That's the question Frank Beckwith asks, based on this statement Obama made the other day at a minority journalists' convention:
"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."
OK, but what does that mean? Does he favor making cash payments to descendants of African slaves in reparation for slavery? If so, why? If not, why not? Would Obama exempt himself, insofar as his blackness derives from his African immigrant father, who came here voluntarily as a graduate student in the 20th century, not involuntarily in the hold of a slave ship in the 18th?
Or, as is more likely, does Obama simply want to dance around the issue so he can be seen as "open" to reparations, while maintaining plausible deniability that he actually supports such a controversial, ill-considered and divisive policy? I would think John McCain should ask.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I don't see how this could be considered divisive. Finding a way to acknowledge and repair the excesses of the past is what leaders on all sides seek to do. It would surely be more divisive to pretend that mistakes and injustices haven't divided one's nation.
I'll wager that the black Americans of Louisiana haven't forgotten Hurricane Katrina yet, so it's not like we're only talking about some long ago, past, buried racial injustices. Certainly the external press noticed this, and I'm sure black people did, even if a lot of the white people in America just took what happened over the hurricane for granted.
Tony Sidaway: "I don't see how this [reparations] could be considered divisive. ... It would surely be more divisive to pretend that mistakes and injustices haven't divided one's nation. ... I'll wager that the black Americans of Louisiana haven't forgotten Hurricane Katrina"
You must be visiting from another planet. When has this country in our lifetimes NOT been wrestling authentically with our country's checkered racial history? Blacks AND whites fought together for civil rights. Our majority white society approved one racial entitlement program after another during the past 50 years. The last two Secretaries of State are African-Americans (appointed by a Republican no less) and an African-American defeated the "Clinton machine" to obtain a major-party Presidential nomination.
As for the black Americans of Louisiana suffering from Hurricane Katrina ... do you suppose that white Americans in the Gulf area didn't also suffer from the same hurricane? What's with your selective outrage?
Mel | July 31, 2008 9:10 AM writes: As for the black Americans of Louisiana suffering from Hurricane Katrina ... do you suppose that white Americans in the Gulf area didn't also suffer from the same hurricane? What's with your selective outrage?
I hope my statement didn't sound outraged. I'm referring to a recent event in US history where the racism of America attracted world attention. America is still a very unequal country and the lackadaisical response of the authorities in the case of Hurricane Katrina contrasts starkly with the response to other recent tragedies such as the September 11th atrocity, both in speed and in the unequalness of the treatment of the survivors.
The poorest people in New Orleans, left behind in the rush to evacuate the city, were branded as "looters" if they survived and went into the abandoned shops to salvage food to feed themselves. They were predominantly black. Black people, and outsiders ("visiting from another planet" if you will), seeing these events, detected racism, and the world's press remarked on it. For some reason, white Americans do not see that. There's a real problem there, and one that needs to be treated as a deep fault line in American society, that must be healed.
How do you figure that reparations for injustices, racism,degradation and in some cases murder can be divisive??
This country has always been divisive as far as Black people are concerned...Last Hired first Fired..Most major corporations are run by whites, the majority of our elected officials are white, most of the law enforcement populations is guess what "WHITE".
Sometimes I feel that the upbringing of most white people do not include the word "SHARE".
It is as though no other race really matter. You already own and control mostly everything and still do not want to give others what they are rightfully owed..
May GOD Help you...
Sorry for the delayed reply; I've been away on holidays.
But oh, Rod, your shrill inability to laugh at yourself or even to fake a sense of humor drives me wild as well. Maybe we were meant for each other. Now, if only we didn't have to deal with the pesky fact that we're already married, eh? Like I said, you're not my type - I prefer butch, masculine, non-snarky men.
Meanwhile, I've taken this time to ponder, if I were to "marry" Rod, would that be the equivalent of me "marryin' a plant" (with thanx and a tip o' the hat to Erin for that one), or the equivalent to me "marrying an animal" (with thanx and a tip o' the hat to a failed Presidential candidate), or the equivalent of me "marrying a child" (ibid), or the equivalent of me "marryin' an entire town" (Erin again), or the equivalent of me "marryin' a desk" (other CCers), or would it merely be like "college roomies shackin' up, sharin' stuff" (Erin again)?
Who sez I don't have a sense of humour? I think you're all as funny as loonie tunes.
"Only Beckwith and Erin could turn a discussion of reparations into yet another diatribe about gay marriage. Classic."
Wrong, Daniel. They couldn't do it without Rod allowing/encouraging it.
"When the state forbids a Christian adoption agency to place children with heterosexual married couples" - 'Frank' Beckwith.
Dearest 'Frank', this, of course, is demonstrably false (aka a lie), Not to mention - yet again - entirely off topic.
"the state is saying that there is nothing about children that requires male and female parents who are wedded"
Aside from the fact that this, too, is irrelevant to the topic at hand, you might care to explain exactly what the 'requirement' of heterosexually married 1 male/1 female couples is. None of my (very) heterosexual sisters in any of their 5 marriages had to sign anything indicating that they would reproduce. Plus, I know plenty of un-married couples - both heterosexual and homosexual - with children, and not a few single men and single women - again, both str8 and gay - with children. And plenty of all of the above types with no children at all.
"There seems to be a correlation between patriotism and paternity."
Complete and utter BS.
Can't you folks keep your minds off other people's sex lives for even one thread?
"it is hard to reconcile your awesome Column on bullying with your goading of REP here."
Agreed, violachick/JMS, but no worries - I'm quite used to it. Rod doesn't see the irony (nor the hypocrisy either, apparently) - he'd rather blame it on a mis-perceived lack of a sense of humour on my part.
And now, could we please get back on topic?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.