I suspect, Chas, that it may be even more divisive in the long run if we don’t tell the truth about our nation’s past.

There’s nothing we can do about our nation’s history, and it’s not the responsibility of anyone alive today. Telling the full truth about that history may initially cause some people to be upset, but at the end of the day, for most of this history, there’s simply no one left to be upset at.

Once we’re all united in how we look at the past, I suspect there will be fewer divisions than if people remain suspicious that others haven’t rejected the past, or retain lingering anger about that past.

You’re right, Jan. We do have very different experiences. I’ve never atoned for a wrong and encountered only cynicism in response, much less anyone questioning my morals or integrity. You must have had some unfortunate encounters in your lifetime.

How is it put to right with a sincere apology, taking resposibility, if the effort is NOT accepted as sincere?

You have an interesting perspective here, Jan. I’ve heard a lot of complaints, on both sides of this issue, about the supposed lack of sincerity of many of those offering the apology. Never anything about the apology not being accepted with sincerity.

In my 55 years on this planet, that steps, baby perhaps, (not fast enough?) have been taken

You’re absolutely right, of course. There has been real progress in the last 55 years. However, by any measure, that progress has been quite small compared to the distance we have yet to travel.

In my personal experience, it just never seems to be enough.

If the steps to erase the effects of the “errors made by our Nation” have only just begun, and are, at this rate, still generations from being completed … how then do you justify saying, at this early date, that “it just never seems to be enough”?

I think perhaps I would need to hear more about those “brick walls” you say you keep hitting. They sound frustrating, and I’m impressed that your response is merely to be skeptical, while remaining committed to the overall struggle. But I’m not sure exacty who, or what, we’re talking about here, so I don’t know quite how to adjust my understanding and my expectations.

I certainly don’t “expect” or deserve gratitude from an aplogy of an injustice that I had no participation in. I try to live my daily life in hopes that it might be an improvement to those around me and society in general.

The past most certainly does need, NEED, to be put to right, as you said. And I will NOT argue against that one iota. I guess the question is, HOW?…How is it put to right with a sincere apology, taking resposibility, if the effort is NOT accepted as sincere? No strawman here. I will continue my efforts instead of giving up.

” However, it’s also too simplistic to say that those offspring don’t benefit, to this day, from the fruits of those sins.”

And I submit to you, James, that In my 55 years on this planet, that steps, baby perhaps, (not fast enough?) have been taken to try and ease some of that burden that was caused because of errors made by our Nation. I also submit, that the offspring of the slaves have had more of a chance and choice in the last 40 years to accept the hand up and not the hand out. In my personal experience, it just never seems to be enough. And it makes me sad.

“It seems to me that there is room to argue here on behalf of a collective social response to the past, and to the injustices which persist to this day.”

Agreed. I’m not saying it doesn’t need to be done. Absolutely it does! But when you hit a brick wall, time after time after time?…Don’t you try to avoid those brick walls?

Thank you.

Even if aknowledgement, responsibility, and moral and spiritual attonement are sincerely offered forth, will it be accepted with grace and gratitude. In my personal experience, I think not.

While you refer to the final paragraph of my last comment, I believe you’re raising a very different issue than I did there.

You seem to be suggesting that most black Americans will not behave with “grace and gratitude” if whites offer “aknowledgement, responsibility, and moral and spiritual attonement.”

Without getting into whether it’s appropriate for whites to take responsibility or offer atonement for the sins of the past, I’m not sure that you ought to expect “gratitude” from anyone for these actions. To be sure, it can be difficult to acknowledge, take responsibility, or atone, and it’s reasonable to hope that these actions would be received graciously (as, indeed, in my experience they usually are). But no one should accept responsibility or atone for the past in the expectation that anyone, much less those who have suffered the burden of this past, will be grateful for such a bounty.

In any event, I think it’s assuming too much to conclude, on the basis of personal experience, that most people would, or would not, receive these actions appropriately. More importantly, I’m not sure how that would affect the value of offering acknowledgement, responsibility, or atonement, or how this could be a more substantial obstacle than the reluctance of most whites to consider acknowledging the past. Surely it would send the wrong message if the white majority delayed such an acknowledgement on the grounds that it probably wouldn’t be received properly by the black community?

Too many demand retribution for the sins of the father, and the sons and daughters rightly say “…it wasn’t MY decision, I had no part in it…”, but yet retribution of some sort is still demanded.

This is a complicated issue, Jan. I agree that “retribution” would be inappropriate. However, this strikes me as a straw man argument, inasmuch as there seem to be few people calling for retribution, and you seem to use this argument to dismiss any calls to put the past right.

There are people in this society who, to this day, suffer the lingering effects of slavery and discrimination. It’s not necessarily unreasonable to ask that they be put right, in some fashion, by the society which caused the harm and which, to this day, enjoys the benefits of that harm (with interest, of course).

This doesn’t mean that anyone should receive any money, or that anyone should be compensated in any way for the suffering of their ancestors. It would also be wrong to hold “the sons and daughters” accountable for the sins of the fathers. However, it’s also too simplistic to say that those offspring don’t benefit, to this day, from the fruits of those sins. It seems to me that there is room to argue here on behalf of a collective social response to the past, and to the injustices which persist to this day.

The last paragraph. I believe that so many people are highly cynical of the motives of most of our politicians. And understanding and healing will not come from those scarred from the past and cynical of the present. Too many demand retribution for the sins of the father, and the sons and daughters rightly say “…it wasn’t MY decision, I had no part in it…”, but yet retribution of some sort is still demanded.

Even if aknowledgement, responsibility, and moral and spiritual attonement are sincerely offered forth, will it be accepted with grace and gratitude. In my personal experience, I think not.

I wonder if it is a practice in futility.

Thank you for your thoughts on this.

I think there’s no simple answer to these questions, Jan.

In the long run, at least, I do believe that genuine healing can come from a clear and open acknowledgement of the past by our society and its institutions. Doing so could provide many members of our society, often for the first time, with the sense that they are accepted by the majority and that others understand the legacy that they are a part of. That far from rejecting any connection to the sins of the past, the majority accepts that the past, good and bad, is a part of our shared history. Just as the majority can, through the same process, come to understand that there is nothing to fear from the process of healing, that no one, for instance, is interested denouncing the United States or its history, or in laying blame on its citizens for the sins of the past.

In the short run, however, I think that an apology can be counter-productive. If it is intended as a cheap means of scoring political points or alleviating liberal guilt, for example, without demonstrating any genuine feeling on the part of the legislators or most of their constituents, then an apology can do more harm than good. The same is true if the apology, however well-intentioned by its supporters, is issued at a time when many in society are unaware of the facts which necessitate an apology. As Obama said the other day, there are many whites in this nation who have genuine grievances of their own, and if they cannot understand and appreciate the history and present circumstances which make an apology appropriate, then we need more education and dialogue in this country before an apology would begin to make sense.

And now I have one more.

While I believe there can be no harm in the institutions issuing appologies/regret , do you think that any good benift, comes from doing so? I have heard many say, after some states appologized , that “it” doesn’t go far enough, that “it” changes nothing, that “it” is/are just empty words. Do you think that taking responsibility for past injustices, perpetrated on any race, is a catapault to racial healing?

Ok…that was two questions..;-)

Thank you.