The "Reparations" Hoax
Activist groups are trying
to build momentum for a new racial shakedown.
by William Robertson Boggs
The latest attempt by blacks to extract race-based
benefits from whites is the increasingly popular demand for "reparations"
for the injustice of slavery. Although neither Congress nor any state legislature
is likely to pass a reparations act any time soon, black activists are
laying the groundwork for what they hope will be a massive transfer of
wealth from whites to blacks.
The demand for reparations is based on a completely misguided understanding
of the origin, nature, and consequences of slavery. Nevertheless, the climate
of our times is one in which whites listen patiently to virtually any demand
blacks make in the name of race. Preposterous as the idea can be shown
to be, our country may yet be capable of handing over money to today's
blacks in atonement for practices that came to an end 130 years ago.
|The rationale for reparations is that today's blacks
have a moral right to compensation for the unpaid
labor of their ancestors. That right is not open to
question; the only disagreement is over the amount
of compensation and how it should be distributed.
Activists' convictions are based in part on the
idea that blacks "built America," that slavery
was uniquely profitable and productive,
and that today's Americans owe
their material comfort to
the past labor of slaves.
The billions of dollars to
be handed over to blacks
would be only fair
compensation for their
were vastly encouraged by the 1988 Wartime
Relocations Act, which provided for payments
of $20,000 to each of the 120,000 suriving Japanese-Americans who were
interned during the Second World War. Blacks also point to the billions
of dollars that Germany has paid out over the years as compensation for
its wartime Jewish policies. Payments have gone not just to individuals
but to the state of Israel. Transfers of this kind set a precedent for
punishing today's (and tomorrow's) taxpayers for acts their governments
committed in the past.
Although many different groups around the country agitate for reparations,
the largest and best-organized is the National Coalition of Blacks for
Reparations in America, which has the pseudo-African acronym of N'COBRA.
The group is based in Washington (DC) and has chapters and affiliates in
other states. Vince Goodwin, the group's
co-chairman, describes slavery as the "the largest holocaust committed,"
and sees reparations as the only way America can "heal itself."
Our country may yet
be capable of handling money over to blacks
N'COBRA was delighted when Rep. John Conyers of Detroit introduced a
bill in Congress to establish a presidential commission to study black
reparations. Today, N'COBRA's main mission is to encourage the introduction
of similar legislation both in Congress and in state legislatures.
Massachusetts state Senator William Owens has actually held hearings
on a reparations bill, and one has been introduced in Michigan. Cities
with large black populations have passed resolutions calling for reparations.
Detroit and Washington (DC) have both issued official demands, and the
Detroit chapter of N'COBRA has taken to picketing the local federal office
The Urban League and the NAACP have gotten on the reparations bandwagon
and Jesse Jackson has endorsed the idea. Former Harvard Law School professor,
Derrick Bell, believes in reparations because "The struggle against racism
requires action . . . . Anything and everything should be tried." Louis
Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam has long preached a form of reparations
that would involve turning over several American states to blacks, along
with huge cash payments.
Even one prominent white, neo-conservative Charles Krauthammer, has
publicly endorsed reparations. He says that payments to blacks would be
better for them than "the warm glow of condescension that permeates affirmative
action." Once the debt of slavery were paid off, America could abandon
affirmative action with good conscience and finally institute color-blind
For the reparations activists, that would not be enough. Dorothy Lewis
of the Black Reparations Committee explains that affirmative action and
reparations are remedies for different wrongs. As she explains, "Affirmative
action is needed to curtail racism that exists now."
Reparations movements are gaining ground in Brazil, Jamaica, and England.
As Cindy Owens, wife of the Massachusetts state senator says, "The slaves
built not just this country but Jamaica, the Bahamas, England and other
places. Why shouldn't we all be paid for that labor?"
Even the dark continent has caught reparations fever. In 1991, President
Ibrahim Babangida of Nigeria made a public demand that Africa be compensated
for the people it lost in the slave trade, and he is planning an international
conference this summer to flesh out details. Speakers will include Nelson
Mandela of the African National Congress and President Robert Mugabe of
There is great fun to be had in calculating the damages award. Andrew
Jenkins, a Detroit real estate agent who has been a reparations activist
for 27 years, says that every black in the country is entitled to $1 million.
It does not seem to bother him that this would work out to about $30 trillion,
or the equivalent of the entire federal budget for the past 20 or so years.
State Sen. Owens of Massachusetts is more modest. He calculates the debt
at only $3 trillion, with perhaps another trillion in back interest.
One favorite way to calculate the debt is to figure what 40 acres and a
mule were worth in 1865 and then add the accumulated interest up to the
present. A theorist in Washington state concludes that this works out to
$98,191.35 per black person. Mr. Krauthammer's is the stingiest proposal
of all: $100,000 for every black family of four.
Like so much of what our country says and does in the name of race,
all this is pure lunacy. First, slave owners certainly did buy and sell
slaves and forced them to work without wages.
However, all slaves and slave owners are dead. There is no legal basis
either for punishing distant descendants for the wrong-doing of their ancestors
or for rewarding the distant descendants of those who were wronged.
By one estimate,
reparations payments should be equivalent to the entire federal budget
for the past 20 years.
The parallel between compensation for interned Japanese and today's
blacks is tenuous. First, only those who were actually interned have been
compensated. Surviving children get nothing. Furthermore, internment was
a deliberate act of the United States government, so a case can be made
for government redress. Slavery was a private practice regulated by states
and localities. The federal government never owned a single slave. When
it abolished slavery (by means of a dubious Constitutional amendment that
excluded the states of the defeated Confederacy) it ended a private practice
that had begun more than a century before the federal government even existed.
Those who ignore these obvious arguments and nevertheless insist on
government compensation do so because they believe two things: that slavery
was a unique and unparalleled evil done by whites to blacks, and that it
was so productive America would have remained poor without it. The first
of these ideas has been so widely promoted it is almost an article of faith,
and it is worth looking into slavery in some detail in order to refute
The Slave Trade
Slavery and the trade in human property were well established on the
continent long before Europeans ever arrived. There is no record of whites
ever venturing into the interior of Africa in search of slaves; they had
no need to do so. The 500,000 or so blacks who were brought to the United
States were first captured by Africans and delivered to the coast by professional
African slave traders.
Slaves were usually captured in tribal wars, but Africans had learned
that it was impractical to enslave people from neighboring tribes, since
they could easily escape back to their own people. Captives were therefore
sold to traders who resold them only after they had marched the slaves
so far from home they could not return. This infrastructure was easily
adapted to meet the needs of white slave merchants.
Nevertheless, the trans-Atlantic trade had some requirements different
from those of the traditional inter-tribal trade. In African warfare, the
usual practice was to enslave captured women and children but to kill all
male prisoners. It was an agreeable surprise for Africans to discover a
profitable export market for men. Many of the slaves who were marched in
coffles to the sea would therefore have been slaughtered had there been
no demand for them in the New World.
Some Africans formed raiding parties specifically to supply European
slavers, but the primary source for the trans-Atlantic trade was the overflow
of captives from tribal warfare. The most promising slaving sites therefore
moved up and down the coast, depending on the fortunes of war. When there
was peace along the Gambia river, operations shifted to the Sassandra or
Whites certainly did not rob Africa of its manhood. Unlike the Africans
who supplied them, whites paid for what they got. If today's Africans have
a quarrel, it is with their own warfaring ancestors rather than with whites.
As for American blacks, the idea that they should be paid because of
the injustices done to their ancestors crumbles to dust when one compares
their present state with that of Africans. There has never been a group
of blacks anywhere in the history of the world that has enjoyed the material
prosperity of American blacks. Even the poorest American black is vastly
better off than the average African. Whatever one may say about the wrongs
that were done to slaves, their descendants have every reason to be grateful
that their ancestors were shipped to America rather than killed or left
standard of living that blacks enjoy in America is due to the fact that
they live among whites. For an example of the kind of society they would
have built for themselves one need only visit Liberia. This West African
nation, established by freed American slaves, has long been one of the
most miserable nations on a miserable continent and is now in a state of
Moreover, despite the lip service they give to Afro-centrism, very few
American blacks emigrate to Africa. Those who think they would like to
"go home" usually change their minds after a single visit. The power of
attraction runs entirely the other way; hundreds of thousands of Africans
[%-2] would come to America if they could.
This article will conclude in the July issue.
• • • BACK
TO TOP • • •
Skeletons in the
White House Closet
By today's standards,
many of America's greatest men were rabid white supremacists.
reviewed by Thomas Jackson
on Slavery and the Negro
Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina
Arlington House, 1971, 448 pp.
Nations, like people, often give only partial accounts of their past, and
what they leave out says a great deal. It is no accident, therefore, that
few aspects of American history are so consistently ignored as the fact
that so many of the men our country professes to admire were confirmed
"racists." The thinking of these men is, by today's standards, so reprehensible
that one must turn to books long out of print to find a candid summary
of what they thought.
American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, published by the
now defunct Arlington House, is in most good libraries and can occasionally
be found in used book stores. It is an invaluable guide to what America's
most influential men have thought about the race question and is also an
enlightening summary of the centuries-long struggle to understand the question
that has dogged our nation ever since its beginning: Can a multi-racial
nation be made to work?
As the authors point out, the United States inherited a race problem.
Negro slavery had already been established by the southern states before
the nation was even founded. In fact, the question of whether slaves were
people or property was the most intractable problem at the constitutional
convention in Philadelphia. Representatives of slave states insisted that
slaves be counted as people for the purpose of deciding how many Congressmen
a state was to have but that they be counted as property for all other
purposes. The delegates reached an acrimonious and strictly utilitarian
compromise according to which each slave was counted as three-fifths of
a person. James Madison was not the only delegate to fear that slavery
would be the greatest source of national conflict in the years to come.
Of course, opposition to slavery was not the same as acceptance of blacks
as political or social equals. Almost without exception, men who opposed
slavery for moral reasons were also convinced that blacks were an inferior
race that should never have been brought to America.
Franklin was unusual for his time in thinking that blacks were not
intellectually inferior. As one of the most "liberal" Americans then alive,
he nevertheless believed that the nation should be purely Anglo Saxon and
opposed immigration by groups of any other stock. He also thought blacks
were unattractive in appearance and he would have barred them from the
country for this reason alone.
Five of the first seven American presidents—George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson—owned slaves.
For 40 of its first 48 years of existence, therefore, the republic was
governed by slaveholders. In his early years, Andrew Jackson even tried
his hand at trafficking in slaves.
During this period, it was Jefferson, Madison and Monroe who best represented
what leading men of their time thought about blacks and slavery. Of the
three, Jefferson wrote at greatest length and with the greatest clarity.
His observations of blacks had convinced him they were intellectually inferior
to whites, even though he had a life-long interest in seeking out blacks
of high reputation who might prove him wrong.
Jefferson's formulation of the race dilemma, which was common among
Northerners up through Lincoln's time, can be summarized thus: Slavery
was wrong. However, blacks were inferior to whites and could not be accepted
as free men in white society. Blacks should therefore be freed and then
deported. So long as blacks remained within the United States, the immorality
of slavery was a lesser evil than the chaos of a mixed society.
"We have the wolf by the ears," wrote Jefferson, "and we can neither
hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation
in the other." Separation was the only remedy.
There were then 750,000 blacks in America and Jefferson was willing
to expand the powers of government if that was what was required to expel
them. He considered various destinations for "colonization" and concluded
that Africa or the West Indies would be best. He ruled out Central or South
America because he felt that whites would eventually inhabit the Americas
from north to south, and he did not want to set obstacles in the path of
Like Franklin, Jefferson found blacks esthetically displeasing. He wrote
that just as it was normal for men to prefer good conformation in their
horses and dogs, it was natural to distinguish plain from handsome races.
As a livestock breeder, Jefferson knew that young animals inherit the characteristics
of their parents. He saw no reason why eugenic principles should not be
applied to humans and toyed with the idea of regulating human breeding.
Like Franklin, Jefferson
found blacks esthetically
Today, it is fashionable to call Jefferson a hypocrite, both because
he condemned slavery but owned slaves and because he considered blacks
inferior but may have had a black mistress. The authors of this book think
it entirely possible that Jefferson had a liaison with his slave, Sally
Hemmings. As they point out, she was, at most, only one quarter black and
was widely described as beautiful. The affair would have begun after the
death of Jefferson's wife.
Aside from unanswerable questions about Sally Hemmings, Jefferson was
certainly not a hypocrite by his own standards. If it had been possible
to remove all blacks from the United States he would have made considerable
sacrifices to bring that about. The only real attack on his integrity can
be to ask if he might not have done more to achieve this goal. James Madison,
who followed Jefferson as President, was also a strong partisan of colonization.
He estimated that it would cost $600 million to buy, transport, and colonize
the entire black population of the United States, and he would have been
prepared to sell 200 to 300 million acres of public land to raise the sum.
However, he felt that a Constitutional amendment was necessary to permit
the federal government to transport blacks, and he faced strong opposition
from the slave states. After his two terms in office, he devoted his efforts
to the American Colonization Society, of which he became president.
As Mr. Weyl and Mr. Marina point out, in its time, the Society enjoyed
the support of the most powerful and prestigious men in America. Its first
meeting was called to order in 1816 by Henry Clay. At various times it
had, not merely as members but as officers, James Madison, Andrew Jackson,
Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, Gen.
Winfield Scott, Matthew Carey (the prominent Philadelphia publisher), Edward
Everett (governor of Massachusetts and president
of Harvard) and two Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, John Marshall
and Roger Taney. The purpose of the society was, in Henry Clay's words,
to "rid our country of a useless and pernicious, if not dangerous portion
of the population."
The Society never managed to persuade the government to do this, but
it was through the efforts of its members that Liberia was established
as a home for freed slaves. President James Monroe was a active proponent
of colonization and in 1824 Liberians named their capital Monrovia as a
gesture of thanks.
The authors of this book make it clear that the dividing line of respectable
opinion before the Civil War was not whether the Negro should be slave
or free but whether he should be a slave or be driven out of the country.
Even in the North, a great many people were perfectly content for the black
man to remain a slave. Abolitionists, who dared not even show their faces
in the South, were seen as busybody subversives in the North as well. They
were often beaten up or tarred and feathered.
In 1837, in
Alton, Illinois, a mob killed an abolitionist editor named Elijah Lovejoy.
He was no egalitarian by today's standards, and argued that one of the
benefits of abolition would be the end of miscegenation, which he called
"that wretched, shameful, and polluted intercourse." He was killed for
proposing freedom for a race that many in the North were happy to leave
as they were.
From today's vantage point, the great irony in the antebellum slavery
debates is that there was virtually no constituency for racial equality;
"liberals" were for deportation and "conservatives" were for slavery. This
difference could not be reconciled peaceably and in the end neither side
got what it wanted. The result was the very thing whites feared most: a
"The Great Emancipator"
Abraham Lincoln was the last great champion of colonization, but in
his desperation to save the Union he took measures that made colonization
much more difficult. In an attempt to court world opinion and prevent European
nations from recognizing the Confederacy, Lincoln issued the Emancipation
Proclamation, which led inevitably to abolition. Once blacks were citizens
rather than slaves, forced deportation became a much less
Had Lincoln not been so hard pressed on the battlefield he would surely
not have attempted to free the slaves without providing for deportation.
Before and even during the war, he had repeatedly said that abolition was
unthinkable without colonization.
Mr. Weyl and Mr. Marina describe the many efforts Lincoln made to promote
colonization even during the darkest hours of the war. He persuaded Congress
to appropriate money to buy up the slaves in the District of Columbia and
send them out of the country. He invited a delegation of prominent blacks
to the White House—the first time blacks had ever received such an invitation—to
ask them to persuade other blacks to go to Haiti or Central America. He
even considered setting aside Texas as an asylum for blacks so that the
rest of the country could be
free of them.
If Lincoln had not been assassinated, he might well have devoted the
rest of his life to promoting colonization. With the pro-slavery faction
thoroughly beaten, the nation might then have followed the wishes of the
President. Instead, war and emancipation—neither of which might have happened
without Lincoln's force of will—brought into being the mixed society that
he most dreaded.
Since the war, all but the most recent presidents have struggled to
find middle-ground solutions to the race problem—solutions that Jefferson
and Lincoln were convinced did not exist. Up through Eisenhower's era,
this meant acknowledging the inferiority of blacks but trying to treat
Theodore Roosevelt, for example, thought blacks were "a perfectly stupid
race," and he bitterly blamed Southerners for having saddled the country
with them. "There is no solution to the terrible problem offered by the
presence of the Negro on this continent," he wrote in 1901; "he is here
and can neither be killed nor driven away." He also thought that Haiti
had suffered terribly from independent rule by blacks and that it would
have benefited from another hundred years of slavery.
Nevertheless, blacks could not be deprived of all rights. Roosevelt
recognized that some were able and deserved to hold appointed office. Although
he never instituted a method for selection, he also thought that some blacks
given the vote.
The authors of this book point out that the early socialists hardly
took the liberal view of race that we now associate with the left. As they
tell the story:
"In 1903, the Socialist Party was taken to task by the Second
International for its indifference to the rampant mob violence against
Negroes. The Socialist National Quorum replied that only the abolition
of capitalism and the victory of socialism could prevent the procreation
and production of 'lynchable human degenerates.' This extraordinary response
seems to have satisfied the international socialist organization.
Later, under Norman Thomas, the party campaigned for racial equality, but
this was well after the socialist high-water mark of 1912. Today's socialists
are mostly intellectuals, but early in the century they were working men
with the ordinary instincts of working men. During the 1920s, as the party
withered, many of its members joined the resurgent Ku Klux Klan.
"At the 1910 Socialist Party Congress, the Committee on Immigration
called for the 'unconditional exclusion' of Chinese and Japanese on the
grounds that they were politically backward and because America was already
afflicted with the Negro problem."
Mr. Weyl and Mr. Marina report that Woodrow Wilson was a firm segregationist,
who, as president of Princeton, used evasive means to prevent blacks from
enrolling. As Chief Executive, he ordered the segregation of government
offices and was surprised by the opposition of blacks and liberals. However,
he was publicly supported by Charles Eliot, president of Harvard and probably
the man with the most intellectual prestige in the country. The great sage
observed that "civilized white men" could not be expected to work along
side "barbarous black men." Nevertheless, Wilson did appoint blacks to
government office when he thought them qualified.
The quetion was not
whether the Negro was to be slave or free but whether he was to be a slave
or be driven out of the country.
Warren Harding was dogged throughout his life by rumors that his great-grandmother
was part black. He was never able to silence his critics for he himself
was uncertain about the facts. The authors of this book conclude that there
is a good chance that the rumors were true. As President, Harding took
the position that blacks and whites were different and preferred to live
apart. In one of his most famous speeches he said, "a black man cannot
be a white man . . . . He should seek to be, and he should be encouraged
to be, the best possible black man, and not the best possible imitation
of a white man." He was one of the first Presidents to promote the view
that blacks could have political and economic equality even if they were
denied social equality.
Truman and Eisenhower continued to struggle with this slippery idea.
However, Truman finally concluded that even though private citizens could
discriminate in employment, the government could not. He integrated the
armed services, even over the strenuous objections of the Navy, thereby
enforcing for others the social mixing he himself avoided.
likewise believed that although blacks should have political and economic
opportunity this did not mean that the races should be forced together
"or that a Negro should court my daughter." Nevertheless, when Governor
Orval Faubus of Arkansas defied a court order to integrate Little Rock's
schools in 1957, Eisenhower took the unprecedented step of sending federal
troops to enforce the order. School integration meant that more blacks
would be courting white people's daughters.
Mr. Weyl and Mr. Marina end their narrative with John Kennedy, who was
the first President wholly to disavow, at least in public, all racial consciousness.
He even went so far as implicitly to support the right to riot, observing
that if Congress did not pass civil rights laws, blacks had no choice
but to take to the streets. Of course, blacks got civil rights laws but
rioted anyway; the major civil rights acts were passed in 1964 and 1965,
and the worst race riots were two years later.
John Kennedy was
the first President to disavow all racial consciousness – at least in public.
The Modern Era
Kennedy ushered in the beginning of the modern era in American race
relations, and the nation embarked on its naive project of trying to build
a nation in which race is supposed not to matter. If Jefferson and Lincoln
could return from the grave they would hardly be surprised to find that
the modern era has been one of continuous friction and irresolvable problems.
Certainly in the black slums, they would find the very "negro pandemonium"
that many opponents of slavery saw as the only alternative to colonization.
Lincoln and Jefferson would be astonished, however, to discover that
whites now attempt to solve these problems by passing laws that punish
whites in order to advance blacks. They would be crestfallen to learn that
the nation they had always envisioned as a white republic has established
an immigration policy that will reduce whites to a minority in just a few
decades. They would be bewildered to find that the slightest expression
of their own deeply considered views on race now makes a man unfit for
public office and suspect as a citizen.
Indeed, American race relations have changed. The last two hundred years
have seen a steady dismantling of racial boundaries. The next two hundred
will see either their reerection or the complete racial amalgamation that
Jefferson and Lincoln found abhorrent.
"Rudyard Kipling" on Rodney King
by George Stevens
What would Rudyard Kipling have made of the Rodney King affair? In somewhat
similar circumstance he wrote a poem about the British infantry called
Tommy. You may recall the lines:
It's Tommy this and Tommy that,
And Tommy how's your soul?
But it's up front Mr. Atkins,
When the drums begin to roll.
In view of the recent convictions of officers Powell and Koons, a contemporary
Kipling might write a poem called Copper:
It's copper this and copper that,
And copper how's your soul?
But it's up front Mr. Powell,
When the rumble starts to roll.
It's copper this and copper that,
And copper you're a brute.
But it's the thin blue line of heroes,
When the mobs begin to loot.
We're neither saint nor clergy,
We don't turn the other cheek.
We're just the ones you call on,
When its rescue that you seek.
So it's copper this and copper that —
And let them do their thing!
And when they reach your neighborhood,
Just call for Rodney King!
• • • BACK
TO TOP • • •
O Tempora, O Mores!
Voting With Their Wallets
Congressional districts, which have been redrawn in accordance with
the 1990 census, must now be reshaped to create as many districts as possible
in which non-whites are the majority. As a consequence there are now 32
districts with black majorities and 20 with Hispanic majorities. There
are 26 more non-white majority districts than there were ten years ago.
One side effect
of the racial gerrymander has been to create the poorest congressional
districts in the country. In more than half of the districts in which blacks
or Hispanics are the majority more than 25 percent of the inhabitants are
poor. The poorest district of all is New York's 16th district where, by
federal standards, 42 percent of the inhabitants live below the poverty
line.[ Poverty upshot of some redistricting, Clarion-Ledger, march
24, 1993, p. 4A.]
There are at least 50 Hispanic-Americans with net worths of more than $20
million. Four are worth more than $100 million. At the top of the heap
is Joseph A. Unanue who, together with his family, is worth $330 million.
He made his money from Goya Foods of Seacaucus (NJ), which supplies the
[ Hispanic Business, march, 1993, p. 40.]
Rappin' With the Home Boys
The word "nigger" divides blacks. Older, middle-class blacks hate the
sound of the word, but younger, ghetto blacks use it not only for blacks
in general, but also as a term of endearment, humor, or solidarity. Ghetto
blacks see the word as a sign of their complete alienation from white society,
and calling each other "nigger" gives them a sense of camaraderie. According
to some blacks, the word should be "nigga" rather than "nigger." Some even
claim that this stands for Never Ignorant Getting Goals Accomplished.
All blacks agree, however, that no matter how often blacks may use the
word it is off limits to whites. A Los Angeles rap "singer" who is tired
of being asked about the word says this:
"People need to stop f***ing with little words . . . . Bottom line:
If I'm making a million dollars, I'm a million-dollar nigger to black people.
To everybody else, I'm a black man." [ Darrell Dawsey, "A Word of Caution,"
Detroit News, Jan. 22, 1993, p. 1C.]
Since it is now dogma to describe the work force of the future as a
rainbow of different races, languages, cultures, etc., "diversity training"
is the latest fad at business schools. Rather than explaining to Guatemalans
that meetings are supposed to start on time, for example, the "sensitive"
manager runs the meeting so that the first part covers matters that José
doesn't need to know about.
The organization that accredits business schools has set up a "task
force" to decide what sort of "diversity training" is best. Presumably
this means that schools that do not do enough of it will not be accredited.
Northwestern University's business school has already set up an endowed
chair in diversity, and virtually all business hire itinerant "diversity
specialists" and hold "diversity days."
The schools are reportedly under pressure from corporate affirmative
action officers. In an astonishingly candid appeal to biased research,
Anne Fritz, a division manager for AT&T in charge of diversity and
"equal opportunity," explains what she expects from business schools: "We
need more research coming out of universities that proves that diversity
is good for creativity and productivity."[ Claudia H. Deutsch, "Diversity
Bedevils M.B.A. Programs," NYT 4/4/93, Education Supplement, p.
There are a few companies that produce textbooks for Christian schools,
many of which were set up in the South as refuges for whites fleeing integration.
Some of the best known publishers are Accelerated Christian Education (ACE),
Bob Jones Textbooks, and Alpha Omega Publications. Their texts have not
been completely sanitized as have been those from secular publishers. Here
is a passage from an ACE text on South Africa and Nelson Mandela:
"Although apartheid appears to allow the unfair treatment of blacks,
the system has worked well in South Africa . . . . Although white businessmen
and developers are guilty of some unfair treatment of blacks, they turned
South Africa into a modern industrialized nation, which the poor, uneducated
blacks couldn't have accomplished in several more decades. If more blacks
were suddenly given control of the nation, its economy and business, as
Mandela wished, they could have destroyed what they have waited and worked
so hard for."[ David Dent, "A Mixed Message in Black Schools," NYT
4/4/93, Education Supplement, p. 28.]
Along with the reduction of whites to 45 percent of the population,
a few other things have changed in New York City in the last 50 years.
Since 1942, the city's population has dropped 150,000—from 7,472,000 to
7,322,000. During the same period, the number of welfare recipients has
risen from 73,000 to 1,200,000. In 1942, only 44 New Yorkers were killed
with guns; in 1992, 1,499 were shot to death. In 1942, three percent of
the births were illegitimate; in 1992, 45 percent were illegitimate.
[ "The Eye," Washington Enquirer, 4/30/93, p. 2.]
All is Forgiven
The takeover of Cornell University's Willard Straight Hall by armed
blacks in 1969 was only a slightly more aggressive disruption than the
usual student activism of the times. Tom Jones, a senior who led the takeover,
mouthed the obligatory lines:
"In the past it has been the black people who have done all the dying.
Now the time has come when the pigs are going to die, too. We are moving
tonight. Cornell has until 9 o'clock to live. It is now three minutes after
Fortunately, neither pigs nor black people died in the takeover, and
Mr. Jones was never punished for what he did. Now he is about to reap his
reward; on May 29 he is expected to be elected to Cornell's 42-member board
of trustees. It appears that at some point Mr. Jones learned that threatening
to kill policemen was not the best way to get ahead. He is now president
of TIAA-CREF, the world's largest private pension fund, with assets of
In these strange times, it is hardly surprising to learn who welcomes
Mr. Jones to Cornell and who does not. Former president, James Perkins,
who was forced to resign one month after the takeover, and Dale Corson,
the man who replaced him, say Mr. Jones has won the university's trust.
Black activists, on the other hand, are angry that he appears to have given
up the "struggle for minority rights" and that he has even expressed regret
over his role in the takeover.
On a more prosaic level, there is some doubt as to Mr. Jones' interest
in Cornell. In reply to those who point out that he has visited the campus
only once since 1970 and that he has not been an active alumnus, he says,
"I've been focusing on my career."[ Evolution of a Protester: from gun
to governing," NYT, April 7, 1993.]
Race and Justice in Miami
Every year, the criminal justice system seems to get more bogged down
in race. The trial of a Hispanic policeman who shot a black man has been
moved again—for the third time in a year.
In 1989, Colombian-born William Lozano shot a fleeing black suspect
on a motorcycle, who he claimed was trying to run him down. Both the rider
and his passenger died. When they heard about the incident, Miami blacks
rioted and looted for three days. In the trial that followed, a mixed-race
Miami jury convicted Mr. Lozano of manslaughter. However, the district
court of appeal overturned the conviction after it found that the jury
had been swayed by fears of further riots. A new trial was set for last
April, but a judge moved it to Orlando, where it was thought Mr. Lozano
could get a more unbiased jury.
Unluckily for Mr. Lozano, the riots after the verdict in the first Rodney
King beating trial intervened, and someone noticed that only 10 percent
of the jury pool in Orlando is black. The judge, fearful of an innocent
verdict and more rioting, moved the trial to Tallahassee, where the jury
pool is 21 percent black. Then someone noticed that the pool is only 2.4
percent Hispanic, and Mr. Lozano's lawyer argued that if it made sense
to move the trial because of the race of the dead suspects, it made sense
to consider the race of the defendant also.
After more wrangling, the prosecutors agreed, and the trial has been
moved back to Orlando, which has a population that is 10 percent Hispanic.
Now the trial is scheduled for May in Orlando[ Miami Officer's retrial
moved yet again, NYT, 3/11/93, p. A18.] . . . or at least that is
the latest word.
The Proud Lady
manufacturers of skin lighteners and hair straighteners are furious that
white cosmetics companies are winning customers in a market they consider
exclusively theirs. The manufacturers have joined in a campaign to put
a symbol called the "proud lady" on all their products so that customers
will know to patronize blacks rather than whites.[ Charles Boisseau, 800
phone line steers customers to black businesses, Houston Chronicle,
4/23/93, p. 1B.]
Of the People, by the People . . .
Kay Patterson is a state senator in the South Carolina legislature who
has no illusions about his role in government: represent the interests
of black people. Currently, the population of his district is 65 percent
blacks; "I'd like for it to get up around 100 percent," he explains, so
that he need not worry about the other 35 percent.
Mr. Patterson sprinkles his speech with profanity and black dialect
and refers to white legislators as "white boys." He recently sent a letter
to black elected officials inviting them to a segregated strategy meeting.
"Now please don't bring any of your 'White-Friends,' " the letter read,
"this is a 'Colored' meeting."[ Patterson offers no apology for actions,
and Courier (Columbia) 4/5/93, p. 3B.]
Will Zaire Disappear?
Zaire, which has enough raw materials to make it one of the richest
nations in the world, is withering away. It does not even have a civil
war; it has just stumbled to a halt. Businesses, stores, and factories
have been stripped clean by unpaid soldiers. International airlines stopped
flying in long ago, and the once-numerous expatriate businessmen have fled.
The "nation's" currency, the zaire, is worth 2.5 million to the dollar,
which is to say that Zairian bank notes cost more to print than they are
worth. Half of the Kinshasa zoo's animals have starved to death, and the
lions have begun to eat each other.
Only one thing keeps the country going. Zaire is the second largest
producer of diamonds in the world, and the smugglers who run the diamond
trade ride fine cars and wear expensive jewelry. There is no longer any
difference between corruption and government. Rich Zairians hire soldiers
to guard their homes from the hungry masses, and unpaid school teachers
hold private classes for the children of diamond merchants. "You could
feed all of the data on Zaire into a computer and the answer would be that
this country doesn't exist," says a European diplomat.[ Liz Sly, "Collapse
of Government," Birmingham News, 4/6/93.]
Conditions like this are at last coming to the attention of even the
most hardened liberals. The New York Times Magazine of April 18,
1993 has actually published an article arguing that since great chunks
of Africa have fallen into hopeless chaos, they should be recolonized.[
Paul Johnson, Colonialism's back—and not a moment too soon, NYT magazine,
4/18/93, p. 22.] Of course, Americans could start a little closer to home,
perhaps in Detroit, or East Saint Louis, or Camden, or . . .
The University of Pennsylvania has tied itself into knots over whether
it is a racial slur to call a black woman a water buffalo. A freshman is
said to have shouted this fearful insult out the window at a group of black
sorority students who were making noise, adding that there was a zoo nearby
if they wanted to party.
Since disciplinary action against the freshman hinges on whether "water
buffalo" is a racial slur, a panel of specialists on ethnic insult has
been combing the literature to see if the words have ever been used this
way. One faculty member has argued that since water buffalo are "large,
dark, primitive animals that live in Africa," the term is ipso facto
a racial slur. Others have pointed out that water buffalo live in Asia,
not in Africa.
Thus does the administration spends its time. The president of Penn,
Sheldon Hackney, is President Clinton's nominee to chair the National Endowment
for the Humanities.[ Speech Code Silliness, Wash Post, 5/2/93]
The New Dominion
In the May/June issue of American Heritage, the state of Virginia
has paid for a double-page tourism advertisement for itself. It features
six large photographs of black people, and has the following text:
"Did you know that the North Pole was co-discovered by an African American
named Matthew A. Henson? That the first woman bank president Maggie Leana
Walker was black? That the District of Columbia was surveyed by Benjamin
Banneker, a Virginia publisher, astronomer and African American?
"If you want to immerse yourself in African American history, don't
just go to your library. Come to Virginia. Nowhere are the contributions
of African Americans more evident. Or more profound."
Of the six photographs of blacks, one is of the current governor of
the state, Douglas Wilder. [ pp. 28,29 of AH, May/June, 1993.]
George Bojarksi of Richmond (TX) recently died and his son Larry arranged
for the body to be embalmed. Later, there was a dispute with the owner
of the mortuary, Newell Evans, about cremation fees. Early one morning,
in retaliation, Mr. Evans dumped George Bojarksi's nearly-naked body on
the front steps of Larry Bojarski's apartment. When Mr. Bojarski had Mr.
Evans charged with abuse of a corpse, the defendant expressed astonishment
and accused the county prosecutor of bad faith. Mr. Evans, who is black,
claims that the charge is racist and was filed only because the corpse
was white.[ Patti Muck, Body-dumping case turns to racial issue, Houston
Chronicle, 4/23/93, p. 29A.]
Seeing the Light
The rise in anti-white crime has been so great that even the professional
white-bashers have begun to notice. An organization in Alabama called Klanwatch
points out that in 1992, nine whites were officially designated as having
been killed for racial reasons, as were six blacks, four Hispanics, and
two Asians. "The problem of black-on-white bias crime is of deep concern
because it is on the increase," says a spokesman. He notes that in the
city of Chicago more bias crimes were committed against whites than against
any other race.
Fahim Minkah, of a group called the National Black United Front, says
these numbers are a meaningless distraction. "I think focusing on that
[hate crimes against whites] is a waste of resources. We've got thousands
of people in America, in the world, that have been denied jobs, housing,
because of hateful [white] bigots."[ Terry Box, Hate crimes against whites
increase, Dallas Morning News, 4/28/93, p. 1A.]
Thanks to Anonymous Reader
The Bob Grant Show is a popular conservative talk radio program in
New York City. Recently an AR reader called in, described AR,
and gave our address. A few listeners immediately sent subscription checks
and many more have requested information. Many thanks to our anonymous
More Racial Murder
Last year, six black marines at Camp LeJeune (SC) got drunk in a barracks,
worked themselves into a frenzy over "racism," and decided to do something
about it. "We are going to get us a white boy tonight," Kenneth Parker
reportedly said. They went out with a shotgun and found a white marine,
Rodney Page, and explained what they intended to do. As Mr. Page begged
for his life, they shot him to death in the presence of his pregnant wife.
One of the defendants has pleaded guilty and has agreed to testify against
the others in exchange for having a life sentence reduced to 28 years.
[ AP. Marines angry about racism, defendant testifies, Raleigh News
& Observer, Feb. 3, 1993.]
The Old Switcheroo
On April 28th, NBC showed a made-for-television movie called "Moment
of Truth: Why My Daughter." It recounted the true story of a mother's
search for justice after her daughter was raped, tortured, and killed.
The program was filmed in very convincing documentary style, but the producers
made one small change. The real rapist/killer was black; for NBC
he was white.
• • • BACK
TO TOP • • •
E T T E R S F R O M R E A D E
Sir – In the April 1993 issue a letter writer raises a serious
question that should be addressed: What does it mean to "stand and fight"
[against the waves of non-whites who are transforming our neighborhoods]?
My own view is that the problems AR discusses could largely be
solved by market mechanisms if the European majority in the U.S. could
bring itself to repeal all civil rights legislation. Quite apart from their
bad consequences, these laws are intrinsically wrong because they limit
the rights of free association and free contract.
If people were simply free (once again) to hire and associate with
whomever they liked, whites would no longer have to flee when blacks moved
in. They could simply agree among themselves not to sell or rent to people
of certain races. Racial disparities in income would pretty much ensure
that blacks could not afford housing in most neighborhoods whites find
desirable, and with whites free to agree among themselves not to sell to
blacks, neighborhood schools would stabilize.
Similarly, whites would be much less likely to find themselves associating
with blacks they did not wish to be with if employers were allowed to hire
on any basis they pleased. And – if one may be permitted to dream – if
welfare were ever done away with on free-market grounds, we would no longer
see cities destroyed by vandals who would not have been born if their 'parents
had had any inkling that they would be solely responsible for childrearing.
In short, without violence and without state-imposed segregation, free
market principles would go far toward rescuing productive whites. The changes
I am proposing involve only the repeal of laws, most of them less than
forty years old. I must note, though, that the U.S. is a democracy; if
these laws are not repealed it must be because, lamentably, the majority
of whites are in favor of them.
Michael Levin, New York, N.Y.
Sir – Just a note of encouragement in these difficult times and a few
comments as they come to me.
1) I think there should be a little space in AR given to addresses
of friendly organizations and perhaps even to addresses, telephone numbers,
and information about major opposition organizations.
2) Personally I find it depressing to read letters from people who withhold
their names. If they are too fearful to have their names published, should
their views be published? I know the old excuse about "working behind the
scenes," and it is sometimes valid, but in most cases it is really just
plain old cowardice pretending to be something else.
3) Your review of Richard Epstein's book [opposing anti-discrimination
laws (AR of March, 1993)] points to something I believe is necessary:
tactical support for libertarians and libertarianism. Whatever one thinks
of libertarianism ultimately, for the present it is a strong argument and
weapon against states that are no longer worthy of any support.
Incidentally, in Germany "white flight" is taking the form of a massive
increase in the demand for private schools. Of course, no one mentions
the real reasons. When one considers the cowardice and selfishness of whites
today one asks oneself why one bothers. The answer, of course, is not for
the many of today but for the few of today and the many of tomorrow – another
and better kind of white for a better world in the future.
Michael Walker, The Skorpion, Lutzowstrasse 39, 5000 Koln
am Rhein 1, GERMANY
Sir – In the May issue, you mention that Gov. Wilson of California has
promised to sign a bill that would forbid public education for illegal
aliens. I attended hearings on such a bill, held by the Education Committee
of the California State Assembly on March 31st.
Many committee members made the ridiculous argument that the cost of
checking citizenship would be more than the cost of educating illegal aliens.
The "no" side also brought up the usual charges of heartlessness and racism.
They asked people to imagine five-year-olds huddled on street corners because
they had been thrown out of kindergarten classes. When supporters of the
bill said that they wanted illegal children deported to their home countries
along with their parents, this was denounced as even more heartless.
The "no" side continually confused legal and illegal immigration and
called the bill "anti-immigrant." One assembly member (Diane Martinez)
actually said she didn't see much difference between legal and illegal
immigrants. Nor did she see herself as necessarily representing citizens.
The bill was defeated in committee by a vote of 16 to three.
Evelyn Hill, Santa Clara, Cal.
Sir – I noticed that you illustrated your May review of Wilmot Robertson's
Ethnostate with a picture of the Confederate national flag. Since most
people do not know that flag – they are familiar only with the battle flag
– your allusion to the "ethnostate" my ancestors tried to create was probably
lost on them.
Greg Hansen, Nashville, Tenn.
• • • BACK
TO TOP • • •