NARTH & Dr. Schoenewolf Respond to Southern Poverty Law Center
Last week, the Southern Policy Law Center posted an article about the controversial paper (pdf) written by Dr. Gerald Schoenewolf, a member of the NARTH Board of Scientific Advisors (narth.com). Today a response to that article has appeared on the NARTH website titled “Political Correctness Gone Amok: The Latest Controversy.” It is an anonymous interview of Schoenewolf, who appears to continue his justification while complaining that liberals are making it hard for people like him to speak their mind.
These so-called “liberal” groups are driving social conservatives and libertarians out of the debate with their misuse of their comments, said Schoenewolf.
Dr. Warren Throckmorton was quick to post his comments about this interview on his blog.
While we are on that point, I do not see why one would imply that a moral evil is of necessity associated with an eventual benefit. This assumes that the only way the current good (African-Americans are here and not in famine and war-torn Africa) could have happened is via the moral evil (slavery).
Throckmorton sums up the tone of the interview well:
Bottom line message I get from this new article: If you express disagreement with Dr. Schoenewolf, you must be a “so-called liberal” who is intent on stiffling dialogue.
Review a time line of the entire controversy.
NARTH has again missed that Schoenewolf is defending slavery as being “good”, as long as it was in America. Read the following sentence again:
“No person is better off enslaved, obviously,” Schoenewolf told NARTH. “What I tried to say, before my words were twisted by that reporter, is that despite the clear and obvious evil of that practice, we tend to forget that many of the enslaved people had been first been sold into bondage by their fellow countrymen; so coming to America did bring about some eventual good.
What he’s saying is that slavery in America was better than slavery in Africa. But was it?
First we have to comment that slaves were NOT SOLD BY THEIR COUNTRYMEN. They were the result of tribal wars waged specifically to capture humans for sale to Europeans.
But after being captured, were they better off to be sent to the Americas? Well, the point is moot because there was no significant slave population kept in Africa. It wasn’t as though there were slaves toiling away in the “jungles” of Africa until someone thought “hey, let’s sell them to these Europeans”.
So first there was the separation from everything and everyone familiar, including language, food, climate, and religion. Then there was the high likelihood of death on the trip over. Next was the removal of status as a “human” (or at least as much a human). Then there was the certainty that even if you escaped, you could never ever be reunited with your loved ones.
No, NARTH, it wasn’t better to be taken to America. Yes, Schoenewolf, you have again given me all the evidence I need to see that you are a profoundly ignorant and hopelessly racist person.
I’m trying to “get” the whole “PC gone amok” NARTH take here. If those who object to the article are all being too PC, then why is the slavery article gone from the website?
Unless the plan is now that they’re going to stay focused on their mission in what they publish…
So with NARTH mission statements in mind, allow me to be snarky a minute…
Woo-hoo! Transgender people like me aren’t in the NARTH Mission! Last line from this NARTH article is a quote from Dr. Nicolosi: “NARTH’s mission has nothing to do with any social issue others than same-sex attraction.”
So, I guess I can look forward to no more NARTH articles on genderqueer, gender variant, and transgender people…..right?
one small correction. While there did remain many slaves in Africa after the institution became the dominant economic drive of some African countries, they were predominantly female. For male African’s who had become enslaved, it wasn’t a choice between the Americas (predominantly Carribean though also the US South and Southern America) and Africa.
Isn’t screaming about censorship the moment someone criticizes what you say precisely the sort of “politically correct” tactics Schoenewolf pretends to be against?
Maybe I’m slow. Is Nicolosi apologizing for the article or defending it? If he is defending it, why did he remove it?