Liberal “tolerance” was on full display Wednesday during a Democrat-led congressional hearing after a black writer provided logical reasons for why reparations are not a great idea for the black community.
Coleman Hughes, a columnist for Quillette, testified during the hearing and raised a number of incredibly thoughtful and powerful points.
However, they fell on angry, deaf ears as many in the audience at the public hearing booed the writer for not getting on board with a reparations bill introduced by Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas.
The booing and hissing became so disruptive that Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee had to tell the audience to “Chill, chill, chill, chill.” That was after he accused Hughes of being “presumptive” but also saying that he had a right to speak.
You can watch Hughes’ testimony in the video below.
Hughes admitted that “Racism is a bloody stain on this country’s history,” and expressed his anger at the U.S. government for not paying reparations to freed slaves right after the Civil War.
But he further explained that there are much larger issues at hand in America today concerning the black community. And paying reparations, according to Hughes, won’t solve any of them.
“Black people don’t need another apology. We need safer neighborhoods and better schools. We need a less punitive criminal justice system. We need affordable health care. And none of these things can be achieved through reparations for slavery,” Hughes said.
As one could expect, that prompted a lot of booing from the audience.
But Hughes wasn’t shaken. He continued to deliver point after point, detailing the pitfalls of writing a check to black Americans for something that happened so long ago.
“We would insult many black Americans by putting a price on the suffering of their ancestors, and we would turn the relationship between black Americans and white Americans from a coalition into a transaction, from a union between citizens, into a lawsuit between plaintiffs and defendants,” Hughes said.
Hughes told the panel that he was the descendant of slaves who worked on Thomas Jefferson’s plantation, but that he was born into a privileged family and like many others, didn’t need the financial resources of reparations.
“I attend an Ivy League school, yet I’m also descended from slaves who worked on Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello Plantation. So, reparations for slavery would allocate federal resources to me, but not to an American with the wrong ancestry, even if that person is living paycheck to paycheck and working multiple jobs to support a family. You might call that justice. I call it justice for the dead at the price of justice for the living.”
He also said that the second black Americans are paid reparations, they become involuntary victims. And Hughes made it clear that he wanted no part of that title.
“Reparations, by definition, are only given to victims. So the moment you give me reparations, you’ve made me into a victim without my consent. Not just that, you’ve made one-third of black Americans who poll against reparations into victims without their consent,” Hughes said.
As he closed his eloquent testimony, even in the face of harsh criticism from the audience, he made crystal clear his thoughts on the House bill HR 40 — which would pave the way to figuring out the best way to pay reparations.
“And the obligation of citizenship is not transactional. It’s not contingent on ancestry. It never expires, and it can’t be paid off. For all these reasons, bill HR 40 is a moral and political mistake. Thank you,” Hughes concluded.
The left will use prominent black men like Hughes to push various agendas, but as evidenced in the hearing, the very moment he took a stand and disagreed with the majority, he was met with booing and disapproval. That yet again proves that liberals are “tolerant and accepting,” but only if you agree with them.
Unfortunately, the topic of reparations could be a significant one leading up to the 2020 presidential election, as several top Democratic candidates have already weighed in with various levels of support for the issue.
But using this explosive topic as a campaign strategy is cheap, lazy, and to be frank, almost feels like a loophole that gives Democrats a legal way to “purchase” extra black votes at the ballot box.
No comments:
Post a Comment