Tuesday, July 12, 2005

NAACP shakedown 

Paul Mirengoff writes that the NAACP is now getting into the business of shaking down private businesses for reparations.

The money will come from shareholders who had nothing to do with the "peculiar institution," and whose ancestors probably didn't either. In many cases, the ancestors weren't even in this country during the time of slavery, and themselves suffered from various forms of discrimination when they arrived here.

The money will benefit individuals who were never slaves and whose parents and grandparents weren't either. These individuals cannot show that they are worse off today than they would have been if, for example, a southern bank had not owned 100 slaves for a time as collateral on a loan. Nor can these individuals show that they are worse off today than they would been if the institution of slavery as a whole had not existed.

Moreover, these individuals presently are the potential beneficiaries of racial discrimination through public and private race-based preferences in college admission, employment, government contracting, etc. For all of the talk of "diversity," these preferences are best viewed as a form of reparation.

Right, but they do not put money in the pockets of big black interest groups like the NAACP. Shaking down businesses is done because, like Willie Sutton puts it, that's where the money is. Molotov at the blog Booker Rising makes the point that the Kelo decision has led to
"The Man" (mostly White - business class) can come in and use local government to confiscate private property that Black people have waited generations to acquire - and build the "White Man's Mall".
So when will governments be sued by the NAACP to pay reparations for that mall? Well they can't, it turns out, as is explained in the original article:

The Rev. Wayne Perryman of Mount Calvary Christian Center Church of God in Christ agreed that pursuing the federal government is not a fruitful option. The Seattle minister has filed two reparations lawsuits against the Democratic Party, saying its role in defending slavery and opposing civil rights bills during the Jim Crow era deserves an apology.

"One of the problems in courts is that ... you have to show ... the government official who participated in it," Mr. Perryman said. "With the federal government the real problem is that it has never had a totally pro-slavery position, the Democrats did and supported it, while the abolitionists and Republicans did not."

Has the NAACP thrown in now with this lot?