I underestimated the sliminess of the wingnut mind

I’ve been participating in political discussions on another blog, Get Real, and the subject of reparations for slavery was broached. Now I don’t think reparations to descendants of slaves is practical at this point in time, so I thought that for once the wingnuts and I would be on the same page, albeit for different reasons. Turns out I was wrong; at least one was in favor of reparations, all right:

Reparations are not for former slaves as none exist. They are the means to repay the descendants of former slave holders who lost their property. You know in violation of the 5th Amendment.

That was so unexpected that I actually didn’t understand what he meant, so I asked him what in the Fifth Amendment would make reparations actually illegal as opposed to impractical – I still thought he was referring to reparations to the descendants of slaves. He made himself clearer:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Now what is it you do not understand about that. Remember under the Constitution before the enactment of the 13th Amendment, SLAVES were PROPERTY. Property was taken by armed force and the force of law without just compensation.

I was still a bit incredulous, but he expanded on the notion:

Let’s have the ancestors of the former slaves pay back the cost of transportation, and room and board. How about paying back the Masters for their price.

I had to leave the conversation at that point. I expect a certain level of crazy from wingnuts, but expecting the descendants of people kidnapped and imprisoned against their will to pay reparations to the descendants of the kidnappers for transportation and boarding costs, and for the prices they paid to enslave them?

Incredible. Literally, completely frakking incredible.


~ by B.T. Murtagh on August 17, 2009.

3 Responses to “I underestimated the sliminess of the wingnut mind”

  1. Wow. I do hope he was simply kidding around. Maybe his way of dismissing an idea (reparations) that he doesn’t like, by turning it into as offensive an argument as he can conceive?

    • I wish I could believe that were the case, but he seemed to me to be completely serious. You can judge for yourself if you follow the link.

  2. I did follow the link, and I can’t really tell what the guy’s thinking. He seems to place a great deal of importance on the U.S. Constitution, for instance, yet he doesn’t seem to understand it. (The Fifth Amendment can’t possibly be violated by the Thirteenth Amendment, which is what ended slavery in the U.S.; one amendment can’t violate another, but simply supersedes it.)

    Then again, he also claims that it was “Republicans who along with some Democrats that passed the Civil Rights Acts.” Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was proposed and written by Democrats, and most of the votes to pass it in Congress were from Democrats, perhaps he’s just making things up for his own amusement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: