The fact that it has taken so long kinda negates the meaning though don't you think? Back in the days when there would have actually been Senators voting against the resolution would have carried some weight.
Apparently, a lot of members of the CBC aren't happy with the verbiage. They say it allows the State to dip out of any further responsibility. My hometown's Rep was quoted...
"The language is unacceptable," said Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., "I'm a reparations man — how else do you repair the damage?"
No, this makes me shudder for St. Louis. The town is ass backwards when it comes to race relations. Gotta be one of the worst in the country. That comment is not going to go over well, but Clay doesn't need the white vote to win...
Well you're not sitting on the Board of Directors for companies like Aetna which has direct ties to slavery and still exists today, either. If you were, I'd be putting your company in the crosshairs and rightfully so.
I have no cogent response to the facts Dave brought up, of which Juba was almost certainly unaware, so I'll just talk out of my hat. That's certainly easier than grappling with the implications of the facts Dave brought up, which is probably why Juba, so far, has not attempted to do so.
Things appear simpler when you view them in black and white: evil corporations with ties to slavery versus black people who are the descendants of slaves. Then when you find out that blacks are disproportionately represented on the board of directors of one of these evil companies, you realize the real world has shades of gray. Whether or not Aetna should pay reparations for whatever connections it had to slavery, I don't know, but I do know that if it does pay reparations, some of that money is going to be coming out of the pockets of black men such as Ron Williams, the CEO (and, no doubt, a shareholder as well) of Aetna.
By the way, the words you put in my mouth miss a point somewhat spectacularly: I'm not the one who thinks that successful African Americans are limited to figures in sports and entertainment such as Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey; on the contrary, I'm the one who just let you and Juba know that the guy who runs Aetna is black. This ain't 1865 anymore. Successful black people are part of the power structure in business, and have been for sometime.
okay. but couldn't we say the same thing about this nation as a whole, that it was built on the backs of african and african-descended slaves whose ancestors continue to face some institutionalized disadvantages today? does that make me, as an American who isn't descended from any of those slaves, liable to those who are?
The perpetrators of slavery owed the victims and the victims' descendants far more than they ever paid; but I suspect we may be past the point where it's possible for those who profited or continue to profit from the suffering induced by slavery to make monetary remuneration or any other legal-type concessions to those who suffered from it or to their descendants, who continue to suffer from it in some ways. I feel like, not only are we all too mixed up and mixed together now, not just racially but culturally and otherwise, that re-drawing these old racial lines which are based on lies to begin with would simply be a significant step backward.
So how can we make things right? I'm sure that it ISN'T by having some people write checks and some people receive them, and saying "now let's never complain about or even speak of slavery again" - and you all know that's what would be said. We've got to find other ways to strive towards that Dr. King vision of a truly merit-based society, of a real wipe-out of the all the old lies and stereotypes that make us fear each other, of the million little built-in biases in our society that are based purely upon racial perception and therefore upon foolishness, including within the black community itself. It's got to be a multi-pronged approach which includes real education reform, as people debated below, gradual eradication of biased policing, and a whole host of other things, but mostly the gradual erasure of this extremely damaging black-white victim-oppressor mentality that seems to linger in our subconscious even though we're all too smart to actually believe it consciously. DaveinHackensack points out that blacks are part of the power structure in this country, downthread; this is true and, while it remains disproportionately uncommon, it is when all of us think of this as being normal - when it ISN'T disproportionately uncommon - that we've made things right.
I feel like I've been long on platitudes (and wind) and short on solutions here. I personally try to just treat people with respect, to work against unfounded biases i find in my own mind (race-based and otherwise) and try to counteract that sort of bias in others when i see it, especially as a citizen, i.e. when i see it in laws or the way government is run (or lack thereof), government officials, etc. I'm not sure what else to do.
Dave...To me it doesn't make a difference how many minorities sit on Aetna's board of directors today. It doesn't change Aetna's historical misdeeds. Something else that doesn't change is the excuses that racist whites use for their beliefs and words: "Why can't we call them n****r if they call themselves that too?" "They can't be oppressed, don't Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey count?" and "Why should Aetna pay reparations? They dunn got themselves a cuppla black people on their board!"
1. No I wasnt aware and it makes zero difference to me Dave. Im not sure why you thought that was the Atom Bomb to shut the whole argument down but its kind of funny to me that you did.
2. I agree completely with Josh. Unless you're a great fan of tokenism, it makes zero difference to me that Aetna named a Black CEO. In fact it makes me suspicious that they're trying to win some PR battle preemptively.
You've completely ignored the broader implications of this, which doesn't surprise me. And given your ignorance of Aetna, on what basis are you claiming that Williams, and the two other African Americans on Aetna's board, are tokens?
You've completely ignored the broader implications of this, which doesn't surprise me.
I havent ignored anything. Maybe Im not following you, and maybe you can just clarify what it is Im not understanding or fail to get.
And given your ignorance of Aetna, on what basis are you claiming that Williams, and the two other African Americans on Aetna's board, are tokens?
Strawman. Weak. What is tokenism is your suggestion that Aetna having three Black men in executive positions. They could fire every non-Black employee and replace them with Black employees and it wouldnt do a thing to absolve them of financial responsibility for underwriting slavery. So Im trying to understand how their current CEO is at all relevant.
Maybe cause it isnt. Swing and a miss, Dave. Swing and a miss.
What's the point? Had my newly freed ancestors being given that promised 40 acres and mule, I suspect the economic and social standing of my family (as well as many of Af American famalies) would have been much, much different than it turned out -- generation after generation of poverty, with no little (or no) opportunity to build wealth and rise out of the lower-class.
After the holocaust of slavery, the failure of reconstruction, the disenfranchisement of blacks, and legalized segregation, an apology now is hollow and meaningless.
"Cohen said he and Harkin worked closely with the NAACP and other civil rights groups on language that would not endorse or preclude any future claims to reparations. "It will not harm reparations but won't give any standing to it," Cohen said. "
Really. Do we have time for this?
Is this to assuage my guilt (as I'm white)?...What is the NAACP thinking?
Who wants reparations? Can someone please explain this idea to me? I'm asking honestly, do AAs on the street want reparations? ...Like what, a check?
One thing is for sure, this would be a boring, boring country with crappy music (industrial polka anyone? - think I'm kidding? visit Scandinavia) if it weren't for the descendants of slaves and the influence and deep entrenchment of the influences and flavors of Africa, and we should all be thankful in our own way that we have come through this thing to the point where we can talk about it at all.
I'd like some form of reparations in the form of an endowment for African-American students to attend prep schools or colleges, and I'd like corporations who presently exist but had direct ties to slavery to cough up for it. I think thats more than fair.
Do you really think that there are a lot of talented African American students who are bereft of educational options because of money? Most elite schools would trip over each other to offer scholarships to talented black students.
From the article - Republicans, however, were supportive of the resolution. "It doesn't fix everything, but it does go a long way toward acknowledgment and moving us on to the next steps to building a more perfect union, doing the things that Martin Luther King would talk about, like building a colorblind society," said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.).
"Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic...A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro (to compete on a just and equal basis)...Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs.... And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war."
Absolutely. Nice find...I guess affirmative action was an early, if somewhat ham-fisted attempt to make just such special compensation...a swinging of the pendulum, maybe? I mean, I credit those who came before me for this honest and brave, if flawed, approach and but so I wonder, now, now where we are, have we now, or will we at some point reach a place of relative equality? And what more can we do that is not empty gesture?
Even in the oldest and most integrated of societies racism still exists, but this is truly a nation that has struggled and overcome so many entrenched hatreds - We must remain vigilant, but not allow our vigil to preclude a little enjoyment of what we have achieved.
I think they extrapolate from that "content of character" line. Shelby Steele seems to be the "go-to" guy on this one. I don't think MKL would have used "colorblind society" - it's too Colbertesque and King was too much a student of history - but I could be wrong. I guess "The Google" might help here but I am not motivated by Sen. Brownback's bromides...
Apology for slavery...yeah about 144 years too late. Maybe in 2108 the Senate will work itself up to an apology for that Jim Crow business.
Maybe instead our esteemed representatives could work on rooting out current racial discrimination... like say that Wells Fargo targeting black people in MD for sub-prime loans business.
As far as reparations go, I think it's warranted but completely impossible given what American society is like. Hell, we (as a country) haven't even been able to publicly admit to just how much black labor (slave and paid, manual and skilled labor) has contributed to the founding, development, and enrichment of our country.
A public acknowledgement of that contribution is worth a lot more than an apology for slavery.
I was surprised, at first, that it took so long. Then reality set in, and I ended up being surprised that it even happened in the first place.
Still boggles my mind that only five states apologized for their roles in slavery: Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and... New Jersey!? The first four were slave states, so they aren't so surprising, but I was actually kind of surprised about New Jersey, which technically kept slavery legally on the books until the 1840's.
When are they going to apologize for not passing universal health insurance back when, say, Teddy Roosevelt (as a candidate) or at least Harry Truman (as President) proposed it ????
They would have to apologize for all of our elected representatives in Congress funding their war chests with money from special interests such as drug companies and insurance companies. Then they would have to apologize for allowing the lobbyists to write legislation. After that they would have to apologize for ignoring what the citizens want in health care reform by saying "it would never get passed by Congress" when they are, in fact, the Congress.
An apology like that is just too complex which is probably why they are apologizing for slavery as they apparently see no way they can be blamed for it.
The apology for health care will be around 2150.
It's one of those symbolic things, like Australia apologizing to the Aborigines. It changes nothing, it's not reparations, but from a purely moral place, of course we should apologize. Just like we did for internment. Have we apologized formally to the Native Americans yet?
I've seen video of the official ceremonial Australian apology, and it was clear that large numbers of people worked their way up to it and planned it and invested in it. This didn't carry any of that engagement, and it doesn't carry anything like the power.
I do think it's a small good thing for some people who serve in our government. For each senator voting yes, it's a gain to have gotten to that moment of understanding.
It's just not, in any sense, a big good thing. It's not moment, like Australia's, of our country looking our history in the face and saying out loud that we're ashamed.
I think it's obvious from the cynical and generally dismissive nature of the comments this is one of those feel-good gestures that does nothing to make the group it was intended for to feel good. It has actually done the opposite. All of us good and decent hardworking black folk were just leading our lives and someone had to go and remind us that so little has been done to right the wrong of slavery. I'd call in sick if I had a job.
Some African Americans (and whites) did. Being classified as black and as Indian aren't mutually exclusive, and some people with negligible Indian ancestry have been given casino rights.
Except for the part where the Cherokee and Seminoles are refusing to recognize valid claims by African-Americans with Native blood to those casino rights. Dude, no disrespect but you gotta start doing a little homework before you make these ideologically-driven assumptions about the facts on the ground. This one in particular was showed glaring indifference to them.
I realize after getting caught with your pants down on your Aetna example, you're a little desperate here, but surely you are aware that Indian tribes other than the Cherokee and Seminoles have established casinos, and that, in some cases, the beneficiaries of these casinos have been blacks with negligible Indian ancestry.
I dont care how many Blacks they have on their board of directors. It has nothing at all to do with their financial responsibility for underwriting slavery. Nothing at all. Im sure you felt very proud of yourself playing "gotcha" but you did nothing to advance your argument.
In how many cases have Blacks with negligible Indian ancestry benefitted from casino rights? Can you provide any actual examples, sources, statistics or should I just take your word for it? Maybe you can step out of abstract unsubstantiated claims and actually post some facts to prove your argument. You havent yet, but there's still hope I suppose.
Would this resolution have passed unanimously if BHO was not president? I could see the Republicans going absolutely bat-shit crazy over even discussion of something like this when GWB was president.
Has there ever been a movement for a truth and reconciliation commission with regard to slavery in the U.S.?
TNC - A lot of people on this thread have pointed out that this doesn't mean much. That's true, but I don't think it gets very deep at the question of why you don't have much to say. The questions are in what sense doesn't it mean much, and more importantly, WHY? It's not just 'doesn't mean much' in the sense of not doing much for poor black people. It 'doesn't mean much' also in the sense of 'not a meaningful English statement. Our public discourse has become so fragmented and unintelligible that it's now possible, after The Civil War and over a century of social struggle, to say in all seriousness and with a straight face: "White People are sorry to Black People for slavery." The only things that are allowed in our public discourse are things that are obvious to the point of banality, and those few things are taken for the whole of reality. That statement of apology is so simplistic and inadequate that it should be a joke, but it's not. What it is, is a constructed narrative. And that, in the end, is why you don't have much to say. This statement isn't directed at you, both you personally and you in the sense of Black People. The statement is directed at White People. It's an apology to Black People directed at White People, so that the average suburban or rural white constituent can feel good about it and then go back to never, ever thinking about the problems of poor blacks or how those people got into their current situation.
BTW, I'm a white male in favor or reparations--But not in the form of cash payments. Education, Education, Education. Adequately funded public schools and pre-care programs in poor, black neighborhoods and a free college education for all black students for the next 50 years would be a great place to start. And there's not a single one of these calculating, insincere assholes in congress who would ever consider bringing that up.
"Education, Education, Education. Adequately funded public schools and pre-care programs in poor, black neighborhoods and a free college education for all black students for the next 50 years would be a great place to start."
Education isn't a panacea, and your proposed solution of throwing money at poor black schools has already been tried, with little to show for it. New Jersey, for example, due to a state supreme court decision, has been spending more than the state per-pupil average in poor black districts for years (Look up "Abbott districts"). See also the experiment that was done in Kansas City. Ta-Nehisi's former Blogging Heads sparring partner John McWhorter has talked about that one.
Reviewing the comments to this, I remember why I stopped reading articles written by people who typically comment on race. They exist in an intellectually segregated (yes, intentional word choice) zone that they make hostile to other viewpoints.
To even enter the conversation is to lose it, due to the near-fanatical energy of the commentators and the uncompromising, vicious slant given to the terms of the debate. See e.g., above, where white people who don't agree are kiddingly said to be inviting blacks "back to the farm". You cannot discuss race with people who "kid" that their opponents are seeking to reimpose slavery, any more than you could discuss Israel with people who half-jokingly claim their opponents seek to gas Jews. Jokes like that leave the other person too shocked and offended to continue discussing the matter in a removed way. Of course, that is the joke's point--to shut the other person up, not elicit further conversation about their views.
And the result is that we are left with a "debate" on race where sober people smartly withdraw from the conversation, rather than face that sort of treatment. (No thanks, Mr. Holder, but I am busy for the next 50 years, so find someone else to talk to.) It is better to simply ignore the race commentariat. I understand this is frustrating for them, as they avoid discussing this stuff among themselves; their tactics are only satisfying when they leap upon some unsuspecting moderate who wanders by and makes a reasonable observation about their kooky views. Only when talking to moderates does the emotional bullying, harsh rhetoric and playing to their snickering, knowing mob make for a satisfying "debate."
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
The fact that it has taken so long kinda negates the meaning though don't you think? Back in the days when there would have actually been Senators voting against the resolution would have carried some weight.
And why did it take a black man becoming Prez for them to do this?
Triflin'
Yeah, this is what I felt too.
Apparently, a lot of members of the CBC aren't happy with the verbiage. They say it allows the State to dip out of any further responsibility. My hometown's Rep was quoted...
"The language is unacceptable," said Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., "I'm a reparations man — how else do you repair the damage?"
I have to admit that this made me shudder a bit.
Yeah I was hoping there'd be a legal opening for civil action also.
No, this makes me shudder for St. Louis. The town is ass backwards when it comes to race relations. Gotta be one of the worst in the country. That comment is not going to go over well, but Clay doesn't need the white vote to win...
I aint payin a dime for 'reparations' and I'd say the same thing if I was white
Well you're not sitting on the Board of Directors for companies like Aetna which has direct ties to slavery and still exists today, either. If you were, I'd be putting your company in the crosshairs and rightfully so.
Yeah, Juba? You know who is sitting on the Board of Directors of Aetna? Three black men -- and one of them is the CEO.
Shorter Dave: You've already got Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey, why are you still complaining?
Longer Josh Hueco:
I have no cogent response to the facts Dave brought up, of which Juba was almost certainly unaware, so I'll just talk out of my hat. That's certainly easier than grappling with the implications of the facts Dave brought up, which is probably why Juba, so far, has not attempted to do so.
Things appear simpler when you view them in black and white: evil corporations with ties to slavery versus black people who are the descendants of slaves. Then when you find out that blacks are disproportionately represented on the board of directors of one of these evil companies, you realize the real world has shades of gray. Whether or not Aetna should pay reparations for whatever connections it had to slavery, I don't know, but I do know that if it does pay reparations, some of that money is going to be coming out of the pockets of black men such as Ron Williams, the CEO (and, no doubt, a shareholder as well) of Aetna.
By the way, the words you put in my mouth miss a point somewhat spectacularly: I'm not the one who thinks that successful African Americans are limited to figures in sports and entertainment such as Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey; on the contrary, I'm the one who just let you and Juba know that the guy who runs Aetna is black. This ain't 1865 anymore. Successful black people are part of the power structure in business, and have been for sometime.
okay. but couldn't we say the same thing about this nation as a whole, that it was built on the backs of african and african-descended slaves whose ancestors continue to face some institutionalized disadvantages today? does that make me, as an American who isn't descended from any of those slaves, liable to those who are?
The perpetrators of slavery owed the victims and the victims' descendants far more than they ever paid; but I suspect we may be past the point where it's possible for those who profited or continue to profit from the suffering induced by slavery to make monetary remuneration or any other legal-type concessions to those who suffered from it or to their descendants, who continue to suffer from it in some ways. I feel like, not only are we all too mixed up and mixed together now, not just racially but culturally and otherwise, that re-drawing these old racial lines which are based on lies to begin with would simply be a significant step backward.
So how can we make things right? I'm sure that it ISN'T by having some people write checks and some people receive them, and saying "now let's never complain about or even speak of slavery again" - and you all know that's what would be said. We've got to find other ways to strive towards that Dr. King vision of a truly merit-based society, of a real wipe-out of the all the old lies and stereotypes that make us fear each other, of the million little built-in biases in our society that are based purely upon racial perception and therefore upon foolishness, including within the black community itself. It's got to be a multi-pronged approach which includes real education reform, as people debated below, gradual eradication of biased policing, and a whole host of other things, but mostly the gradual erasure of this extremely damaging black-white victim-oppressor mentality that seems to linger in our subconscious even though we're all too smart to actually believe it consciously. DaveinHackensack points out that blacks are part of the power structure in this country, downthread; this is true and, while it remains disproportionately uncommon, it is when all of us think of this as being normal - when it ISN'T disproportionately uncommon - that we've made things right.
I feel like I've been long on platitudes (and wind) and short on solutions here. I personally try to just treat people with respect, to work against unfounded biases i find in my own mind (race-based and otherwise) and try to counteract that sort of bias in others when i see it, especially as a citizen, i.e. when i see it in laws or the way government is run (or lack thereof), government officials, etc. I'm not sure what else to do.
PS - non-black non-white naturalized immigrant, hetero-male, under-30, etc. speaking here, if anybody cares.
Dave...To me it doesn't make a difference how many minorities sit on Aetna's board of directors today. It doesn't change Aetna's historical misdeeds. Something else that doesn't change is the excuses that racist whites use for their beliefs and words: "Why can't we call them n****r if they call themselves that too?" "They can't be oppressed, don't Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey count?" and "Why should Aetna pay reparations? They dunn got themselves a cuppla black people on their board!"
1. No I wasnt aware and it makes zero difference to me Dave. Im not sure why you thought that was the Atom Bomb to shut the whole argument down but its kind of funny to me that you did.
2. I agree completely with Josh. Unless you're a great fan of tokenism, it makes zero difference to me that Aetna named a Black CEO. In fact it makes me suspicious that they're trying to win some PR battle preemptively.
Juba,
You've completely ignored the broader implications of this, which doesn't surprise me. And given your ignorance of Aetna, on what basis are you claiming that Williams, and the two other African Americans on Aetna's board, are tokens?
I havent ignored anything. Maybe Im not following you, and maybe you can just clarify what it is Im not understanding or fail to get.
Strawman. Weak. What is tokenism is your suggestion that Aetna having three Black men in executive positions. They could fire every non-Black employee and replace them with Black employees and it wouldnt do a thing to absolve them of financial responsibility for underwriting slavery. So Im trying to understand how their current CEO is at all relevant.
Maybe cause it isnt. Swing and a miss, Dave. Swing and a miss.
A nice but empty gesture. Sort of like passing a resolution against burning witches.
I hope they never apologized for burning witches, I mean those witches totally had it coming, giving people the 'evil eye' and all.
They had bad PR, that's it! Congress should apologized for burning them.
Sort of like this?
http://www.virginiabeachhistory.org/kyle.html
You could say something about it being Juneteenth.
Thanks for this.
That makes sense.
What's the point? Had my newly freed ancestors being given that promised 40 acres and mule, I suspect the economic and social standing of my family (as well as many of Af American famalies) would have been much, much different than it turned out -- generation after generation of poverty, with no little (or no) opportunity to build wealth and rise out of the lower-class.
After the holocaust of slavery, the failure of reconstruction, the disenfranchisement of blacks, and legalized segregation, an apology now is hollow and meaningless.
I agree.
Mighty white of 'em.
HA!
Would have been whiter if they said "we're sorry if any blacks were offended by slavery. We didn't mean to cause harm"
now that's funny...
So much funnier than it has any right to be.
It was on the eve of Juneteenth, dude. Just politics, folks - nothing to see here.
Sorry...Can someone tell me please the origin of this legislation? (intellectually speaking)
Who wants this and why?
"Cohen said he and Harkin worked closely with the NAACP and other civil rights groups on language that would not endorse or preclude any future claims to reparations. "It will not harm reparations but won't give any standing to it," Cohen said. "
Really. Do we have time for this?
Is this to assuage my guilt (as I'm white)?...What is the NAACP thinking?
Who wants reparations? Can someone please explain this idea to me? I'm asking honestly, do AAs on the street want reparations? ...Like what, a check?
One thing is for sure, this would be a boring, boring country with crappy music (industrial polka anyone? - think I'm kidding? visit Scandinavia) if it weren't for the descendants of slaves and the influence and deep entrenchment of the influences and flavors of Africa, and we should all be thankful in our own way that we have come through this thing to the point where we can talk about it at all.
cd...
I'd like some form of reparations in the form of an endowment for African-American students to attend prep schools or colleges, and I'd like corporations who presently exist but had direct ties to slavery to cough up for it. I think thats more than fair.
Do you really think that there are a lot of talented African American students who are bereft of educational options because of money? Most elite schools would trip over each other to offer scholarships to talented black students.
They could forgive my student loans. That would be cool, I think. :-D
From the article - Republicans, however, were supportive of the resolution. "It doesn't fix everything, but it does go a long way toward acknowledgment and moving us on to the next steps to building a more perfect union, doing the things that Martin Luther King would talk about, like building a colorblind society," said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.).
Still not getting it, is he?
Well, be thankful he didn't add,"And now that I said I'm sorry wouldn't you all like to come back to my farm?"
...I know, right? - thank heavens for Colbert.
yeah i noticed that too. If if he didn't know that was stupid to say, I mean, come on, Colbert rips on that all the time.
Memo to Sen. Brownback from MLKjr:
"Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic...A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro (to compete on a just and equal basis)...Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs.... And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war."
Absolutely. Nice find...I guess affirmative action was an early, if somewhat ham-fisted attempt to make just such special compensation...a swinging of the pendulum, maybe? I mean, I credit those who came before me for this honest and brave, if flawed, approach and but so I wonder, now, now where we are, have we now, or will we at some point reach a place of relative equality? And what more can we do that is not empty gesture?
Even in the oldest and most integrated of societies racism still exists, but this is truly a nation that has struggled and overcome so many entrenched hatreds - We must remain vigilant, but not allow our vigil to preclude a little enjoyment of what we have achieved.
Somebody throw me a rope here - I'm a little fuzzy on the history - did MLK actually talk about building a "colorblind" society?
I think they extrapolate from that "content of character" line. Shelby Steele seems to be the "go-to" guy on this one. I don't think MKL would have used "colorblind society" - it's too Colbertesque and King was too much a student of history - but I could be wrong. I guess "The Google" might help here but I am not motivated by Sen. Brownback's bromides...
Senate Backs Apology for Slavery
Resolution Specifies That It Cannot Be Used in Reparations Cases
Then what's the point?
Apology for slavery...yeah about 144 years too late. Maybe in 2108 the Senate will work itself up to an apology for that Jim Crow business.
Maybe instead our esteemed representatives could work on rooting out current racial discrimination... like say that Wells Fargo targeting black people in MD for sub-prime loans business.
As far as reparations go, I think it's warranted but completely impossible given what American society is like. Hell, we (as a country) haven't even been able to publicly admit to just how much black labor (slave and paid, manual and skilled labor) has contributed to the founding, development, and enrichment of our country.
A public acknowledgement of that contribution is worth a lot more than an apology for slavery.
I was surprised, at first, that it took so long. Then reality set in, and I ended up being surprised that it even happened in the first place.
Still boggles my mind that only five states apologized for their roles in slavery: Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and... New Jersey!? The first four were slave states, so they aren't so surprising, but I was actually kind of surprised about New Jersey, which technically kept slavery legally on the books until the 1840's.
When are they going to apologize for not passing universal health insurance back when, say, Teddy Roosevelt (as a candidate) or at least Harry Truman (as President) proposed it ????
How about apologizing for trying to exclude black people from Social Security?
They would have to apologize for all of our elected representatives in Congress funding their war chests with money from special interests such as drug companies and insurance companies. Then they would have to apologize for allowing the lobbyists to write legislation. After that they would have to apologize for ignoring what the citizens want in health care reform by saying "it would never get passed by Congress" when they are, in fact, the Congress.
An apology like that is just too complex which is probably why they are apologizing for slavery as they apparently see no way they can be blamed for it.
The apology for health care will be around 2150.
It's one of those symbolic things, like Australia apologizing to the Aborigines. It changes nothing, it's not reparations, but from a purely moral place, of course we should apologize. Just like we did for internment. Have we apologized formally to the Native Americans yet?
I've seen video of the official ceremonial Australian apology, and it was clear that large numbers of people worked their way up to it and planned it and invested in it. This didn't carry any of that engagement, and it doesn't carry anything like the power.
I do think it's a small good thing for some people who serve in our government. For each senator voting yes, it's a gain to have gotten to that moment of understanding.
It's just not, in any sense, a big good thing. It's not moment, like Australia's, of our country looking our history in the face and saying out loud that we're ashamed.
As long as we're going with symbolic gestures, making Juneteenth a national holiday would be appreciated by me.
I think it's obvious from the cynical and generally dismissive nature of the comments this is one of those feel-good gestures that does nothing to make the group it was intended for to feel good. It has actually done the opposite. All of us good and decent hardworking black folk were just leading our lives and someone had to go and remind us that so little has been done to right the wrong of slavery. I'd call in sick if I had a job.
To quote Larry Wilmore, The Daily Show's Senior Black Correspondent, "I'd rather we got casinos."
Some African Americans (and whites) did. Being classified as black and as Indian aren't mutually exclusive, and some people with negligible Indian ancestry have been given casino rights.
Except for the part where the Cherokee and Seminoles are refusing to recognize valid claims by African-Americans with Native blood to those casino rights. Dude, no disrespect but you gotta start doing a little homework before you make these ideologically-driven assumptions about the facts on the ground. This one in particular was showed glaring indifference to them.
I realize after getting caught with your pants down on your Aetna example, you're a little desperate here, but surely you are aware that Indian tribes other than the Cherokee and Seminoles have established casinos, and that, in some cases, the beneficiaries of these casinos have been blacks with negligible Indian ancestry.
Caught with my pants down how?
I dont care how many Blacks they have on their board of directors. It has nothing at all to do with their financial responsibility for underwriting slavery. Nothing at all. Im sure you felt very proud of yourself playing "gotcha" but you did nothing to advance your argument.
In how many cases have Blacks with negligible Indian ancestry benefitted from casino rights? Can you provide any actual examples, sources, statistics or should I just take your word for it? Maybe you can step out of abstract unsubstantiated claims and actually post some facts to prove your argument. You havent yet, but there's still hope I suppose.
Would this resolution have passed unanimously if BHO was not president? I could see the Republicans going absolutely bat-shit crazy over even discussion of something like this when GWB was president.
Has there ever been a movement for a truth and reconciliation commission with regard to slavery in the U.S.?
"I have no idea why I don't."
Perhaps because it doesn't really mean anything beyond being a minor positive indicator of progress?
TNC - A lot of people on this thread have pointed out that this doesn't mean much. That's true, but I don't think it gets very deep at the question of why you don't have much to say. The questions are in what sense doesn't it mean much, and more importantly, WHY? It's not just 'doesn't mean much' in the sense of not doing much for poor black people. It 'doesn't mean much' also in the sense of 'not a meaningful English statement. Our public discourse has become so fragmented and unintelligible that it's now possible, after The Civil War and over a century of social struggle, to say in all seriousness and with a straight face: "White People are sorry to Black People for slavery." The only things that are allowed in our public discourse are things that are obvious to the point of banality, and those few things are taken for the whole of reality. That statement of apology is so simplistic and inadequate that it should be a joke, but it's not. What it is, is a constructed narrative. And that, in the end, is why you don't have much to say. This statement isn't directed at you, both you personally and you in the sense of Black People. The statement is directed at White People. It's an apology to Black People directed at White People, so that the average suburban or rural white constituent can feel good about it and then go back to never, ever thinking about the problems of poor blacks or how those people got into their current situation.
BTW, I'm a white male in favor or reparations--But not in the form of cash payments. Education, Education, Education. Adequately funded public schools and pre-care programs in poor, black neighborhoods and a free college education for all black students for the next 50 years would be a great place to start. And there's not a single one of these calculating, insincere assholes in congress who would ever consider bringing that up.
"Education, Education, Education. Adequately funded public schools and pre-care programs in poor, black neighborhoods and a free college education for all black students for the next 50 years would be a great place to start."
Education isn't a panacea, and your proposed solution of throwing money at poor black schools has already been tried, with little to show for it. New Jersey, for example, due to a state supreme court decision, has been spending more than the state per-pupil average in poor black districts for years (Look up "Abbott districts"). See also the experiment that was done in Kansas City. Ta-Nehisi's former Blogging Heads sparring partner John McWhorter has talked about that one.
I dont think anyone is looking for a panacea.
Thats not the point at all.
I assumed the point was to advocate policies that would have a beneficial impact on most African Americans. A focus on higher education won't do that.
Says you. I dont believe you. You need more people.
Slavery was a terrible attack on fathers; now we still have the mission of fathers to lead families in the larger mission of peace.
Reviewing the comments to this, I remember why I stopped reading articles written by people who typically comment on race. They exist in an intellectually segregated (yes, intentional word choice) zone that they make hostile to other viewpoints.
To even enter the conversation is to lose it, due to the near-fanatical energy of the commentators and the uncompromising, vicious slant given to the terms of the debate. See e.g., above, where white people who don't agree are kiddingly said to be inviting blacks "back to the farm". You cannot discuss race with people who "kid" that their opponents are seeking to reimpose slavery, any more than you could discuss Israel with people who half-jokingly claim their opponents seek to gas Jews. Jokes like that leave the other person too shocked and offended to continue discussing the matter in a removed way. Of course, that is the joke's point--to shut the other person up, not elicit further conversation about their views.
And the result is that we are left with a "debate" on race where sober people smartly withdraw from the conversation, rather than face that sort of treatment. (No thanks, Mr. Holder, but I am busy for the next 50 years, so find someone else to talk to.) It is better to simply ignore the race commentariat. I understand this is frustrating for them, as they avoid discussing this stuff among themselves; their tactics are only satisfying when they leap upon some unsuspecting moderate who wanders by and makes a reasonable observation about their kooky views. Only when talking to moderates does the emotional bullying, harsh rhetoric and playing to their snickering, knowing mob make for a satisfying "debate."
A variety of differing opinions have been presented just in this thread, Spartee. Try it. I'm sure you will be treated respectfully.
And yet here you are. Participating...
This was fitting to be done on or about Juneteenth.
Both seem to be left-handed attempts at civility.
bigotry against lefties!!!