Johnson is a first-year Ph.D. student in the clinical psychology
program.
By Chris Johnson
Over the last 17 years, over 2 million Africans have been murdered
in Sudan. Most of these Africans are being enslaved, murdered and
starved to death by the Islamic regime in control of the Sudanese
government. This death toll is more than the ethnic cleansing that
took place in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and Somolia combined. The
Clinton administration had little regard for the genocide that has
taken place, and the current administration has failed to mention
relief to Sudan as a priority.
Although this is a large problem, many blacks in America are
oblivious to the crisis in Sudan. As evidenced by the recent
Viewpoint submission by Joseph Anderson (“Racist ad is not free speech
issue,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, April 2) it appears that
many blacks in America are more focused on their perceived
entitlement to “40 acres and a mule” than they are
about the rising death toll of blacks in other nations. This
misguided priority is myopic and selfish.
Current census data indicates that if blacks in America pooled
their collective incomes they would rank as the 10th wealthiest
nation in the world. Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan and Colin Powell
are among the most visible, well liked and successful people in the
United States.
Despite this abundance of opportunity, promise and success, many
blacks feel America owes them a debt. Millions of blacks have been
enslaved and murdered in Africa just in this past decade, yet many
blacks in America speak with more outrage about slave reparations
than they do about crises in Sudan, Rwanda and Somalia.
During the civil rights movement the term “racist”
was reserved for those who believed one race was superior to
another, and therefore deserved special treatment. Today, those who
argue that no one should receive special treatment based on skin
color are deemed racist, and those who endorse special treatment
because of the way a person looks are considered “equal
rights proponents”? What a truly divisive manipulation of
semantics.
Joseph Anderson’s Viewpoint submission makes the inference
that the David Horowitz advertisement “could have been
written by the Aryan Nation.” The only similarities to white
supremacists existing in the slave reparations debate are with
those students at Berkeley who oppose Horowitz’s ad. The
Nazis used to burn books, insidiously filter news and eliminate
opinions. Several students at Berkeley also engage in book burning
and the stealing of newspapers when confronted with opinions that
threaten their ideologies.
White supremacists argue for separation of races and special
treatment for whites. David Horowitz argues against special
treatment for anyone based on skin color. This is quite a contrived
parallel.
Horowitz makes the claim that not only are reparations for
slavery a “bad idea,” but also that this notion is
“racist too.” But, many in current society do not
believe any group other than “whites” are capable of
racism.
Endorsement of this one-way relationship is to deny human nature
and ignore other blatant philosophies touting racial superiority.
To illustrate this inconvenient fact, one should investigate the
theory of creation as explained by The Nation of Islam, (http://www.math.buffalo.edu/~sww/X/malcolm.html).
According to this tradition, the world first existed with only
black people. Then, a young man named Yacub decided to splice
“germs” in the black man. Through a series of germ
splitting Yacub created brown, yellow,and then white people.
When he was a member of the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X went on
to say, “Because the lighter they got, the weaker they got.
As they began to get lighter and lighter they grow weaker and
weaker. Their blood became weaker, their bones became weaker, their
minds became weaker, their morals became weaker. They became a
wicked race; by nature wicked.”
Most people will understandably interpret this ideology as
racist. Most people will agree that David Horowitz’s
advertisement is not racist, which is exactly why people like
Anderson do not want you to read it.
A few years ago I spent a significant portion of my life at sea
rescuing immigrants who were attempting to seek refuge and a new
life in America. A sampling of our student body would likely reveal
similar stories of hardship, struggle, economic disadvantage,
language barriers, religious oppression and ethnic cleansing. My
experiences have been with people from China, Cambodia, Laos,
Thailand, Cuba and Haiti.
In response to Anderson’s recent submission, it is
puzzling to me why so many would risk the lives of their entire
families to come to a country as oppressive as his description.
In keeping with Anderson’s ideology I’m inspired to
reunite with many of the thousands of refugees I’ve
encountered and explain to them that they’ve made a grave
mistake. According to Anderson, they’ve sought a new life in
a nation founded on oppression, slavery and racism.
For those immigrants who have the misfortune of having the wrong
skin color, I’m obligated to explain that money must be taken
from them to pay blacks in America reparations for slavery.
According to reparations proponents this payment is owed
regardless of your own past hardships. From the slave reparations
perspective, poor families struggling to put food on the family
table owe money to the likes of Tiger Woods, Denzel Washington,
Jesse Jackson, Shaquille O’Neal and Spike Lee simply because
of their skin color.
So doubtful are those like Anderson in their own message that
they will make very concerted efforts to ensure you don’t
hear opposing opinions.
It’s a simple approach. Develop a very self-serving
agenda, tolerate no alternative solutions or opinions, and if a few
contrarians arise, get noisy and discredit their ideas by calling
them racist.
As critical thinkers we are not all going to agree on every
issue. But, we should be wary of all who attempt to restrict our
access to the information needed to make informed decisions.