Horowitz has another agenda in ad

The IDS decision to run the David Horowitz advertisement, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea -- and Racist Too," has sparked anger among the University's minority graduate students. The newspaper has claimed that refusing the ad would be a violation of its charter requiring it to allow the input of all sides in a debate. \nUnfortunately, that perspective lacks credibility. No newspaper is obligated to accept an ad that they feel is injurious to its readership. For example, if I wanted to place an ad displaying children engaged in pornographic acts, is the IDS obligated to accept it? Of course not.\nNonetheless, the paper ran a factually incorrect and racially biased advertisement. In doing so, the IDS has allowed itself to be played in a dangerous game of historical revisionism. \nDuring the early 20th century, scholars downplayed the violence of white southerners and argued that African Americans owed much of their success to white benevolence. Now Horowitz has argued for a return to this view of race relations.\nThe reparations debate shows how much America is willing to come to terms with its past. Unfortunately, Horowitz's ad cannot contribute to this debate because of its lies and misleading arguments. In the first point, Horowitz claims that reparations cannot be paid because there is no single group responsible for slavery. He cites Arab and African participation and the 3,000 black slave owners in the United States as evidence. \nThis claim ignores the massive commercialization of the trans-Atlantic trade devised by European powers such as Portugal and England that spurred Arab and African involvement. It also misrepresents free black slave owners, most of whom purchased their family members in order to free them.\nHorowitz argues that no single group benefitted exclusively from slavery and that only a minority of whites owned slaves. Although not every white American in 1860 owned a slave, this did not mean that they opposed the institution. Slave holding, like buying a home, was the symbol of economic success for European immigrants in the South. In the North, slavery was hard to resist because of its profitability. \nCotton was the nation's most important export by 1860; the ships that carried the crop to Europe, the textile mills that manufactured clothing and the agencies that insured slave owners for their property were based in cities such as Boston and New York. Whites also benefitted psychologically from slavery; no matter how destitute a white person was, he or she was at least not a "nigger." Finally, the argument for reparations is made on the basis that the federal government institutionalized and protected slavery until 1865, not on the claim that all whites benefitted from slavery.\nAlthough more could be written, space does not permit such a lengthy answer. But I want to end by asking readers to think about Horowitz's motives. Is his real purpose to debate reparations when he knowingly misleads the public? I would suggest that Horowitz is really trying to deny the reality of African-American life and history, keep Asians and Latinos from uniting with blacks, and reinforce white supremacy.\nSince 1965, Asians and Latinos have migrated to California in unprecedented numbers. According to census figures, white Americans constitute 52 percent of the state's population, blacks seven percent, Asians 11 percent and Latinos 29 percent. By 2025, the white and black populations will decrease to 34 and five percent respectively, while Asians will increase to 17 percent and Latinos will grow to 43 percent. There is a strong possibility that Asians and Latinos will unite with blacks in a governing coalition. Indeed, in the 2000 election the majority of white Americans voted Republican while the majority of blacks, Asians and Latinos voted Democrat. In California, this pattern helped Democrats gain control of nearly every statewide office. Racial segregation continues to persist; many of the nation's Latino immigrants settle in black neighborhoods, leading to alliances between black and Latino neighbors.\nHorowitz and other conservatives are aware of these changes, and, I would argue, fear them. The state that produced former president Ronald Reagan now finds itself having to share power in a multiracial society. To maintain white privilege, one must divide and conquer. Horowitz betrays his strategy when he claims that West Indian blacks have "made it" despite their race, or that Koreans and Mexicans had nothing to do with slavery. \nAs stated earlier, the issue is about recognizing the government's role in protecting and benefitting from slavery, as other governments have participated in the creation of human tragedies. Horowitz hopes that readers will see his ad and oppose reparations, since, in his mind, blacks have not had it that bad. \nThe reparations debate can only occur through true and informative dialogue. Last week, the dangers of ignoring racial injustices exploded in Cincinnati following the shooting of an unarmed black man by a white police officer. Horowitz would like to pretend that such rioting indicates that Cincinnati's blacks do not realize that they are the "most privileged black people alive." Sadly, he is wrong.