NationStates Jolt Archive

From the AP:

ATLANTA - Georgia's governor sounded skeptical Monday about issuing a public apology for slavery, an idea that got a boost last week with the support of a Republican leader.

"Repentance comes from the heart,'' Gov. Sonny Perdue said Monday. "I'm not sure about public apologies on behalf of other people as far as the motivation for them.''

Lawmakers planned to unveil a measure later Monday that would acknowledge and apologize for Georgia's role in the slave trade.

The move comes as Georgia considers a measure that would officially designate April as Confederate History and Heritage Month. On Monday, members of the Georgia arm of the NAACP were at the Capitol lobbying. The apology measure also has the backing of Republican state Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson.

Perdue said he would watch what lawmakers do, but he cast the issue as a personal one and said the state should look forward, not back.

"I haven't run across anyone in Georgia who is not regretful and repentant of man's inhumanity when you talk about owning one another,'' the Republican governor said.

"Those of us in public office today, I think we're called to live our lives and inspire our citizens to live their lives so that our children and grandchildren have nothing to apologize for,'' Perdue said.

Virginia lawmakers last month passed a resolution expressing "profound regret'' over slavery. Maryland's state Senate approved an apology resolution Friday, and lawmakers in Missouri and Congress have proposed similar measures.

Note the bolded parts.

Sickening that there can still be politicians who consider apologizing for slavery to be politically unsafe.

From the AP:



Note the bolded parts.

Sickening that there can still be politicians who consider apologizing for slavery to be politically unsafe.



when are African tribes who sold their criminals or their defeated opponents into slavery going to apologize?

He isn't worried about political repercussions. Georgia is a firmly Republican state and Sonny can't run again for Governor.

But what does an apology for slavery get you? Just the sick feeling that you've caved in to a bunch of professional victims. Does it buy ancestors of slaves anything? Of course not. Does it do a single solitary thing for the day-to-day plight of poor, under-educated black Georgians? No, that's something that takes real work. Does it do anything for the blacks, who either commit or are victims of most of the crime in Georgia. No, again. That takes real work, too.

All this apology represents is that a predominantly white legislature could be brow-beaten into feeling guilty about a grievous period of history. There is nothing but show and unneeded show at that.

when are African tribes who sold their criminals or their defeated opponents into slavery going to apologize?
Or the European traders? When will they apologize?

Or the European traders? When will they apologize?

and the Arabs that continue it all but officially to this day?

From the AP:



Note the bolded parts.

Sickening that there can still be politicians who consider apologizing for slavery to be politically unsafe.

Sickening that there are those of us who would hold the modern white man accountable for what his ancestors did one-hundred-and-forty-two-years ago.

Why should they apologize again? It was like 200 years ago and no one alive was a slave or owned any. Time to bury the hatchet and move on me thinks.

and the Arabs that continue it all but officially to this day?
Apparently, white Southern politicians are the only ones that can be shamed into apologizing for something that they had no dealings in. I think we can blame this on Bill Clinton, too. He started the ball rolling with apologies to Uganda for American mistakes in Africa, as well as to the American Indians. Or maybe the other way 'round.

Note the bolded parts.

Sickening that there can still be politicians who consider apologizing for slavery to be politically unsafe.

While I think that celebrating a history of slave owning is rather 'off' I do think it is reasonable to not apologise for somethign that you have not had any involvement in.

I don't apologise to murder victims families for the actions of the murderer. I will have sympathy for them, I will be sorry to hear the news and I will think it is a terrible thing, but I do not see why I should apologise.

I do not apologise for actions of my grandparents - I can say I do not like them, but I can see no reason I am responsible for things that they may have done before I was born (they have not done anything questionable AFAIK).

I do not expect an apology from a Japanese kid for the treatment of my some of my ancestors in POW camps during WW2 - an event he/she would have had no involvement in and no control over.

I think this is particulary relevent in the US where a huge portion of the population on whose behalf the apology will be coming are not even descended from people who owned slaves, or even had ancestors in the US while slavery was still legal.

Why should anyone apologise for something they did not do, had no involvement in and no control over? Particulary when the people they are apologising to were not the ones who had those things done to them.

I don’t think these are meant to be personal apologies, or apologies from the legislators themselves. They’re more meant to be symbolic actions, that the state has repudiated and felt regret for actions it once sanctioned.

Sickening that there can still be politicians who consider apologizing for slavery to be politically unsafe.

Personally, I've always been amazed that someone like Perdue managed to get into office, not once, but twice.

I don’t think these are meant to be personal apologies, or apologies from the legislators themselves. They’re more meant to be symbolic actions, that the state has repudiated and felt regret for actions it once sanctioned.

Nobody's alive from that era. Nobody. Let's let bygones be bygones already.

Virginia lawmakers last month passed a resolution expressing "profound regret'' over slavery. Maryland's state Senate approved an apology resolution Friday, and lawmakers in Missouri and Congress have proposed similar measures.

sweet, progress

when are African tribes who sold their criminals or their defeated opponents into slavery going to apologize?
Just because they haven't doesn't mean nobody else should.

Nobody's alive from that era. Nobody. Let's let bygones be bygones already.

except for all them large and powerful institutions. like the state of georgia.

and the first step in letting bygones be bygones is admitting wrongs and dealing with them. you aren't advocating that, you are advocating the "too bad for you, suckers" approach. which is especially fucked up considering the wrongs are still dramatically enacted to this very day.

I don’t think these are meant to be personal apologies, or apologies from the legislators themselves. They’re more meant to be symbolic actions, that the state has repudiated and felt regret for actions it once sanctioned.

why that's just crazy talk

except for all them large and powerful institutions. like the state of georgia.

and the first step in letting bygones be bygones is admitting wrongs and dealing with them. you aren't advocating that, you are advocating the "too bad for you, suckers" approach. which is especially fucked up considering the wrongs are still dramatically enacted to this very day.
Since you are clearly pleased by this so-called apology, you tell me who or what it helps.

when are African tribes who sold their criminals or their defeated opponents into slavery going to apologize?

how many of them are still in existance?

And to Myr, how many of those slave traders are still alive?

Since you are clearly pleased by this so-called apology, you tell me who or what it helps.

since you are so clearly bothered by this apology, you tell me who or what it harms.

Nobody's alive from that era.

Last time I checked, Georgia and Virginia are still around.

how many of them are still in existance?

And to Myr, how many of those slave traders are still alive?
As many as slave owners and slaves, I believe. The point is that their descendants should apologize, as should the nations that sponsored the trading. Or we could just call Bullshit and be done with it.

As many as slave owners and slaves, I believe. The point is that their descendants should apologize, as should the nations that sponsored the trading. Or we could just call Bullshit and be done with it.

I'm unaware of anyone's decendants apologizing for anything. Please show me where that happened.

since you are so clearly bothered by this apology, you tell me who or what it harms.
I think it harms the people that it claims to benefit by glossing over real problems with a pat apology. Read my first post. Those are the people that are supposed to appreciate the apology, but they're also the ones that need the most in material terms.

I'm unaware of anyone's decendants apologizing for anything. Please show me where that happened.
The Commonwealth of Virginia, for one.

Since you are clearly pleased by this so-called apology, you tell me who or what it helps.

it helps the process of maybe actually fixing the damn problem. i know this is shocking, but wronged parties generally feel that the wronger has an obligation to at the very least acknowledge that they did harm and apologize for it. it is the basic starting ground from which the process of reconciliation can build.

since you are so clearly bothered by this apology, you tell me who or what it harms.

racist fucktards, mainly

it helps the process of maybe actually fixing the damn problem. i know this is shocking, but wronged parties generally feel that the wronger has an obligation to at the very least acknowledge that they did harm and apologize for it. it is the basic starting ground from which the process of reconciliation can build.
What damned problem? Slavery was abolished. A war was fought. Slaves were freed. Problem solved. There are no living wronged parties. There are no living parties that caused the wrongs. There are however, plenty of problems that have nothing to do with slavery and are being bypassed by the effort that it takes to address this mythical one.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, for one.

I'm unaware that the Commonwealth of Virginia is a decendant of anyone. For that matter I was unaware the Commonwealth of Virginia even qualifies as a "someone"

What damned problem? Slavery was abolished. A war was fought. Slaves were freed. Problem solved. There are no living wronged parties.

some day i'd like to see the universe you people live in. it seems to be very different from mine.

What damned problem? Slavery was abolished. A war was fought. Slaves were freed. Problem solved. There are no living wronged parties. There are no living parties that caused the wrongs. There are however, plenty of problems that have nothing to do with slavery and are being bypassed by the effort that it takes to address this mythical one.
Effort? How much effort does it take to introduce a resolution apologizing for something?

Meanwhile, they're expending much more effort dedicating an entire month to the history of the Confederacy. Who does that help, huh? How is that "looking forward"? Why is it abhorrent to apologize for past crimes, but fine to commemorate the people who helped to perpetrate those crimes?

Why is an apology for slavery needed? Didn't we outlaw it? That is an apology right there admitting it was wrong and making it illegal. Now we are supposed to say "so sorry" for something that happened generations ago? Better off apologizing for continuing racism and discrimination to this day. That is something going on today so that apology would make much more sense.

From the AP:



Note the bolded parts.

Sickening that there can still be politicians who consider apologizing for slavery to be politically unsafe.

I consider it stupid. No one alive has benefited directly from slavery. Get the fuck over it already. Yeah you got screwed, but guess what, it was your fellows who sold you into irons to begin with.

Effort? How much effort does it take to introduce a resolution apologizing for something?

Meanwhile, they're expending much more effort dedicating an entire month to the history of the Confederacy. Who does that help, huh? How is that "looking forward"? Why is it abhorrent to apologize for past crimes, but fine to commemorate the people who helped to perpetrate those crimes?

And what about Black History Month? Who does that help, huh?

Come on now. The point, plain and simple, is that an apology does nothing. There is no slavery in America. It was abolished. There is no segregation in America, it was ruled unconstitutional and abolished. What then will apologizing for something that happened over 140 years ago do?

The ONLY reason that the NAACP is pushing for this is to try and exert political power over the government. If the government caves into this demand, they'll cave into more demands.

The NAACP is a racist organization that tries to achieve political power through guilt. Guilt that no one alive today in America is responsible for.
Now, who is worse? The governor who won't give an empty, meaningless apology being demanded by a racist organization? Or the racist organization that is trying to utlize guilt over African-American history to achieve thier own political goals?

I don't know about you, but I think that the NAACP, trying to USE the African-American populace is far more corrupt and vile to America than a governor who refuses to offer the empty, meaningless apology those same corrupt lobbyists are demanding.

Why is an apology for slavery needed? Didn't we outlaw it? That is an apology right there admitting it was wrong and making it illegal. Now we are supposed to say "so sorry" for something that happened generations ago? Better off apologizing for continuing racism and discrimination to this day. That is something going on today so that apology would make much more sense.
Georgia did not outlaw slavery. The US federal government did, over the objections of the Confederate states. Since Georgia and the rest supported the institution of slavery, and had its banishment imposed on them, they never really apologized for anything. They have in some sense failed to express their regret for their actions. By introducing this resolution, the state of Georgia is, for the first time, admitting that its official support of slavery was wrong.

I feel that apologies like these are similar to excising racist language from state laws. They may not have any real effect, but they're still painful reminders of slavery that need to be addressed.

since you are so clearly bothered by this apology, you tell me who or what it harms.

I'm not bothered by this apology...I just think it's stupid. Sorry for having an opinion, buddy. The fact of the matter is, the slaves are dead. The slave owners are dead. And even if they weren't, what does an apology do? Sorry for enslaving you? Come again? The whole idea is moronic, and while I don't oppose it, the original thread starter said something I thought was funny.

Sickening that there can still be politicians who consider apologizing for slavery to be politically unsafe.

The article says nothing of apologizing being politically unsafe. Where you would draw this conclusion beats the fuck outta me. How is it politically unsafe to apologize for slavery? Explain this one to me. Wait, don't. Because the governor said specifically why he's got a problem apologizing...it's precisely the same reason everyone's arguing with you in this thread. Because it's in the past! It doesn't matter anymore! DUH.

Last time I checked, Georgia and Virginia are still around.

I'm unaware that the Commonwealth of Virginia is a decendant of anyone. For that matter I was unaware the Commonwealth of Virginia even qualifies as a "someone

Hm. I say there's nobody alive from that era. You tell me Georgia and Virginia are. Than you follow that up with the gem of a quote above me. To borrow from your own quote, Georgia and Virginia are not people. They are states.

Bottom line? The governor debatin whether this is a good idea or not isn't "sickening" or "racist". It's common sense.

I consider it stupid. No one alive has benefited directly from slavery. Get the fuck over it already. Yeah you got screwed, but guess what, it was your fellows who sold you into irons to begin with.
I'm not black. Just saying.

And what about Black History Month? Who does that help, huh?
I was just saying that it was hypocritical for them to advocate "looking forward" while planning a Confederate history month.

Come on now. The point, plain and simple, is that an apology does nothing. There is no slavery in America. It was abolished. There is no segregation in America, it was ruled unconstitutional and abolished. What then will apologizing for something that happened over 140 years ago do?
See my other post.

Effort? How much effort does it take to introduce a resolution apologizing for something?

Meanwhile, they're expending much more effort dedicating an entire month to the history of the Confederacy. Who does that help, huh? How is that "looking forward"? Why is it abhorrent to apologize for past crimes, but fine to commemorate the people who helped to perpetrate those crimes?

Is this where you shift the topic, so we're no longer arguing the original thesis? Sorry, not biting. Start a new thread for that one.

See my other post.

You've made quite a few...?

But seriously now, let's respond to the second part. About WHY there is a demand for apology? Don't remember? I'll quote it for you:

The ONLY reason that the NAACP is pushing for this is to try and exert political power over the government. If the government caves into this demand, they'll cave into more demands.

The NAACP is a racist organization that tries to achieve political power through guilt. Guilt that no one alive today in America is responsible for.
Now, who is worse? The governor who won't give an empty, meaningless apology being demanded by a racist organization? Or the racist organization that is trying to utlize guilt over African-American history to achieve thier own political goals?

I don't know about you, but I think that the NAACP, trying to USE the African-American populace is far more corrupt and vile to America than a governor who refuses to offer the empty, meaningless apology those same corrupt lobbyists are demanding.

That is why there is why there should not be an apology. To apologize because some NAACP crackpots tell you to is only to perpetuate the NAACP turning African-Americans into TOOLS for thier own political power.

Hm. I say there's nobody alive from that era. You tell me Georgia and Virginia are. Than you follow that up with the gem of a quote above me. To borrow from your own quote, Georgia and Virginia are not people. They are states.

Reading comprehension is fundamental. I did not say Georgia and Virginia are ALIVE. I state, and I quote, that they are "around". They are certainly not ALIVE. They do, however, exist as legal entities.

Correct, they are not people, they are states. States that existed then, have continued to exist, and exist now.

Virginia did not outlaw slavery. The US federal government did, over the objections of the Confederate states. Since Virginia and the rest supported the institution of slavery, and had its banishment imposed on them, they never really apologized for anything. They have in some sense failed to express their regret for their actions. By introducing this resolution, the state of Virginia is, for the first time, admitting that its official support of slavery was wrong.

I feel that apologies like these are similar to excising racist language from state laws. They may not have any real effect, but they're still painful reminders of slavery that need to be addressed.

If there is still language in actual laws on the books that is one thing. I would certainly expect such words to be expunged. But apologizing for something that happened over a hundred years ago seems pretty pointless. This is merely an attempt to satisfy the black lobbying groups. I suppose that maybe that would be good in itself though now that I think about it. Maybe if we just hurry up and pass these things they can look into the future instead of the past and we can accomplish something in the present.

This is merely an attempt to satisfy the black lobbying groups. I suppose that maybe that would be good in itself though now that I think about it.

the fact that your first inclination would dismiss out of hand the idea of doing some ridiculously basic and and incredibly easy things that many african-american groups want done is a rather vivid demonstration of why the apology is so important.

Reading comprehension is fundamental. I did not say Georgia and Virginia are ALIVE. I state, and I quote, that they are "around". They are certainly not ALIVE. They do, however, exist as legal entities.

Correct, they are not people, they are states. States that existed then, have continued to exist, and exist now.

Here is my original quote.

Nobody's alive from that era. Nobody. Let's let bygones be bygones already.

Reading comprehension is fundamental, so let's dissect my quote. What's nobody mean? Do I need to get you a definition? I think I shall.

1. no person; not anyone; no one: Nobody answered, so I hung up.

That's taken from dictionary.com. So when I say nobody was alive from that era, I was saying that NO PERSON from that era is currently living and breathing amongst us. Do you follow me? Okay. Here was your reply.

Last time I checked, Georgia and Virginia are still around.

You replied saying Georgia and Virginia are still around. I said nobody (no person) was alive from that era, and you replied saying Georgia and Virginia were still around. You didn't specify that Georgia and Virginia were states. You didn't specify that they were institutions or organizations or however you want to spin it. You simply put Georgia and Virginia. Implying that they were people. Now, obviously you wouldn't have to specify what they were unless I was a complete and total idiot. Yet, observe this exchange between yourself and another poster.

I'm unaware of anyone's decendants apologizing for anything. Please show me where that happened.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, for one.

I'm unaware that the Commonwealth of Virginia is a decendant of anyone. For that matter I was unaware the Commonwealth of Virginia even qualifies as a "someone"

Here's the point. If you're going to insult other posters' intelligence and try to paint them of lesser intellect than yourself, other people are going to do it back to you. You're better off just sticking to the topic. Thank you, and good afternoon.

the fact that your first inclination would dismiss out of hand the idea of doing some ridiculously basic and and incredibly easy things that many african-american groups want done is a rather vivid demonstration of why the apology is so important.

I really don't see why we need to apologize for something we had no part in. If one of my ancestors did something wrong I wouldn't feel the need to say sorry for it, I had no part in it after all. It just seems rather pointless, a waste of the time of our elected officials. It is not as if we can apologize for every last thing we have done that was wrong. We wouldn't have time to do any governing.

You didn't specify that Georgia and Virginia were states. You didn't specify that they were institutions or organizations or however you want to spin it. You simply put Georgia and Virginia.

I apologize if you or any other poster did not understand that when I said "Georgia and Virginia" in the context of a discussion of the actions of the states of Georgia and Virginia, that I meant the states of Georgia and Virginia.

If anyone was confused by this or misinterpreted my words, I shall endeavor in the future to take into account your apparently lack of ability to understand the bloody obvious.

Or in other words, if you think that my assumption that when I said "Georgia and Virginia" would be understood to mean "the states of Georgia and Virginia" when we are, in fact, talking about the states of Georgia and Virginia, was unfounded, it's really not MY intellect you should be questioning. Rather, question the intellect of people who wouldn't understand that that when I said "georgia and virginia" in the context of a discussion about the states of georgia and virginia, it should be apparent to anyone with two functional braincells to rub together that I was talking about the states of georgia and virginia.

In other words, don't try to mock my intellect because I didn't bother to so clarify my words so that they could be understood by those most barely literate.

I really don't see why we need to apologize for something we had no part in. If one of my ancestors did something wrong I wouldn't feel the need to say sorry for it, I had no part in it after all. It just seems rather pointless, a waste of the time of our elected officials. It is not as if we can apologize for every last thing we have done that was wrong. We wouldn't have time to do any governing.

YOU are not being asked to apologize for anything. No PERSON is, they're all dead.

The state of virginia, which most certainly had a part in slavery, apologized.

Your parent's debts are not yours. Why must we worry about what a politician in Georgia thinks of apologising on behalf of his great-great-grandfather's cousin's employer when there is so much wrong in real life? Why whine about this when we could be solving the problems that the slave trade has created? And innumerable other very real problems?

If anything, the edgy thing here is a celebration of the Confederacy. But if they acknowledge its faults and its evils, of which the Union had plenty, can't they celebrate what was good about it? To take a more striking example, what about the British Empire? Can we British not celebrate it for enforcing the abolition of slavery in the face of the economic problems this entailed, if we recognise the atrocities it committed? Can we and India not remember it for ending thugee and suttee, if we remember that many evil things were done under the British Raj?

Very few historical civilisations or organisations are worthy of demonisation. Like human beings, most have both their virtues and their flaws, and regardless of how big its flaws were, I don't see what makes the Confederate States any different.

I apologize if you or any other poster did not understand that when I said "Georgia and Virginia" in the context of a discussion of the actions of the states of Georgia and Virginia, that I meant the states of Georgia and Virginia.

If anyone was confused by this or misinterpreted my words, I shall endeavor in the future to take into account your apparently lack of ability to understand the bloody obvious.

Or in other words, if you think that my assumption that when I said "Georgia and Virginia" would be understood to mean "the states of Georgia and Virginia" when we are, in fact, talking about the states of Georgia and Virginia, was unfounded, it's really not MY intellect you should be questioning. Rather, question the intellect of people who wouldn't understand that that when I said "georgia and virginia" in the context of a discussion about the states of georgia and virginia, it should be apparent to anyone with two functional braincells to rub together that I was talking about the states of georgia and virginia.

In other words, don't try to mock my intellect because I didn't bother to so clarify my words so that they could be understood by those most barely literate.

For someone who snipes that reading comprehension is fundamental, you didn't comprehend too much of my post, did you? In fact, quite the contrary. You've gone and made my point for me. You've really outdone yourself, and continue to do so with your replies. Allow me to highlight the point that sailed over your head.

I'm unaware of anyone's decendants apologizing for anything. Please show me where that happened.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, for one.

I'm unaware that the Commonwealth of Virginia is a decendant of anyone. For that matter I was unaware the Commonwealth of Virginia even qualifies as a "someone"

Here's the point. If you're going to insult other posters' intelligence and try to paint them of lesser intellect than yourself, other people are going to do it back to you. You're better off just sticking to the topic. Thank you, and good afternoon.

Now, you can choose to understand what you're being mocked about, or you could ignore it altogether as you've done thus far. But I'm done making you look foolish, and I suggest we get back to the topic at hand.

YOU are not being asked to apologize for anything. No PERSON is, they're all dead.

The state of virginia, which most certainly had a part in slavery, apologized.

I really don't see the difference. A government represents the people, if they apologize than it means that everyone living underneath that government is also apologizing. Even if you don't accept this, the state of Virginia hasn't practiced slavery for over a century so again, I don't see the point in states apologizing for something that long dead elected officials took part in either.

I'm not black. Just saying.


I was just saying that it was hypocritical for them to advocate "looking forward" while planning a Confederate history month.


See my other post.

UNLESS! He's plotting to secede at some point in the future...

In all seriousness, nobody anywhere in this scenario has done any harm or foul by anyone else, so apologising to me seems like a complete waste of breath and an unacceptable instance of insincerety for political gain.

when are African tribes who sold their criminals or their defeated opponents into slavery going to apologize?

*NAACP Enforcers drag you off.*

Obviously nobody alive today has been a slave or slave owner in the U.S. (hopefully, unless it's a sex slave and then it's okay :D ), but I don't see any harm in a state government expressing regret over parts of it's history as it shows people that they don't condone such behavior in todays times and makes their confederacy days zseem less yucky.

It'll shut some people up and those that still complain will never shut up anyway but we don't have to listen to them because they now have nothign to back up their argument that th state sanctions slavery or whatever their problem is. Then again, when the state does express this regret, we see other people coming out of the woodwork to complain and getting all stupid over it.

Now, you can choose to understand what you're being mocked about, or you could ignore it altogether as you've done thus far. But I'm done making you look foolish, and I suggest we get back to the topic at hand.


If you think you've made a "point" you've long since lost it. I'll ask again, whose decendants are being asked to apologize?

The STATE OF VIRGINIA apologized. The state is nobody's decendant. What about this logic is so hard for you?

If you think you've made a "point" you've long since lost it. I'll ask again, whose decendants are being asked to apologize?

The STATE OF VIRGINIA apologized. The state is nobody's decendant. What about this logic is so hard for you?

Wow. Either you're incredibly dull, or you're just too stubborn to see the error in your own words. Either way, I think it's a little extreme that I've had to go to such lengths to spell things out for you, and you're STILL not getting it. This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you...I can't make the blind see.

I'm unaware of anyone's decendants apologizing for anything. Please show me where that happened.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, for one.

I'm unaware that the Commonwealth of Virginia is a decendant of anyone. For that matter I was unaware the Commonwealth of Virginia even qualifies as a "someone"

Alright. This is the instance in question that I was mocking you for. Here, you insult a poster's intelligence by implying that they're calling the Commonwealth of Virginia a person.

Hm. I say there's nobody alive from that era. You tell me Georgia and Virginia are. Than you follow that up with the gem of a quote above me. To borrow from your own quote, Georgia and Virginia are not people. They are states.

Reading comprehension is fundamental. I did not say Georgia and Virginia are ALIVE. I state, and I quote, that they are "around". They are certainly not ALIVE. They do, however, exist as legal entities.

Correct, they are not people, they are states. States that existed then, have continued to exist, and exist now.

Obviously, Myrmidonisia wasn't implying that Virginia was a descendent of a person. Anybody who can rub two brain cells together could figure that out. Yet, you went out of your way to insult the guy. Than you went and did exactly what he did...so I mocked you for it.

In other words, don't try to mock my intellect because I didn't bother to so clarify my words so that they could be understood by those most barely literate.

You should follow your own advice. Now, go ahead and post whatever you want...I'm going to tell you right now, I'm not going to reply. Quite simply, this is utterly pathetic that I've had to go out of my way and explain a little ribbing to you...the fact that you STILL don't get the point speaks volumes about your level of thinking. Enjoy.

and the first step in letting bygones be bygones is admitting wrongs and dealing with them. you aren't advocating that, you are advocating the "too bad for you, suckers" approach. which is especially fucked up considering the wrongs are still dramatically enacted to this very day.

We still have institutional slavery? Where?

Now, go ahead and post whatever you want...I'm going to tell you right now, I'm not going to reply.

Does that mean you're going away now? Good.

We still have institutional slavery? Where?

Look at the incomes and socio-economic brackets of blacks and whites if you will, compare the social and economic opportunity later in life for a white child with a back child. Slavery still exists, just less directly, it's called class conflict.

Look at the incomes and socio-economic brackets of blacks and whites if you will, compare the social and economic opportunity later in life for a white child with a back child. Slavery still exists, just less directly, it's called class conflict.

Pfft. That's called being poor. It happens to white kids as well as black ones. There's nothing stopping a black kid from working his butt off and making it.

That's the American Dream.

Look at the incomes and socio-economic brackets of blacks and whites if you will, compare the social and economic opportunity later in life for a white child with a back child. Slavery still exists, just less directly, it's called class conflict.

Wow. Hate to rain on your parade, but class conflict isn't slavery. And what are you implying by saying that blacks don't have equal social and economic oppurtunity later in life? I'd like some clarification here please.

Pfft. That's called being poor. It happens to white kids as well as black ones. There's nothing stopping a black kid from working his butt off and making it.

That's the American Dream.

You really should look at some statistics on this, you'd be very surprised.

Remember also that the 'American Dream' is an economic ideal, nothing else. True universal plural equality comes first equality of opportunity, some lower class brackets have little to no chance at all of social mobility in the sense of having no opportunity to move foward. The instrument of the state is the welfare of it's people, so it has been since the dawn of man.

The less state interference the more the society will become the 'survival of the richest'. The competititive capitalism of the US no longer exist, it is the biggest contradictive hypocrisy of it that monopolies exist, the market is not free. A free market can only exist with state restrictions to even up massive monopolies and first at a grass rootes level with equality of opportunity to contribute to the market.

I guess work camps for prisoners could be considered institutiuonalized slavery in a way

Pfft. That's called being poor. It happens to white kids as well as black ones. There's nothing stopping a black kid from working his butt off and making it.

That's the American Dream.

You might notice that throughout history, very few people have ever achieved the American dream.
You can't really base an argument off of a small chance.

That said, I'm not arguing with you on anything but that.

Arthais, admit you lost your little sub-argument and get on with it.

And also, just because Georgia has existed as a legal entity since the civil war doesn't mean that it's still the same Georgia.
Or do you think that Russia should apologize for Stalin?
Vatican City for the Crusades?
Israel for massacring various semitic people?
Germany for WWI?
Etc., etc.

He isn't worried about political repercussions. Georgia is a firmly Republican state and Sonny can't run again for Governor.

But what does an apology for slavery get you? Just the sick feeling that you've caved in to a bunch of professional victims. Does it buy ancestors of slaves anything? Of course not. Does it do a single solitary thing for the day-to-day plight of poor, under-educated black Georgians? No, that's something that takes real work. Does it do anything for the blacks, who either commit or are victims of most of the crime in Georgia. No, again. That takes real work, too.

All this apology represents is that a predominantly white legislature could be brow-beaten into feeling guilty about a grievous period of history. There is nothing but show and unneeded show at that.
I'll have to translate this and send it off to Prime Minister Abe, he's in a bit of hot water due to suddenly questioning the need for Japan to apologise to comfort women, I'm sure he'll feel thankful for this logic and verbage which backs up the talking points some of the LDP have been making as of late.

Arthais, admit you lost your little sub-argument and get on with it.

What sub argument? I haven't had a sub argument. Someone apparently decided that me not accepting "the state of Virginia" as an answer to "whose decendants are being asked to apologize?"

As I said then, as I say now, Virgina is not a decendant of anyone. So unless you wanna show me the chick who gave birth to the state of Virginia, I fear you are quite at a loss here.

I must say I'm skeptical of the slavery apology too. It's probably not meant sincerely by a lot of the politicians, and it's political masturbation. My god, it's not even masturbation. It's the political equivalent of HEAVY PETTING!

Or do you think that Russia should apologize for Stalin?

Stalin was leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a political entity that does not exist anymore.

Vatican City for the Crusades?

Already done. (http://www.opednews.com/boyne_070304_pope.htm)

Israel for massacring various semitic people?

Like this for example? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/world/main1740415.shtml)


Germany for WWI?

They probably already have, but why not, Germany already apologized for its role in world war II (http://english.people.com.cn/200505/08/eng20050508_184006.html)
Etc., etc.

I'm waiting for those etc., etc because those weren't very good.

Germany didn't start World War I. That's more of one of those "History is written by the victors" kinda things.

We should dig up the Archduke of Ferdinand and get him to apologize for not having good enough reflexes. :p

Like this for example? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/world/main1740415.shtml)

No. I believe Sheni was refering to the Ancient Canaanites. Modern Israel always makes sure to apologise for the things it does as soon as it becomes evident they have done them.

Stalin was leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a political entity that does not exist anymore.



Already done. (http://www.opednews.com/boyne_070304_pope.htm)



Like this for example? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/world/main1740415.shtml)




They probably already have, but why not, Germany already apologized for its role in world war II (http://english.people.com.cn/200505/08/eng20050508_184006.html)


I'm waiting for those etc., etc because those weren't very good.

Score.

If so many heads of state from around the world can understand the importance of apologizing, why can't certain Generalites do the same? I thought politicians were supposed to be rather insensitive and stupid.

and the Arabs that continue it all but officially to this day?

You have goaded me into my first post in quite some time. You are considerably wrong.

Score.

If so many heads of state from around the world can understand the importance of apologizing, why can't certain Generalites do the same? I thought politicians were supposed to be rather insensitive and stupid.

All this apologizing is nothing more that the 'feel-good' crap that liberals usually prefer to substance. No one has presented any concrete good that will come from this, or has come from any other 'apology'. Personally, I'd rather have my legislators figure out a way to secure funding for the Peachcare program in the state budget, rather than requiring a federal bailout. I'd rather have them figure out how to raise the quality of education statewide, so we don't have to gloat in the knowledge that at least Mississippi has poorer performing students. And I'd like to see the state legislators figure out how to get more of our citizens off of welfare and into jobs that pay decent wages.

None of those things are impossible. They're all just hard. An 'apology' is easy, but it doesn't help anyone do anything.

If so many heads of state from around the world can understand the importance of apologizing, why can't certain Generalites do the same? I thought politicians were supposed to be rather insensitive and stupid.
Maybe because we don't accept that the sins of the father are passed onto the son?

Maybe because we don't accept that the sins of the father are passed onto the son?

I'll ask it again, whose son exactly has apologized?

I'll ask it again, whose son exactly has apologized?

If a government is apologising then they as representatives of the people are apologising on behalf of those that elected them.

If not a single person in the electorate carries responsibility for an event, then not a single person in the electorate can apologise for the event, and as they can't apologise then they cannot nominate someone else to apologise on their behalf. And someone cannot decide to apologise on their behalf as that would be to say that they are now telling the people they are apologising on the behalf of that they responsible for something that they did not do, had no involvement in and no control over whatsoever.

I'll ask it again, whose son exactly has apologized?

Do we need an apology per generation? At what point do the apologies for things that no living person did stop?

Guess I should go out an apologize to the Indians because our ancestors came and kicked their collective asses.

when are African tribes who sold their criminals or their defeated opponents into slavery going to apologize?

When you buy from a person you know as a thief...

When you buy from a person you know as a thief...

It completely absolves the thief of all responsibility.

It completely absolves the thief of all responsibility.

Maybe, in US law. In italian law, it doesn't. And makes you guilty of a very specific crime.

Maybe, in US law. In italian law, it doesn't. And makes you guilty of a very specific crime.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Sarcasm&x=0&y=0

Stalin was leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a political entity that does not exist anymore.

Everyone seems to think that Germany apologizing for Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust was something that had to be done. That political entity doesn't exist anymore either.

I'll ask it again, whose son exactly has apologized?

Long dead officials of the state were responsible for slavery. Politicians elected long afterward had nothing to do with it just like the residents of those states had nothing to do with the institution of slavery.

Sickening that there can still be politicians who consider apologizing for slavery to be politically unsafe.

Ridiculous to think that any of us -- who never owned slaves -- have anything to apologise for.

Liberals always want the White Man to apologize for stuff his ancestors did. Liberals never ask the Jew to apologize for killing Jesus. Liberals never ask the Black Man to apologize for having a dispraportiantely high percentage of its present numbers wind up in jail, gangs, poverty, or producing unwed pregnancies.

Why can't people just be accountable for their own actions?

I am proud to be a conservative. I am ashamed that members of my race are typically associated with Liberals. Yet I do not need to apologize for them. They are each responsible for their own thoughts, beliefs, and actions.

I wish that half of the US would secede and be populated by Liberals and the other half would be populated by Conservatives.

Sickening that there can still be politicians who consider apologizing for slavery to be politically unsafe.

To me, it looks like he is casting it as pointless, a point on which I agree.

Liberals always want the White Man to apologize for stuff his ancestors did. Liberals never ask the Jew to apologize for killing Jesus. Liberals never ask the Black Man to apologize for having a dispraportiantely high percentage of its present numbers wind up in jail, gangs, poverty, or producing unwed pregnancies.

Why can't people just be accountable for their own actions?

I am proud to be a conservative. I am ashamed that members of my race are typically associated with Liberals. Yet I do not need to apologize for them. They are each responsible for their own thoughts, beliefs, and actions.

I wish that half of the US would secede and be populated by Liberals and the other half would be populated by Conservatives.
What our selectively literate friend here fails to read is that the Republicans are pushing this.

What our selectively literate friend here fails to read is that the Republicans are pushing this.

Just a side point, but Republicans =/= conservatives.

when are African tribes who sold their criminals or their defeated opponents into slavery going to apologize?When are white Americans going to realize that a crime is not any the less wrong because you have partners in it?

Just a side point, but Republicans =/= conservatives.
A dismissable side point in American politics, and especially as it applies to that person's post and posts by people with similar views.

When are white Americans going to realize that a crime is not any the less wrong because you have partners in it?
Soon as black Americans get the fuck over it.

When are white Americans going to realize that a crime is not any the less wrong because you have partners in it?

Soon as black Americans get the fuck over it.

Quoted for being the perfect response.

how mant times has a goverment been sincere in apologising to some people for what a past government has done in the annals of time

how mant times has a goverment been sincere in apologising to some people for what a past government has done in the annals of time

How can they possibly be sincere if they're apologising for something for which they were not responsible?

But what does an apology for slavery get you?It may be the first step in the direction of genuine reconciliation and repair.Does it buy ancestors of slaves anything?Arguably, it buys them a measure of dignity.

Many Americans still tend to treat the history of slavery as "just" history, as a "phase" in the moral, economic, and political development of the West. They assume that it was morally ambiguous--even acceptable--"at the time," so that African slaves were merely "victims of progress" rather than the victims of white aggression.

In other words, many Americans refuse to admit that slavery "was" wrong, even if it "became" wrong and is wrong now. A public apology--a public admission of guilt in a horrifying crime that lasted hundreds of years--is an admission that what was done could not be justified under any reasonable moral system. It demanded the suppression of morality itself.

This gives the victims of slavery the same dignity, the same historical consciousness, as (for instance) the victims of the Nazi Holocaust.

Does it do a single solitary thing for the day-to-day plight of poor, under-educated black Georgians? No, that's something that takes real work.Indeed, it does.

But apologizing for the history of slavery--in effect, admitting that it is a guilt-worthy history--implicitly changes the rhetoric of reparations. By admitting that the past is still with us--that we do, still today, owe an apology for that past--we admit the possibility that we owe much, much more.

Sickening that there are those of us who would hold the modern white man accountable for what his ancestors did one-hundred-and-forty-two-years ago.No sane person would hold modern people accountable in a retributive sense for what happened so long ago. No one needs to be "punished."

But you must blind yourself to the truth to believe that the history of slavery is not still with us. We are, indeed, still living the history of slavery. And to that extent, reconciliation and repair--not punishment--are very much the responsibility of present and future generations.

im calling for an apology from romans for the way that they conquered europe. i have emotional scares from this event in my ancestors history.

I demand an apology now. because this will make everything better.

I do not apologise for actions of my grandparents - I can say I do not like them, but I can see no reason I am responsible for things that they may have done before I was born.Okay.

But suppose your grandfather kidnapped an entire family and forced them to work for him until they died, then he forced their children to work for him as well.

Now suppose that your grandfather was compelled by government decree to free these slaves. Your grandfather was never punished for his crime, and he did not give his former captives either compensation for their work, or reparation for their degraded status.

The former captives have no savings or education, so your father (being the kind man that he is) offers to let them work for him--for minimum wage, of course.

Neither that generation nor the next manages to save enough money to escape their station. Indeed, others look down on them and do not want to give them a chance, and their savings seems to disappear with every emergency. (They don't have health care, after all.)

Today, you still kindly let them work for practically nothing. You live in a nice house, built generations ago by your grandfather's slaves. Your employees live on the bad side of town in a run-down tenement.

One day, one of your employees realizes that there is something perverse about this history. He comes to you and says, "Look, I know this wasn't your fault. And I don't want you to suffer for the crimes of your ancestors. But do you think you could maybe give us a leg up here? I mean, you don't have to break the bank or anything... you don't even have to change your lifestyle... I'm just asking for a little help getting an education. Maybe you and your friends, whose grandparents also kidnapped people, could help us fix up our neighborhood? You could set up a fund or something? Maybe just take some of that tax money and put it to the use of repairing this situation?"

"No," you reply. "I enjoy your cheap labor, and I don't see why I should care that I am better off than you are because my grandfather never paid your grandfather for building this house. In fact, I'm not even sorry he did it."

How shriveled and black is your soul, anyway?

It may be the first step in the direction of genuine reconciliation and repair.Arguably, it buys them a measure of dignity.

Nothing to reconcile or repair. I never owned a slave. I've got nothing to apologise for.

Many Americans still tend to treat the history of slavery as "just" history, as a "phase" in the moral, economic, and political development of the West. They assume that it was morally ambiguous--even acceptable--"at the time," so that African slaves were merely "victims of progress" rather than the victims of white aggression.

Um, well, yeah, it is just history. Nobody alive now was or owned a slave.

In other words, many Americans refuse to admit that slavery "was" wrong, even if it "became" wrong and is wrong now.

Slavery was wrong. Still is. There. It's been said.

A public apology--a public admission of guilt in a horrifying crime that lasted hundreds of years--is an admission that what was done could not be justified under any reasonable moral system. It demanded the suppression of morality itself.

Again, why the fuck should I apologise? I wasn't part of what was done.

This gives the victims of slavery...

There are no former slaves still alive, so there's no one to whom an apology is due. For that matter, there are no former slave owners still alive to give the apology.

...the same dignity, the same historical consciousness, as (for instance) the victims of the Nazi Holocaust.

Indeed, it does.

Nice Godwin. :rolleyes:

But apologizing for the history of slavery--in effect, admitting that it is a guilt-worthy history--implicitly changes the rhetoric of reparations.

Ah, there it is -- finally, the real reason for your argument. It's not just apologise; it's "PAY ME!"

By admitting that the past is still with us--that we do, still today, owe an apology for that past--we admit the possibility that we owe much, much more.

The past is only still with us because some people won't let it go. It was nearly 150 years ago. I wasn't alive then. I wasn't a part of it. I don't owe anyone jack shit for what my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather may or may not have done to anyone else's great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.

But suppose your grandfather kidnapped an entire family and forced them to work for him until they died, then he forced their children to work for him as well.
Suppose your grandfather robbed a bank. Suppose he stole a Ferrari. Suppose he shot some one. Now explain why you should apologize to anyone for any of those actions.

*snip*

Cliff's Notes here: PAY ME!

Again, why the fuck should I apologise? I wasn't part of what was done.
Sorry...who is asking you, as an individual, to personally apologise for slavery?

I don't go around and ask individuals to apologise for Residential Schooling.

But I fully expect the government and Church to make that apology. The individual representing government or Church is not making a personal apology.

So this constant whining about 'but I didn't do anything, why should I say sorry' is really pointless. If it so happens that your family directly profited from Residential Schooling, or slavery, or whatever, then yeah. Saying sorry on behalf of your family is probably appropriate. It isn't an admission that you yourself committed the wrong, though it may be an acknowledgment that you have benefited BECAUSE of that wrong.

Suppose your grandfather robbed a bank. Suppose he stole a Ferrari. Suppose he shot some one. Now explain why you should apologize to anyone for any of those actions.

Apparently its collective responsibility. If one of your family members does something wrong, the entire family has to suffer and take responsibility. Even if you hadn't been born yet when the act occurred. Or something.

Suppose your grandfather robbed a bank. Suppose he stole a Ferrari. Suppose he shot some one. Now explain why you should apologize to anyone for any of those actions.

Suppose your family got the proceeds from that crime somehow.

Apology appropriate now?

Sorry...who is asking you, as an individual, to personally apologise for slavery?

Try reading the entire thread, rather than trying to single out a single line of one of my posts to rail into out of context. AnarchyeL's argument was unveiled to be one about reparations.

Though it wouldn't surprise me if you expect the same from the Canadian government (and by extension, all current Canadian citizens) to shell out. :rolleyes:

Suppose your family got the proceeds from that crime somehow.

Apology appropriate now?

Uh...no. Especially not after a century and a half.

But suppose your grandfather kidnapped an entire family and forced them to work for him until they died, then he forced their children to work for him as well.

the people who bought the slaves did not kidnap them. the "kidnaping" part was done in a continent known as Africa where many people today theorize that this is where slaves were grown.


Now suppose that your grandfather was compelled by government decree to free these slaves. Your grandfather was never punished for his crime, and he did not give his former captives either compensation for their work, or reparation for their degraded status.

1. its only a crime if the government says its a crime, alot like smoking pot. the government says you should not smoke pot and thus smoking pot is a crime.
2. he would of only been compelled by government decree if he had been living in a county that had fought against the union.

(im just going to snip the rest)
snip

do you think hardship was only encountered by the "black" man?
what about people that came over here from european nations and where treated as low as scum. should states not also apologize for this mistreatment.

Uh...no. Especially not after a century and a half.

Really?

Would you still hold onto paintings that were stolen from Jews that were put into concentration camps?

How about an estate that was built by slaves?

And no sense of guilt for continuing to profit from the wrongs of your family? Interesting.

Try reading the entire thread, rather than trying to single out a single line of one of my posts to rail into out of context. AnarchyeL's argument was unveiled to be one about reparations. No Cluich, I think you're quite capable of clarifying your position according to the specific questions I've asked. Sorry if I'm giving you entirely too much credit.

Though it wouldn't surprise me if you expect the same from the Canadian government (and by extension, all current Canadian citizens) to shell out. :rolleyes: I support the restitution payments for Residential Schooling, considering victims of that system are still around.

Really?

Would you still hold onto paintings that were stolen from Jews that were put into concentration camps?

Way to Godwin, and if you'd learn to count, that wasn't 150 years ago.

How about an estate that was built by slaves?

Again, it's done, and was done so long before I even appeared on this planet.

And no sense of guilt for continuing to profit from the wrongs of your family? Interesting.

No guilt at all for what some else did. I didn't do it. Why should I feel guilty of something I myself had no part in?

Oh, yeah...cuz some people choose to identify everyone by race or religion. "'Your ancestors'" or "'your church'" did some bad things. You're responsible for that." Bullshit. I'm an individual. I'm responsible only for the things I myself have done.

I support the restitution payments for Residential Schooling, considering victims of that system are still around.

Ah, yes..."victims." Nice to see the "arguments" of the victimisation culture are still alive and well. :rolleyes:

Apparently its collective responsibility. If one of your family members does something wrong, the entire family has to suffer and take responsibility. Even if you hadn't been born yet when the act occurred. Or something.
Too bad that's fucking illegal.


Suppose your family got the proceeds from that crime somehow.

Apology appropriate now?
Suppose those proceeds were destroyed or lost in time and no one has seen them in at least 2 generations. Apologize for what?

All this apologizing is nothing more that the 'feel-good' crap that liberals usually prefer to substance. No one has presented any concrete good that will come from this, or has come from any other 'apology'. Personally, I'd rather have my legislators figure out a way to secure funding for the Peachcare program in the state budget, rather than requiring a federal bailout. I'd rather have them figure out how to raise the quality of education statewide, so we don't have to gloat in the knowledge that at least Mississippi has poorer performing students. And I'd like to see the state legislators figure out how to get more of our citizens off of welfare and into jobs that pay decent wages.

None of those things are impossible. They're all just hard. An 'apology' is easy, but it doesn't help anyone do anything.
Sure, it may not do much in practical terms. But it is still something that is needed, to help obtain more closure. You might think that unnecessary or unimportant, but there are many who would disagree.

Maybe because we don't accept that the sins of the father are passed onto the son?

Ridiculous to think that any of us -- who never owned slaves -- have anything to apologise for.

im calling for an apology from romans for the way that they conquered europe. i have emotional scares from this event in my ancestors history.

I demand an apology now. because this will make everything better.

Nothing to reconcile or repair. I never owned a slave. I've got nothing to apologise for.

Um, well, yeah, it is just history. Nobody alive now was or owned a slave.

Slavery was wrong. Still is. There. It's been said.

Again, why the fuck should I apologise? I wasn't part of what was done.

There are no former slaves still alive, so there's no one to whom an apology is due. For that matter, there are no former slave owners still alive to give the apology.

Nice Godwin. :rolleyes:

Ah, there it is -- finally, the real reason for your argument. It's not just apologise; it's "PAY ME!"

The past is only still with us because some people won't let it go. It was nearly 150 years ago. I wasn't alive then. I wasn't a part of it. I don't owe anyone jack shit for what my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather may or may not have done to anyone else's great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.

Suppose your grandfather robbed a bank. Suppose he stole a Ferrari. Suppose he shot some one. Now explain why you should apologize to anyone for any of those actions.

Apparently its collective responsibility. If one of your family members does something wrong, the entire family has to suffer and take responsibility. Even if you hadn't been born yet when the act occurred. Or something.

You lot are misrepresenting this out the wazoo. Some facts to keep in mind:

* This is an apology from the state government of Georgia as an institution, for actions it once sanctioned and which it has never actively condemned. It is not meant to represent an apology from you, or from the politicians themselves. It is meant to be from the government itself, which has existed in the same form since the slave days. No one is asking you or your family to apologize, since you did nothing deserving of an apology. But the state government did.

* I don't believe government is hereditary. So an official government apology does not reflect on you or your family or your family's history.

* An apology is not the same as reparations. No one is being hurt or hindered by this. It is merely a symbolic action on the part of the state, with virtually no cost and plenty of benefit. Why so much uproar about it?

Way to Godwin, and if you'd learn to count, that wasn't 150 years ago. Fuck your Godwin. Answer the question anyway.

Answer this one too:

One hundred and fifty years ago, your ancestor kills a family and steals their possessions. Said possessions are still in your family. It's okay to keep them, because so much time has passed?



Again, it's done, and was done so long before I even appeared on this planet.
And that's fine, no one is necessarily asking you to give up whatever privilege you have gained from slavery. But an apology is a recognition of that privilege...it isn't you taking personal responsibility for the actions of your ancestors.



No guilt at all for what some else did. I didn't do it. Why should I feel guilty of something I myself had no part in? Because you continue to profit from the wrong. You are the beneficiary of that wrong. You had nothing to do with the wrong itself, but you are absolutely linked to it by receiving the benefits. An acknowledgment of that is appropriate.

Oh, yeah...cuz some people choose to identify everyone by race or religion. "'Your ancestors'" or "'your church'" did some bad things. You're responsible for that." Bullshit. I'm an individual. I'm responsible only for the things I myself have done.

A Pakistani immigrant just moved to Canada clearly has no tie to Residential Schooling, no possible links as a victim or a perpetrator. The Canadian state, in apologising for Residential Schooling is not implicating him in any way as a victim or perpetrator.

It seems to me that you yourself are unable to fathom the distinction between your government apologising for something, and that apology implicating you personally. That isn't the fault of the people seeking that apology...it is a shortcoming of yours.

Suppose your family got the proceeds from that crime somehow.

Apology appropriate now?

When the people responsible are dead, no. The people living of those proceeds had nothing to do with slavery and shouldn't have to suffer because of their ancestors. Trying to put responsibility on them isn't something to be tolerated. Might as well give all the land we took from Native Americans back. Evacuate the States and return what we took. Following this model, every group of people who came in and forced out another should have to leave and return what they took. Ridiculous isn't it? Quite. It is long done, we should be looking to the future instead of looking back.

Ah, yes..."victims." Nice to see the "arguments" of the victimisation culture are still alive and well. :rolleyes:

Yes, victims in an entirely appropriate word, considering that the class of people receiving restitution in the case of Residential Schools are in fact members of a class action lawsuit against the state and Church.

Both of whom have admitted liability.

If you prefer, we could call them plaintiffs. But since the Canadian government has admitted that the Residential Schooling system was inherently abusive, and included severe instances of physical and sexual abuse on top of that (victims, yes VICTIMS of which are entitled to more restitution), I don't see how you could argue that the word victim is inappropriate.

This is an apology from the state government of Virginia as an institution, for actions it once sanctioned and which it has never actively condemned.
It is not meant to represent an apology from you, or from the politicians themselves. It is meant to be from the government itself, which has existed in the same form since the slave days. No one is asking you or your family to apologize, since you did nothing deserving of an apology. But the state government did.

Virginia has rewritten it's constitution at least three times since the end of the Civil War. It is not the same institution that condoned slavery and hasn't been for some time.

An apology is not the same as reparations. No one is being hurt or hindered by this. It is merely a symbolic action on the part of the state, with virtually no cost and plenty of benefit. Why so much uproar about it?
A move towards recovery is being hurt by these constant demands for superfluous symbolic actions.

Yes, victims in an entirely appropriate word, considering that the class of people receiving restitution in the case of Residential Schools are in fact members of a class action lawsuit against the state and Church.

Both of whom have admitted liability.


You didn't get the memo? Anyone who is described as a "victim" is clearly a welfare queen sucking off the teats of the taxpayers swindling honest people by harping on the reparations racket to take credit for being a lazy modern american whose ancestors had some minor and irrelevant qualm with the state. It's a tool by which the lazy, poor and liberal can use racism and other non-existent qualities to get rich quick - and to impose a reverse-racist tyranny on white folk! AND TO TAKE OUR JOBS!

Hey...I just want someone to apologize to me for requiring my Grandmother to be 'sold" into indentured servitude. She was "sold" as a housekeeper/nanny in the early 1920's so that she could come to the States from that great land of opportunity....Soviet Russia.

In Nomine Faecium :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

When the people responsible are dead, no. So that's the cut-off for you? The death of the person or persons responsible?

Now, I am of the opinion that the death of the individual is not the issue at all, when that individual was acting within a state-sanctioned system.

If you are legally entitled to go into your neighbour's house (as long as he speaks Hindi, let's say) and steal his stuff, my main problem is going to be with the policies that allow you to do this. Secondary to that would be the issue of your specific actions following this policy.

Who is most culpable? The state.

So when the next government comes in, overturns that law allowing you to rob your Hindu neighbour, can that state retroactively charge you with doing something that was legal at the time?

No. But the state can recognise that what it did was wrong, and make reparations.

Does that leave you in the clear? Well legally it might...or your neighbour might be able to claim his stuff back from you...but let's assume he can't.

So you may never have any legal culpability for your actions, sanctioned as they were by the state at that time. What you are left with is really only a moral obligation that is completely non-binding. And you may choose to do nothing. Or you may choose to apologise. But frankly, I don't give a shit which way you go, as long as the entity most culpable (the state) has done something to rectify the situation.

You lot are misrepresenting this out the wazoo. Some facts to keep in mind:

* This is an apology from the state government of Virginia as an institution, for actions it once sanctioned and which it has never actively condemned. It is not meant to represent an apology from you, or from the politicians themselves. It is meant to be from the government itself, which has existed in the same form since the slave days. No one is asking you or your family to apologize, since you did nothing deserving of an apology. But the state government did.

* I don't believe government is hereditary. So an official government apology does not reflect on you or your family or your family's history.

* An apology is not the same as reparations. No one is being hurt or hindered by this. It is merely a symbolic action on the part of the state, with virtually no cost and plenty of benefit. Why so much uproar about it?

*What does the modern state of Virginia have to apologize for? Their dead predecesors were the ones who allowed slavery to take place within its borders, why do the current legislators need to feel sorry for what they did? It is the same thing, they can not help what they did.

*Certainly, but again the current state governments had nothing to do with slavery, saying they are sorry that in the past their state took part in something evil is a waste of time. Of course they wouldn't support such a thing today! They have to say publicly that the sky is blue?

*Do people doubt that the state is sorry for what happened? That they have to prove it by telling the public that we are "so sorry for slavery". Uh-huh. I just hope that after this apology there is no more discussion about it. But somehow I think that when people talk about the current situation with black Americans, slavery will still come up in the discussion. To me, this time spent on saying the obvious, that current legislators would never do any such thing as what their ancestors did, is better spent trying to improve the lives of their citizens. Making token apologies hardly gives better schools, healthcare, safer neighborhoods, etc., etc.

One hundred and fifty years ago, your ancestor kills a family and steals their possessions. Said possessions are still in your family. It's okay to keep them, because so much time has passed?
Under what presumption are the items still in the family? Maybe a school or state parks owns a 150 year old plantation house. But that's about it. No single person or family owns anything from slavery. And I like how you keep ignoring me.

But an apology is a recognition of that privilege...it isn't you taking personal responsibility for the actions of your ancestors.
Then why should you apologize for them if you arn't taking responsibility? An apology is recognition of responsibility.

Because you continue to profit from the wrong.
Bullshit victimization culture. No one is benefiting from slavery but people to have claimed descent from slaves because apparently it has given them the right to piss and moan about the past and how its now holding them down.

It seems to me that you yourself are unable to fathom the distinction between your government apologising for something, and that apology implicating you personally.
And you are unable to understand that you have repeatedly made the argument that people should personally apologize for the actions of their ancestors.

Fuck your Godwin. Answer the question anyway.

Answer this one too:

One hundred and fifty years ago, your ancestor kills a family and steals their possessions. Said possessions are still in your family. It's okay to keep them, because so much time has passed?

Um...most of my family wasn't in the US back then. Nice try.

And that's fine, no one is necessarily asking you to give up whatever privilege you have gained from slavery. But an apology is a recognition of that privilege...it isn't you taking personal responsibility for the actions of your ancestors.

Which ancestors? Most of mine weren't here then. They were scraping to get by in Ireland. Again, nice try.

Because you continue to profit from the wrong. You are the beneficiary of that wrong. You had nothing to do with the wrong itself, but you are absolutely linked to it by receiving the benefits. An acknowledgment of that is appropriate.

I had nothing to do with it, nor did my ancestors. So what benefits am I getting? Fuck your acknowledgement. You don't see me bitching about the abuse my Irish ancestors suffered when they first came to the US, do you? Of course not. You're too busy focusing on race. "The Irish are white, so they don't count." Do you have any idea how many "No Irish" signs were in store and restaurant windows a century ago? No, of course, you don't. Your focus is on race and skin colour.

A Pakistani immigrant just moved to Canada clearly has no tie to Residential Schooling, no possible links as a victim or a perpetrator. The Canadian state, in apologising for Residential Schooling is not implicating him in any way as a victim or perpetrator.

But if that apology is used as a springboard to reparations (oh, and it will be), then that immigrant, as a taxpayer, will bear some of the burden of those payments.

It seems to me that you yourself are unable to fathom the distinction between your government apologising for something, and that apology implicating you personally.

Silly me...I thought governments represented (at least in democracies) the people who vote them into power. I don't know of anyone alive who voted for Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, or any other US president during the years in which slavery existed here.

That isn't the fault of the people seeking that apology...it is a shortcoming of yours.

No, it's whining about long past circumstances and making excuses for their failure to pull themselves up by their own efforts. If those who so strongly seek reparations for historical wrongs redirected that effort into improving themselves and their situations, rather than calling for free money from innocent people, they might actually have raised their lot on their own by now. But yeah...that might require real work, rather than whining about stuff that happened generations ago.

Virginia has rewritten it's constitution at least three times since the end of the Civil War. It is not the same institution that condoned slavery and hasn't been for some time.
It's constitution may have been changed, but it is still the same legal entity.

A move towards recovery is being hurt by these constant demands for superfluous symbolic actions.
Constant? An apology has never been given. Ever. This would be the one and only time.

*What does the modern state of Virginia have to apologize for? Their dead predecesors were the ones who allowed slavery to take place within its borders, why do the current legislators need to feel sorry for what they did? It is the same thing, they can not help what they did.

So can you point out to me the specific time when Virginia ceased to exist, and was replaced with the "modern state" of Virginia which is so obviously not a legal successor?

Um...most of my family wasn't in the US back then. Nice try. Don't dodge the hypothetical. I clearly wasn't intending to apply a set of facts to you that I somehow knew to be true, nor actually accusing your family of any such thing. And you aren't so stupid that you didn't realise that.

Saying, "oh well that didn't actually happen, my family wasn't here, so I can't answer you, hahahahaa" is really, really lame...and something I'd expect of Corny, not you.

It's constitution may have been changed, but it is still the same legal entity. Legal mumbo jumbo.


Constant? An apology has never been given. Ever. This would be the one and only time.
Constant demands. Work on your comprehension.

So you may never have any legal culpability for your actions, sanctioned as they were by the state at that time. What you are left with is really only a moral obligation that is completely non-binding. And you may choose to do nothing. Or you may choose to apologise. But frankly, I don't give a shit which way you go, as long as the entity most culpable (the state) has done something to rectify the situation.

So what? We pay the slaves descendents for wages never given? Or take away the slave built homes and give them over to blacks? This is nonsense, no one living today has responsibility for the actions of those who lived before them. What they can do now is to make these descendents as equal as any white. Not to go back and and apologize for something no one has ever experienced. Now if these states had apologized, 10, 20, hell even 50 years after the slaves were freed than it would be a different matter, the parties would still be around and so the apology would still be relevant. It didn't happen though and going back now is time better spent dealing with current issues.

So can you point out to me the specific time when Virginia ceased to exist, and was replaced with the "modern state" of Virginia which is so obviously not a legal successor?

Are you trying to misinterpret my words? By "modern" state I mean the state as is currently run in 2007 and not as it was in 1860. It has an entire new set of legislators who had nothing to do with slavery and so have nothing to apologize for. Misreading my words isn't going to change that fact.

Don't dodge the hypothetical. I clearly wasn't intending to apply a set of facts to you that I somehow knew to be true, nor actually accusing your family of any such thing. And you aren't so stupid that you didn't realise that.

Saying, "oh well that didn't actually happen, my family wasn't here, so I can't answer you, hahahahaa" is really, really lame...and something I'd expect of Corny, not you.

The US is a nation of immigrants. Are the many SE Asians that came her ein the '70s responsible for slavery? Should they admit some wrong? Read my entire post, rather than quoting one line again. You might actually get my point. I expect you to be able to digest an entire post, not just single out one sentence that you think you can use to prove your "point."

Bullshit victimization culture.

Whatever. Looks like you're pissing and moaning because of "victimization culture."

You're just a victim of victimization culture. Get in line - let's see, institutionalized slavery versus The_pantles_hero doesn't want to hear apologies.


And you are unable to understand that you have repeatedly made the argument that people should personally apologize for the actions of their ancestors.

...if those people happen to be the democratically elected heads of a state, it seems "personally" saying lots of things happens to be an obligation. What's one more thing?

No one is demanding that all White Folk go and make an official apology.

You seem to be scared - terrified, really - of exactly that.

Under what presumption are the items still in the family? Maybe a school or state parks owns a 150 year old plantation house. But that's about it. No single person or family owns anything from slavery. And I like how you keep ignoring me.
Ignoring you? When you have something interesting to say, I may choose to reply to it. Or I may not. But you'll note I'm mostly talking to Cluich. So get over yourself.

Then why should you apologize for them if you arn't taking responsibility? An apology is recognition of responsibility. It's an acknowlegment. Call it that if 'apology' scares you too much.

I can acknowledge my gratitude to the Chinese workers who slaved away their lives building the railways. And I can insist that my government also recognise that sacrifice. I can acknowledge that the racist Chinese head tax was a despicable policy, and insist my government both apologise, and make restitution.

Now if for whatever reason, I had benefited from the despicable actions of my own ancestors...let's say that my great-great-grandfather killed a family and claimed their house, and that house was still in my family. Absolutely I would feel that I should acknowledge I have benefited from a wrong. Legally, it is doubtful I would be deprived of that property anyway, but I wouldn't strut around saying, 'ha, I didn't kill anyone for it, so whatever dude'.

And really, that's all the attention from me that you warrant at this time. Feel better?

*What does the modern state of Virginia have to apologize for? Their dead predecesors were the ones who allowed slavery to take place within its borders, why do the current legislators need to feel sorry for what they did? It is the same thing, they can not help what they did.
Again, this is not an apology on the part of the legislators themselves. It is an apology from the state government as an impersonal institution, and, as representatives of that institution, they are the ones who must deliver it. But the apology is not from them personally. It is also not supposed to represent an apology from the people -- a sizable portion of whom are black.

saying they are sorry that in the past their state took part in something evil is a waste of time. Of course they wouldn't support such a thing today! They have to say publicly that the sky is blue?

*Do people doubt that the state is sorry for what happened? That they have to prove it by telling the public that we are "so sorry for slavery". Uh-huh.
If it's so obvious that the state government does not support slavery, then why do so many people object to the apology? It can't be out of practicality, since it is a pretty simple thing to do. Why do people feel so uncomfortable with the government rebuking what they claim was an obviously unjust practice?

I just hope that after this apology there is no more discussion about it.
Well, that's one of the points of the apology. Closure.

But somehow I think that when people talk about the current situation with black Americans, slavery will still come up in the discussion. To me, this time spent on saying the obvious, that current legislators would never do any such thing as what their ancestors did, is better spent trying to improve the lives of their citizens. Making token apologies hardly gives better schools, healthcare, safer neighborhoods, etc., etc.
No argument there, apart from the fact that "stating the obvious" is a simple action that cannot possibly distract the government from fighting poverty, improving education, etc., for more than a day, at most.

Constant demands. Work on your comprehension.
And why are there constant demands? Because an apology has never been given. Ever.

Same difference.

Well, that's one of the points of the apology. Closure.

Gotta love the fluffy psycho-babble reasoning. :rolleyes:

Legal mumbo jumbo.

I love this. I can't refute the argument, or in any way counter it, so I'm going to call it "mumbo jumbo" and pretend it doesn't exist.

In other words, the argument doesn't count because I can't understand it.

So what? We pay the slaves descendents for wages never given? Or take away the slave built homes and give them over to blacks? This is nonsense, no one living today has responsibility for the actions of those who lived before them. What they can do now is to make these descendents as equal as any white. Not to go back and and apologize for something no one has ever experienced. Now if these states had apologized, 10, 20, hell even 50 years after the slaves were freed than it would be a different matter, the parties would still be around and so the apology would still be relevant. It didn't happen though and going back now is time better spent dealing with current issues. The apology is absolutely still relevant.

But apology does not automatically mean reparations.

What I object to is the idea that if you wait just long enough, you never have to admit you've done wrong (and by you, I'm referring to a state). If you apologise too soon, you might actually have to compensate people...but if you wait until all the original people involved die, then there is no one to compensate.

I absolutely believe this is a tactic used by various governments. Proof of that can be seen in Canada, with the slow pace of restitution for Residential Schooling. As victims die, the payments lapse, they do not pass on to relatives. So it is absolutely in the best interest of the Canadian government to draw it out as long as possible.

But you know what? The money is not the point. The money will solve nothing, will fix nothing. The apology is everything to the people who have suffered. In a sense, I wish that apologising was in no way linked to admission that could lead to legal culpability, so that states would be more forthcoming with them.



Are you trying to misinterpret my words? By "modern" state I mean the state as is currently run in 2007 and not as it was in 1860. It has an entire new set of legislators who had nothing to do with slavery and so have nothing to apologize for. Misreading my words isn't going to change that fact.
The individuals that make up the 'modern' state are clearly not the same individuals that made up the state in 1860. And my point is that the individuals are completely irrelevant. The state, as an entity, is the culpable party, regardless of how policies have changed over the years...the specific actors are beside the point.

Things have changed, and improved. That doesn't mean that a fucking 'look, we're sorry we did this' isn't necessary, applicable, or appropriate.

The US is a nation of immigrants. Are the many SE Asians that came her ein the '70s responsible for slavery? Should they admit some wrong?

I've already addressed this point with my Pakistani immigrant example.

Once again, this is really not about individual responsibility. It is about state responsibility.

The individuals that make up the 'modern' state are clearly not the same individuals that made up the state in 1860. And my point is that the individuals are completely irrelevant. The state, as an entity, is the culpable party, regardless of how policies have changed over the years...the specific actors are beside the point.

Things have changed, and improved. That doesn't mean that a fucking 'look, we're sorry we did this' isn't necessary, applicable, or appropriate.

Indeed. The state of GA existed when it condoned slavery, when it passed Jim Crow laws, when it instituted segregation, and still exists now. Yes, the situation for the ancestors of slaves has improved, but that is beside the point. To suggest that the state of GA, as an entity, should not apologize because it is different now makes no more sense than saying that a person who has grown older and wiser should not apologize for wronging someone when he was younger. Yes, he is different now, with different opinions and probably acts very different. But he, as an entity, still committed that wrong in the past and can apologize for it. The government of GA is different now, with different policies, but it can still apologize for the wrongs it committed in the past.

I don't think a great deal of time should be spent on it, however. As others have pointed out, there are issues in the here and now - people who need actual attention now - which need to be addressed.

Gotta love the fluffy psycho-babble reasoning. :rolleyes:
A few years back, the Catholic Church, as represented by Pope John Paul II, apologized for the brutality of the Crusades.

Was the Pope personally apologizing? No -- he wasn't responsible for the Crusades.

Was it an apology from all Catholics? Of course not -- the Crusades ended centuries before their birth.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that the apology was important and necessary. It was a form of repentance on the part of the Church as an organization/institution, an admittance of wrongdoing and guilt. No psychobabble there -- just an institution disassociating itself from a crime it once sanctioned.

I had nothing to do with it, nor did my ancestors. So what benefits am I getting? Fuck your acknowledgement. You don't see me bitching about the abuse my Irish ancestors suffered when they first came to the US, do you? Of course not. You're too busy focusing on race. "The Irish are white, so they don't count." Do you have any idea how many "No Irish" signs were in store and restaurant windows a century ago? No, of course, you don't. Your focus is on race and skin colour.

My argument has nothing to do with race or skin colour, sorry to burst your bubble.

To introduce irrelevancies, as you have, I'll also note that I am half Irish. And I often make comment of how 'white' has suddenly included groups (such as Irish, Italian, Polish etc) that were once very much at odds with one another (and in some cases continue to be).

I don't give a shit about your ancestors when it comes to historical wrongs. But I do give a shit about what wrongs your government has perpetrated historically. As well as the wrongs perpetrated by my government historically. Am I taking responsibility for racist immigration policies? No. But I acknowledge they exist, and I expect my government to deal with them.

You are entirely too wrapped up in your own sense of victimisation...that in discussing these issues, somehow you are being personally blamed. Get over it. Yes, some people are going to play the race card, and yes, some people are going to try to blame you personally, but that's bullshit, and you know it. But worse than this particular bullshit is you USING that to say that somehow, your government really doesn't need to do anything about historical (and present) wrongs. It's NOT ABOUT YOU, so stop MAKING it about you.

Now if for whatever reason, I had benefited from the despicable actions of my own ancestors...let's say that my great-great-grandfather killed a family and claimed their house, and that house was still in my family. Absolutely I would feel that I should acknowledge I have benefited from a wrong. Legally, it is doubtful I would be deprived of that property anyway, but I wouldn't strut around saying, 'ha, I didn't kill anyone for it, so whatever dude'.
Who is strutting around? That would require a malicious intent to flaunt the action. No one is strutting around crowing about anything. If you bring up a demand for people to apologize for something they had nothing to do with and they dismiss you out of hand, then they are strutting around about anything, they are dismissing you as putting forth a non-issue and no one is going to strut about it later.

Again, this is not an apology on the part of the legislators themselves. It is an apology from the state government as an impersonal institution, and, as representatives of that institution, they are the ones who must deliver it. But the apology is not from them personally. It is also not supposed to represent an apology from the people -- a sizable portion of whom are black.

The legislators are voting for this. How is it not an apology by the lawmakers? Saying it is merely an impersonal apology by a government body just doesn't cut it, it is still an apology made by people, people who have no reason to do so.

If it's so obvious that the state government does not support slavery, then why do so many people object to the apology? It can't be out of practicality, since it is a pretty simple thing to do. Why do people feel so uncomfortable with the government rebuking what they claim was an obviously unjust practice?

I for one would be opposed to an apology that is better spent governing. But if the government would apologize for something it had no part of than I with it would do so quickly and get on with it. I really don't know about "serious opposition" but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the sort of person who insists on deluding themself in thinking of the old South as the pretty, honorable Antebellum society where blacks worked happily and the horrors that we know took place is simply untrue. I can't help what these people believe, perhaps I should change my post to state, that it is obvious to those who see reality? I'd like to think most do.

Well, that's one of the points of the apology. Closure.

What closure? It will be trumpeted as a victory for blacks but you know full well that this won't just go away and it will still be used. Hardly closure when you won't let anyone not hear about it.

I don't think a great deal of time should be spent on it, however. As others have pointed out, there are issues in the here and now - people who need actual attention now - which need to be addressed.
Yes. Historical wrongs clearly need less attention that present wrongs. So just fucking apologise officially, and deal with what actually CAN be dealt with on a more comprehensive level. Recent and current wrongs.

And why are there constant demands? Because an apology has never been given. Ever.

Same difference.
No, it isn't. Constant demands != constant action. Which is what you insinuated last time.

I love this. I can't refute the argument, or in any way counter it, so I'm going to call it "mumbo jumbo" and pretend it doesn't exist.
I say the constitution has changed a number of times, he says it is the same legal entity. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as legal mumbo jumbo. Like the way I'm not allowed to take my tuition and book charges as deductions on my taxes because I'm claimed as dependent, despite paying for those charges myself - legal mumbo jumbo.

*snip*Put on your pants. I'm not interested in your mumbo jumbo.

A few years back, the Catholic Church, as represented by Pope John Paul II, apologized for the brutality of the Crusades.

Was the Pope personally apologizing? No -- he wasn't responsible for the Crusades.

Was it an apology from all Catholics? Of course not -- the Crusades ended centuries before their birth.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that the apology was important and necessary.
It was neither important nor necessary but John Paul II is the kind of guy who would do that stuff so he did.

Put on your pants. I'm not interested in your mumbo jumbo.

I bet you all think you are clever with your context removals.

The legislators are voting for this. How is it not an apology by the lawmakers? Saying it is merely an impersonal apology by a government body just doesn't cut it, it is still an apology made by people, people who have no reason to do so.
Well, somebody has to deliver it, and as representatives of the state, the legislators are the ones responsible. But there is a difference between being responsible for delivering an apology and being responsible for the actions the apology is meant to absolve.

I for one would be opposed to an apology that is better spent governing. But if the government would apologize for something it had no part of than I with it would do so quickly and get on with it.
Agreed. I don't think that this should be some big to-do either -- but it is still necessary.

What closure? It will be trumpeted as a victory for blacks but you know full well that this won't just go away and it will still be used. Hardly closure when you won't let anyone not hear about it.
Was the Church's apology trumpeted as a victory for Muslims? Was Germany's apology trumpeted as a victory for Jews?

If done correctly, this apology will be like the others: a solemn, important occasion that will be gotten over with quickly. After all, when Virginia expressed "profound regret" for slavery, that didn't get "trumpeted" at all. Why should Georgia be any different?

NOTE: I just realized that for the last few posts I've been saying that the government of Virginia needs to apologize. Actually, Virginia already did so -- it's Georgia that's considering an apology now. Silly me! *goes off to correct posts*

The apology is absolutely still relevant.

But apology does not automatically mean reparations.

What I object to is the idea that if you wait just long enough, you never have to admit you've done wrong (and by you, I'm referring to a state). If you apologise too soon, you might actually have to compensate people...but if you wait until all the original people involved die, then there is no one to compensate.

I absolutely believe this is a tactic used by various governments. Proof of that can be seen in Canada, with the slow pace of restitution for Residential Schooling. As victims die, the payments lapse, they do not pass on to relatives. So it is absolutely in the best interest of the Canadian government to draw it out as long as possible.

But you know what? The money is not the point. The money will solve nothing, will fix nothing. The apology is everything to the people who have suffered. In a sense, I wish that apologising was in no way linked to admission that could lead to legal culpability, so that states would be more forthcoming with them.

I can't help if people are often scumbags. This doesn't mean that it is neccessary for people living in the present to say sorry for something they had no part of. I just don't see how that is fair or needed. If those who are accountable choose to ignore the injustice than that is their fault. And I would say that with an apology some would then demand compensation as fault has been admitted by the state. But your right money won't change anything, neither will an apology. Telling someone "I'm sorry my ancestors screwed over your ancestors" is pointless.

The individuals that make up the 'modern' state are clearly not the same individuals that made up the state in 1860. And my point is that the individuals are completely irrelevant. The state, as an entity, is the culpable party, regardless of how policies have changed over the years...the specific actors are beside the point.

Things have changed, and improved. That doesn't mean that a fucking 'look, we're sorry we did this' isn't necessary, applicable, or appropriate.

The state is made up of people. The laws regarding slavery were changed long before the current legislators took office. It is the same thing, a group of individuals running the government, so a government isn't a impersonal entity but one of people, government changes with those running it so I don't see how the people in office can be seen as irrelevant.

The state is made up of people. The laws regarding slavery were changed long before the current legislators took office. It is the same thing, a group of individuals running the government, so a government isn't a impersonal entity but one of people, government changes with those running it so I don't see how the people in office can be seen as irrelevant.

Then you really don't understand how a state functions. Let me give you a little hint. A new social order is not invented every time the people running the state change. What is to come is built on what came before. There is no break with the past. There is only evolution or devolution.

Once again, it's not about people, or individuals.

No one is asking you to take personal responsibility.

Well, somebody has to deliver it, and as representatives of the state, the legislators are the ones responsible. But there is a difference between being responsible for delivering an apology and being responsible for the actions the apology is meant to absolve.

*shrugs*

Since people make up government, trying to separate the two is impossible. It will still be people making up the apology.

Was the Church's apology trumpeted as a victory for Muslims? Was Germany's apology trumpeted as a victory for Jews?

If done correctly, this apology will be like the others: a solemn, important occasion that will be gotten over with quickly. After all, when Virginia expressed "profound regret" for slavery, that didn't get "trumpeted" at all. Why should Georgia be any different?

NOTE: I just realized that for the last few posts I've been saying that the government of Virginia needs to apologize. Actually, Virginia already did so -- it's Georgia that's considering an apology now. Silly me! *goes off to correct posts*

Treating these groups correctly in the now is what will show apology for their past actions, no solemn declarations will do that if society doesn't match what it says.

And you're right about the Virginia/Georgia thing but I'm too lazy to go back and change my posts. ;)

*shrugs*

Since people make up government, trying to separate the two is impossible. It will still be people making up the apology.
I see it more as their responsibility to remove a stain from Georgia's reputation rather than as personal apologies, but to each his own. If we can agree that this is something that the apology should be done with minimum of expense and fanfare -- followed up by meaningful social work -- then that's good enough for me.

Then you really don't understand how a state functions. Let me give you a little hint. A new social order is not invented every time the people running the state change. What is to come is built on what came before. There is no break with the past. There is only evolution or devolution.

Once again, it's not about people, or individuals.

No one is asking you to take personal responsibility.

Sounds like a guilt trip to me. And while I know that I am not taking personal responsibility, the states shouldn't have to either. I realize that society changes slowly, not with every election. But it doesn't mean that government isn't made of individuals. After all, it will be people who decide what seriousness they will decide to follow various laws. And it was people who enforced the slavery laws back when it was legal. It isn't as if it was beyond their control to change it. It was those individuals who were responsible, just as it was people who changed the laws. It is always people who make the change to the state, people and state are intertwined.

I see it more as their responsibility to remove a stain from Georgia's reputation rather than as personal apologies, but to each his own. If we can agree that this is something that the apology should be done with minimum of expense and fanfare -- followed up by meaningful social work -- then that's good enough for me.

While I personally see it as a waste of time, it is something that Georgia legislators simply must take part in as of the current political situation. So in this case, yes, apologize quickly and move on. Something like this doesn't really require any debate so it shouldn't take any time to get through.

No, it isn't. Constant demands != constant action. Which is what you insinuated last time.
I'll admit that I got your post a bit mixed up with Khadgar's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12448441&postcount=75), who was complaining that this would lead to "an apology for every generation". When I replied to your post, I interpreted "constant demands for an apology" as "demanding an apology every generation", even though that's not what you meant.

just a simple question of life. do you think that if every white man woman and child were to give every black man woman and child a sincere personal apology for anything their ancestors may of done to any black person in the history of the universe and payed them an agreed amount for compensation on the work their formal slave ancestors may of done. that maybe this whole thing would go away?

maybe we could all just start to get along and the arguement of "my slave ancestors were mistreated" would never be used again?

just a simple question of life. do you think that if every white man woman and child were to give every black man woman and child a sincere personal apology for anything their ancestors may of done to any black person in the history of the universe and payed them an agreed amount for compensation on the work their formal slave ancestors may of done. that maybe this whole thing would go away?

maybe we could all just start to get along and the arguement of "my slave ancestors were mistreated" would never be used again?

Don't look at me, I'm hispanic. :p

The state is made up of people. The laws regarding slavery were changed long before the current legislators took office. It is the same thing, a group of individuals running the government, so a government isn't a impersonal entity but one of people, government changes with those running it so I don't see how the people in office can be seen as irrelevant.

The government is both an entity unto itself and a group of people - much like a company.

Suppose the Coca Cola company (first to come to mind) mistreated their workers for a great deal of time. Then, new management took over and made new policy - making things better for the workers. Does this suddenly mean that, since the new Coca Cola management doesn't do those things, the Coca Cola company itself is not at all responsible for its past actions?

The government is both an entity unto itself and a group of people - much like a company.

Suppose the Coca Cola company (first to come to mind) mistreated their workers for a great deal of time. Then, new management took over and made new policy - making things better for the workers. Does this suddenly mean that, since the new Coca Cola management doesn't do those things, the Coca Cola company itself is not at all responsible for its past actions?

The situation would be closer to:

The Coca Cola Company mistreats a portion of it's workers for a long time. Some of the workers are shareholders in Coca Cola - they sack the board of management and elect a new Board and make the mistreated workers equal shareholders with equal voting rights. The new board, elected to make things better for the workers, is not responsible for the actions of the old board. If they continued the actions then they would be responsible, but they specifically didn't.

It sucks that the people responsible for slavery did not apologise. But as they did not that does not mean the burden of apologising is passed to future generations - generations who undid the wrongs perpetuated by the generations past. The people who were capeable of accepting the responsibility are dead, and others who are not responsible cannot apologise on their behalf. All you can do is remember the guys who did not apologise as being assholes and express regret and sympathy for the suffering caused to people who are long dead.

It sucks that the people responsible for slavery did not apologise. But as they did not that does not mean the burden of apologising is passed to future generations - generations who undid the wrongs perpetuated by the generations past. The people who were capeable of accepting the responsibility are dead, and others who are not responsible cannot apologise on their behalf. All you can do is remember the guys who did not apologise as being assholes and express regret and sympathy for the suffering caused to people who are long dead.
You make it sound as if apologizing is some tremendous and expensive ordeal. How hard could it be? Just draft a resolution and put it up to a vote. "All in favor? All opposed? The resolution passes." Simple as that. Little to no cost involved. Unless you consider it costly to have the government admit that it once did something wrong.

You remind me of this guy they profiled on the Daily Show a few weeks back -- he was a rabid atheist angry that a nearby town's church played churchbell music to mark each hour. He didn't live in the town. It didn't affect him. It made plenty of people happy. And yet it outraged him like all get-out. This apology thing is similar. The state's apology in no way affects you, costs nothing, and would make plenty of people happy. But you protest it strongly. Why?

The situation would be closer to:

The Coca Cola Company mistreats a portion of it's workers for a long time. Some of the workers are shareholders in Coca Cola - they sack the board of management and elect a new Board and make the mistreated workers equal shareholders with equal voting rights. The new board, elected to make things better for the workers, is not responsible for the actions of the old board. If they continued the actions then they would be responsible, but they specifically didn't.

In what way were the slaves like "shareholders"? Even after slavery was abolished, they were unable to participate in government with any numbers for a long time to come.

The example works as I first put it. New management has increasingly treated workers better, but it doesn't change the fact that the company (or government) mistreated people in the past.

It sucks that the people responsible for slavery did not apologise. But as they did not that does not mean the burden of apologising is passed to future generations - generations who undid the wrongs perpetuated by the generations past. The people who were capeable of accepting the responsibility are dead, and others who are not responsible cannot apologise on their behalf. All you can do is remember the guys who did not apologise as being assholes and express regret and sympathy for the suffering caused to people who are long dead.

Once again, there is a difference between people apologizing and organizations apologizing.

I've already addressed this point with my Pakistani immigrant example.

Once again, this is really not about individual responsibility. It is about state responsibility.

The state represents the people who put it in power -- i.e., the people who voted the current legislators, etc. into office. The current state, thus, bears no responsibility for something that happened 150 years ago, as the people it is representing weren't even alive then. Your Pakistani immigrants remark only underscores this point. They weren't even here then, yet the state which they put into power with their votes is going to deign to apologise on their behalf for something with which they have absolutely no connection whatsoever? That's just ludicrous.

(Sorry about the delay in responding. Needed my afternoon nap. And before we start another go-round here, Neesika, I'll warn you, I've gotta pop off to the grocery store soon. Can't make my falafel tonight if I can't make the cucumber-yogurt sauce to go with it, and my falafel urge is definitely taking priority over a debate on teh intarwebs. :p )

You make it sound as if apologizing is some tremendous and expensive ordeal. How hard could it be? Just draft a resolution and put it up to a vote. "All in favor? All opposed? The resolution passes." Simple as that. Little to no cost involved. Unless you consider it costly to have the government admit that it once did something wrong.



I object to the principle of people, or a group of people being held responsible for actions they not ony did, but could not have possibly have ever had any control over.

You cannot apologise for something that you are not responsible for. Apologising is about accepting responsibility and openly admiting you were wrong - something you cannot do for actions you could not have had involvement in.

You can express regret for actions you were not involved in, a group of people can express regret for actions committed by their ancestors. You can state that another persons actions were wrong/evil, a group of people can state that their ancestors actions were wrong/evil. However they cannot accept collective responsibility for those actions as they had no involvement in them.

A government is elected by the people to represent them, to speak for their collective voice. If not a single person who elected a government has any responsibility in an action then not a single person electing the government can apologise for the action. As nobody electing the government can apologise for the action then the government speaking on behalf of the people it represents cannot apologise for the action. They can express regret for suffering caused, they can state that what happened was evil and wrong, they can seek to redress the imbalance of rights and take measures to try to prevent such a thing ever hapening again - however they cannot apologise.

In what way were the slaves like "shareholders"? Even after slavery was abolished, they were unable to participate in government with any numbers for a long time to come.
They would have been amoung the people not included in the "some employees were shareholders" - not the word 'some' was used rather than 'all'. Their ancestors are now in the group of people who are shareholders. The change took a shamefully long amount of time, however it has taken place.

If I may, I'd like to chime in here with some insight as a white Georgian.

Firstly, to resolve a minor issue: April already IS Confederate History Month; you just can't mention it in public because any time you say the word "Confederate" in any non-negative light, people glare at you until you melt into the pavement.

Secondly, what Governor Perdue was saying was simply that he didn't feel right apologizing on behalf of people without getting their consent first. That seems reasonable enough to me.

Additionally, all of the original 13 colonies held slaves, but nobody bothers asking the state of New York or Rhode Island for an apology.

Now, on to the rather fun slavery apology debate: before we begin, I'd like to reveal something shocking: I am a descendant of Confederates who NEVER owned a single slave. But they still fought. Why, you ask? Because they felt that the federal government was encroaching upon their way of life for purely economic reasons. The history books love to make it sound like every Southern white was some kind of rabid, black-hating slaver, but the fact of the matter is that roughly 90% of the CSA's residents never owned a single slave; it was the poor sharecroppers and day laborers who had to fight the war, while the landed gentlemen, who were wealthy enough to buy substitutes, owned the slaves.

This part is something that you sort of have to be Southern to know about, because everyone else is presented with a slanted version of the truth. I have never once encountered an African-American who needed, or even wanted, an apology for slavery. Perhaps it's because I went to a gifted school, but the people I met were level-headed and reasonable, and didn't think that getting modern whites to apologize for what happened a century and a half ago would change anything. The only people who really want that apology are the Jesse Jacksons, the Al Sharptons, and the Cynthia McKinneys who don't really want it at all. What they want is a trophy of their victory over "the white man" that they can parade around.

Was slavery wrong? Yes, and you'll have an extremely hard time finding anyone who disagrees. Will apologizing for it now do any good? Probably not. People can talk about how it salves hurt feelings all they want, but does it really change or affect the lives of modern blacks in any form or fashion? The real way to deal with a problem in the past is to acknowledge it was a problem, learn from it, and grow to deal with that problem.

A democratic state should not be deeply involved in the apology business. The state carries out the will of the people within the framework of treaties. The people might want some silly laws like multiple generational slavery or ridiculously low maximum speed limits.

At the time, slavery was Constitutional. States were more or less free to accept or reject slavery within their borders (although there were some limitations on accepting new states as free or slave states).

After the Civil War, a class of people were economically punished by the Federal Government for their past practice of owning slaves. These folks were the previous slave owners. The Federal Constitution requires all governments within the US to pay for property seized by such a government. However, sometimes a regulatory taking occurs where the government does not need to pay for "taken" property. Two examples of this are when owning alcohol and slaves became illegal.

These slave owners lost their investment. I think that this was punishment enough.

The really nasty things that I hhave been reading on this discussion concern the idea that reparations should be paid to blacks who can trace their roots to a slave. Ok, if descendents of slave owners feel bad for some reason, they should be able to donate money to a charity that pays descendents of slaves if they want to. I do not think that I would do this if I was such a person.

However, nobody should be forced to do this.

With the exception of Indians through treaty rights nobody should be able to get some money from a government as compensation for a wrong that happened over 140 years ago. Many freed slaves and folks sympathetic to the plight of freed slaves wanted the Federal governemnt to give each freed slave family 40 acres and a mule. This never happened and for better or worse we have to just accept it. The government could have done this but chose not to.

I am a Jew and I am sure that many of my relatives who did not leave Europe were killed in the Holocaust. I can sort of see the point of people who compare germany apologizing to Jews and the world for the holocaust and fascilitating the return of stolen property to Jews to an apology and reparations to descendents of Slaves in America.

However, I must distinguish the two. I do not think that the State of Germany ever paid money to descendents of Jews who worked as slaves, were killed, or had their property stolen by the government. I think they only paid a little to actual slaves regardless of religion or ethnicity.

This was recent enslavement whereas the American slavery issue is more distant in time. Clearly, nobody is really affected today by slavery. There has been too much water under the bridge. The question of whether freed slaves should have received 40 acres and a mule is one for historical debate not contemporary policy. To borrow an apt legal term, the issue should be barred by the doctrine of latches.

The other issue is that Amercian slaves were predominantly obtained through an international trade system whereby they were acquired by the primary traders through then existing concepts of what to do with POWs and others captured during intertribal raids.

Although we can say that such a practice was nasty and whites should not have degraded themselves by engaging in and thereby encouraging savage practices by savage people, we would be hypocritical as we even today allow goods to be imported into our country that were created in working and environmental conditions that would not be allowed had they been made in America and we are thereby doing the same thing of taking advantage of foreign and barbaric practices in order to get something cheaper through importation. This should be the real debate but so many of us are just a bunch of hypocrits that like to shop at Wal-Mart. It is far easier to throw stones at the sinful dead men of the past than take a critical look at ourselves.

The US is a socially fluid place. Folks can and more often than not do rise or fall on their own merits. This is especially true over the course of 3 generations. There is a lot of truth to the fact that a fool and his money are quickly parted.

Take a look at first generation immigrants. These guys typically start out at the bottom rung economically and are typically the richest folks in the country after they have been here for a few decades. These guys are the ones who start the businesses and do the work that nobody else wants to do and they work hard and are succesful. Within a few generations though, the great grandkids see little if any benefit directly from the 1st generation guys. Their position has a lot more to do with their financial values ( i.e. save and invest and live below your means vs. buy new cars and rack up credit card debt) rather than any money left over from the 1st generation immigrant.

If this is true at the third generation it is even more true 5+ generations with the pre civil war ancestors.

So to sum it up: State apologies are silly and reparations are bad m'kay.

I object to the principle of people, or a group of people being held responsible for actions they not ony did, but could not have possibly have ever had any control over.

I would object to that idea as well. If someone were to tell me that I, as an individual, needed to apologize for the evils of slavery, I'd laugh in their face. I've never owned (nor wanted to own) a slave.

The government of GA, on the other hand, did have a hand in slavery. The current legislators may not have, but the government itself did.

Some people are trying to pretend like the government completely blinks out of existence at every election and is blinked back into existence the next time a legal body meets. That is ridiculous. The government itself, as an entity, existed well before I was born (or any of the current representatives in said government were born) and will most likely exist after we're all dead too.

The situation would be closer to:

The Coca Cola Company mistreats a portion of it's workers for a long time. Some of the workers are shareholders in Coca Cola - they sack the board of management and elect a new Board and make the mistreated workers equal shareholders with equal voting rights. The new board, elected to make things better for the workers, is not responsible for the actions of the old board. If they continued the actions then they would be responsible, but they specifically didn't.

It sucks that the people responsible for slavery did not apologise. But as they did not that does not mean the burden of apologising is passed to future generations - generations who undid the wrongs perpetuated by the generations past. The people who were capeable of accepting the responsibility are dead, and others who are not responsible cannot apologise on their behalf. All you can do is remember the guys who did not apologise as being assholes and express regret and sympathy for the suffering caused to people who are long dead.


I agree 100%. The only thing that I would add though is that we should see how the basic concept applies today. An example is our US trade policy that allows us to import products from countries that have little or no labor or environmental laws regulating the firms that make those products. I applaud the EU for taking steps in that direction at least with intra-EU trade. I think we should not be importing products from anywhere that does not have roughly similar laws restricting the makers of those goods. I think that this is analogous to the moral questions raised by our participation in the slave trade.

I live in Pennsylvania and our government sometimes assisted and often turned a blind eye some pretty nasty anti-labor activities by private business interests. That being said, I do not want my governor or legislators worrying about apologizing to the descendents of early labor unionists. I would much rather have them doing other things.

These slave owners lost their investment. I think that this was punishment enough.

Are you serious? Please tell me you're joking.

This was recent enslavement whereas the American slavery issue is more distant in time. Clearly, nobody is really affected today by slavery.

Clearly, eh? I don't think it's all that clear. No one has directly been affected by slavery, but to pretend that there are no lingering effects would be idiotic.

The US is a socially fluid place. Folks can and more often than not do rise or fall on their own merits.

....within a limited range.

A kid who grows up in the ghetto is not at all likely to become the CEO of a company, no matter how hard he works. Barring any horrible tragedy, he might be able to own a house one day.

A kid who grows up with a rich mommy and daddy probably will own his own company one day even if he is a lazy bum. At worst, he might actually have to work a real job.

Take a look at first generation immigrants. These guys typically start out at the bottom rung economically and are typically the richest folks in the country after they have been here for a few decades.

Typically? You've been watching too many fairy tale movies, my dear.

Are you serious? Please tell me you're joking.
I hope so too.

Of course they have also gone down in history as utter bastards, but until we manage to be able to raise the dead that is the worst we can punish them with.

Clearly, eh? I don't think it's all that clear. No one has directly been affected by slavery, but to pretend that there are no lingering effects would be idiotic.
I am not so sure that all the effects attributed to slavery are really caused by it. In the UK there is a huge disparity in wealth where Black people are way down the ladder - similar to the US, however the vast majority of Black people in the UK are not descended from slaves - they arrived in various immigration waves as free people. I would blame current rascism rather than events of over 100 years ago for this disparity.

Why is an apology for slavery needed? Didn't we outlaw it? That is an apology right there admitting it was wrong and making it illegal.For starters, you're confusing your "we." Surely the State of Georgia did not voluntarily outlaw slavery.

I consider it stupid. No one alive has benefited directly from slavery.The operative word being "directly."

We still prosecute people for accepting stolen goods, don't we?

There is no segregation in America, it was ruled unconstitutional and abolished.You might want to check your facts on that one. Segregation was ruled unconstitutional, but it certainly has not been abolished.

The ONLY reason that the NAACP is pushing for this is to try and exert political power over the government. If the government caves into this demand, they'll cave into more demands.Well, there you go. You keep asking "what will this do?" According to you, it will shift political power in the direction of black advocacy groups. And unless you're prepared to either a) argue that these groups do no good for African Americans still suffering under the legacy of slavery; or b) contradict yourself and decide that the NAACP will NOT actually benefit from this move... then it would appear, by your own words, that apologies really do help.

:D

I fail to see the merits of apologizing for slavery. Firstly, it is to overlook the undoubted role played by slave labour in the formation of the west and colonialism. Secondly, it achieves nothing beyond making insufferably politically correct, multicultural bellends even more smug than normal. Thirdly, I object to the precedent it sets, and the axiom that a state is responsible for its past. Do the French demand an apology for Henry V's having unchivalrically executed noble prisoners at Agincourt?

To apologize because some NAACP crackpots tell you to is only to perpetuate the NAACP turning African-Americans into TOOLS for thier own political power.In order to argue that the many millions of African Americans who support the NAACP are "tools" of this organization, you would have to believe that the organization does nothing to benefit them.

You would have to believe, in essence, that they have simply been "duped" into supporting an organization that does nothing for them. Something about that idea smells very racist to me. Seems you don't have much confidence in African Americans to make decisions about the legitimacy of a political organization.

Would you care to cite evidence that the lobbying efforts of the NAACP are not directed to the benefit of their primary constituency? Would you like to tell me exactly HOW they have "used" people?

They don't seem much different than most other political advocacy groups to me. And from what I can tell, they are probably more straightforward in their aims than most.

I really don't see why we need to apologize for something we had no part in.What "we" is apologizing? This is not a personal apology from every citizen of the State for the history of slavery. It is an official apology from a political entity--the State--which certainly did have a part in the crime.

It just seems rather pointless, a waste of the time of our elected officials.How much time do you really think this takes?

It is not as if we can apologize for every last thing we have done that was wrong.Ah, the age-old, "If we can't fix everything, we shouldn't fix anything" argument. Nice.

I fail to see the merits of apologizing for slavery.
I fail to see the merits of not apologizing. It doesn't cost anything, it's a good sentiment and nothing could go wrong outside the sensitivities of a bunch of closet racist.

"As a white Southerner I apologize for slavery."
Look everyone, God didn't burn me to a crisp!

From the AP:



Note the bolded parts.

Sickening that there can still be politicians who consider apologizing for slavery to be politically unsafe.

I'm more sickened by celebrating Confederacy. What if some idiot decides to do it all again?

So what? We pay the slaves descendents for wages never given?No, but there are plenty of much more effective and sensible forms of reparation available.

Also, before we even get into this debate, look up the definition of "reparation." Got it? Now look up the definition of "compensation." Got it?

Now repeat. Again. Got it? Keep doing that until you thoroughly understand that they do not mean the same thing, and then you should understand that no one who advocates reparations for slavery means anything like compensation for slavery.

I fail to see the merits of not apologizing. It doesn't cost anything, it's a good sentiment and nothing could go wrong outside the sensitivities of a bunch of closet racist.

"As a white Southerner I apologize for slavery."
Look everyone, God didn't burn me to a crisp!

Why apologize for something we had no control over?

And why are there constant demands? Because an apology has never been given. Ever.Exactly.

And so the "we didn't have anything to do with it" argument turns out to be a justification for letting a debt drop if only the debtor can manage to hold out long enough.

After the Civil War, people demanded reparations (an apology might have been a start). They didn't get any.

Fifty years later, people demanded reparations. They didn't get any.

One hundred and fifty years later, people are still demanding reparations. The response? "Sorry, too late. You should have asked our great-great grandparents."

It's never too late.

The legislators are voting for this. How is it not an apology by the lawmakers?Umm... because that kind of logic would be stupid? Really, really stupid?

Try extending that to other legislative actions. The legislature collects taxes. Do those taxes belong to the lawmakers? No, they belong to the state. When the legislature decides to set aside money to build a bridge, does it make any sense at all to say that the lawmakers set aside "their" money for the bridge? No, they reserve the state's money.

When they make an apology, they apologize on behalf of the state, much as they collect and spend money on behalf of the political entity, not themselves personally considered.

I'm more sickened by celebrating Confederacy. What if some idiot decides to do it all again?

Well, if we're smart we'll let them go.

mumbo jumbo.I guess I'm the only one who is bothered by the fact that "mumbo jumbo" is a very racist term?

Oddly appropriate for this discussion, I guess.

I think the fuckers who made the Catwoman owe the people who went and saw it some restitution.

Treating these groups correctly in the now is what will show apology for their past actions, no solemn declarations will do that if society doesn't match what it says.Yes, society must match what it says.

But it helps a whole lot rhetorically if it does, in fact, start saying things like this.

I live in Southwest Georgia in probably the most racist and African American dominated county in the state. I work at a store where tons of blacks shop everyday. And I see what kind of life these people live. My opinion on this though is that blacks have not attempted in anyway to forgive us anyway. An issued apology from the state legislature will not fix it. NOTHING will fix it. Blacks will always hold the white people in contempt and whites will always look at blacks like garbage. Why!? No one really knows for sure. I just really don't think that the apology will really work all that well. Hell nothing short of welfare for the rest of their lives will probably make them happy.

Are you serious? Please tell me you're joking.



Clearly, eh? I don't think it's all that clear. No one has directly been affected by slavery, but to pretend that there are no lingering effects would be idiotic.



....within a limited range.

A kid who grows up in the ghetto is not at all likely to become the CEO of a company, no matter how hard he works. Barring any horrible tragedy, he might be able to own a house one day.

A kid who grows up with a rich mommy and daddy probably will own his own company one day even if he is a lazy bum. At worst, he might actually have to work a real job.



Typically? You've been watching too many fairy tale movies, my dear.

I know and have sometimes invested in many entrepeneurs who started out with jack squat. The only one that I talked to about his family life was the son of a drug addict. I hope that I can assure you that when investors and venture capitalists evaluate investing in entrepeneurs, they do not consdier whether a guy came from a bad neighborhood or broken home. In fact, this might even be an asset because a sharp entrepeneur who came from jack squat is impressive and capitalism-affirming.

I have also seen or heard tell of family fortunes quickly squandered. The best discussion of it in a book is found in The Millionaire Next Door.

Most middleclass folks who got into college before all the need based education floodgates were opened, got their in one of two ways: 1) The GI Bill after WWII, or 2) some poor immigrant or other poor guy started his own company and worked his butt off doing something boring and made a ton of $ and wanted his kids not to have to struggle like him so he wanted them to become a professional.

The GI Bill is still a great way for a young American to get access to a higher edeucation. Starting boring businesses that others think is too strenuous or "beneath them" is still a great way to make wealth in this economy.

This is not a fairy tale. This is the beauty of capitalism and social mobility. My ancestors came to America is 1900. This is a full generation or two after the last generation of slaves. My ancestors came here with no knowledge of English and they were both about 13 or 14 years old. They struggled and sacrificed but their kids went to college without the GI Bill. I never met them but I am proud of them.

Slavery has no effect on us today in an economic sense. It is too far attenuated in the past. I am struggling with trying to see how it could. The only thing that I can think of is actually a benefit. The descendants of the slaves are mostly living in the USA which has a much better economy than Africa which is where they probably would be living if we never had slaves in the USA.

The Coca Cola Company mistreats a portion of it's workers for a long time. Some of the workers are shareholders in Coca Cola - they sack the board of management and elect a new Board and make the mistreated workers equal shareholders with equal voting rights. The new board, elected to make things better for the workers, is not responsible for the actions of the old board. If they continued the actions then they would be responsible, but they specifically didn't.Actually, a better analogy might go as follows:

Within the Coca Cola Company, the factories producing Coke mistreat a particular minority of their workers, while the factories producing Sprite actually enslave that same minority. After a while, the executives running the Coke factories take over the Company Board. The executives running the Sprite factories, fearing a law that would prohibit slavery, announce that they are going to break off and make their own company.

A war ensues, and the Coca Cola Company defeats its own Sprite subsidiary; in the process, the Company abolishes slavery.

Over the course of the next century or so, conditions for the oppressed minority gradually improve in the Coke factories, but the Sprite factories are pissed about the whole situation, and they condone frequent lynchings of the oppressed minority. Meanwhile, they continue to enforce a devastating system of segregation that continues to disadvantage the oppressed minority.

For a while, the Board goes along... but eventually, a special adjudicating committee of the Board rules that such mistreatment violates the Company charter. After another decade or so, the Board itself goes along with this decision and the system of segregation starts being dismantled.

Of course, few of the Sprite factories do a very good job at desegregating, and by now they have a distinct class system in which members of the oppressed minority have great difficulties getting promotions or raises. Occasionally and without much stamina, some efforts are made to correct the problems, but progress occurs in fits and starts.

The whole time, the oppressed minority has asked the Sprite factories to apologize for the slavery that started this whole business. They feel that such a public apology would shift the terms of debate when it comes to repairing the extensive damage done to them over the years.

It's not much, but it's a start.

EDIT: And things still aren't all that great in the Coke factories, either. ;)

Why apologize for something we had no control over?

Why not?
Of course its irrational and stupid, but you just come off as a bigot when you get your panties in a knot when someone does apologize.

Before we begin, I'd like to reveal something shocking: I am a descendant of Confederates who NEVER owned a single slave. But they still fought. Why, you ask? Because they felt that the federal government was encroaching upon their way of life for purely economic reasons. The history books love to make it sound like every Southern white was some kind of rabid, black-hating slaver, but the fact of the matter is that roughly 90% of the CSA's residents never owned a single slave; it was the poor sharecroppers and day laborers who had to fight the war, while the landed gentlemen, who were wealthy enough to buy substitutes, owned the slaves.Ah, and what a great "way of life" they had... :rolleyes:

You are correct, of course, that most Southerners never owned slaves--although the most reliable numbers I can find are closer to 75%, not the impressive 90% that you cite. Moreover, historians are in agreement that these non-slaveholders identified with the "way of life" of the South.

What you so elegantly gloss over is that they identified very particularly with the slave-holding way of life. They aspired to become slaveholders some day, in much the same way that the contemporary poor dream (usually hopelessly) to enjoy the lifestyles of the rich and famous.

What you imply by omission is that the majority of non-slaveholder Southern whites did not actually support slavery. The fact of the matter is that they did.

Of course, this entire discussion is beside the point. I am simply a very firm supporter of historical accuracy. :)

Why not?
Of course its irrational and stupid, but you just come off as a bigot when you get your panties in a knot when someone does apologize.

If someone is worried about how they "come off" and act acordingly they are surrendering their autonomy.

Actually, a better analogy might go as follows:

Within the Coca Cola Company, the factories producing Coke mistreat a particular minority of their workers, while the factories producing Sprite actually enslave that same minority. After a while, the executives running the Coke factories take over the Company Board. The executives running the Sprite factories, fearing a law that would prohibit slavery, announce that they are going to break off and make their own company.

A war ensues, and the Coca Cola Company defeats its own Sprite subsidiary; in the process, the Company abolishes slavery.

Over the course of the next century or so, conditions for the oppressed minority gradually improve in the Coke factories, but the Sprite factories are pissed about the whole situation, and they condone frequent lynchings of the oppressed minority. Meanwhile, they continue to enforce a devastating system of segregation that continues to disadvantage the oppressed minority.

For a while, the Board goes along... but eventually, a special adjudicating committee of the Board rules that such mistreatment violates the Company charter. After another decade or so, the Board itself goes along with this decision and the system of segregation starts being dismantled.

Of course, few of the Sprite factories do a very good job at desegregating, and by now they have a distinct class system in which members of the oppressed minority have great difficulties getting promotions or raises. Occasionally and without much stamina, some efforts are made to correct the problems, but progress occurs in fits and starts.

The whole time, the oppressed minority has asked the Sprite factories to apologize for the slavery that started this whole business. They feel that such a public apology would shift the terms of debate when it comes to repairing the extensive damage done to them over the years.

It's not much, but it's a start.

EDIT: And things still aren't all that great in the Coke factories, either. ;)

Holy shit! I'm never drinking Sprite again. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

:p :D :p

Ok, I've read the whole thread and I want to comment on points that were made by many different people, so I'm not going to quote, I'm just going to list points:

1) Anyone who would deny that the US is not still working with political and social structures that were current during the time of slavery is just not paying attention to the world around them. Inequality, particularly in regards to the use and treatment of labor, has been an ongoing problem in this country ever since the abolition of slavery, from which time the treatment of paid workers has either declined or been fought over (politically and occasionally literally). In other words, the desire of some people to avoid paying other people for their work has not disappeared just because actual slavery is no longer legal. This is a cultural problem, not an institutionalized one any longer, but like many such issues, a first step to addressing it -- to raising social consciousness about it -- is to take institutional action, such as an apology by government. Slavery is over. The issues that drove it are not. A government apology is a symbolic action but not an empty one.

2) An official government apology for the crimes of the past will not lead to any action to fix current race-based problems, but it will help to break the Cone of Silence that some people seem to want to keep over this dark part of our history and any debate about its relationship to our current social condition. Remember, folks, the first step is acknowledging that you have a problem.

3) My family were busy being oppressed in five different parts of Europe when the US had slavery and fought over it. Same with the Indian Wars and all that 19th century imperialist expansionist crap. But still, in my daily life, when I become aware that I am being treated in a way that a person of another color isn't, or that I am benefitting from a social system that was built on racism and oppression, I feel bad about it. Not personally guilty, but I do not wish to benefit by a crime, even if someone else committed it. It makes me feel better about my government to know that they also feel bad about what their forebears did. It makes me trust them just a tiny bit more. Maybe that's because I don't think of this as an issue that's only relevant to "the blacks." Oppression can touch everyone, no matter how privileged they may feel right now, and what can be done to one group can be done to all -- can be done to me. So yeah, I like it when my government says they reject everything to do with slavery.

4) On the other hand, if this apology were addressed to me, I'd be more impressed with it if it came with a gift-wrapped increase in inner city education funding. When the whole debate about social inequality can be derailed by such trivial sniping over who did what to who's auntie and who didn't, it accomplishes nothing but to ignore our real problems and real needs.

5) Finally, I agree with those who have pointed out that the more disturbing part of the story is the establishment of an official Confederacy month. It is one thing for individual people to celebrate the Confederacy if they want. That's free speech. But for a governmental entity of the United States to celebrate a movement that sought to break up the country and that launched a brutal civil war seems more than a little questionable to me.

1) Anyone who would deny that the US is not still working with political and social structures that were current during the time of slavery is just not paying attention to the world around them. Inequality, particularly in regards to the use and treatment of labor, has been an ongoing problem in this country ever since the abolition of slavery, from which time the treatment of paid workers has either declined or been fought over (politically and occasionally literally).
Personal racism is not institutionalized racism therefore making your first sentence irrelevant.

In other words, the desire of some people to avoid paying other people for their work has not disappeared just because actual slavery is no longer legal. This is a cultural problem, not an institutionalized one any longer
Look, you say it yourself.

but like many such issues, a first step to addressing it -- to raising social consciousness about it -- is to take institutional action, such as an apology by government.
If we are going to make broad, sweeping statements about beliefs, I will throw in my hat. Anyone who believes an apology is going to "raise social consciousness" about racism or otherwise improve peoples' personal prejudices is not only kidding themselves but wasting their time trying to force a superfluous action when they could instead be doing something that actually could be raising social consciousness and improving peoples' personal prejudices.

A government apology is a symbolic action but not an empty one.
It's hollower than an old, dead log.

An official government apology for the crimes of the past will not lead to any action to fix current race-based problems,
Is it just me or are you just not linking points together?

but it will help to break the Cone of Silence that some people seem to want to keep over this dark part of our history and any debate about its relationship to our current social condition.
Keep dark in our history? It is well acknowledged. People just need to move on to something useful.

Remember, folks, the first step is acknowledging that you have a problem.
Who is denying a problem? I personally deny the ludicrous idea that an apology is going to help anything and believe that we should move on to actions that will actually address the problem instead of focusing on apologies that only serve to inflame both sides against the other.

Finally, I agree with those who have pointed out that the more disturbing part of the story is the establishment of an official Confederacy month.
What should we do about it? Sweep it under the rug? The confederacy existed, it has as much a right to be recognized as anything else.

But for a governmental entity of the United States to celebrate a movement that sought to break up the country and that launched a brutal civil war seems more than a little questionable to me.
I never saw how "anything month" was a celebration of anything. And hell, with all the misinformation about the Civil War and Confederacy on both sides, we might as well have a month dedicated to it.

I just want to respond to Point 5 of Muyavets post. Confederates were Americans too. So many Confederates died in the Civil War that if we suffered this amount of casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan CNN-Liberals would go ape. This happened when our country as a whole was a lot smaller and the confederacy was just a part of that smaller country.

These guys suffered economically in ways the North did not. Like Lincoln, I am a Northener who thinks that we should have Malice towards none of the Southerners who gave of their lives and property for a cause. When was the last time that you signed up to fight in an army that often did not have antisthetic for its wounded soldiers? If you are so much better than them, then you have the right to belittle them. Unfortunately, I am not better than them and cannot cast stones at their memories. I honor every American soldier whether he served in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in Spain, the Texas Republic, the Confederacy, the Continental Army, or the US army. I am pleased that we honor them and their families.

Personal racism is not institutionalized racism therefore making your first sentence irrelevant.
Failure of reading comprehension on your part. I am not talking about the effect of the issues behind slavery on current race relations. I'm talking about their effect on current labor relations. That has nothing to do with race but much to do with social equality issues in the US.


Look, you say it yourself.
You think I'm contradicting myself because you fail to comprehend the first part of my paragraph. I did not contradict myself.


If we are going to make broad, sweeping statements about beliefs, I will throw in my hat. Anyone who believes an apology is going to "raise social consciousness" about racism or otherwise improve peoples' personal prejudices is not only kidding themselves but wasting their time trying to force a superfluous action when they could instead be doing something that actually could be raising social consciousness and improving peoples' personal prejudices.
I can rely on the whole of the 1960s and 1970s (beginning with the Civil Rights Movement, which you cannot claim to be unrelated to slavery) to prove your assertion wrong. Symbolic public actions do make a difference. Your denial of this only stands (shakily) if you continue to ignore the terms that I used, such as "a first step," in order to make it seem as if I was making claims that I did not, in fact, make.


It's hollower than an old, dead log.
But not as shallow or meaningless as this remark of yours.

Is it just me or are you just not linking points together?
It's just you.

Actually, I am making separate points.

Keep dark in our history? it is well acknowledged. People just need to move on to something useful.
This is just you continuing to complain that other people are making you think about something you'd rather not think about (complaining about having that Cone of Silence lifted, in other words). It is not up to you to decide that a major chapter of US history is no longer "useful." History never stops being useful. Unless you really really want to relive it.

Again, your remarks make sense only if you ignore the content of my remarks. I stated clearly that there is debate to be had about the effect of the past on the present. If we are to have such a debate about the present then "moving on" from the past is not useful at all.


Who is denying a problem? I personally deny the ludicrous idea that an apology is going to help anything and believe that we should move on to moves that will actually address the problem instead of focusing on apologies that only serve to inflame both sides against the other.
Yes, I know what you are doing and what you are saying. I don't buy your assertions at all.


What should we do about it? Sweep it under the rug? The confederacy existed, it has as much a right to be recognized as anything else.
No, it does not. From the point of view of the current, post-Civil-War US government, the Confederacy were the enemy who fought a war against them. Why should members of the current US government celebrate that enemy? That is not appropriate.


I never saw how "anything month" was a celebration of anything. And hell, with all the misinformation about the Civil War and Confederacy on both sides, we might as well have a month dedicated to it.
Another shallow and meaningless remark that serves to do nothing but dismiss an issue rather than address it. You really don't like to be made to think about things, do you?

Sorry, perhaps that was a little harsh.

I just want to respond to Point 5 of Muyavets post. Confederates were Americans too. So many Confederates died in the Civil War that if we suffered this amount of casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan CNN-Liberals would go ape. This happened when our country as a whole was a lot smaller and the confederacy was just a part of that smaller country.
The Confederacy sought to secede. They fought a war to do so. They cannot secede from the nation and still claim the rights and privileges of citizens of that nation. During the Civil War, all those who sought to secede were de facto renouncing their citizenship, and thus, could not be considered "Americans." The fact that the US government, after the war, chose not to deport all those people does not change the fact that secessionists cannot also claim to be citizens.

These guys suffered economically in ways the North did not. Like Lincoln, I am a Northener who thinks that we should have Malice towards none of the Southerners who gave of their lives and property for a cause. When was the last time that you signed up to fight in an army that often did not have antisthetic for its wounded soldiers? If you are so much better than them, then you have the right to belittle them. Unfortunately, I am not better than them and cannot cast stones at their memories. I honor every American soldier whether he served in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in Spain, the Texas Republic, the Confederacy, the Continental Army, or the US army. I am pleased that we honor them and their families.
I disagree with you as a point of technicality. I cannot accept that Confederate soldiers deserve to be honored as American soldiers. As secessionists, they were not fighting for this nation. I suppose I could be denounced as a hardcore Yankee, but that's my viewpoint.

Personally, re the Civil War, I think it was a mistake. I believe that, in a country like ours, secession cannot legitimately be made illegal, unless you are going to deny all sovereignty of any kind to the states as governmental entities. If I had been President then, I probably would have argued in favor of allowing the southern states to secede, and once they had declared independence, I probably would have declared war on them and blockaded their ports and closed their northern border in order to free their slaves by force [EDIT: and in the process, probably crushed them just as they were by Lincoln, defeated them, and reannexed all their territories]. But that's just me. Such an action would not be ethical, but it would not be less ethical, imo, than saying that people do not have the right to determine their own citizenship status.

Anyone who believes an apology is going to "raise social consciousness" about racism or otherwise improve peoples' personal prejudices is not only kidding themselves but wasting their time trying to force a superfluous action when they could instead be doing something that actually could be raising social consciousness and improving peoples' personal prejudices.You're contradicting yourself. Really badly.

On the one hand, you complain that a symbolic apology is "superfluous," a waste of time that could be better spent working on material improvements.

Okay. Let's suppose you're right.

But then when someone proposes this "useless" measure, what is your response? Are you the legislator who abstains because you just don't care, because it is irrelevant? Are you the citizen who lets the legislature go ahead with their useless gesture so that we can get on to better, more important things?

No. You leap up from your seat and insist on further debate before we adopt such a measure. You won't just let it slide. You won't ignore this conversation and start a more important thread advocating social justice.

In fact, it's not that you don't care about the issue. It's not that you regard it as a useless gesture. It's that you actively oppose it... and active opposition generally has something to do with what you believe will be the effects of a proposal. Unless you're completely out of your mind, you don't offer active resistance to something that a) costs nothing; and b) does nothing.

You just let it slide... so that, as you say, we can all get on to more important things.

So, my question is this: what are you afraid of? What inner contradiction lies at the root of your logical contradictions? What's actually wrong with an apology for slavery?

Don't tell me it's useless, because in that case your actions belie your words. Tell me what it actually does that makes it actually wrong.

That, or just let it slide.

It's hollower than an old, dead log.Is it? Would you take an axe to an old, dead log?

Is it just me or are you just not linking points together?Back at ya.

I personally deny the ludicrous idea that an apology is going to help anything and believe that we should move on to actions that will actually address the problem instead of focusing on apologies that only serve to inflame both sides against the other.An apology takes about thirty seconds, unless someone stands up to complain. If you're so concerned about time, stop wasting so much of it.

You're contradicting yourself. Really badly.

On the one hand, you complain that a symbolic apology is "superfluous," a waste of time that could be better spent working on material improvements.

Okay. Let's suppose you're right.

But then when someone proposes this "useless" measure, what is your response? Are you the legislator who abstains because you just don't care, because it is irrelevant? Are you the citizen who lets the legislature go ahead with their useless gesture so that we can get on to better, more important things?

No. You leap up from your seat and insist on further debate before we adopt such a measure. You won't just let it slide. You won't ignore this conversation and start a more important thread advocating social justice.
I wouldn't just cut off the rest of your post but since you are baselessly assuming what I would do in some situation and then telling it to me, I see no point.

I wouldn't just cut off the rest of your post but since you are baselessly assuming what I would do in some situation and then telling it to me, I see no point.Do I need to teach you the definition of "analogy"?

I fail to see the merits of apologizing for slavery. Firstly, it is to overlook the undoubted role played by slave labour in the formation of the west and colonialism. Secondly, it achieves nothing beyond making insufferably politically correct, multicultural bellends even more smug than normal. Thirdly, I object to the precedent it sets, and the axiom that a state is responsible for its past. Do the French demand an apology for Henry V's having unchivalrically executed noble prisoners at Agincourt?
Yes, because you've proven yourself to be such a fair and unbiased arbiter of racial issues in the past... :rolleyes:

I object to the principle of people, or a group of people being held responsible for actions they not ony did, but could not have possibly have ever had any control over.
Good God, how many times do I have to say it? A state apology is just that -- an apology from the state. Not the people of the state, and not the politicians of the state. It doesn't even relate to them. It is purely an apology from the state government as an impersonal institution. Sure, the apology itself would be delivered by legislators. Somebody has to give it. But that doesn't mean that they or their constituents are responsible for the actions being apologized for.

You cannot apologise for something that you are not responsible for. Apologising is about accepting responsibility and openly admiting you were wrong - something you cannot do for actions you could not have had involvement in.
In this case, it would be the state accepting responsibility and the state openly admitting that it was wrong. Not the citizens of the state or the politicians, but the state itself.

You can express regret for actions you were not involved in, a group of people can express regret for actions committed by their ancestors. You can state that another persons actions were wrong/evil, a group of people can state that their ancestors actions were wrong/evil. However they cannot accept collective responsibility for those actions as they had no involvement in them.

A government is elected by the people to represent them, to speak for their collective voice. If not a single person who elected a government has any responsibility in an action then not a single person electing the government can apologise for the action. As nobody electing the government can apologise for the action then the government speaking on behalf of the people it represents cannot apologise for the action. They can express regret for suffering caused, they can state that what happened was evil and wrong, they can seek to redress the imbalance of rights and take measures to try to prevent such a thing ever hapening again - however they cannot apologise.
Virginia expressed "profound regret" for slavery without any problem or fanfare. The difference between that and an apology is nothing but semantics.

Now, on to the rather fun slavery apology debate: before we begin, I'd like to reveal something shocking: I am a descendant of Confederates who NEVER owned a single slave. But they still fought. Why, you ask? Because they felt that the federal government was encroaching upon their way of life for purely economic reasons. The history books love to make it sound like every Southern white was some kind of rabid, black-hating slaver, but the fact of the matter is that roughly 90% of the CSA's residents never owned a single slave; it was the poor sharecroppers and day laborers who had to fight the war, while the landed gentlemen, who were wealthy enough to buy substitutes, owned the slaves.
Sure, not everybody was a slave-owner. But slavery was still sanctioned and supported by the state government, which was forced to end the practice against its will, never apologized for it, and continues to exist to this day.

Do I need to teach you the definition of "analogy"?

Soon as you figure out what an analogy actually is.

Soon as you figure out what an analogy actually is.As in the fact that your poor excuse for a comeback is analogous to the schoolyard retort, "I know you are, but what am I?"

:rolleyes:

As in the fact that your poor excuse for a comeback is analogous to the schoolyard retort, "I know you are, but what am I?"

:rolleyes:That is an analogy. Now go figure out why your other post wasn't.

That is an analogy. Now go figure out why your other post wasn't.I guess I have to spell it out for you.

Your behavior in this thread is analogous to the behavior of:

1) A state legislator who harangues for hours against a symbolic resolution that he declares a pointless, ineffectual waste of time.
2) A citizen who starts petitions and letter-writing campaigns to oppose a symbolic resolution that she attacks for wasting time that would be better spent on solving ongoing social and economic problems.

Do I need to paint you a picture, too?

I guess I have to spell it out for you.

Your behavior in this thread is analogous to the behavior of:

1) A state legislator who harangues for hours against a symbolic resolution that he declares a pointless, ineffectual waste of time.
2) A citizen who starts petitions and letter-writing campaigns to oppose a symbolic resolution that she attacks for wasting time that would be better spent on solving ongoing social and economic problems.

Do I need to paint you a picture, too?
Besides the fact 1 and 2 are not the same, you at least got the gist.

*snip long stuff that says nothing to answer my post*

I didn't say it never happens. I said it doesn't happen "quite often." Most immigrants who come to this country struggling work very hard, and might end up owning a home, but won't be anywhere near "the richest people." Most people from the ghetto who work very hard might achieve the same thing, but won't end up owning companies.

It does happen, yes. And the reason we hear about it is the fact that it happens so rarely. Movies like The Pursuit of Happyness are wonderfully heartwarming because they represent someone who actually achieved that dream, while many, many hardworking people who tried have not been able to.

Besides the fact 1 and 2 are not the same, you at least got the gist.Seriously, what the hell is that supposed to mean?

First, why should the aforementioned analogies be "the same"?

Second, are you actually admitting that your actions belie the truth of your rhetoric?

:confused:

I disagree with you as a point of technicality. I cannot accept that Confederate soldiers deserve to be honored as American soldiers. As secessionists, they were not fighting for this nation. I suppose I could be denounced as a hardcore Yankee, but that's my viewpoint.

Hell, I grew up in the South and I agree with you. It would be like saying, "Well, if all the soldiers in the Western states right now took up arms and starting killing all the soldiers in the other states, we'd still have to honor them since they're US soldiers."

That makes no sense at all. I value the US government. I value my citizenship in it. And, for that reason, I will not honor those who fought to fracture it and those who fought against it simply because some of them came from the same state as me.

Personally, re the Civil War, I think it was a mistake. I believe that, in a country like ours, secession cannot legitimately be made illegal, unless you are going to deny all sovereignty of any kind to the states as governmental entities.

A government cannot be held together if secession is legal, just as it cannot be held together if treason or rebellion is legal. One can argue that states or citizens should have these rights. They may even have a moral duty to exercise them. But the government itself cannot grant them and hope to remain a government.

A government cannot be held together if secession is legal, just as it cannot be held together if treason or rebellion is legal. One can argue that states or citizens should have these rights. They may even have a moral duty to exercise them. But the government itself cannot grant them and hope to remain a government.I agree. Even if there were such a right, reason dictates that it should only be allowable for certain reasons.

If a State may secede for any reason whatsoever, it might all too easily become the sort of threat used as political blackmail against decisions the State does not favor.

This was, in a sense, the central problem of the original Articles of Confederation. States would participate (and supply revenue) when it suited them, and ignore the federal government when it did not suit them.

The federated government is either unified, or it is not. We cannot have it both ways.

On this logic, it would still be reasonable to make a legal argument for secession within the range of certain provisions: for instance, a State might be required to give cause, showing that it had been particularly and consistently disadvantaged by federal legislation. But this would only be reasonable after the fact. It is completely absurd to say that because the Southern states believed that Lincoln would treat them unfairly with respect to the slavery issue that they had cause to secede.

Seriously, what the hell is that supposed to mean?

First, why should the aforementioned analogies be "the same"?

Second, are you actually admitting that your actions belie the truth of your rhetoric?

:confused:
A legislator doing that defeats the purpose. Myself, as a non-legislator, only has the ability to complain and write letters opposing it, thus not wasting any time that could be spent on finding something useful to do. Some one proposing it is making a positive stand, thus making an active argument. Neither side can really propose something new until it is recognized that symbols are just symbols and don't help anything.

A legislator doing that defeats the purpose. Myself, as a non-legislator, only has the ability to complain and write letters opposing it, thus not wasting any time that could be spent on finding something useful to do.Really? There are plenty of advocacy groups that you could join which are working on the very improvements you purport to espouse. Why are you wasting your time writing letters to oppose a resolution when you could be writing letters to support Affirmative Action?

You're still a hypocrite. Live with it, or change your mind.

At this very moment, you could be starting and posting in threads advocating positive reforms. Instead, you're here.. complaining about a "pointless" resolution.

This particular "waste of time" would have been concluded hours ago if those who consider it a waste of time would stop wasting all our time by opposing it so vigorously.

Really? There are plenty of advocacy groups that you could join which are working on the very improvements you purport to espouse. Why are you wasting your time writing letters to oppose a resolution when you could be writing letters to support Affirmative Action?
Because advocacy groups get as much done as writing letters to oppose something. And there is still the opposition of all the people demanding apologies above and beyond anything else.

Because advocacy groups get as much done as writing letters to oppose something.You're missing the point.

If you believe in letter-writing, then you believe that letter-writing can do something. (Assuming, that is, the barest bit of reasonableness in your favor, a posit I am beginning to doubt.) Therefore, if a symbolic apology is a waste of time, you are wasting your time by opposing. You could spend that time writing letters advocating positive change.

And there is still the opposition of all the people demanding apologies above and beyond anything else.You're missing the point... again.

You consider a symbolic apology a waste of time. But if you ceased your efforts to oppose it, those people who desire such a thing would quickly get what they want and we could all move on. Once they get the apology, presumably they will either a) advocate positive change along with you; or b) advocate nothing further, leaving you to lead the charge for positive change.

In either case, you are only dragging out a debate that you consider pointless by insisting on participating in it.

Hence your hypocricy. If you really believed it were pointless, you would simply allow it to happen.

The only reasonable explanation is that you do NOT believe it is pointless. Instead, you believe it will actually effect some negative result.

To return to my original question, I ask you: what exactly do you think it will do?

You're missing the point.

If you believe in letter-writing, then you believe that letter-writing can do something.
We were hypothetically assuming I believed letter-writing does anything.

Therefore, if a symbolic apology is a waste of time, you are wasting your time by opposing. You could spend that time writing letters advocating positive change.
They are a waste of time for wholly different reasons.

But if you ceased your efforts to oppose it, those people who desire such a thing would quickly get what they want and we could all move on.
Judging by the fact they are jumping on it in Georgia. One apology apparently validates them and thus means they should ask more people to apologize.

Hence your hypocricy. If you really believed it were pointless, you would simply allow it to happen.
You almost had a point. Almost, then you lost it. If I believed it was pointless, why would I allow it? Now, if you had said that if I believed the debate for it was a waste of time, shouldn't I just let it pass? then you would have had a point.

The only reasonable explanation is that you do NOT believe it is pointless.
That is quite possibly the most asinine conclusion you could have come to.

Judging by the fact they are jumping on it in Georgia. One apology apparently validates them and thus means they should ask more people to apologize.So what?

It still doesn't take very long to get the apology... even if every state that ever held slaves, including Northern states, apologized. Then we get that out of the way, and we can all move on.

It's only a difficult process if you actively oppose it.

If I believed it was pointless, why would I allow it?Because it doesn't cost anything.

Let's say, hypothetically, that we happen to agree about a political issue. Maybe we want to fund schools in poor neighborhoods.

I say, "I want to walk down to the corner of the street and shout, 'Educate the poor!'"

Now, you may think this is pointless. Indeed, it probably is pointless. It won't accomplish anything.

Of course, if you just let me go down to the corner and do it, it's over with and we can move on to discuss more useful proposals.

On the other hand, if you insist on arguing with me about my intentions for four hours, we just wasted half the workday.

It would be a different matter if I proposed spending money on a pointless sign that no one would see--then you would have a clear interest in preventing me from wasting money that could be put to a better use.

But I fail to see what purpose it would serve to forcefully object to a costless proposal that you simply perceive as "pointless."

Because it doesn't cost anything.

Principle.
It doesn't cost anything to not bring it up and it doesn't solve anything by being passed. Why bring it up?

Principle.Principled opposition demands that its object be worthy of opposition. If you oppose an apology for slavery on principle, you must believe that it flies in the face of some important principle--that it would actually do something to thwart principle.

The people who want to apologize for slavery want to do so on principle. They believe that it will effect a positive change, or they simply believe that it is the right thing to do.

I cannot imagine a respectable principle that would oppose them just for the sake of doing so--merely out of a simple-minded desire to "win," to be right.

It doesn't cost anything to not bring it up and it doesn't solve anything by being passed. Why bring it up?The people who bring it up believe it will effect positive change. If you believe it will effect negative change, you should oppose it--indeed, on principle. If you just believe that it is a worthless gesture, however, it is madness to argue that is is worthy of opposition.

But we are simply going in circles now, and this conversation has, indeed, become truly pointless. Unless you have something new to add, expect to be ignored.

/Discussion.

Judging by the fact they are jumping on it in Georgia. One apology apparently validates them and thus means they should ask more people to apologize.
Virginia did it without a problem. The only reason I and others are "jumping on" Georgia is because the governor is putting up some resistance -- very hypocritical and possibly racist resistance, to boot.

Principled opposition demands that its object be worthy of opposition. If you oppose an apology for slavery on principle, you must believe that it flies in the face of some important principle--that it would actually do something to thwart principle.

The people who want to apologize for slavery want to do so on principle. They believe that it will effect a positive change, or they simply believe that it is the right thing to do.

I cannot imagine a respectable principle that would oppose them just for the sake of doing so--merely out of a simple-minded desire to "win," to be right.

The people who bring it up believe it will effect positive change. If you believe it will effect negative change, you should oppose it--indeed, on principle. If you just believe that it is a worthless gesture, however, it is madness to argue that is is worthy of opposition.

But we are simply going in circles now, and this conversation has, indeed, become truly pointless. Unless you have something new to add, expect to be ignored.

/Discussion.
Well said. TPH's (and others') dogged, exhaustive opposition to what he calls an impotent action is puzzling me, too. It's straying into "doth protest too much" territory. But why?

The government is both an entity unto itself and a group of people - much like a company.

Suppose the Coca Cola company (first to come to mind) mistreated their workers for a great deal of time. Then, new management took over and made new policy - making things better for the workers. Does this suddenly mean that, since the new Coca Cola management doesn't do those things, the Coca Cola company itself is not at all responsible for its past actions?

If they made those changes to their policies regarding their treatment of their employees than they have taken responsibility for their actions. While those employees may rightly view the company with distrust, workers generations later have no right to bring up mistakes in the past. It had been corrected. Continuing to attack Coke about it has no benefit and it only makes sure to keep distrust around where none is deserved.

For starters, you're confusing your "we." Surely the State of Georgia did not voluntarily outlaw slavery.

I have said it previously that those who would have resisted the ban on slavery are long dead. Those currently run Georgia had no part in it so have no reason or need to make an apology of any kind.

I didn't say it never happens. I said it doesn't happen "quite often." Most immigrants who come to this country struggling work very hard, and might end up owning a home, but won't be anywhere near "the richest people." Most people from the ghetto who work very hard might achieve the same thing, but won't end up owning companies.

It does happen, yes. And the reason we hear about it is the fact that it happens so rarely. Movies like The Pursuit of Happyness are wonderfully heartwarming because they represent someone who actually achieved that dream, while many, many hardworking people who tried have not been able to.

Why do you say that? Something like 22% of all 1st generation Russian immigrants are already millionaires. Assuming that we only really started getting a good number of Russians immigrating here in 1991 or later, I'd say that our economy is pretty fluid.

Why do you say that? Something like 22% of all 1st generation Russian immigrants are already millionaires. Assuming that we only really started getting a good number of Russians immigrating here in 1991 or later, I'd say that our economy is pretty fluid.

But...but...that doesn't jive with the "the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer" claptrap, so it can't be the case! :rolleyes:

Well, if we're smart we'll let them go.

Yeah.

Well said. TPH's (and others') dogged, exhaustive opposition to what he calls an impotent action is puzzling me, too. It's straying into "doth protest too much" territory. But why?
Because I don't believe the action serves any purpose, and in fact only serves a negative one. I have the right to protest stupid things regardless of their effect. I think the fact that you people think I should "let it go if it is an empty action" shows why there is a need to oppose it.

Principled opposition demands that its object be worthy of opposition. If you oppose an apology for slavery on principle, you must believe that it flies in the face of some important principle--that it would actually do something to thwart principle.

The people who want to apologize for slavery want to do so on principle. They believe that it will effect a positive change, or they simply believe that it is the right thing to do.

I cannot imagine a respectable principle that would oppose them just for the sake of doing so--merely out of a simple-minded desire to "win," to be right.

A respectable principle is that someone should not have to apologise for something they did not do.

Slavery was brought about and perpetuated by individual people who were appointed to their position by other individuals at the time. They are dead. All the people who appointde them are dead. What people asking for an apology are saying is that today they want an individual today who had not part in slavery, elected by individuals todaywho had no part in slavery, who speak for the individuals who elected them to state that they, and the individuals on whose behalf they speak are sorry for slavery. To apologise for somehting they did not do.

If the apology is really that important - the Black population of Georgia ia about 30% - if as you have stated Black people have no dignity until they get an apology form the State - then why do they not organise themselves the next time elections are up and get together to vote in a Black descendant of slaves into office to apologise to them for slavery.

30% - given voter turnout is pretty crap it should be enough on it's own, but there is a pretty good chance that if they have a half decent candidate and a decent platform that they will get enough votes from the non-Black population to elect their guy into office.

Ken Livingston (London Mayor) apologised for the role London played in the slave trade today....

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/comment/0,,2038912,00.html

Why do you say that? Something like 22% of all 1st generation Russian immigrants are already millionaires.Source?

I found this (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_of_children/v016/16.2borjas.html) recent study of immigrant 1st and 2nd generation wages, and the prognosis is not good. If you have different data, I would like to see it.

Ken Livingston (London Mayor) apologised for the role London played in the slave trade today....

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/comment/0,,2038912,00.html

I'm sure that there are at least a dozen black children in an Atlanta slum that are thanking the Lord that the Mayor of London apologized for the part his city played in the slave trade over 150 years ago. Doesn't it seem odd that only the white upper class citizens of a particular nation feel the need to apologize for historical events?

Source?

I found this (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_of_children/v016/16.2borjas.html) recent study of immigrant 1st and 2nd generation wages, and the prognosis is not good. If you have different data, I would like to see it.

My source was the one in The Millionaire Next Door.

But...but...that doesn't jive with the "the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer" claptrap, so it can't be the case! :rolleyes:


I loved your post. You are right. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because it is all in the mind. My buddies and I try to see who amongst us is the biggest cheapskate. We take pride in it. We also invest a significantly higher portion of our incomes than most folks do. We are not the biggest income earners but we all have pretty good odds of being millionaires in our thirties.

Compare us to the stereotypical yuppy in the 80s who spent as much or more than they earned. A lot of those guys are now 20 years older and still have not begun saving and investing to the degree necessary to support their lifeswtyles once they retire in 10 to 20 years. It is sad. It is also kind of disgusting.

In Boy Scouts we swore to be thrifty. I am thankful for taking that oath.

I'm sure that there are at least a dozen black children in an Atlanta slum that are thanking the Lord that the Mayor of London apologized for the part his city played in the slave trade over 150 years ago. Doesn't it seem odd that only the white upper class citizens of a particular nation feel the need to apologize for historical events?

Awwww shit dat muthuh in London be for real dog! He not be trippin or slippin, dig? Well slap my 'fro he done muthuhf***ing said his ass was sorry! Shit, he aint nothin' but a gangsta! Old School.

This translats to: Thanks for the apology, Mr. Mayor.

Ken Livingston (London Mayor) apologised for the role London played in the slave trade today....

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/comment/0,,2038912,00.html

Bastard. Am I the only person to appreciate the role played by slavery in the prepotency of the west, or to see any apology as an empty gesture?

I find the whole 'I didnt do it personally' line a crock of shit frankly. I dont see all this hesitation when it comes to taking credit for the acts one didnt personally commit.

Slavery cannot be apologised for, unless you want to ressurrect all of the old slavers.
How can anyone apologise for something that was not commited by them?

Same goes for descendants of slaves sueing the government for slavery. Ridiculous. A 34 year old Hungarian potato farmer has as much right to sue the US government for slavery as a descendant of a slave.

I'm sure that there are at least a dozen black children in an Atlanta slum that are thanking the Lord that the Mayor of London apologized for the part his city played in the slave trade over 150 years ago. Doesn't it seem odd that only the white upper class citizens of a particular nation feel the need to apologize for historical events?

Ken Livingston upper class?

Sorry but your are wrong...be a good idea to check before making sweeping statements like that...after all he's not known as Red Ken for nothing! LOL

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayorbiog.jsp

As for your last sentence....utter tosh. The people campaigning for an apology come from all sorts of walks of life. From council estate dwellers to yes indeed the upper classes...

Ahh, yes. Governor "Scummy" Perdue, maybe he and "Hootie" Johnson should vacation together, they certainly do seem to think alike.

Bastard. Am I the only person to appreciate the role played by slavery in the prepotency of the west, or to see any apology as an empty gesture?

No, but you are a self-announced racist and I feel bad agreeing with you.

Awwww shit dat muthuh in London be for real dog! He not be trippin or slippin, dig? Well slap my 'fro he done muthuhf***ing said his ass was sorry! Shit, he aint nothin' but a gangsta! Old School.

This translats to: Thanks for the apology, Mr. Mayor.

Dog? nah....he's a newt fancier....!

Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
A government cannot be held together if secession is legal, just as it cannot be held together if treason or rebellion is legal. One can argue that states or citizens should have these rights. They may even have a moral duty to exercise them. But the government itself cannot grant them and hope to remain a government.
I agree. Even if there were such a right, reason dictates that it should only be allowable for certain reasons.

If a State may secede for any reason whatsoever, it might all too easily become the sort of threat used as political blackmail against decisions the State does not favor.

This was, in a sense, the central problem of the original Articles of Confederation. States would participate (and supply revenue) when it suited them, and ignore the federal government when it did not suit them.

The federated government is either unified, or it is not. We cannot have it both ways.

On this logic, it would still be reasonable to make a legal argument for secession within the range of certain provisions: for instance, a State might be required to give cause, showing that it had been particularly and consistently disadvantaged by federal legislation. But this would only be reasonable after the fact. It is completely absurd to say that because the Southern states believed that Lincoln would treat them unfairly with respect to the slavery issue that they had cause to secede.
You both make excellent points. It is easily imaginable, that if a right to secede were legal, then there would probably soon be no United States. I think my view, which is not all that firm, by the way, is based on my belief that this is one of the federal-versus-states rights issues that was never fully addressed after the Civil War and still stands unaddressed today, leaving a big hole in our definition of what kind of a country we are. My personal leaning towards allowing a right secede has more to do with my personal belief in the value of a revolutionary attitude than any practical consideration. I do not necessarily think it is a bad thing for the people to be in a position to strong-arm their government, but in practical application, such beliefs must be reined in pretty sharply or else anarchy will result.

except for all them large and powerful institutions. like the state of georgia.

and the first step in letting bygones be bygones is admitting wrongs and dealing with them. you aren't advocating that, you are advocating the "too bad for you, suckers" approach. which is especially fucked up considering the wrongs are still dramatically enacted to this very day.Alright, guess what this is a Democratic country and it turned out in the end the White man freed the slaves, fought a war against those who favored slavery, many White Americans where imprisioned for helping Black slaves, there has been no apology from the tribes that still EXIST in one grand sloop, and also guess what White people were fricken serfs when slavery still existed and when it was outlawed slavery was shortly afterwards.

Bastard. Am I the only person to appreciate the role played by slavery in the prepotency of the west, or to see any apology as an empty gesture?
No, you are not the only person to think that way, nor are you the only self-acknowledged racist in the world, which just goes to show that it is possible for several people to be wrong about the same thing at the same time.

I find the whole 'I didnt do it personally' line a crock of shit frankly. I dont see all this hesitation when it comes to taking credit for the acts one didnt personally commit.

Thank you! :)

Slavery cannot be apologised for, unless you want to ressurrect all of the old slavers.
How can anyone apologise for something that was not commited by them?

Same goes for descendants of slaves sueing the government for slavery. Ridiculous. A 34 year old Hungarian potato farmer has as much right to sue the US government for slavery as a descendant of a slave.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-121

In light of the fact that the US Congress has decided to demand Japan apologise to comfort women - despite the fact that the present Japanese government and the majority of the Japanese population have nothing to do with events that occurred during the second world war - I completely support the US practising what it preaches. Apologise, apologise, and apologise, then ask my government to do the same.

Before anyone mentions that some of the comfort women are still alive while the slaves are not; the Mississippi Delta region of the US has a large number of impoverished blacks who work as sharecroppers earning a pittance. They do this because their parents did so, and their grandparents did so, while their great grandparents were slaves. Their emancipated grandparents were deliberately deprived of a decent education by southern governments, so they could not earn a living any way other than sharecropping. Ditto for their parents. So they work a share croppers, poorly paid and under-educated. This is a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. So the "victims" are still very much alive, you just don't see them because (1) you don't want to and (2) few people live in or bother to visit the Mississippi Delta.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-121

In light of the fact that the US Congress has decided to demand Japan apologise to comfort women - despite the fact that the present Japanese government and the majority of the Japanese population have nothing to do with events that occurred during the second world war - I completely support the US practising what it preaches. Apologise, apologise, and apologise, then ask my government to do the same.

Before anyone mentions that some of the comfort women are still alive while the slaves are not; the Mississippi Delta region of the US has a large number of impoverished blacks who work as sharecroppers earning a pittance. They do this because their parents did so, and their grandparents did so, while their great grandparents were slaves. Their emancipated grandparents were deliberately deprived of a decent education by southern governments, so they could not earn a living any way other than sharecropping. Ditto for their parents. So they work a share croppers, poorly paid and under-educated. This is a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. So the "victims" are still very much alive, you just don't see them because (1) you don't want to and (2) few people live in or bother to visit the Mississippi Delta.
I think you need to get an updated history book. There are no sharecroppers left. That's kind of gone the way of the plantation and the family farm. The delta region is now fairly industrialized. Now, it's auto parts, electrical, some shipbuilding...Although, I'm surprised to see such absolutes about my country from someone that seems to live in Japan.

I'm sure that there are at least a dozen black children in an Atlanta slum that are thanking the Lord that the Mayor of London apologized for the part his city played in the slave trade over 150 years ago. Doesn't it seem odd that only the white upper class citizens of a particular nation feel the need to apologize for historical events?

Ken Livingston upper class?

Sorry but your are wrong...be a good idea to check before making sweeping statements like that...after all he's not known as Red Ken for nothing! LOL

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayorbiog.jsp

As for your last sentence....utter tosh. The people campaigning for an apology come from all sorts of walks of life. From council estate dwellers to yes indeed the upper classes...

I think you need to get an updated history book. There are no sharecroppers left. That's kind of gone the way of the plantation and the family farm. The delta region is now fairly industrialized. Now, it's auto parts, electrical, some shipbuilding...Although, I'm surprised to see such absolutes about my country from someone that seems to live in Japan.

People, Houses, Glass, Stones, Throw.

:rolleyes:

Although, I'm surprised to see such absolutes about my country from someone that seems to live in Japan.

I guess it's kind of like those absolutes you enjoy spasming about Iran, Iraq, and Islam.

Only less inaccurate and offensive.

I find the whole 'I didnt do it personally' line a crock of shit frankly. I dont see all this hesitation when it comes to taking credit for the acts one didnt personally commit.Indeed!

It's amazing how the "we" comes out when Westerners talk about industrializing or invention or something else with a positive connotation, only for "they" to slink back in when it comes to slavery or genocide.

I guess it's kind of like those absolutes you enjoy spasming about Iran, Iraq, and Islam.

Only less inaccurate and offensive.

Not true. I'm quite offended to find that someone is so ignorant of this country that they think there are still sharecroppers cutting cotton in the Mississippi delta.

Not true. I'm quite offended to find that someone is so ignorant of this country that they think there are still sharecroppers cutting cotton in the Mississippi delta.

really?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12460223&postcount=240

You know...I think yer a comedian ;)