Sun 14 Jun, 2009
Senator Harkin introduces apology for slavery and racism
Comments (31) Filed under: Politics, RemediesTags: Apologies, Legislation, Racial discrimination, S. Con. Res. 26, Slavery, Tom Harkin, U.S. Senate
U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has introduced a bipartisan resolution into the U.S. Senate apologizing for the nation’s history of slavery and racism.
The resolution, S. Con. Res. 26, would have the U.S. Congress acknowledge the nation’s long and brutal history of slavery and racial discrimination, and apologize “on behalf of the people of the United States” to black Americans “for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors” under slavery and Jim Crow.
Update: The Senate has passed this apology for slavery. See my full blog post on the subject.
As readers of this blog are well aware, I strongly support efforts like this to acknowledge our nation’s history of slavery and racial discrimination and the “living consequences” of that history today.
The text minces no words in summarizing the inhumanity of slavery in this country, and explains that the immediate result of the abolition of slavery in 1865 was merely to lead black Americans from one form of debilitating servitude into another. The resolution notes that Jim Crow lasted for a century following the Civil War, and that the 1960s did not end that system of segregation and discrimination, but merely weakened it so that “the vestiges of Jim Crow continue to this day.”
Most importantly, the resolution highlights the living consequences of that history, saying that blacks
continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow laws–long after both systems were formally abolished–through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty.
The resolution goes on to argue that “the story of the enslavement and de jure segregation of African-Americans and the dehumanizing atrocities committed against them should not be purged from or minimized in the telling of the history of the United States.”
Apologies for slavery
I am not a particularly strong supporter of apologies as a means of addressing this history, as opposed to efforts to acknowledge the history and to take responsibility for its consequences. This is especially true when an apology is being issued in the name of individuals who were not personally responsible for what happened. So I may have something to say later about the fact that this congressional apology would not be issued in the name of Congress, an institution which was directly responsible for much of our history of slavery, but instead in the name of “the people of the United States.”
However, I am struck by the thoughtful nature of this particular apology:
… an apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs committed and a formal apology to African-Americans will help bind the wounds of the Nation that are rooted in slavery and can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help the people of the United States understand the past and honor the history of all people of the United States ….
Reparations for slavery
The resolution expressly provides that it does not support any claim against the United States, nor that it provides a settlement of any such claim. This is obviously a reference to claims for reparations for slavery and discrimination. Disclaiming any connection to reparations has become standard for apologies issued by states in recent years, and serves to head off criticism that an apology will lead to reparations. Unlike those apologies, however, this resolution also insists that an apology would not satisfy a claim for reparations, seeming to acknowledge the validity, or at least the plausibility, of such claims.
There are significant differences between this proposed congressional apology and the apology passed by the U.S. House last year. The House apology did not trouble to say that it could not serve as a basis for a legal claim for reparations. Furthermore, that apology also committed the House “to rectify the lingering consequences” of slavery and discrimination, which comes remarkably close to calling for reparations for slavery.
Status of the resolution
The resolution was introduced with eight co-sponsors: Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).
The resolution is entitled “A concurrent resolution apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African Americans.” As a concurrent resolution, the apology would be voted on by the Senate and then the House, becoming a joint statement of Congress if approved by both chambers. A concurrent resolution expresses the sentiments of both houses of Congress; unlike a joint resolution, a concurrent resolution is not submitted to the president and does not have the force of law.
Traces of the Trade » Senate to consider apology for slavery says:
[…] Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has introduced a resolution into the U.S. Senate under which Congress would apologize for the nation’s history of slavery and racial discrimination. […]
Inheriting the Trade | Bipartisan Senate resolution apologizing for slavery and racism introduced says:
[…] passed a similar resolution last July, but my understanding of a concurrent resolution (thanks, James!) is that this bill will be voted on by both the Senate and the House and, if approved, would […]
Anonymous says:
The introduction is to take place Thursday morning around 10:30am (DC time). It will be televised on CSPAN2. It's supposed to pass by unanimous vote, no roll call vote. I'm excited!
James says:
Thank you, Anonymous.
I won't "out" your identity, but you're certainly in a position to know what you're talking about.
U.S. Senate votes on slavery apology | The Living Consequences says:
[…] morning, the U.S. Senate is scheduled to debate and vote on the apology for slavery and racial discrimination offered by Sen. Tom Harkin […]
David Beaird says:
My comment does not address the apology for slavery and racism. What I have to say concerns the economic slavery these Senators have placed all Americans (white, black, red and yellow) into for the past twenty years. That is what they should be apologizing for. One only has to take a good look around to see what the consequences of their economic slavery have done to the United States and the American people. They were elected to keep our economy strong and in good financial health. They have failed miserably. I think it is time that we all thanked them by not re-electing them when their terms are up.
Introduced by: Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
eight co-sponsors: Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).
additional thirteen Democrats as co-sponsors in the last three days: Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Sen. Mark Begich (D-Ark.), Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.), Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl.), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
James says:
David, I respect that you strongly disagree with the economic policies of the United States over the last twenty years (although I confess I'm entirely unclear what sharp difference you see between the last twenty years and the years just before that).
However, I'm not comfortable with the explicit comparison of national economic policy, whether wise or not, with the experience of chattel slavery and its aftermath. Americans today live in the wealthiest nation in history, with one of the highest standards of living, and are about as far from slavery as it is possible to get.
TheTruth says:
Do you feel special now, has your life changed? If it has, then more power to you.
"However, I’m not comfortable with the explicit comparison of national economic policy, whether wise or not, with the experience of chattel slavery and its aftermath. Americans today live in the wealthiest nation in history, with one of the highest standards of living, and are about as far from slavery as it is possible to get." -Amen to that James.
Senate resolution apologizes for slavery, offers no reparations | A Conversation about Race | STLtoday says:
[…] U.S. Senate today adopted a resolution offering a formal apology for slavery and the era of “separate but equal” Jim Crow laws that followed, CQ Politics […]
James says:
TheTruth, why would you think that my life would change if the nation apologizes for slavery?
And if you agree that you're privileged to live in conditions about as far removed from slavery as possible, why wouldn't you want to see the dark history that brought us to this point finally acknowledged for what it was?
Elizabeth Carroll says:
My thanks as a GRAND DAUGHTER OF SLAVES .. goes out to Sen Harkin and Lautenberg for sighning on.. I"ve written many times to all that we are ENTITLED to a formal apology and NOW definitely REPARATIONS to stem the tide of the "Living consequences……self destructive acts ensnaring our people into the NEW SLAVERY of the Prison Ind. Complex……I'm due reparations for the life threatening drugs placed in our community. Public Policies that exclude our ability to survive today.. I had to step off the curb visiting Va. relatives on threat of death…My parents/ancestor's were so valiant in the face of white terror.. REPARATIONS ARE IN ORDER TO TEACH AND PROVIDE A WAY OF PEACEFUL PURSUIT IN THIS COUNTRY.
American says:
This is just insulting that anybody alive today feels that we need to apologize for slavery. Nobody alive today in America is a slave; nobody alive today in America is a slave owner. Why then do we feel the need to apologize for something we had nothing to do with? I am Irish, I am not waiting for an apology from England… the Irish and Scottish where slaves for much longer then the Africans were in this country. If a man hits my car I am not going to go to his grandson looking for him to pay for the damages. to all those people that read my last sentence and thought "there is no comparison to slavery and your car getting hit" Yes there is… if my car gets hit today it actually happened to me, not to my ancestors. Wake up America a Black Man is president, the future is here stop living in the past.
James says:
"American," I agree with you that no one should apologize for anything they aren't responsible for. This is a debate over whether institutions which existed then, and which were complicit in that history, should issue apologies.
While I respect that you believe that our Irish and Scottish ancestors were British "slaves," I think it's important not to stretch that word beyond its dictionary definition. In particular, we're talking here about chattel slavery as practiced in this land for more than two centuries, and chattel slavery looks nothing like the treatment of the Irish or the Scots.
As for your interesting analogy between slavery and an auto accident, I think the analogy fails on two critical points:
First, if the accident was caused by a company car and an employee on company business, it might make sense to seek an apology from that company, even after the employees involved no longer work there. This is especially true if the company's actions contributed to the accident.
Second, regarding seeking damages, why wouldn't you seek damages if the accident were caused by a company? Would you be reluctant to do so, simply because the employees at fault had left the company shortly thereafter?
I'm not trying to suggest, of course, that the U.S. taxpayer should foot the bill for the harm caused by slavery. The awkward fact is, however, that the nation never even tried to make up for what had been done, and harm from slavery remains with us today, along with benefits from that institution.
American says:
But should an institution apologize for what the previous "Owner" had done? The fact of the matter remains that we as a society have evolved to the point that it seems silly to think that by saying "Sorry" will actually change anything. Women of all races are in congress, as well as Men of all Races. Is that not Proof enough that we have changed? I think it would be more appropriate if congress apologized for George Bush than slavery. His horrid mistakes we are all paying for and will continue to pay for. I am sorry if my last post seemed a little spirited, but it annoys me when people look for an excuse for a hand out. Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, Eddie Murphy, Jimmy Hendrix, Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali), all different men from different backgrounds, all men of color, all men with a different goal in mind, all men with enough sense to know that they had to work very hard for what they wanted.
James says:
But should an institution apologize for what the previous “Owner” had done?
"American," I think you raise an interesting question about what circumstances should change the need, or the desire, to apologize.
If we discovered that a company had been complicit in the Holocaust, would we accept that the company shouldn't issue an apology, because it had changed ownership? Don't we expect companies to apologize for policies which cause harm, whether auto accidents or worse, regardless of whether management or ownership has changed?
What constitutes "ownership" of a democratic political institution, like Congress or the national government? Is the U.S. under new ownership since the days of slavery, or does the nation (or "the American people") have an existence which transcends any individual's lifetime? (I'm skipping over the fact that an apology for slavery and Jim Crow includes events during the lives of many of today's Americans.)
The fact of the matter remains that we as a society have evolved to the point that it seems silly to think that by saying “Sorry” will actually change anything.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I hear from many people who believe that apologies have importance, if only as symbols or gestures which indicate remorse or a commitment to change.
After all, why is it that parents in our society almost universally insist that their children apologize for misbehaving? Do any parents skip this, arguing that "saying sorry" changes nothing?
Women of all races are in congress, as well as Men of all Races. Is that not Proof enough that we have changed?
I have to strongly disagree with you here. Our Congress does not yet look much like the American people as a whole. Moreover, there are plenty of examples of serious, widespread discrimination along racial and gender lines; merely allowing a few people to rise to positions of prominence doesn't necessarily change the lives of most ordinary people.
I am sorry if my last post seemed a little spirited, but it annoys me when people look for an excuse for a hand out.
It's quite all right that you're spirited on this topic.
However, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. The Senate apology was introduced and supported by well-to-do (and mostly white) members of Congress. I doubt they were looking for a handout of any kind.
I do think it would be wrong to suggest that those who want the nation to apologize for the harm done to slaves and to black Americans during Jim Crow are necessarily looking for a handout. An apology isn't a handout, and doesn't imply one.
If you're worried about reparations for slavery, then please ask yourself why. Do you think that an apology implies that reparations are due? If so, then that's your argument that something is owed; you can't attribute it to anyone else. Many, if not most, supporters of an apology aren't supporters of slavery reparations (and in many cases, aren't black, so they surely aren't looking for a handout).
Those who do support reparations, meanwhile, would argue that asking for compensation for wrongdoing isn't asking for a "hand out," any more than the victim of an ordinary crime or negligent act is looking for a handout by asking for compensation.
Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, Eddie Murphy, Jimmy Hendrix, Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) … all men with enough sense to know that they had to work very hard for what they wanted.
You name five men who have identified themselves as black or of mixed race, and four of the five were entertainers or professional athletes. These are two rare fields in which black Americans can, with incredible skill or luck, attain significant career success. Not everyone is born with such athletic ability, or skill as a performer, that they can achieve such stunning success (usually at an early age and without facing many hurdles other than merit).
In most fields, there is still demonstrable discrimination or the lingering impact of past discrimination, which is why it is not enough to suggest that if blacks simply "work very hard," they can necessarily expect to attain what white people will with the same effort.
American says:
Let me start by saying that this is a fantastic discussion we are having, and you have a lot of strong points "James".
"If we discovered that a company had been complicit in the Holocaust, would we accept that the company shouldn’t issue an apology, because it had changed ownership? Don’t we expect companies to apologize for policies which cause harm, whether auto accidents or worse, regardless of whether management or ownership has changed?"
I am in a family company, and even though our company has grown and changed over the years we are still the same family. Now if my grandfather had an employee 60 years ago and for whatever reason that man never picked up his last check. Then that man moved away and died, and today his grandson discovers that his grandfather never received his last paycheck. Do I have to give this kid money? If I do, do I account for inflation? Is the money actually owed to the family of the man that worked? Or is it owed to the man that worked? If the money is indeed owed to the family of the man that worked, then we really need to rethink the "death tax" in this country. My point here is, where does the circle of "who owes what to whom" become complete.
"After all, why is it that parents in our society almost universally insist that their children apologize for misbehaving? Do any parents skip this, arguing that “saying sorry” changes nothing?"
No you missed the point there allow me to clarify. Parents insist that children apologize for what they do, not for what the parents themselves have done. Will saying sorry for what someone else had done be acceptable? Should we apologize to the people of Mexico because they do not have the quality of life Americans do? Being sorry and owning up to what you have done is a hard but necessary thing. But being sorry and apologizing for what had been done by people that have died long before I was born just seems silly.
"Our Congress does not yet look much like the American people as a whole. Moreover, there are plenty of examples of serious, widespread discrimination along racial and gender lines; merely allowing a few people to rise to positions of prominence doesn’t necessarily change the lives of most ordinary people."
Yet when we "ordinary people" go to get a job, a scholarship, or even a house it seems as if it is harder if you are a white male. Companies are forced to hire minorities and women not because they will produce better, or will make the company more money, but because it is fair. Again family company as I stated before, my father was low bidder on a 10 year contract, but because he was only a marginal percentage lower than a minority based company, they were awarded the contract. How is that fair?
“The Senate apology was introduced and supported by well-to-do (and mostly white) members of Congress. I doubt they were looking for a handout of any kind."
That is because they want the black vote, not because they think it is a good idea.
*Quoted from James* "If you’re worried about reparations for slavery, then please ask yourself why. Do you think that an apology implies that reparations are due? If so, then that’s your argument that something is owed; you can’t attribute it to anyone else. Many, if not most, supporters of an apology aren’t supporters of slavery reparations (and in many cases, aren’t black, so they surely aren’t looking for a handout)."
*Quoted from Elizabeth Carroll* "My parents/ancestor’s were so valiant in the face of white terror… REPARATIONS ARE IN ORDER TO TEACH AND PROVIDE A WAY OF PEACEFUL PURSUIT IN THIS COUNTRY."
Hmmm…
"Those who do support reparations, meanwhile, would argue that asking for compensation for wrongdoing isn’t asking for a “hand out,” any more than the victim of an ordinary crime or negligent act is looking for a handout by asking for compensation."
Again the question here is time. Compensation for something not done to you is a handout.
"In most fields, there is still demonstrable discrimination or the lingering impact of past discrimination, which is why it is not enough to suggest that if blacks simply “work very hard,” they can necessarily expect to attain what white people will with the same effort."
I agree with you here. Blacks that work just as hard as whites can't expect to obtain what whites do. They can expect more because they, by law, have to be hired if the company does not have enough minorities. In this country you are allowed to have a company, or even make a movie, with just Blacks, with just Spanish, with just Asian, but not with just whites.
The leg up you get, and the tax breaks you get for being a minority are apology enough. How much more should be given? Does it stop? Will it stop? How much till we feel better about what happened, and how much till the blacks are satisfied? What about the white people in the north who helped with the Underground Railroad? Do they need an apology for apologizing?
When it all comes down to it this argument only serves to further separate the races of our country. We should be working together to better American lives, not black, not Asian, not white, not Spanish… American.
James says:
Do I have to give this kid money?
I think we're in a very different area when we shift from apologies to compensation.
Here, we might ask a couple of questions: Does your company still retain the money which was owed to the employee? Do his heirs deserve his rightful compensation? Does your company deserve a degree of finality in its financial affairs, so that it doesn't experience undue surprises?
In your hypothetical, your company does indeed retain money it was never entitled to. You raise the legitimate issue of whether his heirs are entitled to his earnings, and I would suggest that the answer, in general, is "yes." Certainly his heirs are, as a matter of law and practice, entitled to his earnings and other resources if less time has passed. So the fact that so much time has passed is relevant, but I don't see how his heirs have any less claim that if he were alive.
The critical issue, in my view, is whether this matter ought to be closed because so much time has passed. In the law, there are long-standing doctrines of this nature, to prevent lawsuits from unsettling the affairs of people and companies and from proceeding when witnesses are dead or their memories dimmed and, perhaps, other intervening events have lessened a claim or complicated the issue.
This is why reparations for slavery is such a difficult issue, and why I think it is far more complicated than the issue of apologies we've been discussing here.
Parents insist that children apologize for what they do, not for what the parents themselves have done.
With all due respect, I think you're the one who's missed the point.
The U.S. Congress, and the nation, as institutions were, in fact, responsible for terrible wrongdoing in regard to slavery and Jim Crow discrimination.
Now, if you want to argue that you believe it's unfair for institutions to apologize for what they've done, if so much time has passed that the people involved in those institutions are different, then that's fine. Maybe your objection is even that you feel it seems to much like individuals who weren't responsible are apologizing, when the institutions to which they belong issue apologies.
I think it's important to be clear, however, that no individual is being asked to apologize, and no person or entity is apologizing for anything they didn't do.
How is that fair?
I don't believe it is fair.
I believe that affirmative action, even if it is necessary at this time, raises substantial, competing issues of fairness. There is simply no way to provide perfect fairness to all individuals involved if we are attempting to compensate for generations of disadvantage by advantaging individuals on the basis of race.
However, it's important to note that the unfairness in individual cases doesn't mean that blacks are in the advantageous position. In fact, black families have been held back in this country for centuries, and few black citizens are in the same position they would be without racial discrimination.
The fact that necessarily crude measures like affirmative action aren't always fair to the white people involved, doesn't mean that blacks as a whole have it easier than whites these days. In fact, the statistics show dramatically that affirmative action and similar programs have scarcely made a dent in racial disparities in this country.
Hmmm…
The fact that one person supports an apology and reparations hardly means that the one implies the other.
Compensation for something not done to you is a handout.
Not at all. We pay compensation to the families of victims all the time, for a variety of reasons–none of which are considered to amount to handouts.
I realize it's a harder case when several generations have passed. However, most reparations proposals have nothing to do with paying black citizens today for the suffering of their ancestors. Instead, those proposals are about compensating people today for the consequences of that history which impact them today.
Blacks that work just as hard as whites can’t expect to obtain what whites do. They can expect more ….
This is patently untrue, and I wish you would glance at the research before making such a statement.
Despite all the right-wing talk radio complaints, blacks still face enormous discrimination in hiring, promotions, and salaries. In cases where pay is either not tied to how hard employees work, or where output or performance reviews are equal, blacks still earn considerably less and are less able to be hired or promoted.
They can expect more because they, by law, have to be hired if the company does not have enough minorities.
Simply doing that would be a violation of federal law. This is one of the many myths about affirmative action (along with the idea that affirmative action primarily benefits blacks, which isn't even remotely true) which cloud these discussions.
What about the white people in the north who helped with the Underground Railroad? Do they need an apology for apologizing?
The tiny minority of people who helped with the Underground Railroad are long dead, but they certainly deserved all the praise they could receive.
Again, though, no individual alive or dead is being asked to apologize for anything.
We should be working together to better American lives, not black, not Asian, not white, not Spanish… American.
I couldn't agree more. However, our starting point today is one in which not everyone has the same resources or opportunities, and this is because of our nation's past actions. If we were simply to blind ourselves to race entirely, we know that for many generations to come, those families that have benefited from this history would continue to benefit.
There are hard questions about whether anything can be done about this fact and whether those actions would be appropriate. But the first step is to acknowledge this truth, and not to deny it with talk about not being divisive or that if we treat everyone equally from now on, everyone will magically have the same opportunities.
American says:
"This is why reparations for slavery is such a difficult issue, and why I think it is far more complicated than the issue of apologies we’ve been discussing here."
Very true, I agree lets get back to the topic at hand.
"However, our starting point today is one in which not everyone has the same resources or opportunities, and this is because of our nation’s past actions."
Not entirely true, our nation is a melting pot. That is the reason everyone does not start at the same level. All people that start over in another country have to build themselves up. To think that all people should be on the same level is communism I believe.
"If we were simply to blind ourselves to race entirely, we know that for many generations to come, those families that have benefited from this history would continue to benefit."
So rich families stay rich and poor families stay poor. This is true no matter what race or time period you are talking about. To work hard and surpass your forefather’s level should be the goal of everyone everywhere.
"But the first step is to acknowledge this truth and not to deny it with talk about not being divisive or that if we treat everyone equally from now on, everyone will magically have the same opportunities."
The truth is not being denied. We all know slaves were in this country and it was a horrible and tragic thing that was done. However if we treat everyone equally they definitely will not have the same opportunities and that has nothing to do with race. There are poor in every race, always has been always will be.
If I truly believed that an apology from congress would change anything I would say go for it. If then all the race issues would melt away great, I'll even get in line to apologize. It won't stop though; we are diversified because we want to be. Because people are afraid of what they are not. The only way to bridge the gap between the races is by individuals doing the right thing even if it is against their better judgment or character. (See the movie Gran Torino)
The main reason I am against the apology is that I believe the issue will not be dropped there. There will be some other thing to jump on in the name of black fairness. Yes it is a constant battle, and leaps and bounds have been made in the name of black fairness, things did need to change and have changed greatly. Racism is always going to exist though and in every race, that is just human nature that is never going to change.
I do not want one more thing that the races are at each other’s throats about.
James says:
Not entirely true, our nation is a melting pot.
I didn't mean to imply that the experience of immigration doesn't affect people's resources and opportunities. Lots of things do that, including the talents people are born with, and pure luck, too.
However, it's entirely true that our nation's sorry history of racial discrimination has dramatically affected people's opportunities, and that's the issue here. For instance, those immigrants who had to "start over" often came with basic education or a little savings, and even those who came with nothing faced far fewer barriers than black families at the time.
So rich families stay rich and poor families stay poor. This is true no matter what race or time period you are talking about.
There are two issues here. First, there is still plenty of racial prejudice left in employment, education, and other areas. Things are better, but far from equal. This means that poor black families face obstacles that poor white families do not, and simply working hard won't usually cut it.
Second, the issue at hand is that in the case of race, black families today tend to have far less than white families, because of our nation's past wrongdoing. You can believe that this should be addressed, or not, but you seem to be dismissing it out of hand, or lumping it in with the fact that some families simply prosper more than others.
The truth is not being denied. We all know slaves were in this country and it was a horrible and tragic thing that was done.
Yet every time I point out the second half of this equation, that these horrible and tragic past events cause real injustice for millions of American families today, you object and start talking about other issues–like the fact that there are other sources of injustice or unfairness in life, too.
Can you see how that sounds like you're unwilling to acknowledge the second half of the equation? Or that you want nothing to be done about it, but aren't quite willing to say that American citizens need to accept the harm that their country has done to them without complaint? I'm not endorsing reparations as a practical or fair solution, but neither do I see a reason to object when people point out that there is an unresolved injustice here.
There are poor in every race, always has been always will be.
Yes. But if, say, the government reduces an American family to poverty through wrongdoing, don't we usually allow that family to seek compensation for their loss?
We never say "oh, well, there are always going to be poor people. Now you're among them."
The main reason I am against the apology is that I believe the issue will not be dropped there.
What issue? The issue of our history and the racial injustice it has caused? I would imagine not, since an apology, whatever else it might do, would not magically fix the legacy of slavery and discrimination.
I do not want one more thing that the races are at each other’s throats about.
I don't think that any of us do. Are you suggesting that a simple apology for our nation's past wrongs would cause the races to be "at each other's throats"? Are you suggesting that it would be so divisive to seek racial justice that we should back off that effort?
American says:
Are you suggesting that it would be so divisive to seek racial justice that we should back off that effort?"
Please tell me because I do not seem to understand the term "racial justice". What is your take on it? What does it really mean to someone with your views?
To me it seems to mean that a simple apology will not fix. To me it sounds like now the whites should become slaves because the blacks used to be and now seek justice. Now I might be a total moron and an ignorant man, but to me there will never be "racial justice", only a level of agnostic individuals fighting for false hope.
"Are you suggesting that a simple apology for our nation’s past wrongs would cause the races to be “at each other’s throats”? “
No. I am saying that the apology will not be the end. It will mealy be the beginning. When congress apologizes it will open the flood gates and everyone that believes they are owed something will have more of a reason to fight for it. "Well they admitted to being wrong so where is my real compensation?" Saying sorry is not enough for people, they want something real. It will bring the races at each other’s throats because it will serve as a wedge dividing us further, not bringing us closer, and is that not the whole point of an apology in the first place? To acknowledge that we as a nation made a terrible error, we are sorry; now let’s move on to bigger and better things. I would love for us to be able to, as a nation, put this to rest and create a country we can be proud of again, to be able to have a nation where everyone is really equal, to have a nation of Americans fighting for the American dream. I guess we are not allowed to have a strong country anymore though. We have to apologize for everything we have ever done. Sorry for leavening England my queen (even though you made it imposable to stay), sorry for the bombing Hiroshima (even though you attacked first), sorry for having black slaves (even though blacks were purchased from other black kings), sorry for being born a white male (apparently I am the enemy and did not know it),sorry for being an American.
American says:
I live in the nation that when a white man said a racial slur he lost his job, yet blacks who yell and scream the "N" word get rich off of racial slurs. A nation that when a black man talks about how great his race is he becomes a hero, when a white man talks about how great his race is he is a raciest. You want "racial justice"??? How delusional are you?
James says:
Please tell me because I do not seem to understand the term “racial justice”. What is your take on it?
It's a broad term, and in this case, I was using it to refer to the inequities and injustices which have resulted from our nation's history of slavery and racial discrimination, and which you seemed to be saying we shouldn't address because of the issue's divisiveness.
To me it seems to mean that a simple apology will not fix.
I certainly agree that a simple apology will not fix racial injustice in this country.
To me it sounds like now the whites should become slaves because the blacks used to be and now seek justice.
Where do you get that idea? Who seems to be calling for white people to be enslaved, or even to be punished in any way as a means of obtaining "justice"? It's one thing to say that justice is done when wrongs are compensated for, but quite another to even suggest that people should be punished for something they haven't done.
Now I might be a total moron and an ignorant man, but to me there will never be “racial justice”
Okay, let's stipulate that there can never be racial justice, by which I assume you mean that we can never perfectly undo the harm that our nation has done on the basis of race.
So what? Does that mean we don't try? That we ignore the issue? That we avoid any acknowledgment of the problem?
I am saying that the apology will not be the end. It will mealy be the beginning.
Are you saying, then, that it would be an apology which would unleash this outpouring of support for racial justice, which you believe would be so divisive and so terrible for our country?
If so, is that really an argument against an apology?
“Well they admitted to being wrong so where is my real compensation?”
I fail to see how that's likely, or would get anywhere at all.
Unless, of course, there's a sound basis for arguing that the wrong was genuine, and that there is still harm for which compensation is appropriate.
In that case, however, I once again fail to see that this is an argument against apologizing. Quite the contrary, in fact.
It will bring the races at each other’s throats because it will serve as a wedge dividing us further, not bringing us closer
Do you not believe that addressing this injustice will ultimately bring the races closer together? Or does your argument hinge on an unspoken belief that these claims would be entirely invalid, rather than having some validity that could be addressed and worked out?
To acknowledge that we as a nation made a terrible error, we are sorry; now let’s move on to bigger and better things.
I think you're saying that you believe the nation should acknowledge its wrongs, but that you don't believe it should try to do anything about them.
If so, our disagreement may simply lie in my unwillingness to dismiss, out of hand, any desire to address the consequences. I fail to see how that's necessarily just, and I certainly don't see how that would, in fact, bring us closer together.
You say, for instance, that you want us to finally become "a nation where everyone is really equal." How do we do that without addressing the injustices of the past, which have left such inequality today? Or do you mean merely the type of equality in which we can say that black Americans have been disadvantaged by their nation's past racism, but that they should simply accept those disadvantages because they will now be treated equally?
I guess we are not allowed to have a strong country anymore though. We have to apologize for everything we have ever done.
Do you really believe that a strong country is one which doesn't acknowledge its wrongdoing, and doesn't try to change?
That's certainly not how we understand what makes a strong individual, am I right?
sorry for having black slaves (even though blacks were purchased from other black kings)
Are you actually suggesting that we shouldn't be sorry, or shouldn't bother saying so, because OTHER PEOPLE also committed misdeeds?
I hate to go back to the argument about how we raise children, but I seem to recall something about "two wrongs don't make a right."
sorry for being born a white male (apparently I am the enemy and did not know it)
I don't know what in this discussion makes you think that anyone wants you to apologize for your race.
Isn't that the whole point? To get people past this nonsense in which they see race as significant? In which you feel as though an apology from the nation somehow implicates you because of your race? In which you see it as significant, not that other people were involved in slavery, but what race they were (your belief that it's important that "black" people were involved in slavery)?
James says:
I live in the nation that when a white man said a racial slur he lost his job, yet blacks who yell and scream the “N” word get rich off of racial slurs.
Yes, you do live in that nation. Thank goodness.
Do you really believe that an entertainer shouldn't be fired if his listeners are offended by his patently racist slurs against young people?
Now, I'm not defending the use of the "n-word" by musicians, which seems to be what you're referring to. However, if they're using the word not to offend on racial lines, but to critique their society, that's their business. If their listeners find their words to be appropriate, or even a trenchant commentary on their own lives, then so be it.
You're not talking about the use of the "n-word" by a white person in an innocent context, or one in which he is making an appropriate social commentary involving race. You're talking about a situation in which he said terrible, hateful things about innocent young people, and he was understandably fired for doing so.
A nation that when a black man talks about how great his race is he becomes a hero, when a white man talks about how great his race is he is a raciest.
Who are you talking about? I can't recall any black heroes who have suggested that white people are inferior.
Now, I'll grant you that there are fine lines here. For a member of a disadvantaged minority to seek to have people respect that minority, and to generate pride among the members of that minority, to dispel hateful myths about them, is a good thing. For a member of an advantaged majority to seek to promote his race to the exclusion of other races is not, and is the very definition of "racist."
However, there's nothing wrong with emphasizing that white people shouldn't feel badly about themselves, just as there is something very wrong with suggesting that black people are somehow superior racially.
You want “racial justice”??? How delusional are you?
How do these examples you've cited indicate that it would be wrong to seek racial justice?
The statistics show that black families in this country have never recovered from slavery and the Jim Crow century, and that they face quite a bit of discrimination even today.
Against this, you want to set society's relative tolerance for black people to promote black pride, and relative intolerance for white people who spout racial hatred?
American says:
Satistics? You can't follow satistics, I find it hard to belive that seven out of ten people don't know that 73% of all satistics are just made up anyway.
"Who are you talking about? I can’t recall any black heroes who have suggested that white people are inferior."
No? Nobody at all? How quickley we forget of our President's former Pastor, or does he not count?
James says:
You can’t follow satistics
I think the research in this area is quite sound, and all points in the same direction.
How quickley we forget of our President’s former Pastor, or does he not count?
You consider him to be a black hero? I'm quite surprised.
American says:
"You consider him to be a black hero? I’m quite surprised."
I did not think you would either he is still alive, however if tommarrow he dies then he will rise to hero status just as a sick demented child molester did earlier this week.
How is this for a statistic, when minorities of a society are a majority of our prison system, but that is because they were slaves right? Not because of life choices they have made, but because of their cast in life since birth.
James says:
If Rev. Wright is ever elevated to the status of a hero in the minds of most people, then we can talk about what you think of that status. In the meantime, as you say, he hasn't been given that status yet, and I see no signs that it's going to happen.
As for Michael Jackson, he was an alleged child molester, that's true. He was also acquitted, and I'm not in a position to judge those verdicts. It sounds like the evidence was highly suggestive, but ambiguous.
In any event, he was also the most successful pop star in history, and I believe his undeniable talent and fame are what people have been celebrating.
minorities of a society are a majority of our prison system, but that is because they were slaves right?
First of all, let's get the statistic right: Blacks are a minority in U.S. prisons. All minorities, put together, are still a minority in U.S. prisons. The majority of U.S. prisoners are, in fact, white.
However, it's undeniable that blacks are disproportionately represented in our prisons. The question you raise is, why?
Does it have something to do with the racial injustice which we can still observe in the justice system? Yes.
Does it have something to do with the legacy of poverty, lack of opportunity and community institutions, despair and mistrust in mainstream institutions with which our nation's history of slavery and racial discrimination has left us? Yes.
Does it have something to do with values? Yes.
On the last cause, which seems to be what you want to focus on, where do you think that comes from?
We know that young people from poor urban neighborhoods tend to have similar attitudes towards issues like work and crime, regardless of their race. So part of this is surely a simple matter of extrapolating from the fact that blacks in this country are disproportionately poor and segregated into urban neighborhoods.
We also know that to the extent that young people in black communities are more likely to exhibit values which result in criminal behavior, rather than productive citizenship, those values must come from somewhere. If you don't believe that this is the result of inherent racial differences (which I assume you don't), and you don't believe that it stems from the impact of our long history of racial discrimination on cultural attitudes, then what do you believe is the source?
American says:
That was what I was waiting for, an actual answer, not just a cop-out "white man keeping the black man down" excuse. You have convinced me James, this is not an apology but more of an acknowledgement. We can't possibly apologize for what was done, none of us lived it so we really have no idea what went on. You stuck to your guns while I played Devil's advocate, all of your points are very valid while mine were more emotional. My original post was not meant to start a debate, but as long as we were having one I was happy to play.
You really have convinced me though, that is no game. You convinced me that this is not about an apology; it is about a way of thinking. This apology needs to happen in order for us to have a strong America once again. It is not a typical apology, more of a realization of a bad choice made years ago that still impacts the families of the people whom the decision had hurt. It is a realization of the fact that we really do hold these truths to be self evident, that all people are created equal.
As long as we are on the topic of apologizing, I would like to apologize to James. Some of the things I said were designed to shock and upset you, to bring you off topic and distract you. You never faltered and all of your points where very thought out and valid. Job well done James, I was waiting to hear things such as "white terror, white supremacy" and that was the whole reason for the apology. Not the case though as you have enlightened me of the deeper reasoning behind the apology. The fact that it is called an apology is confusing though, so that is why I posted my first post.
James, thank you. You have taught me that there are people that take time to think, not just react. Too many people just want to react like everything in this crazy mixed up world is a crisis. You have taught me a different way to look at a situation and view it with all hearts and minds, not just my own. I hope to see he bill pass and I hope that more people think as you do James.
my name is joshuwa h says:
iam a descendants of this force intergreation slavery we must be given are promise from god is to have a place on earth to first call home, the now call africa america wont say this but this is there answer a place here in america govern in the intrest of a demise people jail and kill job less three time more then any one people strip from a land to slave reparation for the better we the people stand in are true independnce not out hate yet self for the better of the world and america.joshuwa havilah
Ruth Naomi King (wal says:
My Great-Grandmother lived in Savannah Georgia Her name was Irene Walker, my Great-Grandfathers name was William Walker. 1n 1923 after the death of her mother they moved to Philadelphia. I am told that my Great-Great-grandmom was a slave. I ask myself how would she feel about this? "I don't know" however I am told that she had a beautiful heart. So on her behalf I will say this:
I Thankyou for your kind words
I Thank you for your truth
I appreciate your acknowledgement of all we went through
I forgive you for all wrongs, because God says I should
So… To the United States
May God bless you and those you love.
Bipartisan Senate resolution apologizing for slavery and racism introduced | Tom DeWolf says:
[…] passed a similar resolution last July, but my understanding of a concurrent resolution (thanks, James!) is that this bill will be voted on by both the Senate and the House and, if approved, would […]