Every era has their issues, matters that brew and boil to a point of either acceptance or denial, as passionate advocates lobby for favorable, societal reception. A student of history would share with us issue timelines that marked entire eras, as the supporters’ perseverance was equally as important as any promotion. However, an issue often is accepted because it has proved wise or worthy over time; people have had time to weigh the impact on society and self.
A fascinating aspect of the 21st century, no less, is that we no longer utilize that time; the process is sped up. In the age of the internet, technology, and information flow, the time that once forded the wise measure of acceptance or denial has evaporated. Hence, we are lured into demanding that a perspective is right, shutting down debate, or not allowing another to feel a certain way — all because we no longer accept that time (next to suffering) is perhaps life’s greatest teacher.
We witness this now, I believe, in certainly some valid issues challenging society: climate change, gay marriage, and income inequality, for example. Instead of hammering out the wisdom and foolishness behind a perspective, persons on all sides are spending seemingly greater effort simply attempting to shut down an opposing perspective. Wisdom of the actual issue set aside, often our approach is foolish.
There is an additional issue the Intramuralist sees coming our way soon — an issue that has long been stirring in passionate circles that advocates desire to push to the forefront, utilizing that swift, advantageous information flow. As I consistently read through multiple media sources, I sense an increase in intentional promotion.
Now let me first offer a semi-stern caveat on this observation. Friends, none of us can consider ourselves objective in analysis of these issues if we adhere solely to a single news source. If you are a viewer of only MSNBC or only FOX News, your perspective is most likely not objective. If you only read the Drudge Report or Huffington Post, your opinion is most likely biased; you do not have great objectivity in your perspective. As has long been the Intramuralst’s practice (and encouragement), we consistently watch and read varied news from varied slants, with our most respected source of news being Real Clear Politics, a website that provides daily balanced perspective. A balanced perspective is wise.
That said, there is a new issue I’ve seen increasingly stirring through those sources. Be ready; with no offering of editorial wisdom or foolishness, here’s what the Intramuralist sees coming soon…
Reparations. Reparations is the idea that some compensatory payment from the federal government should be given to the descendants of slaves. Note that In 1999, the African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission called for “the West” to pay $777 trillion to Africa within five years. In 2007, Guyana called for European nations to pay. Antigua & Barbuda have called for reparations. Jamaica and Barbados are both actively studying the issue. And with each new inaugural session of Congress, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduces legislation to study reparation proposals for African-Americans.
In a well-written piece in The Atlantic last month, senior editor Ta-Nehisi Coates laid out the case for reparations, saying “America will never be whole” until we make amends for our “moral debts.” His call has gained at least some sense of vernacular steam, with one Huffington Post contributor calling the essay both “brilliant and haunting” — and another, while moved by its message, questioning the wisdom in converting our “tradition of justice into a system of racial apportionment.” The issue is making its way into increased conversation.
As a presidential candidate, then Sen. Obama said, “I have said in the past — and I’ll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed.” There have been multiple reports, however, that his inner circle, very loyal senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, is supportive of reparations. Will Obama evolve on the issue? Will Executive Orders be considered? And the better question: if proposed, will we have the necessary time to weigh the impact on society and self?
Respectfully…
AR