The Cost of Saying "I'm Sorry"!

This week the US House of Reprobates approved a measure that “apologizes to African-Americans (that means ‘black’ to the less enlightened of us) on behalf of all Americans for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors”. Personally, I resent other people apologizing on my behalf for something I did not do! Be that as it may, the wrongs in question are slavery and the Jim Crow laws, the system of racial segregation in southern states that lasted from the late 19th century until 1965. Since February last year, the legislatures of Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Alabama, New Jersey and Florida have expressed regret for slavery.

The question here is: Why now? There are very few people (except maybe Robert Byrd (d) W.Virginia) still living that are 175 years old who would have had any direct connection with US slavery; owner or owned / seller or trader. It is not exactly clear at whom this apology is targeted. Many older American black people suffered from Jim Crow, but no younger ones did. As for slavery, apportioning the status of victim and perpetrator based on heredity is misguided. There are white Americans who are descended from slaves. There are black Americans who are descended from slave-owners. (One of them is running for president, guess which?) As with all pandering, self-serving legislation (which is the majority of legislation), an examination of motive is in order:

First: Who could object? Any such bill develops an irresistible momentum because legislators fear being considered racists if they oppose it. New Jersey’s bill passed the senate by 30 votes to 1. The federal bill had 120 co-sponsors and it passed by a voice vote.

The second: What is the point? Slavery and Jim Crow have exactly zero influential defenders in the US. The former was abolished in the bloodiest war the US ever fought; the latter was repudiated through legislation and trillions have been spent trying to undo its consequences. Simply declaring oneself “against” slavery and Jim Crow is an exercise in sanctimony, not conscience.

A cynical explanation presents itself. Steve Cohen, the House bill’s main sponsor, is a white Democrat from Memphis, Tennessee, who has come, by electoral accident, to represent a 60 per cent black district. When his charismatic predecessor, Harold Ford Jr, (he was supposed to be the Southern B. Hussein Obama) ran for Senate two years ago, Mr Cohen wound up in a primary against 11 black candidates and eked out a victory with just over 30 per cent of the vote. Mr Cohen expressed a desire to join the Congressional Black Caucus, but was refused admittance. (Gee, I wonder if it could have been because he is white?) Can you just imagine the howls of indignation that would ensue upon the establishment of a White Congressional Caucus? Several CBC members are backing his (black) challenger in the Democratic primary next week. This vote against slavery is reportedly the Democratic leadership’s way of doing a favor for an imperiled incumbent – of letting Mr Cohen’s constituents know he cares (symbolism over substance) about “black” issues as much as his rival.

And third: Follow the money! “Apologies are not empty gestures,” Mr Cohen said after the bill’s passage, “but are a necessary first step towards any sort of reconciliation between people.” Apparently a second step is required to lift the bill above suspicion of moral grandstanding. What is that step? It is some form of reparations, for which such legislation can provide a legal justification. Since reparations are a perennial political loser, the bill’s sponsors and defenders are keen to reassure Americans that their bill mentions no such thing. But following their logic, there is no reason it should not.

If one looks at the proliferation of lawsuits in the 1990s against companies linked to the Nazis, one notes a pattern. The big push for reparations tends to come not early on, when victims and malefactors are clearly identified, easily distinguished and numerous. At that point, the claims of victims on perpetrators are so vast that society will resist even listening to them. The call for reparations comes later, when the number of remaining victims has fallen (and the logic of reparations has collapsed). The House apology bill is the first indication that we can soon expect a wave of lawsuits over Jim Crow. Official anguish about slavery and Jim Crow is arising not because it has become a pressing matter of conscience but because it has the potential of being very profitable. Another fine example of socialist transfer of wealth with trial lawyers (the largest contributors to Democrat coffers) skimming 40% off the top.

As in most cases, if you simply follow the money you discover the truth!

(WARNING!: The embedded video is totally politically incorrect. Watch at your own risk of uncontrollable laughter!)