U.S. Senate Votes Formal Apology for Slavery

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

not one white person alive owes any black person an apology as nobody alive today owned a slave.

They dont speak for me, I owe nothing to anyone for the actions of whites in the past.

Roy

The resolution is not an apology by white people to black people. It's an apology by the United States government, which de jure and/or de facto allowed slavery and Jim Crow to exist within the national borders for an extended period of time.

[Dutton 0]

Who gives a damn.

I'll not be freeing mine any time soon.

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

not one white person alive owes any black person an apology as nobody alive today owned a slave.

They dont speak for me, I owe nothing to anyone for the actions of whites in the past.

Roy

The resolution is not an apology by white people to black people. It's an apology by the United States government, which de jure and/or de facto allowed slavery and Jim Crow to exist within the national borders for an extended period of time.

That is how I understand it, too.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

not one white person alive owes any black person an apology as nobody alive today owned a slave.

They dont speak for me, I owe nothing to anyone for the actions of whites in the past.

Roy

The resolution is not an apology by white people to black people. It's an apology by the United States government, which de jure and/or de facto allowed slavery and Jim Crow to exist within the national borders for an extended period of time.

That is how I understand it, too.

What they said. Just for the record.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>1) The Emancipation Proclamation was a worthless document that accomplished nothing.

Worthless? No. Did it free a lot of slaves? Not until the Union Army swept through the south.

Right. Which is why it's important. Without that Proclamation, it wouldn't have been the policy for the Army to free the slaves as they moved through the south. Without the Proclamation, the Army would have just moved on through, and left them behind still as slaves.

Yet some folks here insist the Proclamation wasn't responsible for any slaves being freed...

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Quote

>1) The Emancipation Proclamation was a worthless document that accomplished nothing.

Worthless? No. Did it free a lot of slaves? Not until the Union Army swept through the south.

Right. Which is why it's important. Without that Proclamation, it wouldn't have been the policy for the Army to free the slaves as they moved through the south. Without the Proclamation, the Army would have just moved on through, and left them behind still as slaves.

Yet some folks here insist the Proclamation wasn't responsible for any slaves being freed...

More important to the subject of the thread, some folks here (including myself) are insisting that the Emancipation Proclamation (and the 13th Amendment, for that matter) did not de facto free all slaves, that many of those it did free were returned to forced bondage, and that it is not an apology by the US government for legalizing and supporting the institution of slavery within its national borders. Since our national government had failed to formally apologize for legalizing and supporting said institution up until this point, some in Congress thought it might be a good idea to state for the record that the American government has a history of treating African-Americans poorly and to apologize for that fact. I really fail to see why this resolution causes such heartache among some in here.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I really fail to see why this resolution causes such heartache among some in here.

...which is the real bottom line here. Everything else is just smoke, mirrors and camoflage.

[billvon 2,464]

>1) The Emancipation Proclamation was a worthless document
>that accomplished nothing.

No one said that. It was as meaningful as the Declaration of Independence. Neither one really did anything at the time; both required a war to accomplish the goals expressed in the documents. Doesn't mean they are worthless.

I'll ask you the same question that John was unable to answer - if Canada passed a law requiring you to turn in your guns, would you do it?

[champu 1]

Quote

More important to the subject of the thread, some folks here (including myself) are insisting that the Emancipation Proclamation (and the 13th Amendment, for that matter) did not de facto free all slaves

It's interesting to me that it took this long in the thread to bring up the 13th amendment.

The Declaration of Independence didn't really accomplish what the establishment of the Constitution and the War of 1812 did. Similarly, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't accomplish what the conclusion of the Civil War and the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th did.

What none of these things did was change anything overnight. It still took the United States a long time to rise to the status of world power that it enjoys today. Similarly, it has taken a long time for black Americans to get to where they are today (this is not to suggest the journey is over.)

I wouldn't say I have heartburn over this resolution, I'm just confused as to why anyone would really care that it pass. What would the average American's response be if the UK apologized formally in 1880 for tyranny against the colonies? We were busy diving head first into the second industrial revolution, taking it upon ourselves to overcome the past and show the world who we were. I like to think black Americans are making that same kind of progress these days.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

At what point did "the present day" and "the 1940s" become the same thing?

That would be when you described the 1940's as "not that long ago" (again, your words, not mine).

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[D22369 0]

I see no reason for them to apologise
simple as that, none of them had anything to do with it in any way, and its silly for anyone to offer an apology or to accept one from people that didnt have a single thing to do with it one way or the other.

Its pandering at its finest, if we didnt have a black president do you think they would still be oh so sorry?

Maybe we can get the black tribes in africa that used to sell other tribes people to the white slavers to also issue a formal apology while we are at it.

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

none of them had anything to do with it in any way,

That silly missing-the-point of yours was already specifically addressed in post #101. Repeating yourself doesn't make it miss the point any less. Try to keep up.

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

Quote

At what point did "the present day" and "the 1940s" become the same thing?

That would be when you described the 1940's as "not that long ago" (again, your words, not mine).

I would probably describe any period in which people from that period are still alive as "not that long ago". I would not describe all of those periods as "the present day." Semantics really, but there you go.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Tom Paine

Landing in Philadelphia toward the end of 1774, he got a job with a Philadelphia printer and soon rose to the editorship of the printer's insignificant Pennsylvania Magazine. He quickly proved himself an outstanding writer and publicist and quickly made his reputation as a libertarian by publishing a blistering attack on the institution of slavery. In "African Slavery in America," written shortly after his arrival and published in early March 1775, Paine pointed out that the African natives were often peaceful and industrious farmers brought into slavery either by European man-theft or by outsiders inducing the African chieftains to war on each other and to sell their prisoners into slavery. He also riddled the common excuse that purchase and ownership of existing slaves was somehow moral, in contrast to the wickedness of the original enslavement:

Such men may as well join with a known band of robbers, buy their ill-got goods, and help on the trade; ignorance is no more pleadable in one case than the other … and as the true owner has the right to reclaim his goods that were stolen, and sold; so the slave, who is proper owner of his freedom, has a right to reclaim it, however often sold.

The slaves, being human, have not lost their natural right to their freedom, and therefore, concluded Paine, "the governments … should in justice set them free, and punish those who hold them in slavery."

Shortly after this article was published, the first abolitionist society – The Society for the Promotion of the Abolition of Slavery – was established at Philadelphia. Largely Quaker, it included the deist Paine as one of its members.

Lexington and Concord moved Paine to turn his talents to the radical revolutionary cause. In July he urged upon the Quakers the justice of taking up arms in defense of liberty so long as disarmament is not universal. He denounced the British government as highwaymen setting forth to plunder American property; therefore, in self-defense, "arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe." For the British, "nothing but arms or miracles can reduce them to reason and moderation." And in October he combined his antislavery and pro-independence views to castigate Great Britain for trafficking in human flesh, and he looked forward to an independence that would end the slave trade and, ultimately, all of slavery.

All this culminated in Paine's tremendous blow for American independence. His fiery and brilliant pamphlet Common Sense,[ii] off the press in early January 1776, spread like wildfire throughout the colonies. A phenomenal 120,000 copies were sold in the space of three months. Passages were reprinted in newspapers all over America. All this meant that nearly every literate home was familiar with the pamphlet.

Tom Paine had, at a single blow, become the voice of the American Revolution and the greatest single force in propelling it to completion and independence. Charles Lee wrote jubilantly and prophetically to Washington that "I never saw such a masterly, irresistible performance. It will … in concurrence with the transcendent folly and wickedness of the ministry, give the coup de grâce to Great Britain." And Washington himself endorsed "the sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning" of Common Sense.

Common Sense called squarely and openly for American independence, and pointed to the choice for Americans as essentially between independence and slavery. But what was more, Paine boldly smashed the icon, directing his most devastating fire at King George himself. For the first time, the king, "the Royal Brute of Great Britain," was pinpointed as the major enemy – the king himself, not just his wicked advisers (the king's advisers were attacked as being in thrall to him). Paine had quashed the taboo, and Americans flocked to imbibe his liberating message.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard179.html

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Andy9o8 0]

You misspelled "librarian."

[D22369 0]

I will state whatever silly opinion I wish whenever I wish - deal with it

your offhand insult was ... weak
try again


Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[Andy9o8 0]

Now you're just barking at passing cars. Whatever.

[D22369 0]

again.. weak

you really need to practice and try harder

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[DJL 232]

This might have already been covered here but did the US formally apologize for genocide against the American Indians yet? I'd have thought that would come first.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

This might have already been covered here but did the US formally apologize for genocide against the American Indians yet? I'd have thought that would come first.

Logically, yes.

But there aren't as many votes there.

Are these apologies really about apologizing, or about garnering votes?

[Andy9o8 0]

3 or 4 times the question has been asked in this thread, and I've yet to see a reasonable answer: it's just an apology; how is it any skin off anyone's ass?

(oh, and- yes, I'm repeating myself.)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

This might have already been covered here but did the US formally apologize for genocide against the American Indians yet? I'd have thought that would come first.

If the US government - as a nation and a government - has done something as a matter of national policy, which under the lens of future generations is eventually recognized as abhorrent, or even reprehensible, then it's certainly good form - and not objectionable - even if not necessarily "required" - to issue a formal apology for the record.

Examples (some done, some not yet done):
-For its role in African slavery.
-For its role in genocide against Native Americans.
-For repugnant pro-slavery Federal Court decisions, such as the Dred Scott decision by SCOTUS.
-For Japanese-American internment during WWII.

It's a matter of moral decency. And if that bothers those who love to use veiled references to "welfare queens", and so they (predictably) object to this, too, well, tough shit.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

This might have already been covered here but did the US formally apologize for genocide against the American Indians yet? I'd have thought that would come first.

If the US government - as a nation and a government - has done something as a matter of national policy, which under the lens of future generations is eventually recognized as abhorrent, or even reprehensible, then it's certainly good form - and not objectionable - even if not necessarily "required" - to issue a formal apology for the record.

Examples (some done, some not yet done):
-For its role in African slavery.
-For its role in genocide against Native Americans.
-For repugnant pro-slavery Federal Court decisions, such as the Dred Scott decision by SCOTUS.
-For Japanese-American internment during WWII.

It's a matter of moral decency. And if that bothers those who love to use veiled references to "welfare queens", and so they (predictably) object to this, too, well, tough shit.

It is a matter of moral decency for all the parties you mentioned, but shouldn't the Native Americans come first?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[likearock 1]

Quote

3 or 4 times the question has been asked in this thread, and I've yet to see a reasonable answer: it's just an apology; how is it any skin off anyone's ass?

(oh, and- yes, I'm repeating myself.)

Let me give it a shot. Ideally, apologies mean something. They're not just a bunch of words strung together as a means to an ends. Ideally, they come from the heart and signify a real understanding in the apologizer that he or she holds prime responsibility for an unjust act.

Having a "show" apology where none of the people doing the apologizing had any real responsibility in the unjust act is a sham. And every such bullshit apology we put up with only serves to diminish the value of the infrequent genuine apologies that do occur from time to time.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Having a "show" apology where none of the people doing the apologizing had any real responsibility in the unjust act is a sham.

No it's not. See posts #s 101 and 123.