I would argue that there has been substantial "metanoia" on the part of the federal (and state and local) governments on his issue - the voting rights act, Brown v. Board of Education, affirmative action, etc.

And that "metanoia" has been fought tooth-and-nail, especially by the political right. Doing so has even gotten people elected.

Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 10:38 AM

This author gets something right - the apology passed by the House is 95% meaningless and should be exposed as the blatant political tool it is. The primary sponsor is a white Democrat who was elected in a minority-majority district and faces a tough re-election battle against a black opponent (who's run a pretty despicable campaign, I might add). Again, it’s nice to apologize, but it’s pretty cheap grace.

Posted by: Eric | August 8, 2008 10:46 AM

Rick -

"The comments by "big guy" prove the point I made in my post above. The issue was not really money but power."

I don't get your point. Please elaborate.

Posted by: Gordon | August 8, 2008 11:04 AM

Rick, that's pretty convoluted.

Posted by: Gordon | August 8, 2008 11:35 AM

Rick, that's pretty convoluted.

I admit it sounds so, but that drove (among other things) the opposition to the repeal of Jim Crow laws in the South and, distantly related, the rise of the "religious right" in the 1970s. It also explains "white flight" from major cities -- on the Federal government's dime -- beginning in the 1950s. People just don't realize the pervasiveness of American racism or its long-lasting effects, which will take lots of cash to reverse (but not just cash).

Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 11:46 AM

that's pretty convoluted.

Most amateur psycho-analysis is.

Posted by: Wax | August 8, 2008 11:54 AM

This is why I never really understood why so many pushed for an apology. Talk can be bought. Even in the best case scenario, those apologizing for slavery didn't do it, so the words have to be somewhat empty. I am extremely sorry that slavery ever happened -- but I can't really say that in a way that doesn't sound like cheap grace. I also realize that just hearing the words does help somewhat. We have repented of slavery as a nation in that we don't allow it any more. It's always surprised me that Lincoln never apologized for it.

We have repented as a nation for many of the racism sins -- we've made discrimination illegal, but since you can't really legislate morality -- we're far from correcting all those problems. So yes, I hear you. It's still a huge issue.

I also know that vindication of any kind is a very small comfort. Restoring a relationship lets you truly enjoy that relationship for years to come, but just vindication is surprisingly empty. I think it originated the phrase, "Too little too late."

Posted by: frankie | August 8, 2008 12:02 PM

It's always surprised me that Lincoln never apologized for it.

He had enough on his plate as it was and figured that the nation needed to heal first from the Civil War -- remember, that's why he ended up being shot.

Restoring a relationship lets you truly enjoy that relationship for years to come, but just vindication is surprisingly empty.

I agree. That's why the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is reconciliation.

Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 12:11 PM

I agree that the apology is a cheap political act. If it had been spearheaded by a Republican, Sojo would be quick to decry it.

My great great great grandfather fought for the north in the civil war. The idea that I need to open my wallet to atone for the sin of my ancestors is unbiblical. The gospels specifically say that I am not.

The idea that I need to atone for a family who came here from Canada and risked their lives to fight the pro-slavery cause is absurd. Flatly absurd. My parents were poor and the government didn't help me a lick because I don't fit their model of a needy race (I have some Indian blood, but not quite enough to be considered put upon, alas).

Of course, this begins with the premise that a current iteration of an elected government can repent of the sins of a previous iteration. Again, that isn't in the Bible either.

Rick can throw all the 1970s "religious right" rhetoric he wants, but it will not change that fact one iota.

"You see, you as an Asian were never considered as much a threat to the social order as I as an African-American, especially at the time your parents came over."

Oh please. How did films like Do The Right Thing depict Korean store owners?

Posted by: kevin s. | August 8, 2008 12:35 PM

Rick, you said, "but talk to them about how the world perceive them -- that they got into school only due to affirmative action, for openers -- and you will realize that society judges you differently on that basis."

You and I had this debate on another thread recently. Actually, it was YOU who told ME that blacks can't succeed without affirmative action. I strongly disagreed and you reiterated your position by saying that no successful black in America would be successful without the help of "affirmative action."

Sounds like YOU are the one who belittles the achievements of blacks. You should be ashamed.

Posted by: Bradley | August 8, 2008 12:46 PM

My great great great grandfather fought for the north in the civil war.

Big deal -- the Civil War didn't start out over slavery.

Rick can throw all the 1970s "religious right" rhetoric he wants, but it will not change that fact one iota.

For you, of course it won't because you agree with it on almost evey issue. Besides, what I said is historically true, and nothing you say will change that one iota.

How did films like Do The Right Thing depict Korean store owners?

Asian store owners have often been viewed as predators who gave nothing back to the communities in which they were located. That has little to do with Spike Lee.

Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 12:52 PM

I think everyone who is not a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant has experienced prejudice, racism, or xenophobia of some sort.

The Italians, the Polish, Catholics, Hispanics, Muslims, the Jews etc. Although I believe "repentance" of the government should be investment in inner-city schools and reform of the public-school system altogether, in terms of payments towards blacks, like everyone asks, who pays? Should people who come from immigrant families be responsible? Those who experienced xenophobia and had to climb to the top as well?

Perhaps we should strive to eliminate prejudice in all forms not just against blacks, but against everyone. Wasn't it in Martin Luther King's speech that we should all be colorblind? What about the racism that exists between the blacks and the Hispanics and the Koreans? Aren't we all guilty of racism despite our backgrounds?

We have come a long way from the past - Brown vs. Board, The Voting Rights Act - to say we have not improved is simply a slap-in-the-face to all the people who have led the way to moral and social progress. However, it's not over yet. Unfortunately, the United States suffers from implicit forms of prejudice and racism, a problem with every nation - France has it with the Algerians, Israel has it with the Arabs, tribalism exists within the Arab world, etc.

The truth is we all need to improve. Unfortunately, all the posts by Sojo regarding racism are very ambiguous. Jim Wallis calls for repentance in both of his books and the "truth telling of race," but in what specific ways can we do that?

As I am white and I cannot relate the the status of the blacks, for all the African-Americans out there, forgive me from sounding simplistic, but I humbly ask, could you elaborate on the problems that you have personally experienced or that you have witnessed within the black community? What specific goals do you believe would help the black community or any disenfranchised community progress further?

Posted by: Drew | August 8, 2008 1:14 PM

I know Rick is African-American; are any of the rest of you? I'm Anglo and my five children are African-American. We lived in the Deep South for 18 years.

During that time, blatant racism was a regular occurence. We came out of a movie theater to find recruitment notes tucked under our windshield wiper -- from the Alabama White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Included in their pitch was the assurance that new folks could be regular members or "secret" members.

My son was with a group of white friends, late at night in Gulf Coast tourist town. He was arrested for loitering; the others weren't. Basically being arrested for being black in Gulf Shores, Alabama.

At another time, his car was blocked on a country road by a pickup full of young adults, who pulled him out of the car, held a broken beer bottle to his neck; one of them said, "You'd sure look pretty swinging from a tree."

In our town, blacks are still expected to live in one of three black neighborhood. In all of the county, the largest one east of the Mississippi, there is not one black professional person. There, as in many places, black and white students congregate at school in opposite ends of the cafeteria, different places on school grounds.

(Lincoln also signed the Emancipation Proclamation; most Union soldiers weren't all that excited about ending slavery -- they wanted to put the Rebs in their place, and they were largely responding in loyalty to Lincoln.)

So your families didn't get here till after slavery, after Jim Crow, after the Civil Rights legislation. What are you doing now to put things right? What do you do to advance the understanding between white, Asians, Latinos and blacks? Doing something rather than feeling indignant and hostile to work with others can go a long way toward healing what is still a serious rift between races.

Folks from one group can look from outside at another group and judge, by their own standards, what the experience of another race has been. You don't get it. Whites will never understand what it means to be black in America today -- or at any time (the opposite is also true, but not completely, for reasons that are too long to explain in what's already an over-long post).

The news today carried a story about the hopes of white supremacy groups that Obama will win the election -- because they believe that whites will then see how inferior, and how much a threat, blacks are. There will then be a race war, whites will win, and the proper government, with proper values, will be established.

So you don't want to give money? Are you willing to do anything to heal the breech? Sins can be committed by omission, and letting self-righteousness determine our whole position must make God cry.

Posted by: openeyes | August 8, 2008 1:20 PM

When my brother-in-law researched my roots we found out that my great-great-great grandfather owned a few slaves. They were listed in his original will as 3 boys and 2 girls. My Dad said, "those would be slaves." I was appauled. "Did he treat them badly?"

My dad laughed a bit and said, "How would I know? That was long before my granddaddy was born."

I've tried to imagine it many times since. The only thing I know about slaves are from huge plantations. I hope it was a little better for them on a small farm in Texas, but I doubt it.

I was born in the North -- and I've always been proud of that fact. But my family has been here since the Revolutionary War. I could feel guilty about those killed by my family, but I don't -- since I don't even know that happened. They were probably on the wrong side in the Civil War too. I don't know, since it wasn't documented with the will.

So -- do you want me to pay because of what my ancestors did? It sort of makes me way worse than an illegitimate child, doesn't it? I can tell you right now that I can't begin to pay for what those lives were worth. Even if you took my life it wouldn't begin to right the wrong. You could take my childrens' lives, but they're all step kids, so they have nothing to do with my roots. In fact, they're minorities, so they've been wronged on a whole different level.

I can't pay for my sins -- let alone for those of all of my ancestors. Can you?

Say your brother robbed a bank and fled the country. Would anything be gained if the courts put you in prison to serve out his crime?

Please understand, I'm not saying that racism and slavery were not crimes. I'm just saying that I don't think restitution can be made for it in this way.

Posted by: frankie | August 8, 2008 1:26 PM

Bradley
You are just arguing with Rick. The dialog here just exemplifies the problem. Trying to understand would be a better idea and by the way also be an act of repentance.

Posted by: wayne | August 8, 2008 1:40 PM

I'm just saying that I don't think restitution can be made for it in this way.

Which is why it's more than an issue with cash -- reconciliation needs to take place.

White men are not born with "contacts." Maybe I just missed out, but I was not given a roladex when I left the hospital with names and numbers of other white men who were looking to bestow upon me wealth and privelege. And I certainly don't get any "preferential treatment." I've had more doors slammed in my face than most people my age.

Sorry, but I'm not impressed. Realistically speaking, through such things as your parents or other relatives, school, church and neighborhood you likely had more opportunities than I did (which is what I mean by the kind of "contacts" that most people aren't even aware of). I mentioned on another thread about the then-teenage son of a woman I dated some years ago, and though his work history was spotty he always managed to get jobs. How? "Well, I know someone."

And as for Condi Rice, her only claim to fame is that she's a conservative Republican, rare for blacks, and she proved a disaster in the National Security Agency. As bad as she was there, if she were a liberal Democrat we'd have never heard from her again.

Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 1:46 PM

Why don't you give the same word of advice to Rick as you did to Bradley? He's just arguing with people too, with no attempts made to actually understand the other side.

No need -- I do understand the other side, quite well, and I think its argument has serious flaws.

Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 1:59 PM

"White privilege" if it exists at all, is clearly not a uniform blessing. It should be obvious that many whites lack the "contacts" Rick seems to think we all have, and it should be equally obvious that some members of minority groups do have such contacts. If it was ever true that white individuals were given advantages simply because of their race, it's not at all likely that such a thing will happen now. All in all, I view the idea of white privilege as an urban myth.

Posted by: Gordon | August 8, 2008 2:15 PM

"Big deal -- the Civil War didn't start out over slavery."

It was a big deal, and the Civil War certainly did start out over slavery.

"Asian store owners have often been viewed as predators who gave nothing back to the communities in which they were located. That has little to do with Spike Lee."

I didn't say it had anything to do with Spike Lee. He merely depicted existing prejudice, which you had falsely claimed does not exist, but now concede that it does.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 8, 2008 3:01 PM

kevin s: "It was a big deal, and the Civil War certainly did start out over slavery."

You're both right. It started out as a fight to get the seceded southern states back in the union, i.e. to preserve the Union. The reason they left was they felt that Lincoln and the Republicans threatened their "peculiar institution," slavery.

Lincoln's famous words early in the war (paraphrased): "If I could preserve the union by freeing all the slaves, I'd do that. If I could preserve the union by freeing none of the slaves, I'd do that. If I could preserve the union by freeing some and not others, I'd do that too."

Most of his biographers agree that as the war progressed, he came to believe that slavery had to be abolished. Both idealistic and pragmatic reasons lay behind his change of heart. Not least was that slaves were "freeing themselves"; as the Union army moved through the South large numbers of slaves began leaving their plantations. It would have been very difficult to reconstruct the institution of slavery after the war, given these circumstances.

Posted by: carl copas | August 8, 2008 3:13 PM

All in all, I view the idea of white privilege as an urban myth.

Which makes it all the more dangerous. Remember, one of the tenets of "white privilege" is that you don't have to think about it -- where you live, where you shop, which organizations you join. I was a member of a white fraternity when I was in college, and a couple of white sorority women praised me as a pioneer!

It was a big deal, and the Civil War certainly did start out over slavery.

False, kevin. Lincoln, who did oppose slavery, nevertheless simply wanted to save the Union and was at first willing to compromise on the slavery issue. Only later down the road did he decide that slavery itself had to go.

He merely depicted existing prejudice, which you had falsely claimed does not exist, but now concede that it does.

I said no such thing. What I said is that Asians were not seen as a danger to the established social order in the same way that blacks are, which is true.

Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 3:19 PM

"False, kevin. Lincoln, who did oppose slavery, nevertheless simply wanted to save the Union and was at first willing to compromise on the slavery issue. "

No. He wanted to abolish slavery, but argued the merits of his case on constitutional grounds, and wanted to achieve the result in a manner that would preserve the union. That the preservation of the union was of greater import to Lincoln (at certain intervals) is not evidence that the civil war was not about slavery.

"Only later down the road did he decide that slavery itself had to go."

Later down what road? The civil war was fought over the slavery issue. If the primary goal was to preserve the union, the north simply would have acquiesced to southern demands. The civil war was about slavery.

"What I said is that Asians were not seen as a danger to the established social order in the same way that blacks are, which is true."

Your hedging. You said that they were not considered "as much a threat", but since you conceded that shopkeepers were considered to be contributing nothing to the community, it's hard to see how this point stands.

The idea that an Asian person should have to repent for the actions of an entirely different race dispenses with any scriptural notion of repentance. Repentance purely means payoff in the framework of this discussion. This is a money grab, not a call for reconciliation.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 8, 2008 3:34 PM

You said that they were not considered "as much a threat", but since you conceded that shopkeepers were considered to be contributing nothing to the community, it's hard to see how this point stands.

Because we're talking about two different issues. Relatively speaking, Asians have not faced as much racism as African-Americans; while certainly economically exploited, primarily on the West Coast in the 19th Century, they were never chattel slaves nor were (to my knowledge) laws passed to deny them access to the greater society. In fact, recently there was a movement to set quotas in the number of Asians who were admitted to the top colleges in California -- places that, by any standard, they earned! I see no comparison to the shopkeepers who arouse ire in the black community for not participating in neighborhood activities.

Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 4:00 PM

As a white middle aged, middle class British Christian my sympathies tend to be with the American descendants of the slaves and native American Indians who were treated so badly in the past both in the North and the South and, with some notable exceptions, continue to be marginalised in US society both socially and politically, as are many Hispanics.

Whether public apologies achieve anything I really don't know. The Southern Baptist Convention took until 1995 to renounce it's foundation on the right to own slaves and belief in white supremacy. Has this made the Southern Baptist denomination any less racially biased ? I was greatly shocked to read the recent remarks of Billy and Franklin Graham re the late Senator Jesse Helms as beong a great Christian and patriot when he oppossed civil rights legislation so vehemantly and for so long.

In Australia white Christians have much to be ashamed about over their and their ancestors treatment of Aborigines, the black South African experience under apartheid ( which was supported by many US evangelicals including Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson )are well documented. In India the massacre at Amritsar in 1919 is a blot on the British military which I feel should be acknowleged publically.

Posted by: Patricia (UK) | August 8, 2008 4:06 PM

Perhaps I misread his words, but from where I sit Ben Sanders comments tell me that for the apology to be accepted -- in other words, for him to extend forgiveness -- there needs to be an outlay of funds.

Now I can understand that position, there's no right to cheap grace, but once we get into that realm, I think its fair for those who will be shelling out the money (initially Congress, but behind that stands the American public) to make sure that we get some sort of value for our money. In other words, the funds that get passed out actually are met by good will.

At which point, this looks less like the usual Christian process of confession and forgiveness, and more like settlement negotiations. Now that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a different thing and a riskier thing because at some point either side can decide that the price is too high or too low and we're all right back where we started.

This isn't a criticism, just an observation.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | August 8, 2008 4:09 PM

At which point, this looks less like the usual Christian process of confession and forgiveness, and more like settlement negotiations.

This is where steps 8 and 9 of the Christian-oriented 12-Step recovery program bring some understanding:

8) Made a list of all persons we have harmed and became willing to make amends to them all.

9) Made direct amends to such people wherever possible except when to do so would injure them or others.

I also refer to Matthew 5:23 and 24, which speaks of a similar concept.

See, it's not just, or even primarily, about the money -- such represtent a good-faith effort not only to rectify the past but to make sure it doesn't reoccur. Thing is, true repentance always costs, which is the hang-up.

Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 4:20 PM

There are two questions being posed on this forum: Is the African-American experience really that bad? And why should I do something about it?

The first question is a resounding yes, on so many levels. From a historical perspective, the treatment of blacks in America is unique. From being considered subhuman in the Constitution (3/5s compromise) to being ushered into a ‘separate but (not really) equal’ shadow society (Jim Crow laws), African-Americans have been systematically and blatantly oppressed like no other group in this nation. (The only thing that can compare in the history of this country is our massacre of the native tribes here, which is a ghastly episode in our history that we can never properly pay for). The socio-economic impact of this treatment is pretty clear; African-Americans make up a disproportionate percentage of the low income community, prison population and many other negative statistics. Possibly even worse is the psychological damage that has been done to the black community. In his book ‘Blink’, Malcolm Gladwell shares a study that looked into the impact of race on testing. What the study found was that there was a marked drop in performance by African-American students when they were asked to identify their race before the test. Not only did the test scores drop, but in the post-test interviews, those asked to identify their race were noticeably more despondent and often made remarks like ‘I don’t feel smart enough to be here’. The negative images and ideas about black people have become so internalized that when forced to confront their race, black students perform worse. Imagine what that is doing on a national scale, in schools and businesses across the country. (I suspect that part of the reason that this negative imagery has had such a profound impact on the African-American community is because, unlike other immigrant groups to the US, African-Americans were forcibly cut off from their history, so they have only the short narrative of their existence here in the US to fall back on, which is decidedly negative).

So yes, the African-American experience is as different and serious as people talk about. But still, why should I have to do something about it. As a US citizen, there are two reasons you should be willing to pay (financially and otherwise) to repair some of the damage done to the black community. (1) From a practical standpoint, prevention costs far less treatment. So you pay taxes that go to help low-income folks to prevent the plethora of problems that occur in marginalized communities. And you pay a little extra to help black communities because they have more going against them then just being low-income. (2) As a person living in the US, you enjoy many pleasures that are the direct result of slavery and oppression. The financial superiority that the US often has can be traced back to the economic boon provided by free slave labor. So while you may not own slaves and your family may have never owned slaves, by living here and enjoying the freedoms that are more prevalent here than in almost any other country, you are enjoying the labor of generations of slaves. Paying taxes that go to social programs that benefit African-americans or even sending your child to a slightly less prestigious school so that an African-american student might have the opportunity to go there is just a small way that you can repay for abuses that you have benefited from. (This would be similar to the way that federal money goes to Native American tribes, pays for social services for immigrants, including boat people and provides classes to teach people English. And yes, all these are good things).

More importantly, as a Christian, this should be a no-brainer. It is my fervent hope that all of these posts asking why they should help the black community are from non-Christians. Not only should Christians understand better than anyone else that we need to help those who have suffered, we should be the first ones to suggest that we reach for our wallets. What would have happened if Jesus took your attitude? ‘Hey, I didn’t commit those sins, so why should I pay for them.” We serve the most selfless, compassionate man that ever lived and we should be looking for ways to emulate him, not embarrass him. This attitude of “I’m willing to help as long as it doesn’t hurt” is decidedly un-Christ-like. If the black community needs help and needs help in special ways because of special abuses, we should be willing to provide that help. Sure, we can debate what strategies will work best, but not doing anything is not the best answer. And if providing that help means you tighten you belt a little bit and get your pride dinged a little bit, then that’s what you do. This is how the early church cared for its own and the community around it. They did what was unpopular and hard to care for those in need. Because that’s what Christ told them to do; Care for the poor, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, etc. As followers of Jesus, we need to look for the poor and hungry and naked and help them however we can. And when we run across people that need our help and we don’t want to give it immediately, we need to ask ourselves why.

Posted by: Dave | August 8, 2008 4:23 PM

The 12-step program isn't in the Bible.

It certainly is, but not explicitly. It came from the Oxford Group, which was a product of the Wesleyan revival of the late 19th century.

It calls for MUTUAL reconciliation BEFORE offering a gift to GOD.

"If you brother has something against you ..."

Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 4:38 PM

"Is the African-American experience really that bad? And why should I do something about it?"

No. It would be convenient if those were the questions, but the questions are more "whether" than "what".

Posted by: kevin s. | August 8, 2008 4:41 PM

Out of all the comments and the article, I found it interesting that no one is asking restitution from the very ones who sold the black people into slavery. Mainly, other tribes in Africa.

I agree, that we cannot ask restitution from those who were not a part of the crime or the era.

Posted by: Dede | August 8, 2008 4:58 PM

OOPS! Sorry about the all of those type-o's
Larry

Posted by: Larry | August 8, 2008 5:17 PM

Maybe it's just me, but I won't be losing sleep at night thinking about whether Ben Saunders will forgive the US government. I also don't think the US government is losing sleep at night thinking about whether he will forgive it or what it can do to earn his forgiveness.

The question of whether we should increase funding for schools is an important one and should be considered in light of the fact that there is no correlation between school expenditures and student performance (eg, see schools in Wash DC). With that said, I think everyone is in favor of improving schools and even spending more money on them (for the benefit of all students--hispanics, whites, and asians included), as long as the money isn't wasted.

I read Cornel West's "Race Matters." It was filled with wild speculations and not a single reference. It's sad that his book counts for scholarship these days.

Like others here I think it is nice for Saunders to acknowledge that a congressional apology doesn't mean much.

Posted by: jesse | August 8, 2008 6:07 PM

"OH sure, tribes in Africa sold sold other blacks into slavery."

Putting "oh sure" in front of it doesn't make it false.

"Have you ever heard of the concept
"supply and demand"?"

This doesn't change any of the facts here.

"If the English and the Spaniard slave traders weren't there to ask for slaves there wouldn't have been slaves coming to America..."

Neither does this.

"Why did you go there?"

Probably because it helps demonstrate the futility of the concept of collective repentance via economic redistribution.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 8, 2008 6:55 PM

I think it is silly to ask anyone currently living to atone for slavery and I am a black man. But on the other hand race is still such a loaded subject even into the 21st century. I sometimes get frustrated when people make the comparisons with other racial and ethnic groups and ask why don't blacks get over it and move on? I think we have "gotten over it" and have moved on for the most part. But 299 years of official slavery and another 100+ years of Jim Crow enforced by the full power of the US Government and most of polite society is unique to the American experience wouldn't you say?

Affirmative action and those such remedies have only existed for about 50 years and were fought by some every step of the way. Now some say that it has gone to far. Of course white women entering the workforce and immigrants from other countries were also large beneficiaries of affirmative action instead of the intended target.

Some of the less fortunate are still dragged down by the legacy of slavery that manifests itself in broken down neighborhoods across the country. Poverty is not because of racism but usually goes along hand in hand. Drug usage, crime, out-of-wedlock babies are just symptoms of greater societal problems and these problems know no race.

A wise old man once told me "If black people were the primary beneficiaries of welfare and affirmative action would it still exist today?" Makes you think doesn't it? God Bless.

Posted by: Ron Tee | August 8, 2008 7:12 PM

So do these same criteria apply to all races, in your opinion? Does it depend on each individual's situation whether or not they owe reparations to African Americans?

Reparations are never "owed" in the classic sense because you simply can't put a dollar amount on official injustice. Rather, they are given as a good-faith effort to make things as right as possible. (In this I oppose those radicals who demand specific amounts; they're after only a pound of flesh.) That's why there's no easy answer to your question -- my goal is not humiliation but reconciliation.

Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 7:45 PM

Regardless if you are white but poor, Asian, Hispanic, or American Indian, it was only Africans or black people who forced slaves. As a result of that slavery from in the US from 1640-1875 and the ensuing oppression from Jim Crow from 1875 until 1964, only blacks have truly been denied the same economic opportunities available to the rest of Americans. It was a slap in the face to African Americans that Congress apologized but gave no reparation. They gave Japanese Americans a token $20,000 each in the 1980's for their internment during WW-II. So why not Blacks?
By the way, I am a white who grew up middle class and live in Suburbia. I am also, a Christian who believes strongly in the teaching of Christ. He would or perhaps is aghast at some of the responses in this forum. I will pray that he shows mercy to the non-compassionate views stated here. Peace.

Posted by: Ricco | August 8, 2008 8:17 PM

Gordon (I apologize for the length of these posts),
I agree that the congressional apology issued was probably motivated by political concerns more than actual concern for African-Americans, but it still raises a good question. Does the US government or the citizenry of the US owe anything to the African-American community?
I would argue that by trying to equate the African-American experience to other immigrant groups or to someone’s individual negative experiences, we are minimizing and invalidating the African-American experience and implying that the answer to the above question is no. The posts in this thread ask why there is a need to pay, implying that no wrong was done and even if there was, that they shouldn’t be asked to help. It’s part of our cultural perception of African-Americans as lazy and shiftless and mostly to blame for their own problems, a perception that has done almost as much damage to the African-American community as slavery. That perception fuels arguments that other immigrant groups have made it (so why didn’t you), that other people are hurting too (so stop your whining) or that it’s not just slavery that accounts for all of the ills in the African-American community (it’s your poor judgment). As someone stated earlier, the extent of racism in this country is far more prevalent that some are aware of or are willing to admit.
I agree that reparations are probably not feasible (although I think it’s interesting that congress refuses to even put together a commission to study what it would take to pay reparations to African-Americans, even though they were able to put together a committee that advised on and oversaw distribution of reparations to Japanese Americans in the 90’s), but I get the impression from some of these posts that even an apology was too much. If we agree that there was drastic damage done to the African-American community for hundreds of years and that the government benefited from that damage, why would we turn around and claim that it doesn’t make any sense for the government to apologize for that damage and find ways to repay that damage? When Virginia issued its apology last year, they also setup special funding for students who went to schools that had been deprived of resources in the wake of white flight. Not a perfect solution, but certainly better than sitting around saying “I don’t own slaves, I shouldn’t pay anything”.

And to the comments about Africans selling their neighbors to the slave traders, I think that falls apart for three reasons (1) While their actions are sad, those Africans are not US citizens and couldn’t be held accountable even if we wanted to do that. We’re talking about the US holding itself accountable and paying for its own actions. (2) Just because the Africans’ actions were deplorable does not make the actions of the Europeans who were buying slaves any less reprehensible. (3) The actions of the Africans had no impact on the US policy of slavery here, Jim Crow laws, government sanctioned segregation, etc. While your statement is true, it falls into the category of statements that try to minimize the African-American experience and excuse this country of any wrong doing or responsibility.

…and that comment about how African-Americans should be thankful they’re here because Africa is such a horrible place…that is one of the singularly most ignorant comments I have ever heard in my life. Can you imagine going to a Holocaust Survivors convention and telling them that they should be sending thank you notes to Hitler? After all, it’s because of the Holocaust that the rest of the world agreed to the formation of Isreal. Or maybe you’d like to go to home for victims of rape and tell them they should be thanking the rapists for the beautiful child they are about to have. The idea that victims should be thankful to their attackers if they manage to find some good from the scraps of their life is just…asinine. Oh, and let’s not forget that part of the reason that Africa is such a horrible place to live is that because while some Europeans were so graciously carting off slaves to the safety of the Americas, other Europeans were dividing Africa and stripping it of all its resources.

Posted by: Dave | August 8, 2008 9:24 PM

Gordon,
I agree that the African-American situation has steadily improved in this nation, much of that improvement due to the hard work and even sacrificed lives of many people who weren’t black. I’m not trying to minimize gains made by those freedoms fighters who came before us. I’m suggesting that as inheritors of their legacy, we’re doing a pretty poor job. Abolitionists and civil rights champions fought to remove the physical and legal forms of oppression. They fought to get this country to stop harmful actions. But trying to remove forms of mental and spiritual oppression and getting this country to take steps to take helpful action has been very difficult. This country has fought hard against changes that would really level the playing field and set right the injustices of our forefathers. The ship that you suggest takes a long time to change course could be moving a lot faster and I think that’s what fuels so much of the anger coming from African-Americans. It’s not that we don’t think anything is being done; it’s that we don’t think enough is being done and we think it’s patronizing to tell us to just be patient and that things will change.
But why are we so slow to change? I think part of the problem is that we don’t realize that we all bear the scars from the mistakes of this country. The problems that plague the African-American community aren’t just their problems; they’re everyone’s problems. Instead of seeing helping the African-American community as an act of healing for the entire nation, some choose to see it as stealing their resources to give to other people and fight to oppose it.
Another part of the problem is that we’re a nation of whiny buck-passers. This is just one of many issues that we’re trying to pawn off on our grandchildren because we think it’s ‘too hard’. We have the same attitude towards the environment. Yes, these issues are complex and will require lots of work (and capital), but if we don’t start making serious head way, they will be exponentially harder for our children to deal with.

Posted by: Dave | August 8, 2008 10:50 PM

Dave,

I'd be interested in your list of helpful actions.

Posted by: Gordon | August 8, 2008 11:06 PM

Gordon,
I’d advocate first that people take action on a personal level. Get out and about and meet with people that don’t look like you or talk like you. Expand your community. We need to challenge the unwritten rules of who can talk to whom and who can live where if we want to continue this march forward. And from a Christian perspective, it makes sense to start with community. That’s our approach. (The one thing that saddens me about the emergent/new monastic movement is that it is largely perceived as a suburban white phenomenon.) African-Americans need to participate in this process too, taking any olive branches that are offered in genuine love.
From a policy perspective, there are a ton of things that could be done. And that’s the point. Because we’ve allowed ourselves to become so segregated and isolated, there’s very little authentic dialogue about what can happen. Once we shift the dialogue from an ‘us vs. them’ to just us, we’ll get more things done. It could be as simple as starting a tutoring program for kids at the local school to something as grand as advocating for an early troop withdrawal and using already pledged funds to set up scholarships.
The point is that it’s not enough to just say we’ll stop actively racist policies. Even if everybody in the US suddenly had all vestiges of racist thoughts removed from their head and all forms of racism were outlawed, the resources in this country would be heavily skewed in the direction of the group that has been dominant for so long. Things like Affirmative Action and bussing started to address this problem. But already, less than 50 years later, they are meeting with serious backlash. The problem is not that people want to stop these things, it’s that they advocate for them to be eliminated and replaced with nothing. I know people don’t want their resources shifted, but in the end, that’s what has to happen for true parity in this country.

Posted by: Dave | August 9, 2008 12:03 AM

" I sometimes get frustrated when people make the comparisons with other racial and ethnic groups and ask why don't blacks get over it and move on? "

For the record, this is not my stance, and I don't see people adopting this stance here.

"If a poverty stricken person in Indonesia makes it to college that person has much higher chance of not get confronted with racial indifference."

In Indonesia, the bias is along religious lines, which is the same thing.

"They gave Japanese Americans a token $20,000 each in the 1980's for their internment during WW-II. So why not Blacks? "

It was given to those interned, for starters.

"As a white male, I have profited, been preferenced by, privileged by, the standards of our society at every step of the way. "

Not unless you are 80 years old. My experience has been precisely the opposite, and the statistics suggest my experience is typical.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 9, 2008 1:04 AM

OK - to sum it up.

Japanese - the people that caused them to enter the consentration camps were still alive. In retrospect - they saw the error of what they did. Hind-sight is always 20-20. The people that caused slavery are all dead - even thoughs who faught for their freedom over the centuries are dead. You can't talk with them about the 'whys' of their belief that this institution was approved by many - they're dead.

So - are we sorry that it happened - yes we are. We wish it had never happened - but we had nothing to do with it. Do we believe in reperations - yes. But the people who were at the root of this are dead. The slaves that lived under these conditions are dead. Most if not all of their children and grand-children are dead. So - who is going to pay who and how much? I am sorry for slavery and I will help people today to move on in any manner that I can. I will not talk about money as those who were the cause of the problem and the victims are all dead. It is just as unlawful to make people that had nothing to do with the situation pay people that were not the victims of the institution.

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: Bug guy | August 9, 2008 10:05 AM

I really appreciate peolple like Big Guy, Kevin S, and Gordon commenting. they obviuously know a lot about what it's like to be black in America.

Thank you all!

Posted by: Jade | August 9, 2008 12:29 PM

"I really appreciate peolple like Big Guy, Kevin S, and Gordon commenting. they obviuously know a lot about what it's like to be black in America."

I am not required to be black in order to have an opinion on this issue.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 9, 2008 5:43 PM

I was hesitant to ask whether that was an ironic comment

Posted by: Gordon | August 9, 2008 5:49 PM

Let no man despise your youth. I'm one who worked hard to earn respect when I was young, but now that I've lived a bit longer I realize that though I had no reason to be ashamed for my youth, I was ignorant. I did not have enough of life's experience behind me to evaluate certain things. I had not lived long enough to see the shallow from the deep.

I had not lived long enough to realize yet that there are no blacks or whites or orange. Those concepts don't mean anything. Girard came into my office when I was substituting for the boss. He asked if he should handle a piece of business one way or another. As I evaluated the situation and realized that it really made no difference, rather glibly I replied, "You're free, white, and 21. Make up your own mind."

Girard, by the way, was one of the darkest complexoined men I have ever known. If we must use these labels, he is African-American. I only thought of him as fellow-worker, an American, and Christian man. Oh yes, I have Scotch-Irish-English-Dutch heritage and am fairly light complexioned.

I believe slavery is abominable, but I see people selling themselves into slavery every day. I realize that the slave trade of a few generations ago was atrociously abominable. I'm sorry, but I don't believe I owe anyone an apology over that. I'm not convinced that the blood shed over the Civil War was not a great apology. I know that the blood that was shed on the cross was adequate. Those who insist that it was not are abominably and arrogantly ignorant of what God did in Christ.

The very idea that money can somehow "pay for," or "redeem," or somehow "recompense" for what was done to previous generations is nothing more than a greed grab on the part of the present generation. I have degrees in seminary and other universities, too. What I have learned since, will not allow me to make the kind of judgments my brother, Sanders, makes. Yet, I acknowledge him as my brother.

You see, if God is my Father and if God is Ben's Father, that makes us brothers whether we agree, like each other, or even acknowledge it or not.

Now, if I have offended you, Ben, I can apologize and do. My representatives cannot and frankly should not make a mockery of the process of apologizing by making the sort of "resolution" that was made. It's meaningless and is only calculated to pick up a few votes. That is unless they really are guilty of practicing slavery...now there's a thought.

Posted by: Sam | August 9, 2008 6:37 PM

What happens if you listen (as we have all listened to Rick's well-conceived arguments) and still aren't persuaded?

Posted by: Gordon | August 9, 2008 7:12 PM

Racism can really thrive in a society in which there is a wide disparity between the haves and the haves nots which must be explained, justified, and institutionalized. Racism becomes one way of 'making sense' of a reality which is constructed to keep some people at the bottom for the benefit of others, and to keep the majority of people distracted and feeling a little better off. The slave era of the U.S. is a perfect example of this - landowning slaveholders perpetuated racist thinking, behavior, and institutions in order to justify the forced unpaid labor of black people, thereby enriching themselves beyond measure. These landowners needed the loyalty of the majority of poor, working, non-slave-owning and landholding whites, whose conditions weren't great. What better way to protect yourself than to create a scapegoat - through the system of racism. Have the majority of whites blame their problems on blacks instead on of the minority of whites exploiting everyone - brilliant. That was a particular moment in history but that legacy remains as deeply coded into our country as the legacy of racism has impacted black people and our psychology. Our world has evolved a lot since then and I think what is becoming ever more apparent, if we care to acknowledge it, is that we're seeing that the majority of people of all colors are facing some of the same stark realities when it comes to poor quality education, lack of job opportunities at living wages, lack of quality healthcare and housing, among other issues. It is so necessary to understand the history of racism, its legacy and incredibly traumatic effects, as well as to uncover its true underpinnnings and the other untold histories and realities of poor and working people across the country so that we can finally overcome this horrible constructed barrier that has driven a wedge between the majority of our society for so long.

Posted by: Nijmie | August 9, 2008 8:17 PM

The majority of the American population enjoys excellent education, good wages, lives in decent housing, and has access to the best healthcare on earth.

The majority? And for how long?

Posted by: Rick | August 9, 2008 9:32 PM

To address the title itself... How can those long dead repent? No person now living in the US has owned slaves. How could any person presume to repent to God for another's sin? Especially one who is now dead?

Posted by: Watcher | August 9, 2008 9:48 PM

"I don't think we should allow the politics of liberalism and other elements in this apology being made stop us from being sincere in reaching out to God , to people of color , and saying we are sorry ."

I'd agree with that. We ought to do what we can to assist disadvantaged people, however they got that way. And I personally think we need to find some way to end this endless discussion about who did what to whom.

Posted by: Gordon | August 9, 2008 10:40 PM

A typo -- I should have written "...what is now Israel" in the second paragraph.

Posted by: Rick | August 9, 2008 11:29 PM

"What happens if you listen (as we have all listened to Rick's well-conceived arguments) and still aren't persuaded?"

Then you dismiss the argument.

"The Catholic Church made apologies for what it did in its past."

Apology is not repentance, as the title of this post suggests. That said, I don't think the apologies of the Catholic Church accomplished much either.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 10, 2008 1:27 AM

I rather resent the notion that, as the child of the child of immigrants, I am somehow guilty for actions of people long before my ancestors arrived on these shores. What possible healing is accomplished with that? I'd say it rather poisons the well, instead.

Some of the most racist people I've known were the "children of immigrants." See, many could (and did) change their names or church affiliations and in order not to be seen as different, and even if they didn't they would blend in eventually. Case in point? Pat Buchanan.

Posted by: Rick | August 10, 2008 9:01 AM

And they should be accountable for their own racism, not someone else's, long ago.

You don't get it -- they simply plugged into what was already there. At that point religion or ethnicity didn't matter, only race did.

Posted by: Rick | August 10, 2008 2:00 PM

Like many of you, I was numbed, as a child, by the disparity between the values my parents taught me, and the historic practice of race-based slavery in this country. I grew up in Oklahoma, and was also saddened by the history of this nation's dealing with indigenous peoples.

My personal, voluntary contribution to any form of justice or remediation has been to deal honestly and fairly with all--regardless of race--who come across my path.

This country has changed its laws and its behavior from the days when a slave man counted as half a person, through the end of legal slavery, through the recognition of equal rights under the law, to the active enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.

And someone is asking for an apology?

Pardon me, while I do my best to not take offense.

If living blacks are owed an apology for discriminatory treatment, it is by smaller government entities, not by Congress. (Numerous towns and cities have managed to skirt Federal laws and Supreme Court decisions.)

Congress erred, when it voted recently say “I’m sorry” for Jim Crow laws. Those laws were overturned and superseded by many acts, not to mention years of history. The people who owed the statement of remorse are dead, as are those to whom it was owed.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 10, 2008 4:20 PM

David,

No they are not dead. My parents still live, as does my great aunt (who is 91) and any black person that is 50 or older. So again your last point is mute.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 10, 2008 4:51 PM

The fact that people can say “I had nothing to do with slavery” with a straight face and think that that removes them from the discussion on race show how far astray we’ve gone. First, legalized racism, in the form of poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, etc. was only officially ended about 50 years ago, meaning a significant part of the population today was alive and directly affected by that era. Secondly, people pass down a variety of traits, traditions and ideologies to their children, including racism and bigotry, so there are still plenty of people out there who may not have been alive when racism was legal, but carry that mentality anyway.
And of course, there are the many people that have benefited from policies that were implemented with racist intentions. Does your family own a house in the suburbs? Many suburbs started as havens for whites fleeing the cities because they did not want to integrate. Did you or your children attend a small suburban school or a private school? Many of those schools were designed to keep white children away from black children. Do you ever drive on a highway? Many highways in this country were built to allow whites who had fled to the suburbs quick access back to the city for work. Just because officially racist policies in this country were ostensibly ended with the Civil Rights Act does not mean that racism stopped or that people stopped benefiting from it.
What I find troubling is a lack of corporate accountability. In the midst of the Olympic season, many of us will express pride about how WE won a gold medal in swimming or diving, even though it was an individual athlete that accomplished the feat. We understand that we all benefit from accomplishments of the few. Similarly, we take pride in the great achievements of this country, such as landing on the moon or sequencing the genome because we know that by simply being US citizens, we benefit from the work of our countrymen. Why then, do we assume that we can ignore the wrongs of our ancestors and peers? Why are we so willing to accept the good that is bestowed on us collectively but unwilling to accept any responsibility for the wrongs are also collectively ours?
I think what would help this dialogue is more questions and less assumptions. I’ve read in several posts that an apology would be worthless and won’t accomplish anything. How do you know? Have you asked the African-Americans that you know how they would feel about an apology from congress? Or from you? I can personally say that, while I know the apology from congress didn’t accomplish much in legal terms, it felt really good. I was excited about it and my dad, who spent 10 of the past twenty years of his life in court over a racial discrimination suit, appreciated it too. So if there are people out there to whom an apology would be meaningful, why would you with-hold it? Does the assertion that an apology would be meaningless stem more from a realistic assessment of the situation or a desire that an apology shouldn’t be necessary?

Posted by: Dave | August 10, 2008 7:48 PM

Not-so-random thoughts...

First of all, consider that the word "apology" refers to making an explanation. Christian apologists are those who explain the Gospel. In the usual "I'm sorry" usage, an apology involves explaining how the misbehavior or slight came to be, to serve as a reason for forgiveness. I'm trying to wean myself from misusing this word, which may make for some awkward prose.

There are those who have denounced religion as "the opiate of the people" (was that Lenin?), and therefore of no realistic value, and something to be purged from society.

On the other side, there are people who love this opiate, for whom its meaning is profound. For many it would be like dying to give it up. (That's my group.)

Let me suggest that this, "have Congress say 'We're sorry'," business is somewhat similar, in that there will be those--as posted here--for whom that gesture will have deep meaning. For others of us, it will appear absurd.

Getting an "I'm sorry" from Congress is about as meaningful, in my eyes, as getting a US flag that "has flown over the Capitol". Yeah, the flag flew over the capitol for about 30 seconds. So?

The folks who want an "I'm sorry", and I'll grant you that there are many still living who were mistreated under Federal law, really are owed that admission by those who were in the political minority by the time the Civil Rights Act of 1965 became law. The majority of both houses, together with the president, presented their "I'm sorry" in their repentant act of bringing the legislation into law.

For me, deeds have always been so much more important than words, that I scarcely pay attention to words, when I am witness to actions.

The United States has repented of its official racism, over and over and over, again. (Yes, it took an abominably long time, but really picked up pace in the 1950s.) It has done so by eliminating it whenever it has been brought to light. If some more official racism surfaces, I will expect the sitting Congress and President to repent of it, by eliminating it, consistent with past practice.

One reason that I am concerned about the push for a National "I'm sorry", is the follow-up idea that once we have gone through a formal ceremony of remorse, we will be challenged with a, "Now what are you going to do about it?" The suggestion has been circulated for several years now, that the country needs to 1) say "I'm sorry", and 2) perform acts of penance, read, 'make reparations', read, 'make cash awards'.

If the ceremony is meaningful to some, fine, let Congress speak. But let's quickly quash the notion that such a ceremony 'proves' that reparations are owed, as well.

Peace to all.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 10, 2008 9:14 PM

"Truth be told, much of the conservative agenda was racially motivated from the start but not generally obvious to most people."

I would dispute that.

Posted by: Gordon | August 10, 2008 11:20 PM

"Truth be told, much of the conservative agenda was racially motivated from the start but not generally obvious to most people."

Really? The 1965 civil rights act became law OVER the 'Nay' votes of Southern Democrats. I am a life-long conservative and have never condoned any racism.

"Now we come to the real reason people oppose reparations. As I said above, it's not really the money that's the issue -- it's the power you can buy with it. Less money means less power, of course, and since conservatives always have been about power they don't want to deal with anything that really costs them. (This is why I have always maintained that it's very hard to be a dedicated conservative and a serious Christian simultaneously -- following Christ costs something.)"

My, but you have a low opinion of conservatives.

Let me try to address the "power" thing: it's not the power money can buy (I have precious little of either), but the power to take money away from me to give to someone else. I am opposed to that for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is theft, in this case wearing the thin disguise of "just repayment". If there's a power trip in politics its mostly on the left side.

Job said, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him." In the same spirit, I say, though I be poor, I will yet be true to conservative principles.

Now about this business of the compatibility of being a conservative and being a Christian, I can tell you it's not a problem at all: both identities bring their share of public approbation, and generally from the same groups. As for the costliness of a life in Christ...it's the same regardless of politics.

You imply that the "Christian" thing to do is to pony up for reparations. No, sir. Simply, no.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 10, 2008 11:45 PM

Really? The 1965 civil rights act became law OVER the 'Nay' votes of Southern Democrats. I am a life-long conservative and have never condoned any racism.

It also sparked Strom Thurmond to leave the Democratic Party for the Republicans, others trickled in slowly and Reagan brought them fully in. And Reagan was no fan of civil rights, either.

My, but you have a low opinion of conservatives.

Correct. And they have earned every bit of it.

I am opposed to that for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is theft, in this case wearing the thin disguise of "just repayment". If there's a power trip in politics its mostly on the left side.

And that kind of comment I (and others) consider the result of pure envy and resentment -- which is how conservatives made out in the 1980s and '90s. It's the same reason they tried to take out Bill Clinton, but he exposed it for what it was.

Now about this business of the compatibility of being a conservative and being a Christian, I can tell you it's not a problem at all: both identities bring their share of public approbation, and generally from the same groups.

Only in America does that happen and only because evangelicals have so much cultural authority. In other countries there is no analogous ideology.

You imply that the "Christian" thing to do is to pony up for reparations. No, sir. Simply, no.

I didn't exactly say that, if you notice.

And how, Rick, did I prove your point? BY denying it's true?

By not recognizing racism where others do. Keep in mind that I don't frivolously make that charge; I used to when I was much younger.

Posted by: Rick | August 11, 2008 12:18 AM

You know, the more I think about this... the more disturbed I am by the thinking going on out there.

It keeps getting pointed out, that an apology has to be followed by some meangingful action - something we call "repentance" or perhaps "reconiciliation", or the apology is probably pointless, or even counterproductive, as it is insincere or even worse, dishonest.

To background my thinking and create a perspective, I think back to when I got married more than a couple decades ago, and got some interesting advice from someone... "Apologize, even if you're not the one wrong, apologize anyway.."

Being young, inexperienced, and not very good with relationship, i actually tried this. The results are not that good, and not to go into detail, it tends to create resentments. Duhh.

Run forward to now and I have someone suggesting to me that I apologize to someone for something i didn't do. And further, that these "someones" believe I have this personal animosity toward them, for which I am supposed to apologize.

In that context, I'd say the only apology that seems in order is one to me... For the presumption of my guilt.

I have pondered these concepts for years... And no matter how I look at it, I never arrive at the point where I consider these symbolic "apologies" to be anything more than symbolic. I noted with great interest the poster who stated that the apology from Congress "sure felt good". Great. But it made absolutely NO difference to anyone's life. Nobody made different choices that day. Nobody turned bad behavior into good because of it. Nobody chose to end self-destructive behavior because of it.

And someone suggested that white people should go around apologizing for being... racists...? For not being racists? For being white? For what?

How could I honestly apologize when I didn't do anything wrong?

More and more, however, it seems to me that what's really going on, is that people like Rick believe that being a conservative politically, for instance, is something one should 'apologize' for. As in, it being a character defect.

More appropo, it seems to me that the person above, with his or her obvious prejudicial hatred of various people over differences that don't appear to be race certainly has no moral high ground as compared to, say, Klansmen.

It would seem to me that if we're going to apologize for racism, and it be meaningful, that the real fundamental issue is that people hate each other over being different. Be that difference race, gender, political pursuasion, religion, or perhaps even house color or the kind of car they drive.

So, if we're serious about the lessons of history, where people institutionalized racism, created policy, social mores, and governed business, personal relationships, and often was extremely detrimental to the targets of this prejudice...

Then isn't the lesson, the repentance, the repudiation of racism, to reject all forms of prejudice against others?

The obvious question, to me at least, is what's the point in rejecting racial prejudices, if we merely substitute political or religious prejudices?

Posted by: Watcher | August 11, 2008 12:29 AM

This is what we call a catch 22...

If there is no apology, the black community is outraged that our government lacks the sensitivity to do so, but if there is an apology they complain that its insincere and being used as a political tool...

At least there was the apology! Slowly but surely, we ARE progressing toward social equality! A black male has a great shot of becoming PRESIDENT of The United States of America!!

I don't want to diminish anyones painful past, but it seems that we should at least acknowledge the kind gesture if nothing else. Whether it looked sincere or not, it WAS a big step forward...

Posted by: Blake | August 11, 2008 3:31 AM

"Some of the most racist people I've known were the "children of immigrants.""

Some of the most racist people are black. Which again is why this notion of substitutionary repentance is malarkey, and also why it isn't in scripture.

"You just proved my point. "

This is an argument in a vat. Any rebuttal of the argument is met with the charge that the existence of rebuttal proves the validity of the argument. You are welcome to it, but it will never be persuasive, by definition.

"I didn't exactly say that, if you notice."

Actually, you did say that. You qualified your position by saying that it is simple money grubbing to ask for a specific dollar figure, but you agree that some reparations are necessary.

"Keep in mind that I don't frivolously make that charge; "

No, you apply it to tens of millions of people based your own reconstruction of a narrow sequence of events which are only tangentially related. That isn't frivolity, it's paranoia.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 11, 2008 10:27 AM

Okay, I just can't let flat out lies go unchecked. Conservatism is not based in racism!You can, no doubt point to Conservatives who have been (or some who may still be) racist. But the same goes for Liberals (i.e. J. William Fulbright or Robert Byrd.) Racism (like all sin) is a human condition, not a Conservative or Liberal one.

It is a cheap tactic to hurl such charges at your ideological counterparts.

Posted by: Bradley | August 11, 2008 10:36 AM

Some of the most racist people are black. Which again is why this notion of substitutionary repentance is malarkey, and also why it isn't in scripture.

I used to be one but recognized it long ago, and back in the day I openly repudiated "black racism." Thing is, most racists don't recognize it as such and if they do they often defend it to the death.

And, yes, substutionary repentance certainly is in Scripture, first when Moses went to God to repent for things he personally did not do and also in other places I don't remember right now.

Okay, I just can't let flat out lies go unchecked. Conservatism is not based in racism!

Parts of it certainly are without a doubt, at least from the African-American perspective, which is why so few blacks are conservative. I suggest you stop denying that.

But the same goes for Liberals (i.e. J. William Fulbright or Robert Byrd.) Racism (like all sin) is a human condition, not a Conservative or Liberal one.

Uh-uh -- they were never liberals by anyone's standards. Fulbright, were he around today, would likely be a conservative Republican like most white Southern politicians; Byrd left the Ku Klux Klan decades ago and has consistently denounced it ever since. FWIW, not all Republicans are conservatives and not all Democrats are liberals -- and in fact I have never claimed to be a pure "liberal."

Posted by: Rick | August 11, 2008 11:00 AM

And for that matter, I am inclined to think that most people in Mississippi these days would reject racism anyway.

Two words: Trent Lott.

Posted by: Rick | August 11, 2008 11:19 AM

Perhaps we need to discuss definitions. I am a conservative, and here’s what I mean when I say that. "Conservative" is pretty easy to define in terms of the Constitution and the heritage of our Founding Fathers. A conservative sees the Constitution as a bedrock document, to be used to reign in the ambitions of those who govern. A conservative seeks guidance in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and their intellectual descendents, to provide solutions for the problems we face today. We recognize that there were some racist (and sexist) attitudes expressed in the writings of some of the Founding Fathers. We don’t seek guidance from those, just to be clear.

There’s nothing even remotely racist about this approach to governance.

In the matter of Christian ministry, we are all called to the same principle--"Seek first the Kingdom"--but not all to the same needs or activities. That will have the appearance of having different agendas, or different sets of priorities. I assert that, as regards race relations, it’s OK to stay home and work locally, as situations arise, without exercising missionary zeal and traveling to seek them out—assuming, of course, you're not re-living Jonah's resistance to God's call.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 11, 2008 11:35 AM

"The question is: Should our NATION, which perpetrated these horrors, apologize?"

I would argue that we have, many times, in much more meaningful terms - the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, Brown v Board of Education, troops at the schoolhouse door, affirmative action, integration of the military . . .

"To deny national responsibility because you and your family weren't here is the same as saying you don't need to know anything about US history prior to the time your family came here."

I can understand history and its consequences without taking the blame for its excesses. Some of my ancestors invaded England and enslaved the native Celts. I don't feel any guilt about that either. It's just history.

Posted by: Gordon | August 11, 2008 11:50 AM

I don't think there's any real evidence that Trent Lott is a racist.

You don't think his praise of Strom Thurmond's segregationist run for president in 1948 wasn't supporting racism? Nor his inability to answer directly when finally called on it? Nor his speaking to a pro-segregation group (that I didn't even know still existed) in 1999? Nor his votes against any and all civil-rights legislation when he was in the Senate? Based on these realities, he was either clearly a racist of speaking for a lot of people in Mississippi who were (he escaped the GOP electoral bloodbath in 2006, winning his race easily).

david -- You have said how "conservative" is defined and I can appreciate that; however, that's not how things have played out. Modern conservatism from the start always was about pushing people it didn't like out of power, and it took that attitude from its initial cause: the Cold War. And BTW, "conservative" is how they defined themselves.

Posted by: Rick | August 11, 2008 12:21 PM

Pushing people out of power is part of politics in a democratic republic. Conservatives didn't invent that, and it didn't start during the cold war.

Not like this, with a well-funded propaganda machine that branded dissenters as unpatriotic, heretics, traitors and the like. In this country we've never seen before the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, and the "other side" has no analogous personalities. Never before did activists run to federal court to try to take a candidate they despised off the ballot nor run a sophisticated smear campaign based on innuendo and outright lies, which is what "conservatives" actually did to Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Rick | August 11, 2008 12:36 PM

If you believe that Trent Lott is a racist, then you must also believe that Robert Byrd is, too - but you denied that earlier. I prefer to believe that he is not (despite his use of a racial epithet in recent years), just as I prefer to believe that Trent Lott is not ... His remarks were interpreted as racist, but had he made the same remarks at Ted Kennedy's birthday party no one would have noticed.

In my mind, Lott's racism is clear because he never changed his basic views, and he would have never said the same about Teddy Kennedy, who never ran a blatantly racist campaign for president! However, Byrd apologized immediately for his use of the N-word -- when he said it he was referring to some of his own people -- and his voting record reflects that change in his own heart. (At his age, blacks will forgive him an occasional slip of the tongue.) As John the Baptist said to the Pharisees, "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance."

Posted by: Rick | August 11, 2008 12:54 PM

Perhaps you ought to be equally willing to forgive Trent Lott for an occasional slip of the tongue.

What are his "basic views"? How do you know they are his basic views? How do you know they didn't change?

Posted by: Gordon | August 11, 2008 1:03 PM

"Not like this, with a well-funded propaganda machine that branded dissenters as unpatriotic, heretics, traitors and the like."

Do you have an example from the pre-1989, Cold War, era? Except for the well-documented deceptions of then-senator John Kennedy, in the 1960 campaign, and of Pres. Johnson in 1964, I thought the campaigns were pretty much the usual mud-slinging.

"In this country we've never seen before the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, and the "other side" has no analogous personalities."

While I don't always agree with the three folks you named, and sometimes wince at some of their fun-making, I enjoy them, and find them a good antidote to depressing political developments--and there is a reason there are "no analogous personalities" on the "other side". Not enough people want to listen to them.

It is worth mentioning that Rush Limbaugh is audited for accuracy, and his cumulative number is 98.8%, for the facts he asserts on the air.

"Never before did activists run to federal court to try to take a candidate they despised off the ballot nor run a sophisticated smear campaign based on innuendo and outright lies, which is what "conservatives" actually did to Bill Clinton."

Really? Too bad they weren't successful. We might have been spared 8 years of Slop-gate.

All the best.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 11, 2008 1:10 PM

OK, then - what are the "code words"?

Posted by: Gordon | August 11, 2008 1:24 PM

OK, then - what are the "code words"?

Some that have been used in the past:
Welfare queens.
Law and order.
Liberal.
Quotas.
Entitlements.
Busing.

Posted by: Rick | August 11, 2008 1:31 PM

Great rhetoric, Rick, but it proves nothing.

The proof is in the pudding -- whose rights and freedoms have the modern right ever fought or worked for other than its own? None I can think of. That's why conservative complaints about reparations ring hollow.

Posted by: Rick | August 11, 2008 1:38 PM

Rick: As a member of the media, I am interested to know if you read "Bias", and what you think is important about that book and what its author had to say.

As a conservative, I take issue with your claim that the aim of conservatives is "power for its own sake". One of the reasons that I have turned my attention to political topics, is that I want less government interference/involvement in the operation of business, and in the lives of individual people, because I am convinced it will be better for the nation.

Peace to all.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 11, 2008 2:06 PM

As a member of the media, I am interested to know if you read "Bias", and what you think is important about that book and what its author had to say.

I have not bothered to read it because it was long ago debunked by numerous sources. The book was published by Regnery, which is a right-wing publishing house (which tells me virtually everything I need to know), and Bernie Goldberg from what I can tell has basically sold himself out for profit.

One of the reasons that I have turned my attention to political topics, is that I want less government interference/involvement in the operation of business, and in the lives of individual people, because I am convinced it will be better for the nation.

Assuming you are a Christian, that interest will eventually clash with your faith. That's why this blog exists.

Posted by: Rick | August 11, 2008 2:18 PM

Au contraire, Watcher, I find Rick's arguments to be very coherent and well-supported. If you don't think so, why not ask him for his sources?

By contrast, you aren't presenting any well-supported counter-arguments against the content of Rick's comments. You are just attacking Rick.

Look up the term 'psychological projection.' And be careful.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 11, 2008 2:48 PM

That's poisoning the well.

Not if you know the context. Most of the "conspiracy" I mentioned earlier was played out in media, which included publishing, and virtually all of the anti-Clinton books that came out then resulted from lies, unproven innuendo and suspect -- at best -- reporting. No "liberal" could have gotten away with that against a conservative target.

When you obtain them for yourself, you obtain them for all. In fact, it could be said that even if you fought your whole life for the "rights of others", if you actually fought for true rights, you yourself got those rights, too.

Bunk. We would have never needed a Civil Rights Movement were that the case.

Posted by: Rick | August 11, 2008 2:59 PM

Well, I did read Lott's comments, and I have arrived at the same conclusion Rick did. And not because Rick said it, either--I recognized the racism in Lott't comments long before I heard of Rick, or God's Politics for that matter.

Once again--be careful.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 11, 2008 3:09 PM

Payshun -

"Just because conservatives don't like welfare doesn't mean it shouldn't exist."

You may recall that the conservative effort of the 90's (which Clinton ultimately endorsed) was welfare reform, not welfare repeal. Some conservatives indeed believe that welfare shouldn't exist, but many of us take the view that it is inevitable that some sort of welfare will exist whether we like it or not, so we want to assure that it is effective. Effectiveness in conservative terms means that welfare programs will tend to promote eventual self-reliance on the part of the recipients.

Posted by: Gordon | August 11, 2008 3:14 PM

Gordon,

I get that. But I don't always think many conservatives are realistic with their expectations or have an awareness of other people's lives. But that's neither here nor there.

Politics,

No one ever said faith was going to be easy. Jesus said the opposite. As a matter of fact I have my faith bashed by conservatives on a regular basis. I really don't care what they think. It's my faith and they have nothing to do with it. Conservatives deserve to have their faith mocked especially when they use that faith to legislate discrimination (ie gay marriage...) or worship nationalism over Jesus. Jesus mocked the faith of conservative Jews all the time and they mocked his. My point is that conservatives need to grow a thicker skin in dealing with issues of faith. They are not used to having their faith challenged so openly.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 11, 2008 3:58 PM

Wow, we've got a busy forum...great!

Rick: About the book, 'Bias'.

I watched a few interviews with Mr. Goldberg, by members of the media who were unhappy with his book, and placed themselves generally in opposition to him. The media people--who read the book--generally fell into one of two groups. The first group appeared to not be able to grasp what he was saying, or why it was important. (I was flabbergasted: it seemed pretty clear to me. Were they feigning ignorance?) Members of the second group clearly understood what he had said. They were angry. They accused him of betrayal, but THEY NEVER SAID HIS CLAIMS WERE FALSE. In no way was his book "discredited" as you claim: it was denounced, but that's not the same thing.

I suggest you read that book.

BTW: No need to assume: I am a Christian, a born-again New Testament Believer; saved by Grace, 1956; redeemed from a life gone astray, 1974--convicted, forgiven, cleansed and healed; baptized in the Spirit, Holy Week, 1975; freed by God, in mind and in spirit, to pursue engineering, 1976. I see myself as having fallen short of the promise inherent in the gifts I have been entrusted, and find myself daily grateful that God is faithful to his promises.

I would not compare myself with the Apostle Paul, except in this: that I would not normally lay out the statistics of my faith history, but I felt challenged about its existence and authenticity, as did he, when he laid out his credentials.

Let me add, that there have been many tread this road before me, who found, as I have, that their walk with Christ, and their political conservatism, were completely compatible--to the point of being complementary.

May we all be so blessed.

Peace to all.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 11, 2008 4:13 PM

It's great that David of Fox News and Gordon and Watcher are so smart. If they weren't then we'd all be taken in by Rick's rehtorical trickery.

Go David of Fox Lake and Gordon and Watcher!!

Posted by: jade | August 11, 2008 4:50 PM

I'm sorry you had the experience at the "Christian right" church. I've gone to church since childhood--with a bit of a gap in my 20s--and have never attended a church that was in any way political.

Imagine my surprise when I got back home and learned that it was a cottage industry.

As to the book--I'll have to do some research before I answer you. I won't make claims I can't support...at least a little.

I got most of my material from Media Matters for America, which faithfully documents all of its assertions. Rush and O'Reilly have taken to slamming it as a "far-left smear group" without answering if the allegations it makes are actually true.

Posted by: Rick | August 11, 2008 5:33 PM

Payshun:
"David,

Please don't go there. You are actually "whitewashing" history. ..."

Au contraire.

While it is true that the war was not a true 'civil war', but a war to prevent secession, the events leading up to the war leave it pretty clear that the question of slavery played a major part in the election of 1860, as well as in the decision by southern states to secede. Lincoln carried NONE of the southern states. He was under threat of assassination before he ever got to Washington. The inauguration was the most heavily guarded affair the nation had seen up to that time. Lincoln was not welcomed to Washington by the sitting Senators--northerners--who derided him, before his term ever started, for his views on blacks and slavery.

It's true that there were many reasons men joined up to fight in the war. Certainly, many of them did not do so to defend any lofty moral principle--I have a son in the Marines, and I can tell you that in that respect, nothing's changed. My relative had just lost his wife in child-birth, and expressed the feeling that the least he could do was to join the Union Army, so someone else wouldn't have to. His family couldn't talk him out of it.

The war was also different in different areas where it was fought. My family lived in Missouri, and my relative was killed in a skirmish in the SW part of that state.

It is no distortion of history to name our "Civil War" as one of the sequence of events that constitute our nation's confrontation with its wrong-doing, and its subsequent repentance and decision to change. I'm not going to fret over minutae. Slavery was a national institution before 1860. There was a war. After 1865, slavery had been abolished as a national institution.

It's taken a long time for us to figure out the rest of the path to harmony: we're not done, obviously, or Mr. Sanders would not have written this column, and we'd be doing something else with our time.

Peace to all.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 11, 2008 5:50 PM

Prior to the Civil War, the big conversation was how to partition the country between slavery and free states and terriroties. Lincoln (who was indeed pretty racist) made the point in his campaign that eventually the country had to be all one or the other. Although he had a certain level of disdain for blacks, he nonetheless opposed slavery; and southerners, when he was elected, naturally assumed he would try to resolve the issue in favor of abolition. Their immediate concern was that the north not force its will on them, but as other posters have noted, had there been no slavery issue there would have been no succession and hence no war. That the war was not conceived by Lincoln or most northerners as a crusade to end slavery does not diminish its ultimate effect, nor does it cheapen at all the sacrifice made by so many who died in the process of freeing others.

Posted by: Gordon | August 11, 2008 6:10 PM

Footnote:

Rick: You're right that Lincoln's views on blacks were "mainstream for that day", in that he believed them inferior to whites. To that extent, and perhaps even more generally, his views were racist. What was revolutionary was his belief that even though inferior (to attempt capturing his thought), they should be free, and not subject to ownership by another.

Peace to all.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 11, 2008 6:40 PM

I would like to say to Rick and Gordon that a discussion about racial reconciliation can NOT be held from such an intellectual level that you two have been participating in. This is not about what we THINK as much as what is AUTHENTIC reconciliation, and that involves the heart and the soul of a people. Intellectual discussion is not a good way to talk about this. When other people are wanting to talk about this issue on different levels, it seems as if your discussion is getting in the way. You might want to consider exchanging personal email addresses to continue your exchange.

Thanks,
Teresa

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2008 8:11 PM

This is not about what we THINK as much as what is AUTHENTIC reconciliation, and that involves the heart and the soul of a people.

I don't entirely agree. We may say we desire reconciliation, but there has to be both a thought process and a construct to execute it lest it never happens. The original topic of this thread was an apology for slavery; however, to reconcile properly -- at least from my viewpoint -- means that, for that purpose, no one can be totally right or wrong. In other words, the operative word is "humility"; without that there can be no healthy relationship. One reason Martin Luther King Jr. was so effective was that he was able to make the bad guys look like the bad guys to a point where overt racism came across as silly, never mind sinful.

Posted by: Rick | August 11, 2008 10:50 PM

Rick: Well put.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 11, 2008 11:29 PM

"The concept has nothing to do with our individual responsibility, and everything to do with our nation's responsibility."

Right, but the argument is about repentance, not apology.

"The question is: Should our NATION, which perpetrated these horrors, apologize?"

No, the question is whether there ought to be financial compensation by way of repentance. I don't think the question of apology is that controversial either way. Most on either side of the financial repentance argument regard it as meaningless, but neither opposes it.

"To excuse our nation because we weren't there"

Only those who are advancing a more radical argument are using the "excuse" term.

"The whole concept is not at all about individual responsibility, but about national responsibility and taking responsibility for the horrors that this nation has perpetrated on people to get to the status of wealth we now enjoy."

I disagree with the idea that slavery was somehow necessary to enjoy our present status of wealth.

"To deny national responsibility because you and your family weren't here is the same as saying you don't need to know anything about US history prior to the time your family came here."

Knowledge and accountability are not synonymous. If you visit a foregin country, do you instantly feel yourself responsible for the historical transgressions of that country?

"What a mess that would be to history teachers!"

I think our history teachers do good enough work (with an assist from Howard Zinn) of bludgeoning students with the idea of accountability, and our high school graduates couldn't tell you the first thing about George Washington. But that's neither here nor there.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 12, 2008 1:02 AM

"Knowledge and accountability are not synonymous. If you visit a foregin country, do you instantly feel yourself responsible for the historical transgressions of that country?"
If I moved to Germany I certainly would not oppose paying a tax that paid for reparations to anyone of Jewish/German heritage or any other group that suffered.
I would not think it in any way correct to proclaim my innocence as justification for my not paying the tax. I surely would not stand up and say I was justified because of Jesus' death and resurrection. That would be an extremely silly and outright offensive stance for any Christian to take.
I would accept the history for what it is and take the good with the bad.
Again we are not just talking about a history that ended with the civil war. Slavery continued for
many more years in the south, then you have Jim Crow and on and on.
To keep saying you did not personally do it cannot deflect the reality that it happened or that reparations are in order. I do not know what form they should take, though I have made some suggestions, but whatever we have done up to now is not enough.
Kevin, if somehow there were reparations paid to your grand children for what happened to your father I would not oppose that either. Paying for the past is just something we all must do.

Posted by: wayne | August 12, 2008 2:40 AM

"It is no distortion of history to name our "Civil War" as one of the sequence of events that constitute our nation's confrontation with its wrong-doing, and its subsequent repentance and decision to change. I'm not going to fret over minutae. Slavery was a national institution before 1860. There was a war. After 1865, slavery had been abolished as a national institution."

But this is not even accurate. For one thing slavery continued for a few years in the border states after the Emancipation Proclamation. Those pretty words were powerless and held no teeth for the government to protect it's former black slaves turned citizens. The issue of slavery was a smokescreen for greed and identity. It was not about slavery it was about greed. My point is that until the issue of slavery is dealt with (which it was not by the Civil War) then our nation will never heal. Just look at the south now and you will see there is still much racism there and it's not just limited to the south.

The apology is a start but then the question is will our Congress have the guts to go further? Judging by the fact that they are democrats I doubt that. Not saying the Republicans would do any better and I doubt an apology would have been offered had they been in power but it is a start.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 12, 2008 3:28 AM

Payshun: "My point is that until the issue of slavery is dealt with (which it was not by the Civil War) then our nation will never heal. Just look at the south now and you will see there is still much racism there and it's not just limited to the south.

The apology is a start but then the question is will our Congress have the guts to go further? Judging by the fact that they are democrats I doubt that. Not saying the Republicans would do any better and I doubt an apology would have been offered had they been in power but it is a start."

1. The issue of slavery HAS been dealt with. I never claimed the war was the only step in the sequence, just that it has a rightful place as one of them. The fact that it involved multiple issues is inconsequential to my point, so long as slavery was one of the significant issues, which it was.

2. Be careful to not confuse slavery and racism. Slavery, in the US, was a legal structure that permitted the ownership of black and mulatto people. Racism is a worldview that considers the race of a person to bestow or to delete some set of privileges or rights, relative to persons of other racial ancestry. There is plenty of racism in this country, for sure. Not only can I be assured of rude treatment if I go where I "don't belong", it can be downright dangerous for me.

3. You speak as though it's a foregone conclusion that "an apology" and something "further" are called for. The case has not been made.

The US has repented of slavery, as I outlined in posts yesterday. The Congress would be misguided to issue and "I'm sorry" for slavery, just as those calling for it are mistaken in their claims.

Is the Congress in a position to say "I'm sorry" for racist attitudes in the population?

Peace to all.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 12, 2008 9:27 AM

Be careful to not confuse slavery and racism. Slavery, in the US, was a legal structure that permitted the ownership of black and mulatto people. Racism is a worldview that considers the race of a person to bestow or to delete some set of privileges or rights, relative to persons of other racial ancestry.

But you couldn't really have slavery without racism -- while the institution is dead its spirit certainly isn't.

Slavery was legal in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Missouri at the end of the war, because Lincoln's proclamation only freed the slaves in areas in rebellion.

Which should give pause to the belief that the Civil War was really over slavery. Don't forget that there also might have been international consequences, most notably with Britain and France (because of cotton goods sold there). In addition, two-thirds of Southerners didn't own slaves and most of those that did had maybe one; the large plantations were in a distinct minority.

Posted by: Rick | August 12, 2008 10:22 AM

"If I moved to Germany I certainly would not oppose paying a tax that paid for reparations to anyone of Jewish/German heritage or any other group that suffered."

Maybe countries should charge a "suffering fee" to all tourists. Snarkiness aside, this doesn't really answer my question. In fact, you have removed reparations from any context of repentance. Paying the tax you describe could certainly not be considered an act of repentance for your culpability.

"I surely would not stand up and say I was justified because of Jesus' death and resurrection. That would be an extremely silly and outright offensive stance for any Christian to take. "

Well, if the tax already existed, you are correct that Christians should pay it regardless. But if you are applying a Christian model of repentance to advocate taxation, then it is perfectly valid for me to note that I need not and can not repent of the sins of past generations.

"To keep saying you did not personally do it cannot deflect the reality that it happened or that reparations are in order."

The broader question of whether reparations are in order is not the issue (though I would argue that they are not). The question here is whether we should offer reparations as repentance. Again, there is no biblical support for the idea of repenting of sins one has never committed.

"Kevin, if somehow there were reparations paid to your grand children for what happened to your father I would not oppose that either."

And I would. My grandchildren were not convicted falsely, and their peers did not convict them. Else we must all pay to remedy to any aggrieved party throughout history. That is antithetical to the concept of liberty that makes America great.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 12, 2008 1:01 PM

Gordon said:
David of the Lake has it right: had there been no Civil War there would have been no abolition.

Me:
There was no uniform abolition. Slavery still existed in the border states after the war. The war did not free everyone and even then the slaves freed themselves mainly. So let's not twist history to make it into something it's not.

Gordon said:
Slavery would have continued there at least had there been no amendment, and the amendment could not have passed had there been no war.

Me:
You are right about part of that. But the Amendment would have passed anyway because the northerners held the vote without the southerners attendance. That part happened in the Senate but the Southerners voted against it in the house. The vote totals are interesting to note. But you can google that yourself. But the most interesting thing is that the bill would not have passed if Lincoln himself did not take an active role in making sure it would pass. The Congress North and South had very little interest in making sure the slaves were freed.

David said:
The shorthand look at the Civil War is that its legacy issue was slavery, because of the developments the war led to. It's a fact that the war was over other issues, as well. But in the end, those issues were eclipsed by the slavery issue.

Me:
Yah for the abolitionists. But for everyone else slavery was not the number one issue. It was about Northern dominance and shaming the south. That was a much bigger issue than slavery was, at least that's the way it was portrayed at the time. If it were the number one issue Lincoln would not have struggled to get the 13'th Amendment passed.

Gordon said:
An artifact of the amendment process only. What eventually became the 13th amendment was first proposed in 1863, during the war. It was proposed by congressmen who feared that the Emancipation Proclamation would be seen as just a temporary war measure. It was ratified in 1865. Don't confuse the ponderous machinery of amendment with a lack of will.

Me:
Actually that first part is inaccurate. Congress passed the first form of the 13'th Amendment as a means of keeping slavery around forever. That bill was passed by Congress in February of 1861. It passed in both houses and went to each to state for ratification. The civil war started shortly after and the states had other things to worry about so they never ratified it. Please don't confuse mythology about how the bill was passed with a whitewashing of history. Things are more complicated than that.

This points to a simple truth America never repented for slavery, not really anyway.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 12, 2008 3:25 PM

Since the 1965 act, there have been further refinements of the laws, so that now it is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race: in housing, in employment, in schools--anywhere that there is any legal regulation of any kind.

Not exactly -- the political right in this country has sought to weaken such laws since 1980. During the Reagan Administration, Clarence Thomas was placed at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the express purpose of rendering it virtually toothless; subseqently, discrimination became harder to prove because the onus was shifted to the employee (who wouldn't have the financial clout of the employer). Just last year the conservative-dominated U. S. Supreme Court overturned voluntary busing programs in Louisville, Ky. and Seattle, Wash. Basically, when the conservatives became politically powerful they said they intended to roll back socially progressive laws and jurisprudence, and they've been true to their word.

Posted by: Rick | August 12, 2008 5:34 PM

No David it did not and has not. First off the government lied and did not keep it's promises to it's newly freed citizens. The government did not redistribute the wealth it promised the slaves and that would have been a full repentance.

But I don't really subscribe to the idea of repentance you do. I don't believe repentance is turning from one's behavior as if the right behavior could save a person. But that's a whole other discussion. Repentance is relying on mercy. But we are getting all spiritual.

I just think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I understand what you are saying but after being an African-American studies major in college and reading a lot of the earlier documents I just don't believe this country ever took slavery and it's eventual end seriously.

The details are what tell the story. If you ignore the details then your argument has merit but when you do the actual research the details don't support what you are saying. In order for your argument to have traction you have to skip what actually happened and only stick to broad strokes which is not intellectually honest or a just analysis of what actually happened. That's my critique of your argument. You are not willing to examine what actually happened because it doesn't support your overall premise that this nation repented.

This country lied and broke it's promises to black people never taking racism, repentance and justice for my people seriously. It's a historical fact. It's really that simple. The details back me up on that.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 12, 2008 7:56 PM

Rick, I think you have the notion of "activist judge" a bit turned around. An activist judge is one who is not interested in concepts such as 'original intent'.

It is activist judges who have morphed the 1st amendment from protecting political speech and criticism of the government, but not covering works of "art" and perverse "literature", to where it is today, permitting some limitations on political free speech, but protecting the "free expression" of the arts, no matter how profane or degraded.

We conservatives have watched our nation's judiciary make a mockery of our Constitution, inventing rights that are neither in, nor implied by the document; referring to European legal opinion over the text of the Constitution--we can hardly stand it.

And it has been judges such as Ginsberg (retired), Souter, and Kennedy, who have given us the most anguish. They are examples of the activist judges in SCOTUS. That is something Robert Bork would not have been. Thankfully, we have John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and others who measure the question before the court against the Constitution, illuminated, as needed, by the writings of the Founding Fathers, and by precedent.

Yesterday, you spoke of code words conservatives use to indirectly reference racist topics. Well, today you used a code word--progressive--that the left often uses to indicate all manner of socialist ideas.

I am convinced that many of these notions are both bad for the country, and unconstitutional, to boot. Of course conservatives are going to promise to roll some of these things back, if they've made it into law.

Let's see, we were talking about reparations, when this all started. I mentioned the Great Society and was promptly slapped down, since most of the recipients were white. (I will point out that a disproportionate number of them were black. But, hey.) Today I remembered 'Affirmative Action'. That program was specifically formulated to make up for the kinds of disadvantages that are being described as part of the legacy of slavery. This talk of justice and the Constitution brought it to mind.

Affirmative Action was conceived and implemented as reparations.

Yes, I am opposed to Affirmative Action, as an on-going program, although I did not mind the nation trying it out to see what the results would be.

The role of government is to provide a level playing field, as much as possible. It is up to the participants to join the game on the field, and to learn to score points. Affirmative Action awards points without merit, tilting the playing field. Not good in the long run.

One of the frustrations I have with the public voices of the black community, is that they don't seem so very interested in teaching or inspiring members of the community to get out onto the field and give it a go. They seem much more interested in perpetuating a population of the downtrodden, apparently for the purpose of laying a guilt trip on whites that will make us willing to be taxed further so yet another noble-sounding, but ineffective government program can be implemented.

Some of our communities here in Illinois seem to be on death spirals. I just learned this evening that a nearby community has a 55% dropout rate. Kids in their mid-teens ALL know someone who has been shot; most know someone who has been killed; if they don't use drugs themselves, they know someone, often another family member, who does.

It seems to me that NONE of the talk--here or anywhere--about apologies, reparations, or conciliation begins to address the question: how are we going to turn around a community that has sunk to this depth?

The goal, of course, has to be redemption (secular) of the people who live there, as opposed to, say, gentrification of the neighborhoods, which would only displace the problems.

A number of years ago, Ewing Kauffman (deceased), then owner of the Kansas City Royals, got the attention of a middle school in a poor area of the city. At an 8th grade assembly, all the students were asked to consider doing three things: 1) not using drugs, 2) not getting pregnant, and 3) graduating from high school. The promise was made to them that everyone who did all three would have all their costs for post secondary education covered by the Kauffman Foundation. The promise was made to the one class.

I've forgotten the exact numbers, but I believe that the drug usage in that class was next to nothing, there were few pregnancies, and the normally high dropout rate was very low. My take-away from that program is that when children have a reason to believe they will have a desirable future, they will work toward it.

I could go on, but, as you will note, it is late.

Payshun, I read your post. I am aware of the facts you cite. I am moved by the significance of that for you. I understand why you refuse to accept what I've argued.

There is value in looking at the before and after endpoints, and using that to assess progress, as I have done. There is also value in examining the details of the process and feeling the exhilaration of victory and agony of defeat as it unfolds. Once that is done, however, it seems to me we have to say the process was what it was, and these are the results it produced.

Now, I'm not discounting collateral damage from the process. I have children. I have joked with other parents about the process of parenting, and the prospect that my children are going to enter their adult lives with "issues", collateral damage from the process of my parenting, that they will then need professional therapy to work through. The question is, should I pay for it, or should they? And a knowing, nervous laugh goes around the room.

It seems the nation may be at an analogous place.

While I am certain there is no going back to undo the wrong, I am also uncertain how to assess the present, residual level of the damage, and how that might be appropriately addressed.

Anybody know a good therapist, one who specializes in 'nation' issues?

Peace to all.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 13, 2008 12:05 AM

Let's step back from our national issue for a moment, to consider at least one other nation that has "bad history", the memory of which continues to cloud its relations with groups that were its victims. I'm thinking of Japan.

Here is a link to one news story from 1995, and the issue of an 'apology' to the nations Japan fought against in WWII.

http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/NanjingMassacre/NMAPOLOGY.html

I think there are lessons there for us, or at least points to ponder, in our present situation. Perhaps it will help illuminate our discussion.

Peace to all.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 13, 2008 7:40 AM

Wayne:

It is true that I am not in a position to know what the self-proclaimed leaders of the black community are doing and saying when they're not on camera for the rest of the nation. What you assert is that their broader public face is not representative of their message.

I'm glad, if that's true. I think they'd buy themselves a lot more good will, if they'd bring the two together.

I understand very well what the aim of Affirmative Action was. I was 'there' when it got started. The problem with a program like that, is that it must rely on a simple set of criteria. As a consequence, it leads to the paradoxical result that it can only repair harm, by doing harm.

A different approach: A small college decided to increase its minority enrollment in the late 1960s. It gave the matter considerable attention. First, it made a special effort to recruit from high schools with large minority populations. When that did not produce enough qualified applicants, a careful decision was made to make special accommodations. Two things were done. 1) the process for evaluating applicants--already pretty individualized--was made even more personal, in an effort to determine if the student's academic record was negatively influenced by economic circumstance and/or school quality, and 2) a special program of classes was developed to remediate deficiencies in academic preparation, and the time allowed for completing a degree was extended.

I believe the program was an overall success in its focused efforts to use enlightened criteria in evaluating students for a competitive admissions program. Sure, there were 'majority' applicants displaced, but they were displaced on a competitive basis, as a result of a conscientious process of evaluation.

A footnote to this discussion, that is humorous for me, has to do with a cousin of mine, who is part Native American. He has just enough "Indian blood" to qualify as a minority. He and I never knew whom he might have displaced, when he was hired for jobs, but as a young man it definitely helped keep him employed, as several employers were "tickled pink" to get to count him as a minority hire. For him, for all other intents and purposes just another white guy, the playing field was already level, without Affirmative Action.

It's hard to get this right, isn't it?

Peace to all.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 13, 2008 9:44 AM

Did a little reading over the weekend and somethings are interesting. Many of the plantation owners that owned hundreds of slaves had their lands taken away and parceled off and given to slaves. Many lost their fortunes in the war along with their land.

Again I ask the question -

Who will offer the appology?
Who will accept or reject the appology?
Compensation - who will get the money?
Who will payout the money?
Will only states where slavery was sanctioned be held accountable for the money?
How are we to determine who will get the money and how much will it be?
Will this - if it happens - forever end the discussion on slavery and it's stain on the US?

Who will be the next group to step forward and demand satisfaction?

God is Good - All the Time
.

Posted by: big guy | August 13, 2008 11:21 AM

Rick,
Yes I have heard of "40 acres and a mule" But how about details? I believe a general made the promise to a group of liberated slaves. He never had the authority or influence to follow through on his promise. This promise may have been made by others, I don't recall. I am hoping that Payshun can give some details. I am not saying the promises don't exist, but what are they and who made them?

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | August 13, 2008 11:43 AM

Don:

The SCOTUS decision in 2000 was to overturn the Florida court's decision to set aside its own laws. It was the Florida court, in this case, that was being "activist". The court ruled 7-2 on the key elements of the case, not the 5-4 usually reported, which was the vote on lesser questions.

Your comment on Heller is off-base on several counts. a) the text of the amendment does not name "personal self-defense", but the writings of many of the Founders do make that association, so the recent ruling passes the test of 'original intent'; b) as can be determined from elementary rules of grammar and syntax, the "...militia..." clause strengthens, but does not modify or limit the independent, complete sentence which follows. The Court was unanimous (9-0) in finding that the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual right. The 5-4 split was on whether to abide by the--guess what--original intent.

Determining original intent requires opening the books bequeathed to us by our forebears, something that seems anathema to many of my contemporaries. In many cases, the least research leads to a clear conclusion. The second part is hardest, it seems, and that is to acquiesce to original intent, when doing so does not satisfy one's personal agenda.

It's no canard. (Nice word though. Reminds me of Burt Rutan's airplane designs.)

Peace to all.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 13, 2008 12:09 PM

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 13, 2008 12:09 PM

Well stated - it is my memory that the FL Court was how shall we say - changing horses mid-stream.

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 13, 2008 12:52 PM

Well, the SC was interfering with Florida election laws. And they had no Constitutional business doing that, no matter how poorly managed things were there. That may be the reason why Rehnquist was reluctant to see a precedent in it.

D

Posted by: don | August 13, 2008 1:07 PM

Back to the topic-

Again I ask who is going to speak for the US and who will accept it for the slaves. Who will get paid the money and how much.

If it is going to be all of us in the US at this time. Is it fair to have Asians, Mideast, South and Central Americans pay for something that they were not involved with?

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 13, 2008 1:55 PM

David,

The conclusions you came to after looking at your starting and endpoints are what I take issue with. They whitewash history and don't tell the story about how America never repented for slavery. Since folks don't know what to do to put this issue to bed here are some helpful suggestions.

Let's start with a national slave and oppressed people's museum and memorial. It should be in Washington DC and include all the horrific injustice heaped upon blacks, immigrants, and indigenous people groups. There should be a memorial to those killed at sea (they number in the millions,) those killed by disease, and by negligence.

Another thing that could end this is a proper telling of American history. Basically rewrite America's history books to tell the truth. Most Americans don't know who Benjamin Banneker was, let alone Madame CJ Walker and countless great black and other people. The American history books don't need to watered down and mythologized to create a nation that never really existed.

One more suggestion is to keep the promise the government made in the Freeman's Bureau. Someone asked me for details. Well here were the goals and promises the government promised their new citizens but rarely kept.

"The bureau was organized under the War Department with Major General Oliver O. Howard as the commissioner. The bureau’s chief focus was to provide food, medical care, help with resettlement, administer justice, manage abandoned and confiscated property, regulate labor, and establish schools. Over 1,000 schools were built, teacher-training institutions were created, and several black colleges were founded and financed with the help of the bureau."

I got that from here.
http://afroamhistory.about.com/cs/reconstruction/a/freedmensbureau.htm

You can google Freedman's Bureau and find out more information.

There are more suggestions but I think that's enough to start. It won't bring the dead back or undo the horror that they lived but at the very least it will honor and respect them. Which is more than they are getting now.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 13, 2008 8:01 PM

Thank you David currently there are no plans for this to happen. At least none yet, but hopefully that will change and sooner than most people think.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 13, 2008 10:00 PM

Payshun: I will watch for news of these developments.

Thanks again.

Peace to all.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 13, 2008 10:28 PM

I think it is great that this discussion can take place, especially under the banner of Christ. I think that it does show that there is movement over time. I do however think that there is some talking at cross-purposes, typically by the use of generalizations. My experience is that there isn't really one America, so it really is possible for different people to make opposing statements about what it means to live in the US. We should also be careful about using words such as "racist", and even the labels "conservative" and "liberal", which typically mean different things to different people. I am racist in the same way that Malcolm Gladwell is (and probably some ways that he isn't), but this is human nature. What do we do about it, though? Let's enact just laws and enforce them, and work as individuals to love others as God loves us, focussing on the poor and downtrodden, and we can even get government involved as well!

With regard to the apology, I think that one has to think of the State as an entity that can go wrong and that can apologize (and hopefully repent). So, the State (represented by the Senate) can apologize for things that this generation have not been involved in. And if the Voting and Civil Rights Acts already said it, then why is there any harm in repeating it? I think I would argue that those acts are more the "repentance" that others were asking for, than the apology. Reparations for are to some extent superfluous as some have written, as the direct victims are no longer alive. Perhaps that museum would be the best reparation (as well as sizable exhibits on the subject in any museum of American History). Yes, indirect victims still exist, but it is difficult to identify these easily.

So, that deals with that (yes, you may disagree, but hear me out). Now onto the discrimination that occurred after slavery - the so-called "Jim Crow Laws". Again, apologies should be issued on these by the relevant states, on the grounds that they were not "separate, but equal", but rather separate and inequal. Reparations should be paid to those harmed by these. Difficult, but worth attempting.

Finally, positive discrimination in education should continue, but not on the grounds of race. How about handicapping results based on school academic performance and some measure of local poverty. Perhaps funding of schools should be weighted that way too? Entry into the police force should be encouraged from the community, and financial benefits applied to that. Having said that, exchanges between police departments in different parts of the US should be encouraged (probably financially) to provide some mixing.

How about some districting reform at the same time!? Sorry... should have left this topic out of it.

Let's also do what we can to drive discrimination away, whether by making laws or enabling enforcement of existing ones, and by calling it when we see it.

As Christians we need to be asking God for the opportunities to heal the broken-hearted and set the captives free. No - we will never see an end to discrimination until he comes again, but we should at least agree to try.

These are just some suggestions that seemed to flow together and that I thought I would put out there... I realize that there are some practical reasons that get in the way of some of what I have suggested, but it seemed that the logic was good.

...until the earth be filled with the knowledge of the glory of God as the waters cover the sea...

Andrew

Posted by: Andrew | August 15, 2008 4:35 AM

Duplicate Post...

Teresa: You seem to have been offended by the discussion several of us were conducting. In your post you suggested that we were wasting time, as well as words; and, worse than that, actually hindering the process of coming to consensus, etc.

Actually, we--I think it safe to speak for the others in this instance--were doing our best, and working our hardest to discover the issues between us, and to resolve them by bringing relevant facts and arguments to bear. Granted, there were a few times the discussion appeared to get off-topic. But in every instance, it got there because we were tracing to its roots some line of reasoning that supported a troublesome viewpoint--troublesome, that is, from the standpoint of reaching agreement.

Let me share with you a quotation from Nelson Mandela. I first saw it, framed and sitting on the desk of a black co-worker, just a few years ago. When he left his position, there were about 15 of us who took him to lunch. When the time came for "speech, speech", he told us he wanted to share with us the most important thing he could. He passed around his framed copy of this quote. I have it framed and hanging on the wall above my computer at home. I have sent it to every member of my family. I have adopted it's guidance. It was in the spirit of this quotation that I held nothing back in the discussion.

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us most. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and famous?' Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that people won't feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in all of us. And when we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."
— Nelson Mandela, from his 1994 inaugural speech

The line that hit me between the eyes: "...Your playing small does not serve the world."

This is the challenge I rise to.

And this is my hope: "...when we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same."

This is what I seek to accomplish by rising to that challenge.

Peace to all.

Posted by: david of fox lake | August 15, 2008 11:48 AM

You can tell when a person of conscience is sincere about an apology and has truly dealt with the issue it was about when they are no longer embarrassed to talk about it. They have no secret reservations left, and doing constructive things comes naturally, becomes part of their way of life. If you have gone through the process of forgiving yourself and others, you can, for example, tell the difference between truly sober alcoholics (or codependents) and those who still live in denial, even though they claim to have changed or to have been saved.
I would imagine the same applies to people who consciously or unconsciously regard black, white, Jewish, foreign, handicapped or homosexual people as different from themselves. When the imagined differences are truly erased and the true differences celebrated, there is no embarrassment left. There could be conflict or joy, but no embarassment.
You know the forgiven and the forgivers by their deeds.

Posted by: Barbara Wall | August 17, 2008 4:00 AM

Forgot to add my address on the last comment!

Posted by: Barbara | August 17, 2008 9:35 AM