We had nothing to do with slavery, so we demand an apology for the Senate's apology.
In a blatantly political move designed to keep President Obama from hogging all the good apologies, the United States Senate has apologized for slavery.
Here’s how the Wall Street Journal reported it:
The U.S. Senate approved a fiercely worded resolution Thursday that attempts to formally apologize for the “fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery” of African-Americans.
The unanimous voice vote came five months after Barack Obama became the first black U.S. president, and ahead of the June 19 “Juneteenth” celebration of the emancipation of African-Americans at the end of the Civil War in 1865.
Approval by the House of Representatives, which could come as early as next week, would make it the first time the entire Congress has formally apologized on behalf of the American people…”
Right. We understand that slavery was cruel and inhumane. But don’t apologize on our behalf. Our grandparents were still wearing wooden shoes in Holland 50 years after slavery was abolished. They had nothing to do with slavery. Neither did we.
While the Senate’s in an apologizing mood, maybe they could apologize for some other stuff. Like that plaid sports coat my dad wore to church every Sunday. Pat Boone records. Spaghetti-Os. Afro perms. Leisure suits. Car 54, Where Are You. MTV. White bread. Yanni. The Black Sox scandal. Joe Biden’s hairplugs. The 1958 Cadillac. Barry Bonds.
Maybe the Senate could even get a head start and apologize now for the reparations movement their slavery apology is sure to inspire.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Subscribe, tweet, share, tell a friend!
Browse before and after this article
Obama Accuses Fired Inspector General of AmeriCorps of Being ‘Confused, Disoriented’
NEWER: Robert Gibbs knows government healthcare works in other countries. Just don’t ask him which ones.
Related Posts
- Black House Democrats angry Senate version of slavery apology has “No reparations” disclaimer
- Crazy story of the day: Iran won’t believe Obama until Hollywood apologizes
- Quote of the Day:
“The status quo simply is not where America is.”
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - Danny Glover and United Nations want you to apologize. And pay reparations. And worse.
- Howard Dean apologizes to both Bushes, Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft, calls them “great”
{ 1 trackback }
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
Hey, what’s wrong with Car 54? ..and Spaghetti-O’s? Come on.
Adding to the list…
How ’bout an apologies for
Disco Music…
The AMC Pacer…
Pork Rinds…
Lawn darts…
Al Sharpton…
Bruce Jenner…
are the africans who sold their fellow citizens to the slave traders also going to apologize? What about the US Ships that patrolled the west african coast in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s to stop the slave ships -don’t we get credit for that? No one seems to mention the fact that the fledgling US government went to great lengths to hault the slave trade long before the civil war. I do believe the pen set that the brittish PM gave to Obama was made from the wood from one of those ships…
Your grandparents in Holland likely had more to do with slavery than my family in Prussia and Bavaria. At least your ancestors got the commerce of Dutch slavers when they returned home.
But then, that’s just the silly kind of debate one gets into when we’re apologizing for things that no one here had anything to do with. These tribal grudges and centuries old blood feuds are the things of backward cultures prevalent in the middle east.
If anything, it’s more likely that Obama’s African Muslim ancestors were the beneficiaries of slaving proceeds than any ancestors who were still in Europe at the time.
Every senator represents descendants of the victims too. How does that apology work? Exactly who is apologizing to whom? Are letters going to go out to the families of the victims? And what about people who are descended from abolitionists or Union soldiers or Republicans? Why should they apologize? This apology is just pure silliness that trivializes the nature of the crime.
And can you imagine the squabbling over who gets how much reparations? And who would pay? Wow! What a bureaucratic circle jerk that would create.
And the U.S. already paid the price of the apology in having the bloodiest war in your history that ended slavery in the U.S.
I’d say that paid off any debt in full.
Andy: Are you actually Canadian as your “andycanuck” name implies?
Hundreds of thousands of our ancestors died in the war to end slavery. That should be apology enough. This empty yet self-important gesture from Congress shows terrible disrespect for their sacrifice.
Andycanuck and Irv, those Civil War soldiers didn’t die to end slavery. Northern soldiers were fighting to preserve the Union. The North was deeply divided over whether southern slavery should end after the war, and Congress didn’t decide the issue until 1865, long after most of the casualties occurred.
Ocmadam, your history is quite right that Africans enslaved those people and sold them to our slave traders. But in answer to your question, African societies *have* apologized for slavery, unlike the U.S. And the U.S. didn’t outlaw the slave trade until 1808, and its brief patrols of the African coast notoriously caught almost no slave traders.
Wrong. Many of those soldiers specifically stated that they were joining up because of the evil of slavery. Admittedly, that wasn’t true of all of them. Preserving the Union was Lincoln’s professed reason for waging the war, yet his opposition to slavery was the trigger that caused the South to secede in the first place.
The idea that the war was not about slavery is revisionist silliness. Slavery was not the only issue but it was the most important one.
Wrong? Irv, where did those soldiers state why they were joining up? Most Union soldiers were drafted, most northerners were not anti-slavery, and there was no way to know whether slavery would even be abolished after the war.
I agree that tensions over slavery were a major cause of the war, but it’s not “revisionist silliness” to point out that the North simply did not embark on a great crusade to end slavery in the South.
This is like saying that the Holocaust had anything to do with why the allies fought WWII.
You’ve made some faulty assumptions. In no particular order:
1) No, “most” of them were not drafted. The North didn’t even have a draft until 1863. Interestingly, there was a system whereby a person could evade the draft by paying someone else to go in their place. Sometimes they paid several someones to go in their place, because they believed in the cause so strongly. </sarcasm> It was a weirdly effective system.
2) Try reading some of the letters they sent home sometime, or the letters and diaries found on their bodies after they were killed. Virtually all of the soldiers were aware of the role of slavery in the genesis of the war. Many expressed a desire to see it end and even accepted (albeit sometimes grudgingly) that they would die in that cause.
3) I never said the North went into the war as a “great crusade” to end slavery. You made that up. It was still what they died for (though it would be wrong to ignore the desire to preserve the union, that you mentioned as also something they died for).
4) Comparing the motivation to the Holocaust – which the majority of the soldiers involved didn’t know about until late in the war or even afterwards – is at best highly inaccurate.
Irv, you’re missing the point entirely. Yes, Union soldiers were aware that slavery played a role in the outbreak of war, and surely some were abolitionists. I’ve said so. Yet the North didn’t wage war to end slavery, and its soldiers weren’t fighting because they expected slavery would be the outcome of the war. They couldn’t have, as that decision was hotly contested and wasn’t taken until 1865.
I agree that you never said the North went into war as a “great crusade,” but I didn’t say you did. You’re insisting its soldiers were largely fighting and dying to end slavery, which simply wasn’t true. (“It was still what they died for,” you just insisted, even though the Union’s war aims didn’t even include ending slavery when most of them died.) This is part of the myth, constructed after the war by the victors, that the North was abolitionist, that the war was largely a moral crusade, and that the Union had sacrificed much for a righteous cause.
I chose the Holocaust precisely for the reason you mention, that allied soldiers didn’t know about the Holocaust until the end of the war. Union soldiers knew there was slavery in the South, of course — most of them had known slavery, too, in their home states in their lifetimes — but like with the Holocaust, there’s no way to argue that the war was being fought for this reason.
It’s comforting for many northerners to think that our side in the Civil War had no slavery, was anti-slavery, didn’t depend on slavery economically, and fought the war in large part to end that evil institution in the South.
The trouble is, the history books say that none of this was true.
– “It was still what they died for,” you just insisted, even though the Union’s war aims didn’t even include ending slavery when most of them died. –
I never said or would have said that it had anything whatever to do with “The North’s war aims” which are completely irrelevant to the question of what their deaths meant!
Many of them consciously made the choice but I never said or would have said that that conscious choice was why the majority were there.
You’re arguing straw men. “That’s what they died for” means “That’s what they died for.” It doesn’t mean “That’s what the government decided or they personally chose that they would die for.”
Learn English. Learn something about logic and for God’s sake learn to have some respect for the fallen.
I’m done with you
Irv, just how is it that you believe Union soldiers’ deaths were in the cause of ending slavery, if the conflict wasn’t even about ending slavery when they died? If they didn’t even know that their deaths were going to help bring about the end of slavery? If most of them weren’t even abolitionists?
You seem to believe that many Union soldiers chose to fight and die out of a commitment to end slavery, when nothing I’ve seen suggests that this was a major motivation for Union troops — or that they believed, in 1861, 1862, or 1863, that the end of slavery was a likely outcome of the war.
You also seem to be saying, now, that somehow the deaths of Union soldiers were an “apology” for slavery (I’m quoting you) even if they didn’t personally choose to die for that cause.
How could that be? In what sense were their deaths an apology for slavery if they were fighting in another cause?
“African societies *have* apologized for slavery”
Wow, could you more blatantly have pulled that out of your rear? Africans apologizing for something most people know STILL occurs in Africa to this day? The point was, genius, that NOBODY should be apologize for anything they are not directly at fault for. Nearly every group of people in the world would be apologizing for something if we all decided to take responsibility for questionable actions from our ancestors. You appear to have a lot to learn not only about Africa, but the history of the world at large…and if not, then you have some serious bigotry to work through.
Wow, could you more blatantly have pulled that out of your rear?
Ordinarily, I would think this means it isn’t true. However, it’s a matter of record.
The point was, genius, that NOBODY should be apologize for anything they are not directly at fault for.
I couldn’t agree more. The more subtle issue, though, is whether an institution (such as a company, nation, or society) should apologize in its own name for its own past actions.
We have companies and other institutions apologize for their actions all the time, even if the most of the employees (even the company president) weren’t responsible.
The U.S. has apologized for many actions, yet rarely does anyone object that not all U.S. citizens were personally responsible, or feel that a U.S. apology amounts to a personal apology from them.
What’s different about this case?
You appear to have a lot to learn not only about Africa, but the history of the world at large…and if not, then you have some serious bigotry to work through.
Okay, enlighten me. I was right about African societies apologizing for their role in the slave trade. What do you think I need to learn about Africa, or world history?
As for my “bigotry,” just who do you think I’m prejudiced against?
LOOK WHITE PEOPLE MUST HATE BLACK PEOPLE…. JUST READ WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ….TOO TAKE A HUMAN BEING RAPE.BEAT, WORK TIL SUN UP TIL SUN DOWN ….FOR FREE…EAT THE POOREST FOODS YOU MAY NOT HAVE EATEN FOR DAYS ….THIS WAS THE CASE FOR THE CHILDERN . LOOK YOU SAY WAR …THE BLACKMEN AND WOMAN FIGHT IN EVERY WAR THIS COUNTRY HAD ,CIVIL WAR… WORLD WAR 1AND 2 NAME A WAR BLACK PEOPLE WAS FIGHTING IN IT FOR A AMERICA…CIVIL WAR WAS NOT OUT ABLE HELPING BLACKS BECOME FREE ..IT WAS MONEY THE SOUTH OUT PRODUCEING NORTH… IN OTHER WORDS THE SOUTH WAS RICH AND POWERFUL THE NORTH WAS NOT…THE NORTH DID NOT LIKE THAT .SO TO CHANGE THAT SECNE THE NORTH HAD THE VOTEING POWER THE CONGRESS AND SENATE THEY VOTED TO END SLAVERY..SEE THE NORTH COULD NOT OUT PRODUCE THE SOUTH IT WAS FREE LABOR..THEY NEW THEY COULD KEEP BLACKS 3 CLASS CITZENS. IT WAS ABOUT KEEPING THE UNION ONE AND TAKING POWER FROM THE SOUTH..
SO LOOK YOU NEED TO SAY CAN I GO THROUGH WHAT THEY GO THROUGH.. O IF YOU HAVE FEELING FOR THE JEWS YOU SHOULD HAVE FEELING FOR BLACK PEOPLE …FOR WHAT THE JEWS WAS IN FOR 5 TO 10 YEARS THE BLACK PEOPLE WAS IN 400 YEARS …REPARATION IS A GREAT AND SMALLTHING TO DO AND TOO HEAL THE WOUNDS ON BOTH SIDE…
WHAT ABOUT JIM CROW LAWS THE GOVERNMENT PASS. WHAT ABOUT THE SLAVERY LAWS THE USA GOVERNMENT LEGALLY PASS ..IT OK TO HAVE SLAVES .THIS COUNTRY FOUNDATION WAS SLAVERY THAT WAS THE ENIGINE THAT MORE THE ECNOMY FREE LABORSO THE USA GOVERNMENT NEED TO PAY REPARATION THE DESCENDENT OF SLAVERS
Roy, if you don’t stop shouting with all caps, I’m gonna have to kick you outta here.
Comment deleted
Jim, at least Roy has most of his facts straight. It’s amazing how many people are confused about this history and its consequences.
James, you are correct. As a former social studies teacher and the recipient of a B.S. in History, I find that Roy is in the neighborhood of accurate. By deleting my own comment, I was merely trying to follow through with the old adage of not saying anything at all because I was typing hurtful things. I was simply amazed at how much of the message is lost when the syntax is incorrect (and the caps button is stuck). My deleted comment essentially stated that I would be willing to contribute to the reparations myself if some of the remuneration were to be utilized in a course of study that would result in the strengthening of ones literary skills.
The fact that you james, supported that heinously self-serving, NoI-esque verbal diarrhea pretty much says it all. I don’t think you care about truth..which should have been evident by your trying not once but TWICE (and twice without evidence at hand), to pass off that b.s. about Africans apologizing for slavery (and no, “a matter of record” doesn’t cut it). Come to think of it you’ve only been assed to backup very few claims. You try to come off as calm, reserved, and just looking for a “reasonable compromise” but when it comes down to it you’re a race-baiter. A company apologizes on it’s behalf for actions reflective of it’s present ONLY. It should be the same with the U.S, and if you can give an example where America’s apologized for otherwise, I can probably find examples people objecting to it. What one can’t help but wonder, is what the ultimate end goal in all this? For example, let’s say that Africans HAD apologized for slavery(pretending to live in your fantasy land for a moment)…that doesn’t even actually change what happened, does it? Just like Americans apologizing wouldn’t. NOTHING, not apologies, not reparations, will change the past. Or pretty much the present for that matter. Even if you got your money and your heartfelt apology, would you really (folks like you and jim j), truly forgive whitey? Would it improve race relations?
Have “almost apologies” in the form of school education about racism/apartheid/slavery, black history month, affirmative action/quotas and government assisted income done so much to “heal wounds”? Obviously not, if you’re still feeling so damaged over the past. And yet, more money is the answer to something so complex, huh?
Right, any wonder people aren’t buying this like they used to.
Sorry, where I posted “(folks like you and jim j)” I actually meant to say “like you and roy lee”…you know, that caps lock happy freak crying about how badly HE deserves reparations to heal the gaping wounds HE endlessly suffers resulting from the traumatic and brutal captivity of…his ancestors 100s of years ago. Yeah I suspect of ol’ roy that if he were to lose a a completely estranged relative in a car accident with a drunk driver where the driver also perished, he’d run to any nearest by associate of the culprit demanding they apologize and pay him damages. I wonder if someone like him even cares about his people at all, as much as he does attention, pity, being sanctimonious.