3.10.2017 Doc of the Day

1. Henry David Thoreau, 1846.
2. Eugene Debs, 1922.
3. George Orwell, 1946.
4. Robert Chrisman & Ernest Allen, 2001.
CC BY-NC-ND by Denis Collette…!!!
“How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today?   I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it.  I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.   But almost all say that such is not the case now.   But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of ’75.  If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them.  All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counter-balance the evil.  At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it.  But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer.  In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize.  What makes this duty the more urgent is that fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.

Paley, a common authority with many on moral questions, in his chapter on the ‘Duty of Submission to Civil Government,’ resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say that ‘so long as the interest of the whole society requires it, that is, so long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconvenience, it is the will of God . . . that the established government be obeyed—and no longer.   This principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other.’  Of this, he says, every man shall judge for himself.  But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well as an individual, must do justice, cost what it may.  If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself.  This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient.  But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it.  This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.

In their practice, nations agree with Paley; but does anyone think that Massachusetts does exactly what is right at the present crisis?

‘A drab of stat,
a cloth-o’-silver slut,
To have her train borne up,
and her soul trail in the dirt.’

Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may.   I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, near at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of, those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless.  We are accustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not as materially wiser or better than the many.  It is not so important that many should be good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump.  There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both.  What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot today?  They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect.  They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret.   At most, they give up only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them.  There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man.  But it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it.  The character of the voters is not staked.  I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail.  I am willing to leave it to the majority.   Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency.  Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail.  A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.  There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men.  When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote.  They will then be the only slaves.  Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.

I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to? Shall we not have the advantage of this wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reasons to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the onlyavailable one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. O for a man who is a man, and, as my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in the country? Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow—one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the almshouses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund to the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short, ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently.

It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, “I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico—see if I would go”; and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the state were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness. After the first blush of sin comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made.

The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to sustain it. The slight reproach to which the virtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the noble are most likely to incur. Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves—the union between themselves and the State—and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Do not they stand in same relation to the State that the State does to the Union? And have not the same reasons prevented the State from resisting the Union which have prevented them from resisting the State?

How can a man be satisfied to entertain an opinion merely, and enjoy it? Is there any enjoyment in it, if his opinion is that he is aggrieved? If you are cheated out of a single dollar by your neighbor, you do not rest satisfied with knowing you are cheated, or with saying that you are cheated, or even with petitioning him to pay you your due; but you take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see to it that you are never cheated again. Action from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was. It not only divided States and churches, it divides families; ay, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine.

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?

One would think, that a deliberate and practical denial of its authority was the only offense never contemplated by its government; else, why has it not assigned its definite, its suitable and proportionate, penalty? If a man who has no property refuses but once to earn nine shillings for the State, he is put in prison for a period unlimited by any law that I know, and determined only by the discretion of those who put him there; but if he should steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, he is soon permitted to go at large again.

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth—certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man’s life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should be doing something wrong. It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconcilliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death, which convulse the body.

I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already.

I meet this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year—no more—in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only mode in which a man situated as I am necessarily meets it; and it then says distinctly, Recognize me; and the simplest, the most effectual, and, in the present posture of affairs, the indispensablest mode of treating with it on this head, of expressing your little satisfaction with and love for it, is to deny it then. My civil neighbor, the tax-gatherer, is the very man I have to deal with—for it is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel—and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government. How shall he ever know well that he is and does as an officer of the government, or as a man, until he is obliged to consider whether he will treat me, his neighbor, for whom he has respect, as a neighbor and well-disposed man, or as a maniac and disturber of the peace, and see if he can get over this obstruction to his neighborlines without a ruder and more impetuous thought or speech corresponding with his action. I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name—if ten honest men only—ay, if one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this co-partnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. But we love better to talk about it: that we say is our mission. Reform keeps many scores of newspapers in its service, but not one man. If my esteemed neighbor, the State’s ambassador, who will devote his days to the settlement of the question of human rights in the Council Chamber, instead of being threatened with the prisons of Carolina, were to sit down the prisoner of Massachusetts, that State which is so anxious to foist the sin of slavery upon her sister—though at present she can discover only an act of inhospitality to be the ground of a quarrel with her—the Legislature would not wholly waive the subject of the following winter.

Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.  The proper place today, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less despondent spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles.  It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race should find them; on that separate but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her—the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.   If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person.   Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence.  A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight.   If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose.  If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible.  If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, ‘But what shall I do?’ my answer is, ‘If you really wish to do anything, resign your office.’  When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned from office, then the revolution is accomplished.  But even suppose blood should flow.  Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded?  Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death.   I see this blood flowing now.

I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods—though both will serve the same purpose—because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property.  To such the State renders comparatively small service, and a slight tax is wont to appear exorbitant, particularly if they are obliged to earn it by special labor with their hands. If there were one who lived wholly without the use of money, the State itself would hesitate to demand it of him.  But the rich man—not to make any invidious comparison—is always sold to the institution which makes him rich.   Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it.  It puts to rest many questions which he would otherwise be taxed to answer; while the only new question which it puts is the hard but superfluous one, how to spend it.  Thus his moral ground is taken from under his feet.  The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as that are called the ‘means’ are increased.  The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor.  Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition.  ‘Show me the tribute-money,’ said he—and one took a penny out of his pocket—if you use money which has the image of Caesar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Caesar’s government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it.  ‘Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God those things which are God’s’—leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know.

When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquillity, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it.  For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State.  But, if I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end.  This is hard.   This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, and at the same time comfortably, in outward respects.  It will not be worth the while to accumulate property; that would be sure to go again.   You must hire or squat somewhere, and raise but a small crop, and eat that soon.  You must live within yourself, and depend upon yourself always tucked up and ready for a start, and not have many affairs.   A man may grow rich in Turkey even, if he will be in all respects a good subject of the Turkish government.  Confucius said: ‘If a state is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a state is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are subjects of shame.’  No: until I want the protection of Massachusetts to be extended to me in some distant Southern port, where my liberty is endangered, or until I am bent solely on building up an estate at home by peaceful enterprise, I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts, and her right to my property and life.  It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State than it would to obey.  I should feel as if I were worth less in that case.”  Henry David Thoreau, a selection from On the Duty of Civil Disobedience that deals with slavery and the Mexican War; 1846

Damian/cc/flickr
Damian/cc/flickr

“I have received a letter from a prisoner in the United States penitentiary in Atlanta that makes interesting and profitable reading.  The name of the writer for the present at least must remain unknown.  The letter would never have been permitted to go out of the prison in the regular way; not a word of criticism of the prison of anyone connected with its management is allowed to pass the censor.  No matterwhat practices may prevail or what outrages may be perpetrated, no report thereof is permitted to pass the walls.  The general public, which supports the prison, is not allowed to know what goes on there except as it may please the officers in charge to let the people know what a fine place it is and what a privilege to be locked up there.  Just at this writing a huge scandal has been uncovered at the United States penitentiary at Atlanta.  A ‘dope ring,’ headed by a prison physician and several guards, has been long operating there making dope fiends of young prisoners and supplying all who could pay for it at robber rates with the poisonous drug that would ruin them for life.  And this is the benevolent United States government institution where drug addicts are sent to be reformed.  And truly it is a fine bourgeois reformation they get at this walled-in inferno.

Underground Kite.
The letter, which follows, was sent out underground or it would never have left the prison.  It is from a man who served a term of years in the navy and has been rewarded for his patriotism by a long prison sentence.  There are several hundred inmates at Atlanta who were soldiers, marines, and sailors, some of them of many years standing, who for more or less trifling offenses were court-martialed by their ‘superiors’ and sent to the penitentiary to contemplate the beauty of their reward for putting on a uniform and fighting to make their country ‘safe for democracy.’  The writer of this letter is one of those victims and the letter speaks eloquently for itself.

Here it is:
Through your many friends and comrades in prison here I
have learned of your suffering for the noble cause of the human
race. Your martyrdom will blaze the trail to the goal which the
working class are destined to reach. With a few more such mar tyrs the cause will be won. Your undying devotion to your noble
principles and your untiring efforts to secure liberty and justice
for all, to make this country a fit place to live in, will be crowned
with victory at last. From now on my life belongs to your cause.
Having thrown away 11 years in the navy, the lessons of experience have at last been a blessing to me. I have learned what
our navy really stands for and that is not for the protection
against invasion, but simply a school that teaches the doctrines
of the rich.

The struggle of the oppressed will be won in time and then
your name shall be a household word to the new generation.
To help in this struggle in which the truth must be known by
the masses, I am writing you of conditions which exist in the
Navy, wishing everyone to know the truth. Candidly I would rather
serve time here than in the navy. One cannot imagine the tyrannical rules which govern in our navy. In this letter I shall speak
by the truth and I shall stand prepared to defend my statements.
Every father and mother should know of the conditions that
exist in the navy and if they did they would never consent to their
sons’ enlistment. There are few, if any, of the enlisted personnel
who are of wealthy parents. The majority are of the working
class. The glowing advertisements showing scenes of foreign
countries and depicting the fascinating life as related by men
who have been instructed in this art are intended to lure young
lads into the trap. These glowing inducements draw the young
away from home. The majority of those who first enlist are young
and adventurous, desiring to travel Some of them never see foreign soil.

An enlisted man has no rights, only privileges, and these are
granted by the commanding officers. Everything is at their discretion. The maxim first inculcated in the minds of new recruits is
‘Fear your superiors more than you do your enemy.’ This is the
basis of discipline. If the young men knew the truth, they would
never enter the navy. The wide distinction between officers and
enlisted men means a big break when the latter begin to think for
themselves.

The officers of the navy belong to a class or clique with an
idea that this clique must have its way in everything. They do as
they please in their palaces on the high seas. Some wonder why
a man is not chosen from the military to be Secretary of the
Navy. With a military head their power would be complete.

Naval Officers Not Gentlemen.
The officers of our navy are snobs, looking upon the enlisted
men as curs.  The following are a few rules which the recruit
never learns until he has signed his rights away. Whistling is prohibited aboard ship. Captain Gilmore, USN, was made Governor
of Guam.  He at once prohibited whistling on the island.  Your hair
must be cut according to the style which the captain sets.  If during recreation you are reading or writing and the captain heaves
in sight, you must drop everything and stand at attention until he
passes.  To speak to the captain you should first try to have an
interview with the Sultan.  Never forget the Sir to your superiors,
as they are termed.  You are taught to obey your superiors without
question.

I worked in the Navy Yard at Portsmouth, Virginia, then under
control of a tyrant, Admiral Phillip Andrews.  He looks upon the
working class as slaves and he treats them as such.  His idea is
that of a slave-driver.  His purpose is to have all enlisted men
working in Navy Yards.  He can then train them to be driven.

The people outside do not hear much of the immoral practices existing in the navy.  I am an honorably discharged man and my last three months were on recruiting duty.  There are many incidents I could relate from my experience did space permit.

The military machine must be smashed and then only will
the working men win their long struggle for liberty and justice. 

The warning voice of this imprisoned marine, whose eyes are now opened and who would save other young men from sharing in his lamentable experience is well worthy of serious consideration.” Eugene Debs, “From Atlanta Prison: a Letter From a Prisoner With a Warning;” New Age, 1922.

[Evgeny Ivanovich Zamyatin]

Several years after hearing of its existence, I have at last got my hands on a copy of Zamyatin’s We, which is one of the literary curiosities of this book-burning age.  Looking it up in Gleb Struve’s Twenty-Five Years of Soviet Russian Literature, I find its history to have been this:

Zamyatin, who died in Paris in 1937, was a Russian novelist and critic who published a number of books both before and after the Revolution.  We was written about 1923, and though it is not about Russia and has no direct connection with contemporary politics–it is a fantasy dealing with the twenty-sixth century AD–it was refused publication on the ground that it was ideololgically undesirable.  A copy of the manuscript found its way out of the country, and the book has appeared in English, French and Czech translations, but never in Russian.  The English translation was published in the United States, and I have never been able to procure a copy: but copies of the French translation (the title is Nous Autres) do exist, and I have at last succeeded in borrowing one.  So far as I can judge it is not a book of the first order, but it is certainly an unusual one, and it is astonishing that no English publisher has been enterprising enought to reissue it.

The first thing anyone would notice about We is the fact–never pointed out, I believe–that Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World must be partly derived from it.  Both books deal with the rebellion of the primitive human spirit against a rationalised, mechanised, painless world, and both stories are supposed to take place about six hundred years hence.  The atmosphere of the two books is similar, and it is roughly speaking the same kind of society that is being described though Huxley’s book shows less political awareness and is more influenced by recent biological and psychological theories.

In the twenty-sixth century, in Zamyatin’s vision of it, the inhabitants of Utopia have so completely lost their individuality as to be known only by numbers. They live in glass houses (this was written before television was invented), which enables the political police, known as the “Guardians”, to supervise them more easily. They all wear identical uniforms, and a human being is commonly referred to either as “a number” or “a unif” (uniform). They live on synthetic food, and their usual recreation is to march in fours while the anthem of the Single State is played through loudspeakers. At stated intervals they are allowed for one hour (known as “the sex hour”) to lower the curtains round their glass apartments. There is, of course, no marriage, though sex life does not appear to be completely promiscuous. For purposes of love-making everyone has a sort of ration book of pink tickets, and the partner with whom he spends one of his allotted sex hours signs the counterfoil. The Single State is ruled over by a personage known as The Benefactor, who is annually re-elected by the entire population, the vote being always unanimous. The guiding principle of the State is that happiness and freedom are imcompatible. In the Garden of Eden man was happy, but in his folly he demanded freedom and was driven out into the wilderness. Now the Single State has restored his happiness by removing his freedom.

So far the resemblance with Brave New World is striking. But though Zamyatin’s book is less well put together–it has a rather weak and episodic plot which is too complex to summarise–it has a political point which the other lacks. In Huxley’s book the problem of “human nature” is in a sense solved, because it assumes that by pre-natal treatment, drugs and hypnotic suggestion the human organism can be specialised in any way that is desired. A first-rate scientific worker is as easily produced as an Epsilon semi-moron, and in either case the vestiges of primitive instincts, such as maternal feeling or the desire for liberty, are easily dealt with. At the same time no clear reason is given why society should be stratified in the elaborate way it is described. The aim is not economic exploitation, but the desire to bully and dominate does not seem to be a motive either. There is no power hunger, no sadism, no hardness of any kind. Those at the top have no strong motive for staying at the top, and though everyone is happy in a vacuous way, life has become so pointless that it is difficult to believe that such a society could endure.

Zamyatin’s book is on the whole more relevant to our own situation. In spite of education and the vigilance of the Guardians, many of the ancient human instincts are still there. The teller of the story, D-503, who, though a gifted engineer, is a poor conventional creature, a sort of Utopian Billy Brown of London Town, is constantly horrified by the atavistic* impulses which seize upon him. He falls in love (this is a crime, of course) with a certain I-330 who is a member of an underground resistance movement and succeeds for a while in leading him into rebellion. When the rebellion breaks out it appears that the enemies of The Benefactor are in fact fairly numerous, and these people, apart from plotting the overthrow of the State, even indulge, at the moment when their curtains are down, in such vices as smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. D-503 is ultimately saved from the consequences of his own folly. The authorities announce that they have discovered the cause of the recent disorders: it is that some human beings suffer from a disease called imagination. The nerve-centre responsible for imagination has now been located, and the disease can be cured by X-ray treatment. D-503 undergoes the operation, after which it is easy for him to do what he has known all along that he ought to do–that is, betray his confederates to the police. With complete equanimity he watches I-330 tortured by means of compressed air under a glass bell:

She looked at me, her hands clasping the arms of the chair, until her eyes were completely shut.  They took her out, brought her to herself by means of an electric shock, and put her under the bell again.  This operation was repeated three times, and not a word issued from her lips.   The others who had been brought along with her showed themselves more honest.  Many of them confessed after one application.  Tomorrow they will all be sent to the Machine of The Benefactor.

The Machine of The Benefactor is the guillotine.  There are many executions in Zamyatin’s Utopia.  They take place publicly, in the presence of The Benefactor, and are accompanied by triumphal odes recited by the official poets.  The guillotine, of course, is not the old crude instrument but a much improved model which literally liquidates its victim, reducing him in an instant to a puff of smoke and a pool of clear water.  The execution is, in fact, a human sacrifice, and the scene describing it is given deliberately the colour of the sinister slave civilisations of the ancient world.  It is this intuitive grasp of the irrational side of totalitarianism–human sacrifice, cruelty as an end in itself, the worship of a Leader who is credited with divine attributes–that makes Zamyatin’s book superior to Huxley’s.

It is easy to see why the book was refused publication. The following conversation (I abridge it slightly) beteen D-503 and I-330 would have been quite enough to set the blue pencils working:

‘Do you realise that what you are suggesting is revolution?’

‘Of course, it’s revolution.  Why not?’

‘Because there can’t be a revolution.  Our revolution was the last and there can never be another.  Everybody knows that.’

‘My dear, you’re a mathematician: tell me, which is the last number?’

‘But that’s absurd.  Numbers are infinite.  There can’t be a last one.’

‘Then why do you talk about the last revolution?’

There are other similar passages.  It may well be, however, that Zamyatin did not intend the Soviet regime to be the special target of his satire.  Writing at about the time of Lenin’s death, he cannot have had the Stalin dictatorship in mind, and conditions in Russia in 1923 were not such that anyone would revolt against them on the ground that life was becoming too safe and comfortable.  What Zamyatin seems to be aiming at is not any particular country but the implied aims of industrial civilisation.  I have not read any of his other books, but I learn from Gleb Struve that he had spent several years in England and had written some blistering satires on English life.  It is evident from We that he had a strong leaning towards primitivism.  Imprisoned by the Czarist Government in 1906, and then imprisoned by the Bolsheviks in 1922 in the same corridor of the same prison, he had cause to dislike the political regimes he had lived under, but his book is not simply the expression of a grievance.  It is in effect a study of the Machine, the genie that man has thoughtlessly let out of its bottle and cannot put back again.  This is a book to look out for when an English version appears.”  George Orwell, “Review of We, by E.I. Zamyatin; The Tribune, 1946
“David Horowitz’s article, ‘Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea and Racist Too,’ recently achieved circulation in a handful of college newspapers throughout the United States as a paid advertisement sponsored by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture.  While Horowitz’s article pretends to address the issues of reparations, it is not about reparations at all.  It is, rather, a well-heeled, coordinated attack on Black Americans which is calculated to elicit division and strife.  Horowitz reportedly attempted to place his article in some 50 student newspapers at universities and colleges across the country, and was successful in purchasing space in such newspapers at Brown, Duke, Arizona, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, University of Chicago, and University of Wisconsin, paying an average of $700 per paper.  His campaign has succeeded in fomenting outrage, dissension, and grief wherever it has appeared.  Unfortunately, both its supporters and its foes too often have categorized the issue as one centering on ‘free speech.’  The sale and purchase of advertising space is not a matter of free speech, however, but involves an exchange of commodities.  Professor Lewis Gordon of Brown University put it very well, saying that ‘what concerned me was that the ad was both hate speech and a solicitation for financial support to develop antiblack ad space.  I was concerned that it would embolden white supremacists and antiblack racists.’  At a March 15 panel held at UC Berkeley, Horowitz also conceded that his paid advertisement did not constitute a free speech issue.

 

As one examines the text of Horowitz’s article, it becomes apparent that it is not a reasoned essay addressed to the topic of reparations: it is, rather, a racist polemic against African Americans and Africans that is neither responsible nor informed, relying heavily upon sophistry and a Hitlerian ‘Big Lie’ technique.  To our knowledge, only one of Horowitz’s ten ‘reasons’ has been challenged by a black scholar as to source, accuracy, and validity.  It is our intention here to briefly rebut his slanders in order to pave the way for an honest and forthright debate on reparations.  In these efforts we focus not just on slavery, but also the legacy of slavery which continues to inform institutional as well as individual behavior in the U.S. to this day.  Although we recognize that white America still owes a debt to the descendants of slaves, in addressing Horowitz’s distortions of history we do not act as advocates for a specific form of reparations.

1. There Is No Single Group Clearly Responsible For The Crime Of Slavery

Horowitz’s first argument, relativist in structure, can only lead to two conclusions: 1) societies are not responsible for their actions and 2) since ‘everyone’ was responsible for slavery, no one was responsible.  While diverse groups on different continents certainly participated in the trade, the principal responsibility for internationalization of that trade and the institutionalization of slavery in the so-called New World rests with European and American individuals and institutions.  The transatlantic slave trade began with the importation of African slaves into Hispaniola by Spain in the early 1500s. Nationals of France, England, Portugal, and the Netherlands, supported by their respective governments and powerful religious institutions, quickly entered the trade and extracted their pieces of silver as well.  By conservative estimates, 14 million enslaved Africans survived the horror of the Middle Passage for the purpose of producing wealth for Europeans and Euro-Americans in the New World.

While there is some evidence of blacks owning slaves for profit purposes–most notably the creole caste in Louisiana–the numbers were small. As historian James Oakes noted, “By 1830 there were some 3,775 free black slaveholders across the South. . . . The evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of black slaveholders were free men who purchased members of their families or who acted out of benevolence.” (Oakes, 47-48.)

2. There Is No Single Group That Benefited Exclusively From Slavery

Horowitz’s second point, which is also a relativist one, seeks to dismiss the argument that white Americans benefited as a group from slavery, contending that the material benefits of slavery could not accrue in an exclusive way to a single group. But such sophistry evades the basic issue: who benefited primarily from slavery? Those who were responsible for the institutionalized enslavement of people of African descent also received the primary benefits from such actions. New England slave traders, merchants, bankers, and insurance companies all profited from the slave trade, which required a wide variety of commodities ranging from sails, chandlery, foodstuffs, and guns, to cloth goods and other items for trading purposes. Both prior to and after the American Revolution, slaveholding was a principal path for white upward mobility in the South. The white native-born as well as immigrant groups such as Germans, Scots-Irish, and the like participated. In 1860, cotton was the country’s largest single export. As Eric Williams and C.L.R. James have

demonstrated, the free labor provided by slavery was central to the growth of industry in western Europe and the United States; simultaneously, as Walter Rodney has argued, slavery depressed and destabilized the economies of African states. Slaveholders benefited primarily from the institution, of course, and generally in proportion to the number of slaves which they held. But the sharing of the proceeds of slave exploitation spilled across class lines within white communities as well.

As historian John Hope Franklin recently affirmed in a rebuttal to Horowitz’s claims:

“All whites and no slaves benefited from American slavery. All blacks had no rights that they could claim as their own. All whites, including the vast majority who had no slaves, were not only encouraged but authorized to exercise dominion over all slaves, thereby adding strength to the system of control.

“If David Horowitz had read James D. DeBow’s “The Interest in Slavery of the Southern Non- slaveholder,” he would not have blundered into the fantasy of claiming that no single group benefited from slavery. Planters did, of course. New York merchants did, of course. Even poor whites benefited from the legal advantage they enjoyed over all blacks as well as from the psychological advantage of having a group beneath them.”

The context of the African-American argument for reparations is confined to the practice and consequences of slavery within the United States, from the colonial period on through final abolition and the aftermath, circa 1619-1865. Contrary to Horowitz’s assertion, there is no record of institutionalized white enslavement in colonial America. Horowitz is confusing the indenture of white labor, which usually lasted seven years or so during the early colonial period, with enslavement. African slavery was expanded, in fact, to replace the inefficient and unenforceable white indenture system. (Smith)

Seeking to claim that African Americans, too, have benefited from slavery, Horowitz points to the relative prosperity of African Americans in comparison to their counterparts on the African continent. However, his argument that, “the GNP of black America makes the African-American community the 10th most prosperous “nation” in the world is based upon a false analogy. GNP is defined as “the total market value of all the goods and services produced by a nation during a specified period.” Black Americans are not a nation and have no GNP. Horowitz confuses disposable income and “consumer power” with the generation of wealth.

3. Only A Tiny Minority Of White Americans Ever Owned Slaves, And Others Gave Their Lives To Free Them

Most white union troops were drafted into the union army in a war which the federal government initially defined as a “war to preserve the union.” In large part because they feared that freed slaves would flee the South and “take their jobs” while they themselves were engaged in warfare with Confederate troops, recently drafted white conscripts in New York City and elsewhere rioted during the summer of 1863, taking a heavy toll on black civilian life and property. Too many instances can be cited where white northern troops plundered the personal property of slaves, appropriating their bedding, chickens, pigs, and foodstuffs as they swept through the South. On the other hand, it is certainly true that there also existed principled white commanders and troops who were committed abolitionists.

However, Horowitz’s focus on what he mistakenly considers to be the overriding, benevolent aim of white union troops in the Civil War obscures the role that blacks themselves played in their own liberation. African Americans were initially forbidden by the Union to fight in the Civil War, and black leaders such as Frederick Douglass and Martin Delany demanded the right to fight for their freedom. When racist doctrine finally conceded to military necessity, blacks were recruited into the Union Army in 1862 at approximately half the pay of white soldiers–a situation which was partially rectified by an act of Congress in mid-1864. Some 170,000 blacks served in the Civil War, representing nearly one third of the free black population.

By 1860, four million blacks in the U.S. were enslaved; some 500,000 were nominally free. Because of slavery, racist laws, and racist policies, blacks were denied the chance to compete for the opportunities and resources of America that were available to native whites and immigrants: labor opportunities, free enterprise, and land. The promise of “forty acres and a mule” to former slaves was effectively nullified by the actions of President Andrew Johnson. And because the best

land offered by the Homestead Act of 1862 and its subsequent revisions quickly fell under the sway of white homesteaders and speculators, most former slaves were unable to take advantage of its provisions.

4. Most Living Americans Have No Connection (Direct Or Indirect) To Slavery

As Joseph Anderson, member of the National Council of African American Men, observed, “the arguments for reparations aren’t made on the basis of whether every white person directly gained from slavery. The arguments are made on the basis that slavery was institutionalized and protected by law in the United States. As the government is an entity that survives generations, its debts and obligations survive the lifespan of any particular individuals. . . . Governments make restitution to victims as a group or class.” (San Francisco Chronicle, March 26, 2001, p. A21.)

Most Americans today were not alive during World War II. Yet reparations to Japanese Americans for their internment in concentration camps during the war was paid out of current government sources contributed to by contemporary Americans. Passage of time does not negate the responsibility of government in crimes against humanity. Similarly, German corporations are not the “same” corporations that supported the Holocaust; their personnel and policies today belong to generations removed from their earlier criminal behavior. Yet, these corporations are being successfully sued by Jews for their past actions. In the same vein, the U.S. government is not the same government as it was in the pre-civil war era, yet its debts and obligations from the past are no less relevant today.

5. The Historical Precedents Used To Justify The Reparations Claim Do Not Apply, And The Claim Itself Is Based On Race Not Injury

As noted in our response to “Reason 4,” the historical precedents for the reparations claims of African Americans are fully consistent with restitution accorded other historical groups for atrocities committed against them. Second, the injury in question–that of slavery–was inflicted upon a people designated as a race. The descendants of that people–still socially constructed as a race today–continue to suffer the institutional legacies of slavery some one hundred thirty-five years after its demise. To attempt to separate the issue of so-called race from that of injury in this instance is pure sophistry. For example, the criminal (in)justice system today largely continues to operate as it did under slavery–for the protection of white citizens against black “outsiders.” Although no longer inscribed in law, this very attitude is implicit to processes of law enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration, guiding the behavior of police, prosecutors, judges, juries, wardens, and parole boards. Hence, African Americans continue to experience higher rates of incarceration than do whites charged with similar crimes, endure longer sentences for the same classes of crimes perpetrated by whites, and, compared to white inmates, receive far less consideration by parole boards when being considered for release.

Slavery was an institution sanctioned by the highest laws of the land with a degree of support from the Constitution itself. The institution of slavery established the idea and the practice that American democracy was “for whites only.” There are many white Americans whose actions (or lack thereof) reveal such sentiments today–witness the response of the media and the general populace to the blatant disfranchisement of African Americans in Florida during the last presidential election. Would such complacency exist if African Americans were considered “real citizens”? And despite the dramatic successes of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, the majority of black Americans do not enjoy the same rights as white Americans in the economic sphere. (We continue this argument in the following section.)

6. The Reparations Argument Is Based On The Unfounded Claim That All African-American Descendants of Slaves Suffer From The Economic Consequences Of Slavery And Discrimination

Most blacks suffered and continue to suffer the economic consequences of slavery and its aftermath. As of 1998, median white family income in the U.S. was $49,023; median black family income was $29,404, just 60% of white income. (2001 New York Times Almanac, p. 319) Further, the costs of living within the United States far exceed those of African nations. The present poverty level for an American family of four is $17,029. Twenty-three and three-fifths percent (23.6%) of all black families live below the poverty level.

When one examines net financial worth, which reflects, in part, the wealth handed down within families from generation to generation, the figures appear much starker. Recently, sociologists Melvin L. Oliver and Thomas M. Shapiro found that just a little over a decade ago, the net financial worth of white American families with zero or negative net financial worth

stood at around 25%; that of Hispanic households at 54%; and that of black American households at almost 61%. (Oliver & Shapiro, p. 87) The inability to accrue net financial worth is also directly related to hiring practices in which black Americans are “last hired” when the economy experiences an upturn, and “first fired” when it falls on hard times.

And as historian John Hope Franklin remarked on the legacy of slavery for black education: “laws enacted by states forbade the teaching of blacks any means of acquiring knowledge-including the alphabet-which is the legacy of disadvantage of educational privatization and discrimination experienced by African Americans in 2001.”

Horowitz’s comparison of African Americans with Jamaicans is a false analogy, ignoring the different historical contexts of the two populations. The British government ended slavery in Jamaica and its other West Indian territories in 1836, paying West Indian slaveholders $20,000,000 pounds ($100,000,000 U.S. dollars) to free the slaves, and leaving the black Jamaicans, who comprised 90% of that island’s population, relatively free. Though still facing racist obstacles, Jamaicans come to the U.S. as voluntary immigrants, with greater opportunity to weigh, choose, and develop their options.

7. The Reparations Claim Is One More Attempt To Turn African-Americans Into Victims.  It Sends A Damaging Message To The African-American Community

What is a victim? Black people have certainly been victimized, but acknowledgment of that fact is not a case of “playing the victim” but of seeking justice. There is no validity to Horowitz’s comparison between black Americans and victims of oppressive regimes who have voluntary immigrated to these shores. Further, many members of those populations, such as Chileans and Salvadorans, direct their energies for redress toward the governments of their own oppressive nations– which is precisely what black Americans are doing. Horowitz’s racism is expressed in his contemptuous characterization of reparations as “an extravagant new handout that is only necessary because some blacks can’t seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others, many of whom are less privileged than themselves.” What Horowitz fails to acknowledge is that racism continues as an ideology and a material force within the U.S., providing blacks with no ladder that reaches the top. The damage lies in the systematic treatment of black people in the U.S., not their claims against those who initiated this damage and their spiritual descendants who continue its perpetuation.

8. Reparations To African Americans Have Already Been Paid

The nearest the U.S. government came to full and permanent restitution of African Americans was the spontaneous redistribution of land brought about by General William Sherman’s Field Order 15 in January, 1865, which empowered Union commanders to make land grants and give other material assistance to newly liberated blacks. But that order was rescinded by President Andrew Johnson later in the year. Efforts by Representative Thaddeus Stevens and other radical Republicans to provide the proverbial “40 acres and a mule” which would have carved up huge plantations of the defeated Confederacy into modest land grants for blacks and poor whites never got out of the House of Representatives. The debt has not been paid.

“Welfare benefits and racial preferences” are not reparations. The welfare system was set in place in the 1930s to alleviate the poverty of the Great Depression, and more whites than blacks received welfare. So-called “racial preferences” come not from benevolence but from lawsuits by blacks against white businesses, government agencies, and municipalities which practice racial discrimination.

9. What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?

Horowitz’s assertion that “in the thousand years of slavery’s existence, there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Anglo-Saxon Christians created one,” only demonstrates his ignorance concerning the formidable efforts of blacks to free themselves. Led by black Toussaint L’Ouverture, the Haitian revolution of 1793 overthrew the French slave system, created the first black republic in the world, and intensified the activities of black and white anti-slavery movements in the U.S. Slave insurrections and conspiracies such as those of Gabriel (1800), Denmark Vesey (1822), and Nat Turner (1831) were potent sources of black resistance; black abolitionists such as Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Richard Allen, Sojourner Truth, Martin Delany, David Walker, and Henry Highland Garnet waged an incessant struggle against slavery through agencies such as the press, notably Douglass’s North Star and its variants, which ran from 1847 to 1863 (blacks, moreover, constituted some 75 % of the subscribers to William Lloyd Garrison’s Liberatornewspaper in its first four years); the Underground Railroad, the Negro Convention Movement, local, state, and national anti-slavery societies, and the slave narrative.  Black Americans were in no ways the passive recipients of freedom from anyone, whether viewed from the perspective of black participation in the abolitionist movement, the flight of slaves from plantations and farms during the Civil War, or the enlistment of black troops in the Union army.

The idea of black debt to U.S. society is a rehash of the Christian missionary argument of the 17th and 18th centuries: because Africans were considered heathens, it was therefore legitimate to enslave them and drag them in chains to a Christian nation.  Following their partial conversion, their moral and material lot were improved, for which black folk should be eternally grateful.  Slave ideologues John Calhoun and George Fitzhugh updated this idea in the 19th century, arguing that blacks were better off under slavery than whites in the North who received wages, due to the paternalism and benevolence of the plantation system which assured perpetual employment, shelter, and board.  Please excuse the analogy, but if someone chops off your fingers and then hands them back to you, should you be ‘grateful’ for having received your mangled fingers, or enraged that they were chopped off in the first place?

10. The Reparations Claim Is A Separatist Idea That Sets African-Americans Against The Nation That Gave Them Freedom

Again, Horowitz reverses matters.  Blacks are already separated from white America in fundamental matters such as income, family wealth, housing, legal treatment, education, and political representation.  Andrew Hacker, for example, has argued the case persuasively in his book Two Nations.  To ignore such divisions, and then charge those who raise valid claims against society with promoting divisiveness, offers a classic example of ‘blaming the victim.’  And we have already refuted the spurious point that African Americans were the passive recipients of benevolent white individuals or institutions which ‘gave’ them freedom.

Too many Americans tend to view history as ‘something that happened in the past,’ something that is ‘over and done,’ and thus has no bearing upon the present.  Especially in the case of slavery, nothing could be further from the truth.  As historian John Hope Franklin noted in his response to Horowitz:

‘Most living Americans do have a connection with slavery.  They have inherited the preferential advantage, if they are white, or the loathsome disadvantage, if they are black; and those positions are virtually as alive today as they were in the 19th century.  The pattern of housing, the discrimination in employment, the resistance to equal opportunity in education, the racial profiling, the inequities in the administration of justice, the low expectation of blacks in the discharge of duties assigned to them, the widespread belief that blacks have physical prowess but little intellectual capacities and the widespread opposition to affirmative action, as if that had not been enjoyed by whites for three centuries, all indicate that the vestiges of slavery are still with us.

And as long as there are pro-slavery protagonists among us, hiding behind such absurdities as ‘we are all in this together’ or ‘it hurts me as much as it hurts you’ or ‘slavery benefited you as much as it benefited me,’ we will suffer from the inability to confront the tragic legacies of slavery and deal with them in a forthright and constructive manner.

‘Most important, we must never fall victim to some scheme designed to create a controversy among potential allies in order to divide them and, at the same time, exploit them for its own special purpose.'”  Robert Chrisman & Ernest Allen, “Ten Reasons: a Response to David Horowitz;” Black Scholar, 2001