35
It amazes me how racist Christians can be! Just look at the comments above!
posted on 08.24.2004 4:37 PM