I commend the Daily Nexus for following its own guidelines and not publishing David Horowitz’s hate speech as an advertisement, but supporting free speech by publishing it as an opinion piece (“The Controversial Argument the Nexus Refused to Print” May 29). Nonetheless, the article written by Horowitz is clearly a bigoted document and must be spoken against.
In his opinion, Horowitz makes 10 points. All of them are either historically inaccurate, ridiculous, lies and/or outright racist. In his first point, Horowitz says, “There is no single group clearly responsible for the crime of slavery.” I beg to differ. White people are to blame for the institution of slavery as it was in America. It is true that Africans did trade slaves to very white sea captains but the African conception of slavery was not one of permanence. You were a slave for a while, then you were free. It was white colonialists who changed the African conception of slavery for Africans and then exported slaves to America like inhuman cargo.
In Point Two Horowitz, in his brilliance, states that, “If slave labor created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well.” My experience with slavery as a first-generation American might only be through reading books such as Beloved and watching Roots on video, but something tells me that the wealth in the South was far from distributed fairly in the prewar South. The master lived in a mansion; Kunta Kinte lived in a shack. Similarly, Point Three ignores the facts of the Civil War and the conditions of slavery in the South. Horowitz says, in his point, that “350,000 Union soldiers … died to free the slaves.” Horowitz here has given the elementary school answer for the cause of the Civil War when he should at least be acquainted with the high school American history answer to the cause of the war. Yes, slavery did help to start the Civil War, but the principal issue at hand was what had plagued the country since its beginning: state rights vs. federalism. Similarly, one has to at least raise an eyebrow when Horowitz writes, “many blacks were free men or slave owners themselves.” It is true that some blacks were free and perhaps even some were slave owners, but to say “many” is a lie and in this implication it is racist.
The whole of Horowitz’s other points falls simply under the category of racist arguments. In Point Six Horowitz touts that, “West Indian blacks in America are also descended from slaves but their average incomes are equivalent to the average income of whites.” What Horowitz here fails to either notice or recognize in this argument is that blacks in the West Indies make up the majority, not the minority. It was in Haiti, after all, that the first successful slave uprising was held. Blacks from the Caribbean have an advantage over American blacks for the simple reason that they have not had to deal psychologically with the institutionalized racism of the American system. This leads into Horowitz’s seventh point where he claims that reparations are, “one more attempt to turn African-Americans into victims.” This argument is as weak as a bed-ridden anemic. I don’t see too many white supremacists in full Ku Klux Klan regalia trying to get reparations for blacks in order to lower their self-esteem. The attempt for repatriations, brought on by blacks themselves, is not a foolish attempt to turn themselves into victims, but to empower themselves by righting historical wrongs. Argument eight is equally as racist as it assumes that welfare is a means of reparations and that it is exclusively used by and available only for black people.
It is Points Nine and Ten where Horowitz decides to burn a metaphorical cross and become the cr