Slavery and Modern Black People

Posted by Joshua White on 01.10.2007

Once you read this column you'll understand why I really hope that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson aren't readers of 411's politics zone.

Hello to all of you. Welcome back for another edition of what our friend and rule Jason Easley as lovingly referred to as "The White Plague." And like a plague my ideas will spread from person to person, never stopping until I convince 2/3 of the population (the other 1/3 are too ignant to be convinced).

Before I get to my intended column I want to share with you a wonderful email that I received from "Michael" (last name is omitted to spare him embarrassment). "Michael" wanted to comment on my column where I begged you to never believe anything James Dobson says. (Go refresh yourself.) "Michael" wrote:


mr white.

nature itself would not allow two lesbians or two gay males to be parents. the parts that work together are on the members of the opposite sex. if nature had wanted males to procreate with males, a receptical [sic] for the reproductive organ of a male would have been provided. logically, if two females were meant by nature to procreate with each other, the receptical [sic] of the female would have a reproductive organ that fit it. i don't know what your objection to dr. dobson is, you mostly agree with him in your article. you must just be an itiot [sic]. mike

things i've learned from this and a subsequent email:

1. two gay men can't make a baby without help.
2. nature doesn't want gays to make babies. why nature cares i don't know. maybe natures is homophobic. (maybe nature needs some sensitivity training.)
3. "michael" has some sort of authoritative position on nature because he apparently has a degree in science. he wouldn't (or couldn't) tell me which school or which science this degree is in.
4. i really am an itiot!

I really love homophobes. They're arguments are so logical.


Recently, a friend and I had a short discussion on whether or not reparations are owed to the descendants of African slaves. It got me thinking about a paper that I read once from a lawyer/philosophy professor (in case you're really interested, here is his CV. If i remember correctly, one of the arguments that he made was that you can only pay someone damages if you can compare their current situations to the one that would have existed had the damage not occurred. Well, had slavery not happened these particular black people would not have existed, so this sort of analysis can't happen. He then concludes that reparations aren't owed to any of the current black people.

Now, whether or not this line of reasoning is correct or not it led me to a conclusion of my own. But before I get to that we need to discuss a little biology.

Alright class, gather 'round. Time to talk about sex. Now, let's get all our giggles out now as I will be talking explicitly about sperm, eggs, and sex between a man and woman. (Hee hee...sperm!)

I don't claim (unlike some who email me) to have any sort of background in science, but what I am about to say is, from what I can tell, fairly non-controversial.

Had your specific mother and specific father not had sex, you would not have been born. What made you you was a very specific egg and a very specific sperm. Had they not had sex, you wouldn't have been born. You would not have existed.

Continuing on, had your parents not had sex in the month that they did, you wouldn't have existed. The only egg that could have helped to make you was only available for fertilization for a few days in that one month. No sex, no you.

But depending on how often your father's sperm was replaced or "removed" from the body, new spermies were constantly being made. I think that it could be reasonably inferred that the week, if not the day that your parents conceived you was vital to your birth. Perhaps, with the constant movement of the sperm in the testicles, the moment that he ejaculated might be important. Had your little man not been at the "front of the pack" someone else might have been born.

Don't get me wrong, your parents may have had another child. They may have named that child the name that you have, and dressed them in all the same clothes that you wore. All of that could have been the same, but that child would not be you. Different fingerprints, DNA, and most importantly, identities.

What does this have to do with anything? Let's take this biology lesson and add some history to it. (Some of my more acute followers my beat me to the punch...but that is ok.)

Two hundred and fifty years ago (or whenever it was) Africa was divided into bunches of different tribes. These tribes didn't necessarily mingle. The members of different tribes didn't get brunch with one another. Of course there was some amount of intermarriage, but the introduction of the slave-owner brought about the grouping together of tribes that probably would have never been that close together. This is where it gets interesting.

I think that it would be a stretch to claim that there were many slaves that met as slaves that wouldn't have met had they remained in Africa. Further, many of these couples procreated. From what I had just finished saying, it's clear that the child that came about (let's call him 'Alpha') would never had existed had these two people not come together. Going on with this example, Alpha had a baby,Beta, with another person. Even if there was a (small) chance that Alpha would have been born, Beta would never come about. The odds are simply too minimal. This sort of procreation would go on up to the present day.

My point with all of this history and biology is to make the following points. Had it not been for slavery, Alpha, Beta, and all of their descendants (and almost every other child born out of slavery) would never had been born. That means that every modern black person today that had a relative in slavery would never have been born had slavery not happened.

Considering that almost every black slave descendant alive now isn't on the verge of suicidal, this most mean that in some sense they are happy that they are alive. They enjoy their lives. They like the people they are around, the things they do, or simply the hope they have for the future. Typically when you like something, you are grateful for the circumstances that brought the "something" about. (Here comes the whopper!) So, if those who are born from a line of slaves then in some respect they should be happy that slavery took place. (I think I hear crickets chirping.)

I realize that this is sort of a weird thing to think about but it makes sense. If a black person is happy that she is alive, then she should be thankful that her parents met, dated, and had sex. For if they hadn't done any of these things, then she would have been born. And I would say that existing is better than not existing (assuming that you're not suicidally depressed). If you can accept that, and you should, then why would it be so hard to go further back. The black person should be pleased that their grandparents met, their great-grandparents, and so on. They should also be thankful for any insitutions or situation (e.g. the college where they met existed, they town they lived in was developped, etc.) that were in place to bring about their meeting. This leads the black person to be grateful, in some amount, that slavery happened. Had it not, they would never have been born.

Some of you out there, who don't want to claim happiness for the existence of slavery, might ask "Would you say that a great granddaughter of someone who left Germany because of the Holocaust be thankful for for the Holocaust?" I think that this is a very good, and relevant question. And while, again, it sounds absolutely terrible and perverse to say so, I think that if you are someone who was born because of circumstances that the Holocaust caused, then yes, you should be (in some very small, but real) way grateful. For without it, you would be reading this column, drinking your carmel macchiato, or thinking about the movies which starred Ben Stein.

Someone else might suggest that, even if we should feel some sort of positive emotion for slavery, the world "grateful", "happy", etc. is too strong. This may be so. I'm not an extremely articulate man. But I believe that this is not to claim that there isn't a word available that would be suitable. Even if "grateful" isn't correct, there should be some sort of positive emotion. Some sort of appreciation, thankfulness, or some other such emotion should exist.

The odds of you being born are astronomical. It is virtually a miracle that you're alive. But without slavery, many of the black people today wouldn't have even had that tiny chance. While I would never say that the institution of slavery was moral, I will say that the black of today should harbor some sort of positive realization for slavery.


I'm really interested in what you guys have to say about all of this. Tell me if I'm completely wrong here or am I on to something.

As this column is not of Easleyan proportions I will now end it with my thanks for having read all (as of the previous sentence) 1575 words. I promise a shorter column next time. And I also promise many less parenthetical statements. (Good Lord there were a lot this time!)

Here's to not getting a Shut the Hell Up Award!

What? You want to read more?

Simple question: Is it plagarism if it is better written? I'm not sure. So, go read Radulich and let one of us know.

Finally, our two loves have come together (until John Cena won the championship and refused to EVER LOSE IT!): Wrestling and Politics.

The Rivett Report (pronounced rih-vette ruh-port) is always a good read. Read.


Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here (and always be thankful for what you have and how you got it).