I'm interested to hear some opinions on this topic.  Here's an article that talks a little about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_re_us/slavery_apology

I was just wondering if anyone thinks there should/shouldn't be an apology and why or why not.

If there is an apology, who should make it and will it change anything.

Don't know how an apology would change anything (no matter who makes the apology statement)...

What would the apology be, how would it be stated?

Are we to suppose, that by not having an apology, made that whites are NOT sorry for pains and evils of slavery?

I understand the symbolic reasons for this, but really there are more important things we need to focus on in this country.... I don't see how an apology accomplishes anything...

I see no reason for an apology.

After all, none of this happened even remotely within my lifetime.  In fact, I was born roughly 100 years after slavery in this country ended.  In fact, a lot of my family did not even enter this country until after slavery ended.

If somebody really wants an apology, fine.  I apologize.  I apologize for my Norwegian ancestors that came here in the 1880's.  I apologize for my French ancestors that came here about the same time.  I even apologize for my ancestors that were here at the time, but were living on reservations.

Not that it means a damned thing.  My apology and $1 will get you a cup of coffee.

Myself, I live in the "here and now", not in the "way back when".  I refuse to live my life with some kind of "ancestral guilt", like some people think I should.  To me, the concept sounds a bit to much like "Original Sin".

I don't think that a person should apologize but institutions should-i.e. the U.S. Government. Also, I think that the apology should be backed up, meaning do completely away with Jim Crow. I know several people are going to jump all over me and say that Jim Crow no longer exist which is B.S. Jim Crow is alive and well but only went underground and is not quite obvious.



Cat

I'm sorry, for something I didn't do. Lynched somebody, but I don't know who?? You blame me, for slavery, A hundred years before I was born! I'm just guilty of being white.  ::)

  In short, no.  The idea is ridiculous bordering on ludicrous and smacks of politically correct hand wringing...

  Something altogether different:

  Weren't there a large number of free Negros who owned black slaves..?

 

   Weren't there a large number of free Negros who owned black slaves..?


I doubt that "large number" would really be accurate.  Although in the 18th century, there were black slave holders in the North.  And there were also a large number of "white slaves".  And don't forget the American Indians who were bound in slavery as well.

Of course, in the modern world, the vast majority of slave holders are black.  Sadly, it is an all to common state in many African nations.  But it is also commonly practiced in some areas of Asia. 

In fact, according to UN statistics, there are more slaves in 2007 then at any time in the last 1,000 years.  To give an idea of the scale, it is estimated that in Africa, there are more than 7 times more slaves then the US held in the 1850's (the height of the US slave holdings - around 4.5 million slaves, compared to an estimated 27 million slaves in Africa today).  While at the time of abolition a slave in the US cost around $1,000 ($38,000 in todays currency), slaves can be bought in many areas of the world for as little as $40.  One of the highest priced markets in the world is in Thailand.  There, a young HIV free female goes for around $800.

I doubt that "large number" would really be accurate.  Although in the 18th century, there were black slave holders in the North.  And there were also a large number of "white slaves".  And don't forget the American Indians who were bound in slavery as well.

Of course, in the modern world, the vast majority of slave holders are black.  Sadly, it is an all to common state in many African nations.  But it is also commonly practiced in some areas of Asia. 

In fact, according to UN statistics, there are more slaves in 2007 then at any time in the last 1,000 years.  To give an idea of the scale, it is estimated that in Africa, there are more than 7 times more slaves then the US held in the 1850's (the height of the US slave holdings - around 4.5 million slaves, compared to an estimated 27 million slaves in Africa today).  While at the time of abolition a slave in the US cost around $1,000 ($38,000 in todays currency), slaves can be bought in many areas of the world for as little as $40.  One of the highest priced markets in the world is in Thailand.  There, a young HIV free female goes for around $800.


  Okay, here a stupid question for you...

  Slavery exists in Africa today..?  27 million.?!  I really did not know that...

  Okay, here a stupid question for you...

  Slavery exists in Africa today..?  27 million.?!  I really did not know that...



Yes, slavery still exists today-unfortunately. Not just in Africa, but Asia and believe it or not, right here in the U.S. I don't know exactly what the figures are. The saddest part about today's slavery is the fact that most of the slaves today were sold by their own parents.



Cat

   Okay, here a stupid question for you...

   Slavery exists in Africa today..?  27 million.?!  I really did not know that...


Somalia and Sudan are major nations in the modern slave trade.  As well as Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, Togo, Benin, Thailand, and other nations.

In Africa, the major source are the many "Islamic Holy Wars".  The vast majority of the "Islamic Liberation Armies" work under ancient beliefs, and view thost captured as slaves.  Under "Ilsamic Law"., they are free to dispose of them as they wish, as "Spoils Of War".  Men are frequently castrated or killed.  Children are normally turned into farmhands (where they are sold for an average of $50), and women are forced into brothels.

In the smaller "tribal wars" like in Somalia, slavery is an effective way to eliminate a tribal group.  The people are sold to other regions or in other countries, effectively destroying the tribe.  Nigeria and Gabon are major slave importers, most of them comming from nations that are currently under "Islamic Revolutions" (like sudan), or going through "ethnic clensing" (like Somalia).

Then thee is the slavery in SE Asia.  Thailand is a major part of the "Sex Slavery Trade".  The rate of HIV is truely appaling there, so there is a constant demand for "young disease free girls".  Mostly they are bought from small villages, where the parents sell them for between $100-500.  They are then brought into the major cities to work as prostitutes.  They normally spend the next 2-5 years there, until they are discarded (normally because they contract HIV).  At that point, they are cast off into the streets.

And the same practice occurs in the Philippines, Singapore, China, India, and many other nations.  In many of these cultures, girls have very little value, so are often sold as any other commodity (like a cow).

Until 2002, slavery was also widely practiced in Afganistan.  Under the Taliban regieme, slavery was permitted as long as the person had been convicted in an Islamic Court (or was not a Muslim).

Yes, slavery still exists today-unfortunately. Not just in Africa, but Asia and believe it or not, right here in the U.S. I don't know exactly what the figures are. The saddest part about today's slavery is the fact that most of the slaves today were sold by their own parents.



Cat


  Are we talking prostitution or sex related slavery or slave labor..?  I had an idea that slavery existed in pockets around the world (sex related and slave labor) but the 27 million figure Mushroom provided is shocking...

  Are we talking prostitution or sex related slavery or slave labor..?  I had an idea that slavery existed in pockets around the world (sex related and slave labor) but the 27 million figure Mushroom provided is shocking...



Prostitution, agraculture, sweat shops, you name it. Like I said, I'm not too sure what the exact figure is but I don't think Mushroom's figure is far off. Here is an interesting link that could give you some figures broken down by country. Just click on a country.


http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/



Cat

I don't feel the state needs to apologize.  If the state wanted to apologize they should have done it back in the late 19th century or early 20th while there were still former slaves alive.  But the Vatican apologized for putting Galileo to death centuries after it happened.  Well, I guess it couldn't hurt. :-\\

Prostitution, agraculture, sweat shops, you name it. Like I said, I'm not too sure what the exact figure is but I don't think Mushroom's figure is far off. Here is an interesting link that could give you some figures broken down by country. Just click on a country.


http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/



Cat


  Why thank you ma'am...

  I shall read up... :)

  Are we talking prostitution or sex related slavery or slave labor..?  I had an idea that slavery existed in pockets around the world (sex related and slave labor) but the 27 million figure Mushroom provided is shocking...


All of the above.

And the number is just what the UN officially recognizes.  That does not count the "Virtual Slavery" like what Cat mentioned.  The 27 million figure covers just the people that are forced into the situation, with no way to escape it.  "Virtual Slavery" (like Share Cropping) does not count in the figures, since there is a teoretical way to leave such a bondage, and most people entered it willingly (even if they were mislead into the situation).


I don't feel the state needs to apologize.  If the state wanted to apologize they should have done it back in the late 19th century or early 20th while there were still former slaves alive.  But the Vatican apologized for putting Galileo to death centuries after it happened.  Well, I guess it couldn't hurt. :-\\


Galileo was not executed.  However, he was excommunicated, and placed under "House Arrest".  He spent the last 9 years of his life under house arrest, finally dying in 1642 at the age of 68 of natural causes (most think it was either TB or pneumonia).

I deleted all the name calling and off topic nonsense from this thread. 

Please remain civil to one another.

I owe a Slavery Apology apology.
:-\\

I think anyone who is truly anti-discrimination would have to answer no to this question.

Unless, of course, they are offering an apology to all people who the government and society may have wronged, past or present.

To be truly non-discriminatory, one would have to see each person as a person, without regard to race or color.  This includes any policies or gestures that favor or disfavor blacks.  To single out any race for any reason, imo, is racism.

I think anyone who is truly anti-discrimination would have to answer no to this question.

Unless, of course, they are offering an apology to all people who the government and society may have wronged, past or present.

To be truly non-discriminatory, one would have to see each person as a person, without regard to race or color.  This includes any policies or gestures that favor or disfavor blacks.  To single out any race for any reason, imo, is racism.

I see prejudice/bigotry as individual opinion, whereas "racism" is a actionable agenda a government/institution sets forward to discriminate against people based on race.  I don't say that's set in stone, it's just a distinction I make.

I see prejudice/bigotry as individual opinion, whereas "racism" is a actionable agenda a government/institution sets forward to discriminate against people based on race.  I don't say that's set in stone, it's just a distinction I make.


I agree with this.  People can prejudge with out being racist.  A lot of people use the term racism too freely.

I agree with this.  People can prejudge with out being racist.  A lot of people use the term racism too freely.


I do too, but I think of prejudice more as a personal opinion that isnt necessarily acted upon, I obviously won't give examples in order to avoid Chucky having to delete more posts... but I think the government singling out a specific race or color to apologize to is a bit racist/discriminatory... the thought is good... but why not apologize to all people who have been wronged?  I just think that when you start singling out races for whatever reason, it only adds to the problem...


Also I might add that what is completely unacceptable now was acceptable back then, just as many things that are acceptable now (abortion comes to mind) maybe in another hundred years the great-great grand-nieces of the aborted fetuses will be demanding an apology... who knows?

(and yes I know that last sentence was grammatically awful... Im tired)

I do too, but I think of prejudice more as a personal opinion that isnt necessarily acted upon, I obviously won't give examples in order to avoid Chucky having to delete more posts... but I think the government singling out a specific race or color to apologize to is a bit racist/discriminatory... the thought is good... but why not apologize to all people who have been wronged?  I just think that when you start singling out races for whatever reason, it only adds to the problem...


Also I might add that what is completely unacceptable now was acceptable back then, just as many things that are acceptable now (abortion comes to mind) maybe in another hundred years the great-great grand-nieces of the aborted fetuses will be demanding an apology... who knows?

(and yes I know that last sentence was grammatically awful... Im tired)


I don't believe anyone or any part of our government should apologize either.  This is truly an issue that we have to move away from...it is not good for anyone in our society to sit and dwell on what happened.

I wouldn't mind an apology for the the continuing ramifications of US apartheid that I deal with in my lifetime. 

Talk is cheap, and apologies tend only to be constantly manipulated (see: Israel.) Israel used the worthless "guilt" of Europe over the Holocaust to become a state; now, Europe is broiling in the new anti-Semitism and the "Holocaust apology" theorem has only hurt Israel. Apologies are worthless; I don't for a second believe that the Holocaust actually lessened anti-Semitic feelings in much of continental Europe, among a continent with a people too ignorant and divisive to realize that centuries of anti-Semitism could combine with lunacy and modern industrial technology to exterminate an entire people.

If there were to be apologies, everyone would be apologizing to everybody. 

If there were to be apologies, everyone would be apologizing to everybody. 


Karma and amen.

Karma and amen.


I second that! :)

Talk is cheap, and apologies tend only to be constantly manipulated (see: Israel.) Israel used the worthless "guilt" of Europe over the Holocaust to become a state; now, Europe is broiling in the new anti-Semitism and the "Holocaust apology" theorem has only hurt Israel. Apologies are worthless; I don't for a second believe that the Holocaust actually lessened anti-Semitic feelings in much of continental Europe, among a continent with a people too ignorant and divisive to realize that centuries of anti-Semitism could combine with lunacy and modern industrial technology to exterminate an entire people.

If there were to be apologies, everyone would be apologizing to everybody. 


I pretty much agree.  One thing about Germany, they said after WWII, ain't nobody flying the Swastika flag around here ever again!  And I think that's an equivocally good thing!

I do too, but I think of prejudice more as a personal opinion that isnt necessarily acted upon, I obviously won't give examples in order to avoid Chucky having to delete more posts... but I think the government singling out a specific race or color to apologize to is a bit racist/discriminatory... the thought is good... but why not apologize to all people who have been wronged?  I just think that when you start singling out races for whatever reason, it only adds to the problem...


Also I might add that what is completely unacceptable now was acceptable back then, just as many things that are acceptable now (abortion comes to mind) maybe in another hundred years the great-great grand-nieces of the aborted fetuses will be demanding an apology... who knows?

(and yes I know that last sentence was grammatically awful... Im tired)
I think when you start singling out anyone, it adds to the problem.

One of the problems I see with this is: where do we draw the line?  How much is enough?  I've heard people talk about how the government should now honor the "20 acres and a mule" promise that was made and I wonder who will actually GET that?  What I mean is let's say John Doe was a slave and freed with that promise.  He never received it and went on to have 4 kids, who in turn had 4 kids each, who in turn each had 4 kids.  Now, we're up to 84 people.  Do we give each of them the "value" of the promise?  Do we give all of them the value to divide evenly?  Do we give them the current value or the value when it was promised?  Do we give them the value when promised + X amount for appreciation?  And, what if one of his children married another offspring of a freed slave?  If, as DanootaandMe has pointed out, it is so difficult to trace the genealogy of slaves, how are we to determine who is truly entitled to it?  And, let's not forget the possibility that some of them may have sold it or not really "done" anything with it so it would be just "sitting there" right now.  There are just too many variables here.....

The truth is that an apology is only "lip service"......is it really going to make a difference one way or the other?

An old friend of mine once observed that the US achieved wealth and power by enslaving one race and exterminating another.  Let me also point out that German institutions that profited from slave labor during the war have been making restitution.  I agree that this is  a complex issue and that there is no way to change the past, but I think we as a nation need to face our national and institutional guilt in order to put it behand us.  The ramifications of our national transgressions are still with us, and can be seen on any Indian reservation and in many black ghettos.  M.L. King made reference to some in one of his speeches, when he refered to the idea of black people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, and observed that "...it is a cruel jest to tell a shoe-less man to pull himself up by his bootstraps."  I'm not advocation restitution on a personal level, for individuals, but I do believe that there needs to be recognition and some form of atonement.

An old friend of mine once observed that the US achieved wealth and power by enslaving one race and exterminating another.  Let me also point out that German institutions that profited from slave labor during the war have been making restitution.  I agree that this is  a complex issue and that there is no way to change the past, but I think we as a nation need to face our national and institutional guilt in order to put it behand us.  The ramifications of our national transgressions are still with us, and can be seen on any Indian reservation and in many black ghettos.  M.L. King made reference to some in one of his speeches, when he refered to the idea of black people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, and observed that "...it is a cruel jest to tell a shoe-less man to pull himself up by his bootstraps."   I'm not advocation restitution on a personal level, for individuals, but I do believe that there needs to be recognition and some form of atonement.


  Couldn't Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Legislation be considered atonement..?

  As for monertary restitution:  Money can make one happy, but it won't make one forgive...

Couldn't Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Legislation be considered atonement..?


I'd say so.

Of course.. one could say that ensuring that no more poor children (and lets face it, the majorty of them are minoritys) die from malnutrition and childhood diseases that are easily prevented.

Make up for Slavery - Provide Care!

I already said much earlier in this thread, I dislike the idea of monetary payments because it's essentially saying "Hey, we're guilty of being white." I mean, why punish somebody who had nothing to do with it?

But! Ensuring that the people who've been handicapped by the process don't suffer unjustly would be a step in the right direction.

An old friend of mine once observed that the US achieved wealth and power by enslaving one race and exterminating another.  Let me also point out that German institutions that profited from slave labor during the war have been making restitution.  I agree that this is  a complex issue and that there is no way to change the past, but I think we as a nation need to face our national and institutional guilt in order to put it behand us.  The ramifications of our national transgressions are still with us, and can be seen on any Indian reservation and in many black ghettos.  M.L. King made reference to some in one of his speeches, when he refered to the idea of black people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, and observed that "...it is a cruel jest to tell a shoe-less man to pull himself up by his bootstraps."  I'm not advocation restitution on a personal level, for individuals, but I do believe that there needs to be recognition and some form of atonement.

  Couldn't Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Legislation be considered atonement..?

  As for monertary restitution:  Money can make one happy, but it won't make one forgive...
I was going to ask a similar question:  what do you suggest for "atonement"?  Also, what type of "recognition"?  I know that Bush & Clinton have both spoken out against slavery, as well as (I'm sure) a few others.  Does our government need to come out and say "We're sorry" for it to be considered "recognition"? 

Another thing that popped into my mind is who else needs to apologize?  Almost every country in the world has "benefitted" from slavery at one point or another.  Heck, even some African nations profitted from the slave trade because THEY were the ones selling the slaves to us.  Are they going to be asked to apologize as well?

I'd say so.

Of course.. one could say that ensuring that no more poor children (and lets face it, the majorty of them are minoritys) die from malnutrition and childhood diseases that are easily prevented.

Make up for Slavery - Provide Care!

I already said much earlier in this thread, I dislike the idea of monetary payments because it's essentially saying "Hey, we're guilty of being white." I mean, why punish somebody who had nothing to do with it?

But! Ensuring that the people who've been handicapped by the process don't suffer unjustly would be a step in the right direction.


  Yes, of course...

  All (GWLs)Guilty White Liberals, and power driven black community/religious leaders (I do so hate to label) if you want to truly help the black community rise up, if you truly want to make equal partners of ALL the members of the melting pot, then please focus on the following:

  1. Elementary Education...
  2. Crime...
  3. Secondary Education...

  There are so very many things that can be done, we simply refuse to do them.  Reparations will just help to create a dependent, uber-victim culture in American society.  You, Mr. Black man, are not smart enough, not worldly enough, not connected enough to educate yourself and seize your own opportunity and make your own way in the world, so I, in my infinite wisdom (cleverly dressed guilt) will do it for you, and in doing so, force you to exchange opportunity for oppression and freedom for a new American slavery groove ;) on...

Beings that the slave owners and the slaves themselves are passed away, why?

America has changed in a lot of ways and it no longer exists here, so we should move on.

If it were to be done, would it make any of the (former slave's) relatives feel any better about the past, that can't be changed?

I mean I saw Roots and I thought it was so cruel, the way the negro people were treated.  I've also saw the moie "Mississippi Burning" and
there was cruelty there that I hated.

Who still uses the word "negro" to describe black people?

Who still uses the word "negro" to describe black people?



dance4fun

dance4fun



Other than her.  What is this......1950?  I'm not an expert on appropriate word usage, but I don't think that word is acceptable anymore.

Other than her.  What is this......1950?  I'm not an expert on appropriate word usage, but I don't think that word is acceptable anymore.


  If being used in an historical context, such as the present discussion, it is appropriate...

  If being used in an historical context, such as the present discussion, it is appropriate...



I can think of other words used to describe black people during that time period, but that doesn't mean they should be used NOW. 

I can think of other words used to describe black people during that time period, but that doesn't mean they should be used NOW. 


  That's fine....

Other than her.  What is this......1950?  I'm not an expert on appropriate word usage, but I don't think that word is acceptable anymore.


What is the correct term now? It changes every 5 minutes.

I generally would just say black.. same as most people would say I'm white. I dare say that's wrong too.  :-\\

What is the correct term now? It changes every 5 minutes.

I generally would just say black.. same as most people would say I'm white. I dare say that's wrong too.  :-\\

I would call you ghost,but you would probably like it ;D

What is the correct term now? It changes every 5 minutes.

I generally would just say black.. same as most people would say I'm white. I dare say that's wrong too.  :-\\


Human works for everyone. Of course, you're going to have those jackasses that don't see it like that.

I would call you ghost,but you would probably like it ;D


I ain't that pale!

You wait until the summer when I go Mexican on your ass.

Human works for everyone. Of course, you're going to have those jackasses that don't see it like that.


You hit it right on the head.

You hit it right on the head.


Well...

I'd kinda rather somebody didn't refer to me as 'That Human Guy'. It's a bit vague.

Imagine the police descriptions -

"We have a young human male, in pursuit."
'What does he look like?'
"Human."
'I see... that narrows it down a bit.'

Well...

I'd kinda rather somebody didn't refer to me as 'That Human Guy'. It's a bit vague.

Imagine the police descriptions -

"We have a young human male, in pursuit."
'What does he look like?'
"Human."
'I see... that narrows it down a bit.'


;D

I'd say if it were something like that, other descriptions would work. But in daily use and such, there should be no reason to bring up color or race. I mean, if two guys are applying for the same job, and they're both qualified and everything, but one is one color/race and the other is another color/race, that shouldn't matter. They should make them run The Gauntlet for the job. :D

^ I miss American Gladiators.

;D

I'd say if it were something like that, other descriptions would work. But in daily use and such, there should be no reason to bring up color or race. I mean, if two guys are applying for the same job, and they're both qualified and everything, but one is one color/race and the other is another color/race, that shouldn't matter. They should make them run The Gauntlet for the job. :D


I read a study some University did. Where they applied for the same jobs, with the same skills on the resume, once set of people used the names like Brad, Tom and Jen. The other used names like Mohammed, Levi and Shaniqua. Can you guess who got the majorty of interviews?

^ I miss American Gladiators.
There's always that bad Japanese version of it on Spike late at night :D

There's always that bad Japanese version of it on Spike late at night :D


LOL  That's great!

Just this morning I read a piece in the paper by Bob Herebert of the NY Times about a black guy who was railroaded as a teenager for killing a white kid.  A Fed judge said he got a raw deal, the parole board said he got a raw deal, but he is still in jail.  Meanwhile, a white guy convicted of a drive by shooting of a black teen served 10 years of a life sentence and got out.  What gives with that?

There's always that bad Japanese version of it on Spike late at night :D


MXC? That show is badass.

Just this morning I read a piece in the paper by Bob Herebert of the NY Times about a black guy who was railroaded as a teenager for killing a white kid.  A Fed judge said he got a raw deal, the parole board said he got a raw deal, but he is still in jail.  Meanwhile, a white guy convicted of a drive by shooting of a black teen served 10 years of a life sentence and got out.  What gives with that?


Do we know the circumstances of their crimes?  Did they have prior convictions?  What age were they when the crime was committed?  What was their intent during the crime?  Were they in different states?  There may be a lot of information that was left out of that article to start controversy.