Green Room

No Reparations for the Unborn

posted at 12:57 pm on June 26, 2009 by

African-American politicking is all about civil rights. The tireless quest for a civil rights Holy Grail has become painfully predictable. Numerous black-Americans ally themselves with any liberal cause, if only to swell the ranks of those who might support their own cause. Liberal groups knowingly capitalize on this blind faith by castigating black-conservatives as inauthentic, thereby demanding black allegiance to the Democratic Party.

Civil rights, womens’ rights, even prisoner’s rights have all seen their political heyday. Gay rights rallies are all the rage. What about the rights of the unborn?

Though unlikely, reparation for slavery is an oft-tossed bone suggesting future remunerations in exchange for black allegiance to Democrats. The Congressional Black Caucus seems to be think reparations are feasible. What about reparations for the unborn?

There are none.

Father John Raphael, principal of St. Augustine High School in New Orleans spoke at the National Right to Life convention last week. He described the conflict of celebrating Obama’s election, an American milestone, with an increased urgency to protect the unborn from the “genocidal magnitude of legalized abortion.

“I was welcomed with open arms by my pro-life brothers and sisters, and I was an enigma at best and a traitor at worse to many of my African-American brothers and sisters,” he said. “I found myself at the intersection of two communities who in many areas, even concerning the sanctity of life, have much more in common than one might imagine.”

Father Raphael said he believes these two communities need to connect because they need each other, as they stand on “different banks of a mighty and destructive river.”

“African-Americans need pro-lifers because African-Americans and minority communities are being systematically targeted by anti-life forces,” he said. “Our future is being destroyed by the genocidal magnitude of legalized abortion.”

Pro-lifers need the African-American community, he said, because blacks with their unique American history provide new energy to the movement.

Father Raphael called for “culturally sensitive” bridging between pro-lifers and African-Americans. Maybe some blacks will embrace pro-life positions once considered within a civil rights paradigm. Maybe some Republicans could put an personal embargo on chain-letter emails containing images of monkeys or watermelons just long enough to be taken seriously by more Blacks.

There is no equality to speak of until black-Americans enjoy the full spectrum of America’s political landscape. Conservative issues should resonate more with blacks. But many Blacks are often too obstinate to listen while many conservatives are too tone deaf to harmonize.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Heh.

Way too much truth in that last paragraph.

acat on June 26, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Conservative issues should resonate more with blacks. But many Blacks are often too obstinate to listen while many conservatives are too tone deaf to harmonize.
by The Race Card

.
How about some concrete examples of tone deafness
______________________.
.
You say harmonize, I say assimilate. That is my common ground.
.
Where I live, the person is judged on the content of their character. You must been hanging out with some real losers to make such assertions.
.
Ask me what my handle stands for? You’ll find that it is a true meaning and direction that all american citizens should be called who aspire to be a part of this greatest country on the planet.

Americannodash on June 26, 2009 at 3:11 PM

No chance of this ever happening. You gotta make this list to have a remote chance in H3LL. Without placement here, you are lower than roadkill.

ericdijon on June 26, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Americannodash on June 26, 2009 at 3:11 PM

I’ll excuse your unwarranted insult only to remind you that you and I are “hanging out” in a sense, right now. What does that make you?

For concrete examples of tone-deafness I will refer you to the numerous email snafus involving Republicans. I recommend a self-imposed moratorium on any chain-letter emails containing photos of monkeys and/or watermelons. I would also submit to you that a runoff election Dawson and Steele tells me that many, many fellow party members would be comfortable having a known separatist chair the RNC.

As far as your username goes, whatever. I have never heard anybody complain about Justice Scalia being referred to as Italian-American. Furthermore, while I prefer “Black” I understand why many Blacks would rather not have a label ascribed to them. Historically those choices have been rather limiting. Maybe Blacks just don’t like the letter “n.”

How praytell shall we describe people when referring to their race, ethnicity or other groupings. Shall we go with hairstyle as in “Afro-American?” And please save the well-worn retort about not categorizing people racially. Despite your username and your need to point it out, I suspect that the only people from whom you are demanding assimilation are mostly non-white. So maybe you don’t see race, but you don’t see what you’re missing either. You’ve made my point well, kind sir.

I think that the main thing wrong with hyphenated labels is that they are typically inaccurate. One hails from a country, not a continent.

The Race Card on June 26, 2009 at 4:32 PM

The Race Card on June 26, 2009 at 4:32 PM

I’ll excuse your unwarranted insult only to remind you that you and I are “hanging out” in a sense, right now. What does that make you?
.
You are only being acrimonious with your response. You are the one whose throwing out oh you hurt me bombs like “some Republicans could put an personal embargo on chain-letter emails containing images of monkeys or watermelons just long enough to be taken seriously by more Blacks.” There, right there is the same tired stereotyped wimper that I hear from fellow americans who selectively think that it is all about them. Don’t be so thin skinned. Our past president was assailed by similar innuendos and what some people would consider to be disparaging remarks. Most people, I will assert would be secure in their own self-awareness to know that remarks which you have mentioned only land on insufferable targets. By exhibiting righteous indignation over poor displays of humanity you only give the sender credence to them. I have no appreciation for individuals and or groups who choose to label themselves other the just plain old American. Those groups and or individuals only invite disenssion and division when using ethnic labels. They are the ones who label themselves such as black, african, chicano, asian, white, italian etc… This is the ongoing American problem. Abraham Lincoln’s “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand.” Our problems in attaining unity will continue until the better natures of our fellow citizens is recognized.
.
So maybe you don’t see race, but you don’t see what you’re missing either. You’ve made my point well, kind sir.
.
I hope my response to you is taken to heart. Don’t be a psuedo-victim anymore when there is no call for it. Rise above the minions and lead them through your voice and writings. Drop the name “the race card” it projects the opposite of your upright and legitimate cause to compliance. An audience is what you sought and the greenroom here at Hot Air assimilated.

Americannodash on June 27, 2009 at 1:27 AM

As to your main point: I agree with you in the fact that the “black community” could use the pro-life movement because they have been disproportionately on the wrong end of the planned parenthood organization and that the pro-life movement could use the “black community” because, simply put, the more people that they have, the better.

(And, yes, that last paragraph is great.)

Now, on to the subject being debated in the comments:

Describe yourself in three words. What are they?

Mine would be: Christian, American and gamer (in that order). (If I went to five words, I would probably add two of these four: Texan, movie-buff, Conservative and political-junkie. I would really have a hard time choosing two of those four because they all are so much a part of who I am.)

Notice that I define myself by _my_choices_ and not by the things that I cannot choose. While I was born here in America, I could leave. Staying here is my choice. Being a Christian is my choice. Being a gamer is my choice. While I was not born in Texas, living here for the last 25+ years is my choice (most specifically the last 22 since that is after I turned 18). Being a movie buff and a political junkie are both my choice.

I do not define or identify myself by the things that I cannot choose. I do not define myself as a “White” or a “Caucasian”. I do not define myself as a “Generation X-er” (I am 40). I do not define myself as a “6th Generation American” or “Cajun-American” or anything else like that. Why? Because these are things are things that I cannot control.

Why view oneself or define oneself by things that one cannot control? It’s pointless. I cannot control where I was born, of what color I was born, when I was born, of what ethnicity I was born, when my ancestors came to this country, who they married or any other of a myriad of things that all happened long before I was born or before I had any control over my own life.

To define oneself by these qualities is to allow the past to define and control you. I would much rather define and control my life (inasmuch as it can be controlled) than to allow anyone or anything to have control over me (except for God to whom I have bent my will, as was my choice).

I think that “Americannodash” is wondering why in the world that you would identify yourself by something over which you have no control. (I wonder myself all of the time why people would choose to do this with a “Black Caucus” or a “Hispanic Caucus” or whatever. Why decry “racism” but then define yourself or your caucus or your group by the very thing that you want everybody else to ignore- your race?)

You may be black, I may be white, but one’s color is truly immaterial. It should be used as a denotation for a person (as in “he’s that black guy over there” much as you could say “he’s that white guy over there” or “he’s that bald guy over there” about me), but not as a definition for a person.

People should focus on what matters, which are the things over which we have control and the choices which we can make, and not the things over which we have _no_ control.

There really can be no equality until people stop differentiating themselves based upon things over which nobody has a choice because equality means an equal playing field with which to start (not an equal result since people’s abilities and choices will create different results), and, if we are starting ourselves in different places (or if there is a perception that we are starting ourselves in different places) based solely off of things over which one has absolutely no control, then the playing field can never be equal.

Theophile on June 27, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Or, to put it much more simply,


A person cannot truly be free until he no longer allows the things about himself over which he has no control to control him and we cannot all truly be equal until we are all truly free.

Only each of us individually can lay down our burdens. And only when all of us have done this, will we ever all be truly free.

Theophile on June 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM

Theophile on June 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM

*speechless*

Thanks for providing clarity. I very much enjoyed this.

ericdijon on June 27, 2009 at 5:48 PM

I am glad to hear that you enjoyed my thoughts. :) :) :)

Theophile on June 30, 2009 at 3:39 AM