Category: Race

Crimes Against Blacks and Nazi Art Thefts

From a Boston reader:

I read your post titled, On Black Reparations after having spent a fair amount of time recently at one of my favorite places, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. In the museum, there are signs next to some pieces indicating that their provenance may include Nazi-era acquisitions in World War II Germany. If it's determined that any piece was acquired as a result of theft, illegal sales, etc. then every attempt is made to return it to the rightful owner or to the owner's heir, and this is judged to be a moral obligation. This made me think about how your argument against reparations would apply to such cases. But to make the case analogous in terms of the time that has elapsed between the crime and the proposed method of restitution, suppose the following argument is being made in 2091:

1. All of the perpetrators of the crimes associated with Nazi-era thefts of art in World War II Germany (and areas occupied by Germany at the time) are dead.

2. All of the victims of the crimes associated with Nazi-era thefts of art in World War II Germany are dead.

3. Only those who are victims of a crime are entitled to reparations for the crime, and only those who are the perpetrators of a crime are obliged to pay reparations for it.

Therefore

4. No one now living is entitled to receive reparations for the crimes associated with Nazi-era thefts of art in World War ii Germany, and no one now living is obliged to pay reparations. (Assume anyone owning such a piece was not aware, when he purchased it, of its Nazi-era provenance).

I wonder if such an argument could be run to refute the notion that such works should be returned to any living heirs, or to museums from which they might have been looted. It seems to me that counter this possibility, we might point out that one relevant disanalogy may be the fact that here we're dealing with concrete items — with property — and not with difficult (impossible?) to calculate contemporary harms caused by past wrongs. After all, it's easier to argue that Jones has been harmed by not owning a painting he would have plausibly (probably?) inherited were it not stolen than it is to argue that Smith has been harmed by the fact that his great-great-great grandfather was enslaved. But I'm not sure if this works, for the force of your argument doesn't come from pragmatic concerns like that, but from the moral issues involved, and they seem to apply with similar force to cases concerning whether one is obligated to return art of Nazi-era provenance to identifiable heirs. Do you think that the argument you've formulated would imply that, at least in 2091, Museums would not be obligated to return items acquired by Nazis and Nazi collaborators during World War II to identifiable heirs, and would you agree that if this is so, the conclusion minimally conflicts with our moral intuitions? Sorry for the length of the post, and thanks for taking the time to read it.

An interesting response.

I think the cases are disanalogous for reasons different from the one the reader mentions.  Suppose a piece was stolen by the Nazis from the Louvre in Paris and it ends up in the MFA in Boston.  Said piece is the property of the Louvre and ought to be returned there despite the fact that the Nazi thieves and the Louvre curators are all dead.  The wrong was committed against the Louvre which continues to exist.  And therein lies one point of disanalogy.  The blacks who were enslaved and maltreated no longer exist.   A second point of disanalogy is that when restitution is made nothing is taken from the MFA that it has a right to possess.  But when a present-day non-black is forced to pay reparations to blacks  he is having something taken from him that he has a right to possess.   

 

On Black Reparations

Warning to liberals: clear thinking, moral clarity, and political incorrectness up ahead! If you consider any part of the following to be 'racist' or 'hateful' then you are in dire need, not of refutation, but of psychotherapy.  Please seek it for your own good.

There is no question but that slavery is a great moral evil. But are American blacks owed reparations for the slavery that was officially ended by the ratification of the 13th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution over 145 years ago on 6 December 1865? I cannot see that any rational case for black reparations can be made. Indeed, it seems to me that a very strong rational case can be made against black reparations. The following argument seems to me decisive:

1. All of the perpetrators of the crimes associated with slavery in the U.S. are dead.
2. All of the victims of the crimes associated with slavery in the U.S. are dead.
3. Only those who are victims of a crime are entitled to reparations for the crime, and only those who are the perpetrators of a crime are obliged to pay reparations for it.
Therefore
4. No one now living is entitled to receive reparations for the crimes associated with slavery in the U.S., and no one now living is obliged to pay reparations.  

Continue reading “On Black Reparations”

Ed Schultz Plays the Race Card

Schultz race card

 Ed Schultz:  "The Republican Party Stands for Racism."

For more examples of leftist scumbaggery, see my Race category.

Another example of why calls for civility are silly.  You must not be civil to moral scum.  You must denounce them and their lies.  When they lie about us we must tell the truth about them.  Every time.  For they believe in the Communist principle of the Big Lie: tell a big enough lie, repeat it enough times, and people will believe it.

 Michelle  Malkin: "The race card is not the last refuge of liberal scoundrels but the first refuge."

 

Again on “Muslims Attacked Us on 9/11”

This just over the transom in response to a post from yesterday.

Your terminology is technically correct, but what is incorrect with the statement "Muslim extremists attacked us on 911"?

One does not have to be ‘politically correct’ to have a desire not to invite misunderstanding of a statement (that it equals: " Muslims-as-a-group attacked us" ) or to desire to avoid a perceived implication that there is something about the ‘essence’ of ‘Islam’ that is responsible for 911.

Nothing is wrong with 'Muslim extremists attacked us on 9/11.'  But there is also nothing wrong with O'Reilly's statement, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11."  After all, the first entails the second.  No one maintains that every Muslim attacked us on 9/11 or that Muslims as a group attacked us on that day.

My correspondent is missing the point, which is that inappropriate offense was taken by Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg when they stomped off the set in protest.  That inappropriate offense taken  at an objectively inoffensive remark is what shows that political correctness is at work.

This is just one more example among hundreds.  Remember the man who was fired from his job for using the perfectly innocuous English word 'niggardly'?  And then there was the case of some fool taking umbrage at the use of 'black hole.'  See Of Black Holes and Political Correctness and Of Black Holes and Black Hos.

And then there was the recent case of Dr. Laura who pointed out the obvious truth that some blacks apply 'nigger' to other blacks.  This got her in trouble, but it ought not have.  After all, what she said is true!  And let's recall that she had a reason for bringing up this truth: her remark was not unmotivated or inspired by nastiness.

Please note that I am talking about the word 'nigger,' not using it.  This is the use-mention distinction familiar to (analytic) philosophers.  Is Boston disyllabic?  Obviously not: no city consists of syllables, let alone two syllables.  Is 'Boston' disyllabic?  Yes indeed.  Confusing words and their referents is the mark of a primitive mind. In the following sentence

'Nigger' has nothing semantically or etymologically to do with 'niggardly'

I am mentioning both words but using neither.  "But what if someone is offended by your mere mention of 'nigger'?"  Too bad.  That's his problem. He is in need of therapy not refutation.

Will Liberals Ever Retire the Race Card?

Why should they?  As good leftists, they believe the end justifies the means, and their shameless race-baiting is a means conducive to their ends.  It works.  That's why they do it.  They must at some level have an inkling of what vile people they are to employ such a  shabby tactic, but whatever sense of moral decency is left in them is quickly smothered by their lust to win at all costs.

And it is indeed a well-rehearsed tactic which amounts to collusion on the part of liberal-left journalists and others to smear conservatives.  This from the Christian Science Monitor:

When conservatives were criticizing Mr. Obama for his connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in 2008, some JournoList members discussed a counterstrategy.

The Daily Caller writes that Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent, "urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Mr. Ackerman wrote, 'Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists.' "

See also Thomas Sowell's Race Card Fraud.  Excerpt:

The latest attack on the Tea Party movement, by Ben Jealous of the NAACP, has once again played the race card. Like the proverbial lawyer who knows his case is weak, he shouts louder.

This is not the first time that an organization with an honorable and historic mission has eventually degenerated into a tawdry racket. But that an organization like the NAACP, after years of fighting against genuine racism, should now be playing the game of race card fraud is especially painful to see.

You should also read the posts in my Race category. There is plenty of documentation there of the race-baiting and scumbaggery which are the now the marks of contemporary Democrats, liberals, and leftists.

And you should do your bit to push back.  The next time some scumbag of a liberal calls you a racist for standing up for fiscal responsibility or the rule of law, say this:  You lie about us, we'll tell the truth about you.

Of Black Holes and Black Hos

Is 'black hole' code for black ho?  The NAACP seems to think so.  One wonders how many NAACP members could explain what a black hole is.  Hallmark caved and pulled the card.  Disgusting.  All decent people need to stand up against the politically correct lunacy of the race-baiting Left.

We've been around this block before.  For a fuller discussion see Of Black Holes and Political Correctness.

Another Round with Reppert on AZ SB 1070: Reasonable Suspicion

In his most recent post on this topic, Victor Reppert tells us that his "main concern is with the 'reasonable suspicion' clause. That strikes me as horribly vague."  Here is the relevant SB 1070 passage as amended by HB 2162 which contains the clause in question:

For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. 

Reppert continues:

In our state, most illegals are Hispanics, but most Hispanics are not illegals. If you define your conception of what it takes to have reasonable suspicion, and on my blog I made an un-remarked-upon recommendation that we have reasonable suspicion just in case we have objective criteria leading to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the person is illegal, then you could at least eliminate the worst of the profiling problems. You can't just stop a Hispanic and make an immigration status inquiry, because being Hispanic is not sufficient for it to be more than 50% likely that the person is here illegally. (Emphasis added)

I believe Reppert is missing the point here.  I agree with the last quoted sentence.  But the  1070 law does not mandate that Hispanics be stopped at random to have their status checked.  The law clearly states the conditions under which an immigration inquiry may proceed:

1.  There must be a lawful stop, detention, or arrest.

2. The stop, detention, or arrest must be made in the enforcement of a law other than 1070.

3.  There must be reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.

4.  The immigration inquiry must be practicable.

5.  The immigration inquiry must not hinder or obstruct an investigation.

I should think that Reppert's 50% rule is satisfied if all the conditions are observed.  For example, during a lawful traffic stop, the cop has the right to ask for a driver's license.  If the Hispanic driver has no license, no proof of insurance, no registration, has a campesino sticker on his bumper, is driving a junker, etc.  then the the chance that he is illegal is way over 50%.

There is a distinction I made earlier which is very important and which Reppert may be ignoring, the distinction between a law and its enforcement.  If a law is reasonable and just, it is these things whether or not some cowboy of a cop oversteps his legitimate  authority in its enforcement.  It would be absurd to argue that a particular law should be repealed because there may be abuses in its enforcement.  For any such argument would 'prove too much': it would prove that every law ought to be repealed.  For every law is such that an abuse can occur in its enforcement.

Michael Scarpalanda on Arizona Senate Bill 1070

Craig M. Thompson writes:

I have enjoyed your commentary on the current situation in Arizona.  I ran across an interesting article at The Witherspoon Institute on illegal immigration called Arizona, Congress, and the Immigration Mess.   And I was hoping that you might comment on some of the points that he makes against SB 1070.  Thanks for the consideration!

And thank your for alerting me to this article by Michael Scarpalanda, who holds the Gene and Elaine Edwards Family Chair in Law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law.  Here are some comments.

The article begins unpromisingly by referring to "Arizona's draconian response" to the problem of illegal immigration.  I must immediately protest.  To refer to SB 1070 as "draconian" is an egregious misuse of language.  One should not toss this word around without knowing what it means.  It derives from the name of the first legislator of written laws of Athens, Greece.  The harshness of Draco's code gave rise to the adjective 'draconian' which is properly applied only to laws and sanctions that are harsh, cruel, and unreasonable.  Now there is nothing draconian about SB 1070 as you may verify for yourself by simply reading it.  See also the fact sheet.

Turning now to the article, we read:

On April 30, 2010, Arizona’s governor signed SB 1070 into law, setting off waves of hyperbolic reactions and counter-reactions. Among other things, the law states that “for any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made . . . to determine the immigration status of the person.” An alien unlawfully present can be taken into custody, charged with a state crime, and transferred to federal custody.

Several questions immediately arise. What is “lawful contact”? What constitutes “reasonable suspicion”? How will immigration status be determined?

Scarpalanda fails to mention that a week after Governor Brewer signed into law SB 1070, she signed into law House Bill 2162 which modifies and clarifies the language of 1070, in particular, the phrase "lawful contact."  For more on this, together with quotations from 2162, see this post of mine.

When cavils like those that Scarpalanda raises are made it is pretty good evidence that one is dealing with a liberal who simply does not want immigration laws enforced.  Not knowing anything about Scarpalanda, I cannot know whether this is true in his case.  But in the vast majority of cases of liberal-leftist hyperventilation over 1070 it is spectacularly clear that one is dealing with open borders types who do not respect the rule of law except when it can be invoked to further the leftist agenda.

Although the law forbids using race as the sole determining factor in forming “reasonable suspicion,” the law will undoubtedly have a disproportionate impact on Arizona’s Hispanic population, including those who are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents. How could it not? Race, ethnicity, and accent will almost surely be factors in deciding whether to verify a person’s immigration or citizenship status.

Again, Scarpalanda ignores the 2162 modifications of 1070, in particular, this one: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

Scarpalanda is worried that the new law will have a "disproportionate impact on Arizona's Hispanic population."  But how could it fail to?  The majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic!  Here we note the twisted logic of the Politically Correct.  These people display an unthinking quota mentality: they think there is something unfair about a law if , when it is enforced, it affects more members of one  group than another, or affects a group 'disproportionately.'  But to think in this way is to show that one is morally obtuse.  Vastly more men than women abuse their spouses.  But it is surely no valid argument against laws prohibiting spousal abuse that they disproportionately 'target' men.  Because more men commit this crime than women, it is to be expected that more men will be 'targeted.'  Similarly, because more Hispanics than Asians or Blacks or Caucasians violate immigration laws in such southern border states as Arizona, it is to be expected that Hispanics will be disproportionately affected by the enforcement of immigration laws.  It is only to be expected, and there is nothing unjust about it.

Despite  the shoddiness of most of Scarpalanda's article (failure to link to the relevant documents, failure to take into consideration the House bill's modification of the Senate bill, use of the bad argument just exposed), his positive proposals near the end are actually quite reasonable: secure the borders to stem the tide of future illegals; provide for the legalization of the the large numbers of productive, non-criminal illegals already here; adopt a temporary worker program.

But Job One is to secure the border by building and maintaining a physical barrier that stretches from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.  All the better heads agree on this. 

 

More on Immigration Law: Arizona House Bill 2162. Response to Reppert

On Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed HB 2162 which modifies and clarifies SB 1070 which was signed into law the week before.  Here is a passage from 1070 which is constantly misrepresented in the liberal press, including the Arizona Republic newspaper:

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS  UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,  WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. (lines 20-26, p. 1)

The misrepresentors leave out (intentionally?) the bit about 'lawful contact.'  Where the bill has 'lawful contact,' the 1070 fact sheet has 'legitimate contact.'  It amounts to the same: lex, legis, is Latin for 'law.'  Now 'lawful contact' would naturally be interpreted to refer to contact between a law enforcement officer and a person during the course of a traffic stop and similar situations where a law has been broken.  Victor Reppert, in his response to me, makes a good point.  Because 1070 makes it a state crime to be an illegal alien, "it would seem to me that any attempt to determine whether the crime of being here illegally had been committed would constitute a legitimate [lawful] contact. "  Whether or not this is so, the house bill  provides clarification of 'lawful contact' and removes Reppert's worry:


Continue reading “More on Immigration Law: Arizona House Bill 2162. Response to Reppert”

More on Arizona Senate Bill 1070

Joseph A.  e-mails:

I greatly admire Victor Reppert for a number of reasons – I think the Argument from Reason is pretty amazing and effective when formulated and defended well, and Victor remains one of the most soft-spoken and polite bloggers around.

Agreed.

But a number of thoughts occurred to me when reading his and your post.

Victor shows some deep distrust of law enforcement officials – he mentions how there's plenty of Mark Fuhrmans on the police force, and basically asserts that he doesn't trust them to enforce laws like this appropriately.

Continue reading “More on Arizona Senate Bill 1070”