Keyes proposes slave reparations
| August 17th, 2004As many have heard, ultra-conservative Maryland radio talk-show host, Alan Keyes, jumped in to replace Jack Ryan in the race for the Illinois Senate. Although few believe Keyes can beat Democratic Nominee Obama, Keyes is fulfilling the universal expectation that he will be outspoken on the campaign trail so as to maximize media attention.
Keyes seems to have decided to fixate on this attention grabbing issue: slavery! He first alluded to slavery when criticizing Obama’s views on abortion. (For the story, read The Sun Times.)
Now, Keyes is discussing slave reparations. Keyes previously argued vehemently against monetary reparations for slavery. Yet, days after being booed by African Americans at the Bud Billikan parade, The Chicago Tribune reports:
Based on his justification for federal reparations, I gather Keyes proposes descendants of slaves continue to pay Illinois State income and sales tax, city and county taxes and local real estate taxes. After all, there was no slavery in The Land of Lincoln. It’s also not clear when he is proposing we start the clock. Is he suggesting we excuse all current living descendants of slaves and their children? Or, does he mean we excuse taxes for children and grandchildren, but not great-grandchildren, of former slaves? (The civil war ended in 1865. Are any grandchildren of slaves still alive and paying income taxes?) I doubt these details will be ironed out before the election in November.
Yes, I would like Keyes to clarify this idea a bit more. One question I really want answered is:
If you honestly support monetary reparation to this generation of African American descendants of slaves, isn’t this an unjust method to distribute the money?
The US income tax is progressive; social security taxes are regressive. Low income Americans currently pay plenty in social security taxes, but little in income tax. So, applying your proposal, low income African Americans would receive next to nothing in reparations. In contrast, high income African Americans would receive fairly generous monetary benefits.
If you wish to erase the lingering negative effects of slavery, wouldn’t it make more sense to design a program to benefit low income African Americans at least as much as a high income African Americans?
Asking that question, I realize the question I really want answered is this:
Aren’t you proposing a method of doling out reparations that no-one would support?
I guess we do know at least one African American wouldn’t get the income tax break. Obama. He is not a descendent of slaves.
August 17th, 2004 at 11:50 am
I have followed Alan Keyes for almost 12 years. Am I that old :-( He has a great mind, but it is damaged by his utter lack of effective social skills. Keyes statements and proposal can be summed up in one word — PANDERING. Shameful pandering to those whom he thinks are ignorant and simple.
Quotas, as opposed to affirmative action, is an effective form of reparations. However, the quotas need to start at the elementary school level. Instead of just bussing kids from inner-city schools, kids from better suburban schools should be bussed to the “ghetto” or “barrio” schools. That is true “equal education”.
This comment was written by J Stevenson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 12:10 pm
>>Shameful pandering to those whom he thinks are ignorant and simple.
If he thinks the voters of Illinois are ignorant or simple minded, I think he will be surprised when a few more boo him again at yet another parade!
I have no idea what he is thinking. Who is he trying to appeal to?
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 12:58 pm
Without trying to incite violence against my comments — in my opinion some in the “progressive” black community (those whom everyone else in the black community label as “sell-outs” — you know the young black men who believe “reading is not acting white”) can make several mistakes. The first is to become so far removed from their inner-city roots that they forget that being poor does not mean “you ignant”. Alan Keyes has routinely fallen into this trap. I think, he thinks, he is trying to appeal to “the black community”. He probably believes that many are still swayed by pulpit politics (whatever the Rev says is the state of affairs). Reparations is still a big issue in the lesser informed mass of the community (those who are pandered to by Jessie Jackson). Getting this group to vote Republican is like making the Sun rise in the West. They will always vote againt Keyes (an “Uncle Tom” in their view) no matter what his views are. The democrats could bring back slavery and this group would still vote for them. That is something that Keyes just has to recognize and trying to pander to them will destroy his damaged credibility among those he may have a chance of swaying in his favor. J.C. Watts is an example of how to do it right.
This comment was written by jstevenson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 1:16 pm
Of course a tax policy favoring the rich over the poor is Republican by its very nature. Dubya says such schemes are sure to deliver wealth and prosperity for all. Keyes is only suggesting a tax policy akin to his President’s philosophy. You criticize Keyes, but his proposal is dead in the water and Dubya’s is the law, alive and well and wreaking havoc. Maybe your critique is misdirected.
This comment was written by steve duncan.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 2:07 pm
One of the great quandaries of the reparations debate is identifying who is entitled to reparations. The Chicago Tribune quotes Keyes as offering reparations to African-Americans of slave heritage. But given the amount of procreation between slaves and their masters, I’d guess that there are plenty of white (appearing) people who might fit the definition of “African-Americans of slave heritage.” I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that a quarter of the US population had some slave ancestry. People who would never imagine that they’d be qualified for Affirmative Action assistance might discover that they’re entitled to reparations!
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 2:24 pm
Shock, I agree with Jstevenson :). He is pandering, but what is sad for him is that his pandering is out-of-touch with even those who support ‘reparations’.
but, no shock, I don’t agree on another point. I have read a lot of his stuff (my Libertarian brother pointed me to him a few elections cycles ago) and I really don’t see him having much of a ‘great’ mind.
I don’t like the idea of reparations mainly for the reason as stated above “who gets them”. It’s one thing to recompense the direct victims or perhaps their children, but….
Though blond haired and blue eyed I’m probably a second cousin twice removed of Alex Haley (through common Native American/African American ancestors)..
can I claim?
ANd then what about my grandmother’s people, Native Americans… do THEY get reparations for the generations of cheating, slaughter, displacement and poverty they’ve suffered at the hands of European settlers and then the US Government?
In my view, the _best_ reparations are fair government and corporate policies, _real_ equal opportunity in education, housing and jobs, and vigorious enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. (none of which we have yet)
This comment was written by Trey.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 2:27 pm
>>Keyes is only suggesting a tax policy akin to his President’s philosophy.
Not quite. There are two differences with this and Bush’s ideas. First, in order for this to be “reparations”, African Americans need to be getting a benefit others do not. So, I’m assuming that Keyes wants everyone else to get taxed. Second, I think Bush wouldn’t set the federal income tax level at zero for everyone. The federal government would literally close down if they did that!
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 3:00 pm
Trey: I too agree with JStevenson :-) Two main arguments I hear regularly from “my peeps”: Number uno is “the Indians (Native Americans, etc.) are getting theirs”. The basis of this argument is actually sufficiently grounded. The first reparations to be given to the Native Americans were desolate lands no one wanted. The second was sovereignty. The sovreign issue has finanlly panned out to be a great boon to many tribal nations.
The second argument is that the Jews were given reparations. That argument is specious in that it refers mainly to Israel, which was actually given by the British and not America. They also refer to the Swiss bank suits as reparations. That of course is another weak argument. If Israel was granted by America, it would give me cause to consider Jews were given reparations by America.
What fails in both of these arguments is that those who were directly injured were the one’s who benefitted by the actions.
This comment was written by jstevenson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 3:02 pm
Lucia: — I think Bush wouldn’t set the federal income tax level at zero for everyone –
Bush’s new economic plan calls for abolition of the income tax. Aside from not being able to set the federal income tax level to zero (it is Congressionally set), that is a major part of his economic proposal for the future.
This comment was written by jstevenson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 3:19 pm
I too support reparations to black Americans, but not in the form of direct cash payments to individuals, even in the form of a tax credit. We already have a set of reparation policies in the form of affirmative action and social welfare programs. We should expand and build on those rather than step into the quagmire of anything akin to Keyes’ proposal. Of course, he’s just trolling for black votes, and he’s a total loon anyway….
This comment was written by Don P.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 3:19 pm
Shows what I know!
I knew Bush floated a trial balloon about establishing a heavy duty national sales tax. (For example here.)
Is he seriously advocating it? I think so far he’s said he’d “explore” it. But, yes, maybe he would get rid of the income tax! That would cut into Keyes’ reparations!
Or maybe it would help? Maybe cashiers could eyeball a customer, decide if they looked like a descendant of a slave, and then waive the sales tax?
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 3:23 pm
well, not to highjack the comments with a off topic,
Number uno is “the Indians (Native Americans, etc.) are getting theirs”. The basis of this argument is actually sufficiently grounded. The first reparations to be given to the Native Americans were desolate lands no one wanted. The second was sovereignty. The sovreign issue has finanlly panned out to be a great boon to many tribal nations.
First point is somewhat absurd. “We will drive you off 99% of your lands and homes and place you some desolate 1% piece of your land in instead” and then we’ll call it even. That’s not reparation, its absurd. Point two is similarly absurd: “We’ll take away your full sovereignty (after we place you on the part of your lands we want least) and then give you partial sovereignty and call it even”. And assuming that the sovereignty issue ‘panning out’ is meaning ‘gambling’, only a small minority of tribal nations have gained from that partial sovereignty.
no, no reparations have ever been made to Native Americans.
This comment was written by Trey.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 4:11 pm
Didn’t the Iroquois get reparations about fifteen years ago?
I think it’s a mistake to call Keyes’ comments pandering. It only makes sense for him to pander if Keyes thinks he has any shot at winning (which I find hard to believe). I think Keyes’ real goal is media attention, which this proposal will give him in spades.
This comment was written by Walt Pohl.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 8:28 pm
vote to give the Chicago tribune whether you think African American’s of slave heritage should be exempted from taxes.
I’m not going to give you the results since that might bias your vote. However, I calculated the 95% confidence interval,based on sampling error only. At the time I voted, it was 0.8%. (I wonder why the Tribune doesn’t provide a running confidence interval!)
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 8:43 pm
I don’t want to write endless articles about Keyes, so I’m going to stuff things in comments until he says something really dramatic.
Evidently, on march 7, he seems to suggest that abortin caused the 9/11 terrorist attacks, or at least these two things ar linked somehow. (Visit the sun times: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-sen17.html )
The remarks came as Keyes was explaining why three months ago he said that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were a “warning” from God to “wake up” and stop “the evil” of abortion.
I’m in Illinois. I’m going to be hearing a lot of this stuff!
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 10:32 pm
Isn’t this from that Onion article saying that Keyes admits he just really likes campaigning?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2004 at 10:39 pm
Schadenfreude
This comment was written by Geekery Today.Whether he’s making sense or not, Alan Keyes does not photograph well. I honestly have no idea whatsoever who will come out ahead in…
Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2004 at 8:02 am
Trey: “We’ll take away your full sovereignty (after we place you on the part of your lands we want least) and then give you partial sovereignty and call it even”.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the notion that sovereignty for the Indians was a form a reparations. I am sure some of the Navajo or Shoshoni Nations would disagree with me, but that is their right as “Americans”. They may even be able to disagree with me under Navajo law.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines reparations as “Compensation or remuneration required from a defeated nation as indemnity for damage or injury during a war.” I would say that giving sovereignty back to them and some land was compensation given as indemnity for damages.
(I don’t think the damages required from the Navajo are near the amount of damages that will be asked for by the couples who have to cancel their health insurance in California because of Newsom’s actions — sorry I could not resist.)
This comment was written by jstevenson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2004 at 10:22 am
One idea I’m surprised doesn’t get more press is the “Jim Crow Reparations” idea–wherein those who were affected directly by Jim Crow policies during their life (at least from 1954 on) get compensated for unfair public accomodations; I believe one county in Virginia had to pay large sums of money to blacks who couldn’t get an education when the county closed down the public school system for five years rather than abide by Brown v. Board of Education. As a white person from Tennessee, I would be happy to help pay these hefty bills, in order that our governments learn–in the strongest language possible, money–NEVER AGAIN.
This comment was written by Maureen.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2004 at 11:06 am
That’s an interesting idea Maureen. I tend to suspect some enterprising lawyer swould have found ways to lodge these type of suits if they were easy to win.
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
August 18th, 2004 at 2:05 pm
A basic assumption behind reparations is that if the people who were exploted under slavery were given their just deserts, their decendants would be in a better position today.
More important than slavery to the wealth level of african americans today is the long period of segragation, and overt racial discrimination post-slavery.
I would support true equallity of opportunity, reparations to people who have personally experienced publically accepted discrimination, and heavy estate taxes.
No one deserves the bounty acquired by their great grandparents in an era of slavery and native american genocide.
This comment was written by mrkmyr.Report this comment to the moderators
August 19th, 2004 at 3:47 pm
I never quite trusted Alan Keyes. He seems to exploit issues that are more emotional than anything else. As for him moving to Illinois, doesn’t this guy have anything productive to do?
This comment was written by Andrew W. Griffin.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2004 at 1:04 pm
reparations are not only mandatory but necessary. To even propose a payment of 1 billion dollars is a slap in the face of anyone who is a decendant of a slave. Social programs such as, welfare and A.A. are wholly unappropiate and embrassing. The reason this is swept away as a non-issue is that the proposals are not coming from a real base with power. As a result those of slave decent will continue to have it harder that most others. I for one am tired, tired of waiting and hoping it is time to make things happen. Mankind has proven that given his own devices he will not make the correct choices.
This comment was written by angry black man.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2005 at 8:59 am
Post slavery reparation argument is presented mainly for all those people that have forgotten about the lawlessness, humilation, Degredation,etc. that the newly freed Africanswent through after slavery ended in the violation of their rights.
This comment was written by Kwesi Prempeh.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2005 at 9:54 am
I am amazed that anyone honestly thinks reparations are a good idea. And to think that affirmative action is an appropriate means of reparations and should be expanded is ridiculous.
This comment was written by Brad.Do you want a brain surgeon who got into med school because of anything other than his acedemic merit?
Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2005 at 9:59 am
Actually, I don’t care how my brain surgeon got into med school - affirmative action, legacy, parents made a big donation, college she went to had major grade inflation, whatever. (It amazes me that people who are such huge supporters of “merit” when it comes to affirmative action never seem to care about all the many, many other non-merit elements built into the system).
What I care about is that my brain surgeon successfully passed through all the necessary training to perform surgery on brains. It’s going through med school and residency that makes someone a brain surgeon; how high their SATs were really doesn’t matter at all, compared to the training.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2005 at 10:05 am
Well, since this was the only non-merit element on the table, that would be why I did not address any of the others.
And if it is ok to tell a college that they have to have x number of minority students regardless of their “merit”, then what do you suppose would happen if a lower percentage of those minorities actually graduated? There would be another uproar.
Basically you are saying you want a merit based system, just at a later date ( graduation rather than entry ). How is pure merit wrong?
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2005 at 10:16 am
Pure merit is not one of our options, realistically. Either we have 1) a racist, sexist system in which whites and men are rewarded out of proportion to their real merits; or we have 2) a racist, sexist system in which whites and men are rewarded out of proportion to their real merits, but this trend is mitigated a little bit by affirmative action.
If pure merit were an option, I’d favor it.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2005 at 10:23 am
Therefore, two wrongs do make a right !
If we can’t fix all of the impropriaties in society, the best thing we can do is add to then.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2005 at 10:33 am
Brad,
Can you suggest a better solution?
Or would you advocate doing nothing and allowing the trend of rewarding people just for being white and male to continue unabated.
Would you want a president who got into college just because he’s a rich, white man whose daddy happens to have ties to the school?
What about your brain surgeon?
This comment was written by Zenmaster.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2005 at 10:39 am
Sure, merit.
if you see a reward for anyone, even a white man, you work to get rid of it.
No I would not
I don’t need a brain surgeon, however my Dad does, and I certainly hope he made it that far because of his merit.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2005 at 10:47 am
I guess my problem with the merit alone idea runs very closely along the lines of what Amp has said above.
An additional problem I have with merit is that I have not been impressed with our ability to accurately determine it. When you’re already in a sexist/racist/classist culture the methods developed to uncover an individual merit often are more useful indicators of that individual’s sex, race and class.
Also, I do certainly hope that your father’s surgeon is the best you can get. My thoughts go out to him, and you.
This comment was written by Zenmaster.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2005 at 11:00 am
Thank you Zen
If we want to level the playing field ( which I don’t agree with), shouldn’t we be doing it at the kindergarten level, rather than college etc….?
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2005 at 11:28 am
Ideally, it would be nice to see the playing field leveled across the board.
I heartily agree that one place we would do well to focus more resources would be elementary education.
You might be interested to check some of the work of Jonathan Kozol, if you haven’t already. He has done a great deal of work on issues of economic and racial disparity between children getting a public education in Urban and inner-city environments and those children whose parents can afford to place them in expense private schools. Savage Inequalities is a good one to pick up.
This comment was written by Zenmaster.Report this comment to the moderators
April 1st, 2005 at 11:53 am
Well, but the “wrong” done to a discriminated-against group is that they lose out on things–schools, jobs, promotions, salaries, neighborhoods, loans, contacts–that they otherwise need and deserve. Since non-minority people already have disproportionate access to those things, knocking them down a peg or two to a level that’s still a little too high is not a comparable “wrong.”
If my house gets repossessed to pay off a settlement for the employees I’ve been systematically depriving of overtime, it’s not theft on top of theft.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 2nd, 2005 at 4:14 am
You know, I don’t need a brain surgeon, but I do have a whole lot of contact with doctors. And I’ve actually noticed that one of the most important distinctions between my doctors is whether they are willing to listen to my concerns and observations and treat me like an individual, rather than a member of an inferior class. Recent studies have shown that women and members of racial minorities get worse care than white men, at least when it comes to cardiac health, in part because their doctors discount their input and ignore their reported symptoms. And doctors do that, I suspect, because they aren’t used to treating women or members of racial minorities as equals. They are used to seeing those people as irrational, hysterical, untrustworthy, or kind of dim.
So actually, I would prefer to be treated by doctors who had gone to integrated medical schools. I believe I and many other patients will get better treatment from doctors who are themselves women or minorities or who have a lot of experience dealing with women and minorities as equals and individuals. Medicine is much more subjective than people think, and since that is true, I think integrated medical schools will produce better doctors than non-integrated ones.
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators