It’s bitter-sweet to watch politicians and other public officials make apologies for past atrocities and injustices. Of course you can’t change the past with an apology but you can improve society and compensate those who were victims, or those who inherited their ancestors’ and elders’ plight due to the negligence of those in power. An apology and mere rhetoric won’t fix that.
Via Sheelzebub at Pinko Feminist Hellcat…
Sometimes an apology isn’t enough
But sometimes it’s all you’ve got.
“Sometimes called a form of American holocaust, lynchings were effective as a kind of homegrown terrorism to keep intact the social structure that preceded the Civil War. They were driven by fear among whites as much as hatred of blacks. But dozens of postcard images of lynching gangs – and a body count kept by the Tuskegee Institute – were also responsible for changing attitudes about race, culminating in the civil rights movement and the ebbing not only of mob violence, but of separate water fountains.
Yet the changes took time. Between 1880 and 1960, 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced, and seven presidents urged their passing. Filibustering Southern senators scuttled the vote every time, saying a lack of law enforcement in the tumultuous postwar South necessitated mob justice.
Critics today say Congress’s failure surely fueled the boldness of the mob. Acknowledging that role is a step forward, many say. The Senate’s official apology, approved Monday, is one of only a handful it has issued throughout history.
“The Senate failed these Americans,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) of Louisiana, who sponsored the action after the Committee for Public Apology began pressing the issue in 2003.”
Yes, we did fail them. Horribly.
We worse than failed them–failing implies we just misplaced something, got momentarily distracted, or made an honest but tragic mistake.
There was nothing honest about this, and it was no mistake. We didn’t care. They were just Black and meant nothing.
And so while I think the apology is due, I cannot blame anyone for looking at it with a skeptical eye.
“Carolyn Creech, who grew up and still lives in the black section of Clayton, N.C., says her great-great-grandmother told her father stories about the injustices blacks experienced. To her, the Senate’s apology falls flat – especially since racial injustices still prevail.
Instead of eradicating racial stratification, the powers-that-be, she says, have simply institutionalized such tactics. Her proof: Everything from the predominance of black men in prison to the refusal of the town to put a proper railroad- crossing guard next to the black neighborhood.
“I won’t accept their apology,” she says. “What they used to do with a rope, today they do with a paper and pencil.”
Maybe we’d have more credibility if there still wasn’t routine discrimination against Black people, if there still wasn’t police brutality, and if there wasn’t a majority of White rule at the top.
We have to apologize, and the senators who refused to sign on are part of the problem.
But to the ones who did sign on, I want to know: what are you going to do to make things better, now? Because if you think an apology solves the problems that still exist today, you’re wrong.
And if you think that Condoleezza Rice being Secretary of State means there is no problem and the African-American Community no longer faces serious issues such as racial stratification within society, then you’re also wrong yet again.
“Sometimes called a form of American holocaust, lynchings were effective as a kind of homegrown terrorism ”
It wasn’t effective as a “kind” of homegrown terrorism. IT WAS/IS TERRORISM. They numbers they currently have for those killed in lynchings is 6,000. That’s 3,000 more souls than were lost on 9-11.
That is nothing less than absolute terrorism.
The neocons believe that they should not have to apologize because “they” weren’t living or of legal age to have done anything about it. But they hypocritically turn around and demand that American Muslims apologize for acts that they had no knowledge of, were not part of, do not live in the country where certain things are taking place, or were not alive when events took place.
But the fact of the matter is that as long as you are citizens of a country you are responsible for the acts of your predecessors. I know, for neocons and the Christian conservatives the Biblical phrase “the sins of the fathers shall be visited on the sons” applies to “others” not to “us.” That’s human nature, even if it’s wrong.
Apologies are never meant to be the END of something, they are supposed to be the START of healing. Healing a personal, emotional or national wound cannot really begin when all that one has is an apology and nothing else.
Actions speak louder than words.
One thing I didn’t truly understand until 9-11 was the black experience in America. I could empathize but I could not understand the truly mentally depressive mind set one is in when constantly looked at and regarded with suspicion, scorn or at the very least, something to be wary of. Nor could I understand the stress, that eats away at your own self, your family, kinship and your friends and friendships.
I think the majority culture (white) has difficulty understanding what the overall pressure and effect is when you are constantly under glass, viewed with suspicion and when you don’t see yourself as generally represented in the mainstream. Or what you see represented is more stereotype that factual.
It is same problem that Christian America has understanding how many policies, words and actions actually create a hostile environment. Look to the Air Force Academy for the current example of that. I don’t believe the, probably small percentage of evangelical Christians understand or view their proselytizing as creating a hostile environment. They view it as trying to help someone. Just as I don’t believe the majority of Christians at the AFA understand that their silence is perpetuating and encouraging a hostile environment.
Majority cultures and religions rarely see or understand how their actions and words are perceived by others.
I said prior to 9-11 I didn’t understand the American Black experience. I could not, as a middle class, white, Christian, really connect to what it is to be constantly, where ever you go, viewed with suspicion, have people want to hurt you just because of the color of your skin (or religion), stop you when you are just going about your daily business or totally ignore you, mistreat you, etc. etc. etc.
But I am now Muslim . . . what I didn’t understand before I do now.
I truly encourage non-Muslim whites to dress as Muslims every day for a month or two and go about your business. Since you can’t really change your race, become black for 30 to 60 days, this maybe the closest you can come to really touching what life is like for the minority in this country.
Women cover your heads, dress in long robes or as not to show your figure or any skin, save your face, hands and feet. Men grow a full beard, where a kufiyah, smagh or a kufi, and a shelwar kameez, thobe, jibab, etc.
http://www.alhannah.com/
http://www.alhediya.com/
http://www.caravanxpress.com
Then maybe you’ll truly understand why an apology is not only necessary but not enough, nor the end of the matter.
But the fact of the matter is that as long as you are citizens of a country you are responsible for the acts of your predecessors.
So you would ask black Americans to publicly apologize for past lynchings? Immigrants who just took the oath of citizenship last week? They are all citizens, too, as equally responsible for Southern lynchings as any Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld.
I can understand the argument for “corporate blame” where a corporation is held liable for actions it took, even if no individuals who did the actions are there anymore, but people are responsible for their own actions.
Not for their parents or grandparents or unrelated countrymen.
“So you would ask black Americans to publicly apologize for past lynchings?”
Why would black Americans now need to apologize for the past lynchings of their ancestors? Are you stating that black Americans were responsible for their own lynching and as a result should apologize? Clearly the article is referring to the use of lynching as an extra-legal measure to enforce the tenets of racism, NOT lynching when it was used as a justifiable law enforcement tool (although I personally finding lynching barbaric and unecessary no matter what its intended use).
“I can understand the argument for “corporate blame”? where a corporation is held liable for actions it took, even if no individuals who did the actions are there anymore, but people are responsible for their own actions.”
This doesn’t make sense- how can you understand corporate blame but not understand responsibility at a national level? Substitute the word corporation with country and it’s pretty much the same damm thing.
I think this has been one of the biggest problems I have noticed since I moved to the states, namely the cult of individuality and the lack of a grasp of a sense of social responsibility. Sure, there are certainly individual americans (and I tend to hang out with them) that do have a grasp but you don’t see a hell of it in the wider american socio-cultural meta-narratives.
I moved here from New Zealand. Our government apologised to Maori for cultural and actual genocide and land confiscation. Was that enough? No, I don’t think so, but a lot of people thought it was going too far, so I think it was a reasonable compromise. However, that wasn’t all that was done. NZ has a huge amount of things put in place to not only increase the place of Maori culture in NZ in general, but also are about creating a contemporary environment that works to decrease the prejudices and inequalities that Maori face in NZ. Further, large tracks of the country, resources and money were both returned and given in compensation for past injustices.
I am in no way saying NZ is a racial-equality paradise, not by any stretch of the imagination (trust me on this one!), but one has to be responsible for the history of one’s culture. Because, more specifically, as a white person you benefit from that very history. That history has provided a space now where things are considerably more advantegous for you as white (for the record, I have welsh and dutch blood, any more white and I’d be transparent).
So, once you see your position in society as, at least in part, a product of that history, then you definitely have responsiblity to own up to it, a social responsibility. To deny it is to produce an a-historicism that leaves the door WAY wide open for repeats of the inhumanities of the past. I’m not an american, yet as a white woman I DEFINITELY benefit from the arrangements in this country, so in living here I need to work to address things.
It’s not just enough to apologise. It’s a good start and infinitely better than doing nothing. But there is a also a more pressing and important need to then move on to addressing the injustices and inequalities in pragmatic and practical real-world ways. Without actions to back up the apology, that apology is nothing more than hollow words.
And not seeing much more than those words right now, and often, not even that.
Now I’m having to look back into my poli sci books for the name of the person who said (and I am paraphrasing) that when you choose citizenship (whether it is by immigration or by not emigrating out,) of a country then you fully choose the the current responsibilities and responsibilities for past sins of that country.
But they do apologized to themselves. There is a forgivess of self that a victim goes through too. Whether rightly or wrongly victims forgive themselves a number of real, unreal, rational and irrational reasons for having been in that situation.
A wife who has suffered years of abuse from her husband forgives herself for not leaving sooner, even though in reality she was disempowered to do so.
A rape victim forgives herself for walking through the park, even though she had every right to be there.
My grandparents landed on these shore long after the Civil War, my family was not even here, and one side of my family are religious pacifists to boot — but I accept the responsibility that the white majority (of which I am part of) has done terrible wrong to it’s own minority populations and because of that, and that the victimization is on going. I accept that there are remedies that may seem unfair to the majority population that must be done. I understand that the pendulum may have to swing the other way for a bit, before it can stop at dead center.
If you don’t think that the sons and daughters and grandchildren are responsible and deal with the actions or inaction of their parents, grandparents and unrelated countrymen then why are we cleaning up radium dump sights, slag fills, etc.
But that view would explain why we have no celebrations and commemorations and “thank you’s” to the French for helping us win our freedom in the American Revolution . . . but they have those things for us to thank us for helping them in WWI and WWII.
Why would black Americans now need to apologize for the past lynchings of their ancestors? Are you stating that black Americans were responsible for their own lynching and as a result should apologize?
No. I am clearly stating that if you take seriously the statement of Gibbie that “the fact of the matter is that as long as you are citizens of a country you are responsible for the acts of your predecessors,” then a black American, who is a citizen of America, is responsible for the acts of his (white) predecessors. Or is the child of a “mixed marriage” only 50% responsible for apologizing for lynching?
If A is the descendant of Southern slaveholders, and B is the descendant of immigrants to Brooklyn in the 1930s, and C is the descendent of slaves, and D is a new citizen who was born in Senegal, then we are either all equally responsible for the “acts of our predecessors” or none of us are. I say none of us are. If Gibbie doesn’t think all four are equally responsible, I’d like to know how she apportions responsibility.
I think this has been one of the biggest problems I have noticed since I moved to the states, namely the cult of individuality and the lack of a grasp of a sense of social responsibility.
Social responsibility is important. The rich have an obligation to help the less well off. That obligation is not changed one iota, however, by the fact that the less well off are that way because their ancestors were oppressed, or because their ancestors were compulsive gamblers who squandered the family fortune. It is not changed if the rich had nice grandparents or if the rich had racist grandparents.
Social responsibility exists even in (equally in) a hypothetical completely egalitarian society, where everyone rises and falls purely on their own merits, and the poor are that way solely because they are lazy and stupid. We owe their children just as much, even though we are claiming no responsibility for any acts of any predecessors.
Social responsibility is important. The rich have an obligation to help the less well off. That obligation is not changed one iota, however, by the fact that the less well off are that way because their ancestors were oppressed, or because their ancestors were compulsive gamblers who squandered the family fortune. It is not changed if the rich had nice grandparents or if the rich had racist grandparents.
Social responsibility exists even in (equally in) a hypothetical completely egalitarian society, where everyone rises and falls purely on their own merits, and the poor are that way solely because they are lazy and stupid. We owe their children just as much, even though we are claiming no responsibility for any acts of any predecessors.
Actually, I would argue the cause of the inequality IS actually important. Not because we are to be any more or less obligated to help those whose inequalities arise out of a history of opression, but rather because we need to address the different causes of those inequalities. To treat all inequality as the same is just asking for a failure to address them.
Everyone in a particular society has a responsibilty to the acts of the past within that society. However, how one interacts with and effects that responsibility is mediated by the position one, and one’s subcultural groups, has in that society. It’s simply about acknowledging your historically established privileges in a society, and working to remove them.
“I truly encourage non-Muslim whites to dress as Muslims every day for a month or two and go about your business. Since you can’t really change your race, become black for 30 to 60 days, this maybe the closest you can come to really touching what life is like for the minority in this country.
Women cover your heads, dress in long robes or as not to show your figure or any skin, save your face, hands and feet.
”
You’re kidding right?
One, don’t let your white guilt dictate what women should or should not do, ever. Misogyny is misogyny whether it’s practiced by the elite or the minority. So I would check your “suggestions”.
Two, you don’t have to pretend you’re black to understand being black in America. You can move into minority neighborhoods, shop in minority owned or patronized businesses, attend minority functions. Hell, you could even talk to black people. Pretending to be black for a month teaches nothing other than your own privilege of being able to leap back to being white when your pretentious assumptions get tedious. It is still an act of “othering.”
We recently had three cross burnings in the southern city I live in. It galvanized our community and opened up interesting lines of communication. My neighbor behind me, who is a 55-year0ld African American, suggested that maybe black youth had set the crosses on fire… I was immediately shocked, but then we got into a heavy discussion of the civil rights movement, black actions/reactions, and today’s current political situation for blacks in America. He firmly holds his community responsible for the choices it makes: drugs, guns, domestic violence, poverty. He sees these as reactions to a larger racism, but he views the actual choices as personal ones. Up until recently I would have argued with him; now, having lived in the lower class/poor ghetto for a while I do see that it is a two way street. At least with the 15-25 age group.
I would rather dialogue with these young people than put on a burka and pretend to be black.
“the fact of the matter is that as long as you are citizens of a country you are responsible for the acts of your predecessors,”?
Surprisingly Richard you hit the nail on the head.
It’s not just accepting the responsibility of the actions of the oppressors, it’s also the acts of the oppressed.
When I spoke of a minority population also forgiving itself it is because I have heard many times someone say “Well if I had been a slave I would have organized, risen up… etc.” or armchair quarterback what Nat Turner did and failed to do.” … It also means forgiving white America it’s past horrendous acts.
I have sat and listened to a room full of friends from all other races debate whether whites are inherently violent given all that they’ve/we’ve done. It was eye opening to see how others view us. But forgiveness is a many sided first act.
The problem is that there is this idea that once the minority forgives that majority that there will be nothing else come of it .. the majority population will feel, it’s over and done with, that no other compensation is necessary. It’s like a husband who cheats on his wife and feels that an apology is all that is needed — he doesn’t understand, nor want to do the work to make up for all the pain and destruction his actions have caused.
That’s what, I think, the minority population is afraid of happening if it too forgives. That the majority population will be the cheating husband who thinks that an apology is all that’s necessary for healing and rebuilding.
It’s not, for the who institution of slavery not to mention the prevailing idea of “White Man’s Burden” which has lasted long after slavery was ended, destroy a whole peoples social fabric, kinship structure, and maintained an idea of white racial superiority that is endemic, unconsciously pervasive, and distructive in the non-white world.
Actually, I would argue the cause of the inequality IS actually important. Not because we are to be any more or less obligated to help those whose inequalities arise out of a history of opression, but rather because we need to address the different causes of those inequalities.
Here, for example, we are talking about extra-legal lynchings. In the last few years, the number of extra-legal lynchings in America can probably be counted on one hand, and those horrible ones that did happen were generally dealt with appropriately by law enforcement.
If we were listing the Top 100 Problems in America, extra-legal lynching wouldn’t make the list. General, pervasive racism by entities and employers outside the federal government certainly would make the list.
But, do the Senators apologize for not properly funding the EEOC to address real racism? No. They apologize for lynchings — something that no one is actually doing any more.
The problem with promoting an “apology” society, is that it doesn’t actually mean anything. Assume Senator Richard Bellamy (D-NJ), signed the apology. Does that mean I should owe money to victims of lynchings? Are the victims resting easier in their graves? What?
Consider two possibilities: One, Senator Bellamy says, “I am SORRY and offer an OFFICIAL APOLOGY for lynching.”
Two, Senator Bellamy says, “Lynching was a horrible thing — a moral evil. Had I been a Senator before 1960, I would have voted for the anti-lynching laws. Senators who voted otherwise were wrong and immoral.”
What, exactly, does “one” get you that “two” doesn’t? An acceptance of “responsibility” that gets you what exactly?
What, exactly, does “one”? get you that “two”? doesn’t? An acceptance of “responsibility”? that gets you what exactly?
It’s a starting point, a point of acknowlegment, nothing more, nothing less. I think it’s a required starting point, because without it you are always trying to address inequality as something that happens to others, rather than addressing as well your own privileged position and complicity and part in that system.
And honestly, I agree to a considerable degree with you, as I said above, words are good, but words are hollow without the real world actions to back them up.
“No. I am clearly stating that if you take seriously the statement of Gibbie that “the fact of the matter is that as long as you are citizens of a country you are responsible for the acts of your predecessors,”? then a black American, who is a citizen of America, is responsible for the acts of his (white) predecessors.”?
Okay, I thought that’s what you meant, but I wanted to be certain of what you were stating before I said this. One can apportion responsibility based on how much a group benefits and the subsequent power that benefit provides. For example, if white Americans benefit from their predecessors oppression of black Americans, white Americans today have a greater responsibility because they have more power to create change seeing as they are members of the agent group that benefited from the oppression. You must examine the target-agent relationship when considering social responsibility. To say that black Americans (the target) have an equal level of responsibility to apologize for their predecessor’s oppression is, frankly, bullshit because it’s confusing that relationship. Do I feel that the United States owes black Americans an apology for the behavior of their predecessors regarding slavery and extra-legal measures such as lynching? Yes I do. Do I include members of the target group as needing to apologize? No I do not.
I hope this makes sense- If not, let me know so I can clarify.
“You’re kidding right?
One, don’t let your white guilt dictate what women should or should not do, ever. Misogyny is misogyny whether it’s practiced by the elite or the minority. So I would check your “suggestions”?.”
Have you ever heard the phrase ” walk a mile in some else’s shoes?”
No going to stores only allows you to glimpse but not feel, touch and taste what it is like. It gives you a token experience, because you can leave that world at anytime.. For example and when you’re driving you generally don’t have to worry that the police officer pulling you over will do more than just write you a ticket.
And
!. no one asked you to put on a burka .. that was knee jerk, a scarf is not a burka.
2. Your hostile reaction shows that you don’t have dialogue with the American Muslim population. It would further suggest that you have given over to stereotypes thje majority has formed without benefit of knowing the minority.
Token experience provides empathy, not understanding.
My x is a Viet Nam vet. He once thanked me for saying that while I could empathize with what he went through, I could never truly understand. Even though we were very active in veterans organizations. He thanked me because he was tired of hearing people say that they “understood” when they really could not.
Also I never said that an apology or making up for past wrongs negates personal responsibility.
Apologies nowadays come in only two flavors – personal and corporate. One only apologizes for the stuff that one did and that one acknowledges was wrong or hurtful. So the rather old-fashioned notion of a blanket apology by a group of people for their predecessors is almost shocking. And then gets taken personally. The apology was a baby step and will probably make the ones who voted for it feel good for a while, but I’ll believe it when I see some solid action to make it more than just an historical footnote.
I happen to live in an area that is 80% black, and have for almost 20 years now. I’m definitely more aware and sensitive to the black experience than I used to be, and also more aware of the spectrum of opinion within my community. Despite what many talking heads would have you believe, no one person can speak for all blacks. So I’m fully prepared to believe that the black community is divided and suspicious in its response to this rather limp olive branch. They have reason to be. We should be, too.
“What, exactly, does “one”? get you that “two”? doesn’t? An acceptance of “responsibility”? that gets you what exactly?”
I have to leave and get some work done.
Richard you may want to read Lewis B. Smeades, “The Art of Forgiving” and “Art of Forgiving: When You Need to Forgive and Don’t Know How.” In these books he discusses why forgiving is an all important step, how it can end future distructive actions, put someone on the pathway of healing, etc. There have also been articles on the web on this very topic.
So many times they have found that litigation could have and would have been avoided if the party committing the wrong had just apologized.
“When I spoke of a minority population also forgiving itself it is because I have heard many times someone say “Well if I had been a slave I would have organized, risen up… etc.”? or armchair quarterback what Nat Turner did and failed to do.”? … It also means forgiving white America its past horrendous acts.”?
Okay, I just want to state for the record that I don’t think there is a strong desire within the black community to forgive ourselves for not doing more to resist slavery and Jim Crow. I think its pretty well understood amongst black Americans that people did resist within the parameters that were provided to them. Yes, people say things like, “I would’ve done so and so”? but this does not mean that there is a collective disappointment that the predecessors of black Americans had done more. This might already be understood, but I just wanted to make that clear after reading that first comment.
As for forgiving white America for their past horrendous acts… there has to be an admittance of social responsibility in the first place, which seems to be the crux of the issue here. Forgiveness cannot take place if white America is unwilling to admit any sort of responsibility to not only apologize but to make amends for past grievances.
“As for forgiving white America for their past horrendous acts… there has to be an admittance of social responsibility in the first place, which seems to be the crux of the issue here. Forgiveness cannot take place if white America is unwilling to admit any sort of responsibility to not only apologize but to make amends for past grievances. ”
I agree
“If we were listing the Top 100 Problems in America, extra-legal lynching wouldn’t make the list. General, pervasive racism by entities and employers outside the federal government certainly would make the list.
But, do the Senators apologize for not properly funding the EEOC to address real racism? No. They apologize for lynchings … something that no one is actually doing any more.”?
Because you need to admit that that behavior- which qualifies as a terrorist act used to commit a hate crime- is wrong in the first place. Usually when someone wants to indicate that what they did was wrong and that they do feel some remorse for the consequences that come as a result, the first thing they do is say three words: I. Am. Sorry. And if you benefited from the act that you’re sorry about, you try to do something to make up for it. Call it basic human interaction. Besides, if you don’t acknowledge that the mentality behind such actions like lynching is wrong and apologize for it, how the hell are you going to address the subtle and pervasive racism in corporate America that you referenced?
Sydney,
Your argument of “blame apportioned by group” is very different from Gibbie’s original statement that I responded to, which was “blame by virtue of being American”.
But this “apology” was equally from Senators Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Barack Obama of Illinois, and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. Exactly how much has Senator Inouye (or his group) benefitted from slavery or lynching?
Sarah — It’s not even a “starting point” if its a starting point toward eradicating something that (practically) doesn’t exist anymore. It wasn’t an apology for racism or inequality — it was an apology for lynching. They might as well be apologizing for polio or hysterical blindness.
I just see this as a big game of “Gotcha!” where you make a resolution that says “I support the troops” or “God bless America” and then point and criticize everyone who was on vacation that week, or — in this case — who was only a “later co-sponsor” instead of an “early co-sponsor”.
“As for forgiving white America for their past horrendous acts… there has to be an admittance of social responsibility in the first place, which seems to be the crux of the issue here. Forgiveness cannot take place if white America is unwilling to admit any sort of responsibility to not only apologize but to make amends for past grievances. “?
Ditto.
(but then, that agreement isn’t going to be a huge surprise to Sydney *grin*)
Also Richard, the government apologizing for when they have sat back and allowed extra-legal lynching to occur does establish a precedent that hate crimes are wrong and the government has a responsibility to ensure they don’t happen. This can be helpful in prosecuting other hate crimes that occur today, such as queer bashing and crimes against people of the Muslim faith. In a country like ours, precedent goes a long way.
Richard you may want to read Lewis B. Smeades, “The Art of Forgiving”? and “Art of Forgiving: When You Need to Forgive and Don’t Know How.”?. . .
So many times they have found that litigation could have and would have been avoided if the party committing the wrong had just apologized.
But you’ve already put the rabbit in the hat here. Of course, we agree that the “party committing the wrong” should apologize! If Senator Thurmond were still around, I’d certainly be ready to hear his apology. But Senator Trent Lott (as far as I know) never lynched anyone, or voted to retain lynching laws. The Senators from Hawaii certainly never did.
Sarah … It’s not even a “starting point”? if its a starting point toward eradicating something that (practically) doesn’t exist anymore. It wasn’t an apology for racism or inequality … it was an apology for lynching. They might as well be apologizing for polio or hysterical blindness.
honestly, Richard, I see that as rather narrow interpretation. I see it about acknowledging and apologising for a part of a wider system of racism and inequality. The feelings that caused the lynchings are still present in contemporary hate crimes and hate speech. To simply look at one act and say “oh, that doesn’t happen anymore” is ignoring both the wider system in which it is located, and the underlying causes that motivated the acts in the first place.
But this “apology”? was equally from Senators Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Barack Obama of Illinois, and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. Exactly how much has Senator Inouye (or his group) benefitted from slavery or lynching?
While, yes, none of these individuals are members of the agent group, they do serve as representatives of the body that allowed extra-legal lynching to happen: the United States Government. From that authority, yes, they need to apologize because as part of their political responsibility.
And an apology for lynching IS a starting point because of what lynching represents: a means of enforcing hate. So while an apology for slavery would be very nice, it’s easy to see how an apology for lynching is the first step. Mind you, it’s not enough, but it’s a first step. And to refuse to apologize for lynching because “it doesn’t solve the real problem”? is crap logic. Why can’t you apologize for lynching and then work to solve the real problem? What are you going to lose?
What an “apology for lynching” does is dillute the meaning of an apology. If a Hawaiian Senator who represents a state that didn’t exist when most of the anti-lynching law were blocked, and hasn’t received any — or hardly any — advantages as a result of them can “apologize”, then really, so what?
I’ve got these two daughters, and yesterday the older one hit the younger one because she wouldn’t share a toy. “Say your sorry!” I yelled. “Imsorry,” she said, not really meaning it, but a little embarrassed. Embarrassed because I was forcing her to accept responsibility for what she did.
Now, what if I started yelling “Say your sorry!” to my older daughter whenever anything bad happened to my younger daughter, whether her sister did it to her or not? The apology would lose all of its power, because it no longer was properly associated with fault.
Richard, you seem to be equating an apology with fault, which it doesn’t necessarily have to be (it can, but not always). You’ll notice that everyone here is talking about apology as acknowledgement, as responsbility, not fault. This is an important, but subtle difference.
Further, you seem to be almost arguing that it’s a zero-sum game, that if we put effort into getting an apology that we aren’t going to get real-world efforts. I do not see the two as seperate, nor as really possible without each other. As I have said above, it’s about a stepping off point to address the reality of the situation.
Richard-
Again, as a representative of the United States Government, the Hawaiian Senator owes an apology. His apology for lynching in no way dilutes the meaning of an apology because the apology is not only for the ACT of lynching, but for the MENTALITY behind it. Don’t know how to make that any clearer.
And you’re analogy to your two daughters- doesn’t work here. You’re assuming that apologizing for lynching (and by extension the intent of hate behind it) is something that only pertains to the actual people who did the lynching. Sitting back and allowing the lynching (and the policy of hate) happen is also bad and worthy of an apology. The United States government did just that and so they get to apologize for it. Maybe they didn’t physically do the act or even condone it themselves but as representatives of the body that allowed it to happen, they should apologize. It’s very much like your corporate blame example.
“Richard, you seem to be equating an apology with fault, which it doesn’t necessarily have to be (it can, but not always). You’ll notice that everyone here is talking about apology as acknowledgement, as responsbility, not fault. This is an important, but subtle difference.
Further, you seem to be almost arguing that it’s a zero-sum game, that if we put effort into getting an apology that we aren’t going to get real-world efforts. I do not see the two as seperate, nor as really possible without each other. As I have said above, it’s about a stepping off point to address the reality of the situation. ”
Nicely put Sarah :) Does this make more sense now Richard?
The United States government did just that and so they get to apologize for it.
The locus of power for most lynchings was entirely local – a weak or racist sheriff, a racist mayor, and so on. Ninety percent of governmental responsibility for allowing lynchings would have to be assigned to the town and county governments who actually conduct most law enforcement. The other ten percent could go to the state governments, which set the tone for parts of the state and which could be generally relied on not to interfere in local matters.
If there’s to be a corporate apology, to have any genuine connection to the real and tragic history of lynching, it would have to be a corporate apology from the thousands of towns and counties that were responsible. There’s nothing that the Federal government could legitimately have done, particularly in the pre-WWII era when federalism meant a lot more than it does now.
An apology from the US government for lynching is like an apology from the French government for Pearl Harbor; nice of you to feel bad, remind me what connection y’all had again? Oh, that’s right; none at all. Bizarrely inappropriate, and symptomatic of the sad therapy culture that afflicts too many Americans.
Robert,
This is a co-post from both Sydney and me, in which we are politely suggesting that you go back and read everything that we have written previously, including …
His apology for lynching in no way dilutes the meaning of an apology because the apology is not only for the ACT of lynching, but for the MENTALITY behind it
AND
you seem to be equating an apology with fault, which it doesn’t necessarily have to be (it can, but not always). You’ll notice that everyone here is talking about apology as acknowledgement, as responsbility, not fault. This is an important, but subtle difference.
I’ll believe they’re sorry for lynching when they do something about police brutality, the death penalty, and the insanely high rates of incarceration of black men.
I’ve read what you wrote. It’s logically incoherent. The mentality behind the act isn’t the same thing as the act, but neither one is located in the person making the apology. I can’t apologize for something that you did. I can’t apologize for your mentality when you did it. I can apologize for my own mentality or (in)actions, in standing by and letting you do something wrong – if I was, say, alive at the time.
Talking about apology as acknowledgement is valid. White Americans can say that we’re damn sorry about the way blacks have been treated in the past, and that we collectively recognize this fact. But you then conflate “responsibility” onto this concept, which is tendentious at best. I’m not responsible for what other people did. I cannot be. That exclusion is inherent to the concept of “responsibility”.
Taking responsibility for someone else’s sins is like fucking for chastity; it might create good feelings in the actors involved, but it doesn’t actually connect to the putative reasoning advanced.
Robert,
I think here what we have is an inablity to see responsbility in a similar way, you seem to position it as an individual attribute, whereas I tend to view it (and, I would argue, Sydney and gibbie feel similar) as something that can both be individual and/or socio-corporate (ie _social_ responsibility).
Given that difference in viewpoints, what I am going to do here, is not do a blow by blow refutation, because I’m going to accept the ‘agree to disagree’ situation we have here.
Robert, you’re the enthusiast for tradition. Is tradition simply a matter of individuals? Or does it imply some sort of collective identity — and with it, collective responsibility?
I tend to think of tradition, when it’s a good thing, as an expression of solidarity across time.
Tradition implies collective identity. Tradition is basically letting the dead vote, subject to good behavior.
I’m not arguing against collective identity or responsibility. There can certainly be such a thing. However, the responsibility remains lodged in individual human beings; it’s just that they each have some of the responsibility for the act/mentality/what have you that they all were associated with.
My grandmother, who was able to vote during World War II, bears a portion of the collective responsibility for FDR’s interning of Japanese-Americans. I do not. My grandmother and I are both Americans, and are part of that collective identity, but our collective responsibilities diverge. (I don’t get to take credit for beating the Germans, either.)
Richard, you seem to be equating an apology with fault, which it doesn’t necessarily have to be (it can, but not always). You’ll notice that everyone here is talking about apology as acknowledgement, as responsbility, not fault. This is an important, but subtle difference.
Sarah,
It is an important difference, but I don’t think you can take what you would have wanted the Senate to do, and then re-interpret what they actually did into that thing. Everyone (or some) here is talking about apology as responsibility, not fault, but that doesn’t change what the word “Apology” actually means.
I am attempting to use words in their normal, everyday meaning. As I understand the word “apology” — contrary to your stated definition — it is inextricably linked with fault, and not at all linked with responsibility.
According to Merriam Webster, an apology (in the relevant sense here) is “an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret.”
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=apology&x=0&y=0
Thus, “apology” = regret + fault. I think if you polled 100 people, 99 of them would say that “fault” is implied in an “apology”.
If you want the Senate to accept responsibility — and call that a first step toward something — you’re going to have to go out and draft a whole other resolution, because I don’t think this “Official Apology” does it. The Senate expressed regret (which I agree is a good thing) and accepted fault (which I don’t think they should have done, and which you apparently don’t think they actually did). Thinking they did otherwise involves warping the words into what you think they should mean, not what they really do mean.
“Robert,
I think here what we have is an inablity to see responsbility in a similar way, you seem to position it as an individual attribute, whereas I tend to view it (and, I would argue, Sydney and gibbie feel similar) as something that can both be individual and/or socio-corporate (ie _social_ responsibility).
Given that difference in viewpoints, what I am going to do here, is not do a blow by blow refutation, because I’m going to accept the ‘agree to disagree’ situation we have here. ”
Sarah speaks for me. well said sarah.
Sarah and Sydney — awesome
Now on to what Robert posted:
post: 29
“The locus of power for most lynchings was entirely local – a weak or racist sheriff, a racist mayor, and so on. Ninety percent of governmental responsibility for allowing lynchings would have to be assigned to the town and county governments who actually conduct most law enforcement. The other ten percent could go to the state governments, which set the tone for parts of the state and which could be generally relied on not to interfere in local matters.”
Having first gone through some websites about Leo Frank* and then the US Marshals website, I would say that due to the presence of US Marshals (at least since 1822) , the oldest federal law the civilian law enforcement arm of the US government – that in and of it’s self makes this not a local issue but a federal one.
From http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/oldest.htm
***
The agency was formed by the Judiciary Act of Sept. 24, 1789. The act specifically determined that law enforcement was to be the U.S. Marshals’ primary function. Therefore it appropriately defined marshals as law enforcement officers.
The text of Section 27 of the Judiciary Act reads:
And be it further enacted, That a marshal shall be appointed in and for each district for a term of four years, but shall be removable from office at pleasure, whose duty it shall be to attend the district and circuit courts when sitting therein, and also the Supreme Court in the district in which that court shall sit.(b) And to execute throughout the district, all lawful precepts directed to him, and issued under the authority of the United States, and he shall have the power to command all necessary assistance in the execution of his duty, and to appoint as shall be occasion, one or more deputies … *1
Section 28 of the Judiciary Act authorizes the U.S. marshal or deputy marshal to execute federal judicial writs and process. It also required sworn personnel and continuity in office. Such language was designed to give the U.S. marshals a wide latitude of powers and the authority to deputize. The direct connection to the federal court system indicated the early need to execute lawful precepts throughout the new nation. *2
***
The federal government, through it’s Marshal service, did not step in and protect innocent black civilians from lynchings, and the week or racist sherriff, mayor, etc. as the service did in the west for white settlers.
That makes the US government complicit. Further since they had been tasked with capturing fugitive slaves, the seeming the lack of protection for blacks, freed or otherwise makes the US government complicit.
Now from what I got from a site mentioning Leo Frank:
” . . . “respectable” European Americans began to dissociate themselves from the Klans once they realized that the federal government had tardily become serious about prosecuting civil rights crimes. At this time, many local Klans consolidated as the anti-black terrorist group “United Klans of America”…with the notorious Robert Shelton as their Imperial Wizard. But in 1979, 13 of Shelton ‘s Klansmen were sentenced to federal prison for perpetrating violence in Talladega County, Alabama. The death blow to the UKA came after they lynched a randomly chosen African-American teenager, Michael Donald, in 1981.”
“Lynching terrorized and intimidated because it was backed by the community. Where federal and state governments didn’t step in, and local law was compliant or helpless, lynching could be a powerful public spectacle. African-Americans made ready targets both within and outside the legal system. The Klan name sometimes stood for real perpetrators, at other times was a shorthand way to describe any violent enforcers of white entitlement.”
http://www.hangmansknot.com/articles/african-american-lynching.htm
* = yes he was Jewish, but it provided a starting point for my research. Lovely how I spend my breaks, isn’t it.
Sarah and Sydney — awesome
Now on to what Robert posted:
post: 29
“The locus of power for most lynching was entirely local – a weak or racist sheriff, a racist mayor, and so on. Ninety percent of governmental responsibility for allowing lynching would have to be assigned to the town and county governments who actually conduct most law enforcement. The other ten percent could go to the state governments, which set the tone for parts of the state and which could be generally relied on not to interfere in local matters.”
Having first gone through some websites about Leo Frank* and then the US Marshals website, I would say that due to the presence of US Marshals (at least since 1822) , the oldest federal law the civilian law enforcement arm of the US government – that in and of it’s self makes this not a local issue but a federal one.
From http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/oldest.htm
***
The agency was formed by the Judiciary Act of Sept. 24, 1789. The act specifically determined that law enforcement was to be the U.S. Marshals’ primary function. Therefore it appropriately defined marshals as law enforcement officers.
The text of Section 27 of the Judiciary Act reads:
And be it further enacted, That a marshal shall be appointed in and for each district for a term of four years, but shall be removable from office at pleasure, whose duty it shall be to attend the district and circuit courts when sitting therein, and also the Supreme Court in the district in which that court shall sit.(b) And to execute throughout the district, all lawful precepts directed to him, and issued under the authority of the United States, and he shall have the power to command all necessary assistance in the execution of his duty, and to appoint as shall be occasion, one or more deputies … *1
Section 28 of the Judiciary Act authorizes the U.S. marshal or deputy marshal to execute federal judicial writs and process. It also required sworn personnel and continuity in office. Such language was designed to give the U.S. marshals a wide latitude of powers and the authority to deputize. The direct connection to the federal court system indicated the early need to execute lawful precepts throughout the new nation. *2
***
The federal government, through it’s Marshal service, did not step in and protect innocent black civilians from lynching, and the week or racist sheriff, mayor, etc. as the service did in the west for white settlers.
That makes the US government complicit. Further since they had been tasked with capturing fugitive slaves, the seeming the lack of protection for blacks, freed or otherwise makes the US government complicit.
Now from what I got from a site mentioning Leo Frank:
” . . . “respectable” European Americans began to dissociate themselves from the Klans once they realized that the federal government had tardily become serious about prosecuting civil rights crimes. At this time, many local Klans consolidated as the anti-black terrorist group “United Klans of America”…with the notorious Robert Shelton as their Imperial Wizard. But in 1979, 13 of Shelton ‘s Klansmen were sentenced to federal prison for perpetrating violence in Talladega County, Alabama. The death blow to the UKA came after they lynched a randomly chosen African-American teenager, Michael Donald, in 1981.”
“Lynching terrorized and intimidated because it was backed by the community. Where federal and state governments didn’t step in, and local law was compliant or helpless, lynching could be a powerful public spectacle. African-Americans made ready targets both within and outside the legal system. The Klan name sometimes stood for real perpetrators, at other times was a shorthand way to describe any violent enforcers of white entitlement.”
http://www.hangmansknot.com/articles/african-american-lynching.htm
The federal government’s lack of action makes it complicit. And therefore not exempted from making, at the very least, an apology.
* = yes he was Jewish, but it provided a starting point for my research. Lovely how I spend my breaks, isn’t it.
excerpt:
“I won’t accept their apology,”? she says. “What they used to do with a rope, today they do with a paper and pencil.”?
____________________________
Our society and its government isn’t yet at a place where an apology would have any meaning at all. Not even close. These are just words, and words can come amazingly easy. Actions, and what dictates reality, is what matters in the end.
Besides lynching is still alive and well in this country. It’s called capital punishment. Learn its history, past and current practices, and you’ll see why it’s called by many, legalized lynching. You sit through a death penalty case with a Black defendent/White victim(which btw, is the most common combination, proportionately speaking), that will be very clear from early on.
Did these same politicians apologize for the death penalty and ban its practice? Of course not. They’ll still make it really tough to survive as a politician in this country if you oppose it. So what was accomplished here?
As someone said here, an apology only works if it’s the start of something bigger, not an attempt to achieve some phony type of closure to one of this country’s greatest tragedies and campaigns of terrorism.
Besides, you can still hang a Black doll in a workplace to simulate a lynching, in order to create that same fear in the Black men and women who work in that environment and you’ll probably get away with doing it, even if the Black employees take civil action. Especially with all the legislation impacting civil litigation and class-action suits in this country.
As far as being African-American and/or Muslim. There’s no way to walk in eithers’ shoes b/c at the end of the day, for better or worse, you can shed your identity more easily and voila, experience privliage again. Though dialogue alone, can only get you so far, b/c you can’t feel what the other person feels on the level they are experiencing it from. You can feel empathy from one person to another, which has to be built b/c it has to override all of our “yeah, buts…”.
My only personal experience with racism is through several interracial relationships and through working with a Black-owned business, but unless they know me by my face, I pass. Otherwise, it’s being a race traitor. Racism by proxy. Or geography. I’ve had more guns pointed at me by cops in my old neighborhood than my new one. But it’s still a lot less than faced by my Black and Latino neighbors, so while it gives some perspective, it’s not nearly enough.
But despite that, I still experience racial priviliage which I just did two minutes ago, when yet another Fed Ex guy walked past two Black women and came to my cubicle asking me to sign off on several packages. I steered him back to the two women he ignored who run the office. Or I’ll get screened by sheriffs at a press conference on the arrests of white supremacists b/c they don’t believe a Black-owned business even employs white people, let alone would send one to a press conference.
And as my friends and people I work with tell me, I will always be able to have a “big mouth” b/c I’m white, which is true b/c being able to be direct and honest is part of racial privilage, because the consequences you face are less severe.
I think what we need to do is listen to people, and what they are saying more often, when they share their experience and not put up the defensive shield so quickly. To not take everything as personal against us as individuals b/c our privilages as members of a racial or gender group are being challenged, or criticized. That’s difficult to do, a long process and that’s from a lot of personal experience.
I worked with Muslims, who were attacked after 9-11, and people who either were Arab-American or looked Arab-American(racists don’t always bother themselves with the details) and members of the Sikh community, who were also common targets. We helped worked security with the local mosque, particularly offering it for the women(who are more vulnerable b/c of their distinctive clothing) if they didn’t want to walk home alone, or go shopping alone. One time, when I was walking home from the store, I had to run to a gas station owned by a Pakistani-American, to help put out a fire started in a dumpster. It was my first real experience with Muslims who weren’t Black(who face both religious and racial prejudice among whites and members of their racial and religous groups) and I learned a lot. But I’m not in their shoes, and I’m not sure dressing like them will change that. It shouldn’t take that.
Being Black, however, is its own situation altogether imo. Having dark skin in this country is its own situation. Even within the Muslim populations, those with dark skin will probably face even greater scrutiny and harassment. Kids have to learn from the beginning that they’re born and will live in a society that treats and views them as inferior, by skin color. Talking to mothers about that, really struck me, that the people that I were raised to believe would protect me cause terror for others(part of what was probably making me feel safe) And particularly as men, views and treats them as if they are dangerous and to be feared, as well. Whites don’t face this, FTMP.
I deal mostly with police issues. That’s been most of my concentration for the past five years.
I remember reading about an inebriated white girl who stole a squad car, and even tried to back it into several officers. They took special care not to use lethal force against her b/c as one of them said, she got herself in enough of a bad situation and they didn’t want to make it worse. So considerate of them.
Would a Black woman been given the same courtesy? A Latina? A Black or Latino man?
No. We had a Black teenage woman who was shot 12 times while in medical distress from a seizure in her car. She had a gun on her lap, but whereas a White woman might be seen as needing it to protect herself while sitting alone at 2am in a broken down car, in a high-crime area, a Black woman is seen as being up to no good. Her one misdemeanor conviction(and year probation) for disturbing the peace, was turned into a 1200 page binder filled with every bad thing or innuendo they could dig up on her, to justify the shooting. Even notes coming from when she was sent to the principal’s office. Even about her sexuality.
No one ever apologized for what they did, and if they had(which of course, they never would) it wouldn’t have had meaning unless they had planned ways to change the racist culture inside a police agency which led to that moment in time.
The White Supremacist movement, FTMP, is fragmented into various factions, each with its own cells. We still have Klan members in our county, but they’re not a cohesive group, like some of the racist skinhead gangs(oh, if the LE people would just call them that) like the Western Hammarskins, PublicEnemyNo.1 and the Nazi Low Riders.
I met a guy who was chased and attacked, nearly killed by about 20 members of the WHS. They’re all in prison. I attended the sentencing of four men, and went to court when he testified.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/skinheads/skinheads17.html
“Why can’t you apologize for lynching and then work to solve the real problem? What are you going to lose? ”
This is possible and would be a very beneficial thing. Is it probable? I don’t trust the U.S. government at this point to do anything more than mumble, “I’m sorry” then file this one away. I wish I were wrong, but I doubt it.
“This is possible and would be a very beneficial thing. Is it probable? I don’t trust the U.S. government at this point to do anything more than mumble, “I’m sorry”? then file this one away. I wish I were wrong, but I doubt it. ”
I agree with you on this. I mean, I would love to see an apology followed by the steps to correct inequality but knowing the U.S. government this just isn’t going to happen.
Still, its nice to dream……..
Today, World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz apologized “on behalf of the international community” for the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050616/ts_nm/worldbank_wolfowitz_rwanda_dc
Apparently, anyone is free to apologize for pretty much anything. Did the World Bank have an army that should have been used to stop the genocide?
Meanwhile, Lamar Alexander did not join the Senate apology:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050616/NEWS02/506160421/1009/NEWS
He said he preferred a resolution he introduced called “celebrating Black History Month,” which condemned lynching and pledged to address racial disparities in education and health care. His version made no mention of the Senate’s failure to ban lynching.
“There is no resolution of apology that we can pass today that will teach one more child to read, prevent one more case of AIDS, or stop one more violent crime,” Alexander said in a statement he inserted into the Congressional Record during the apology debate.
“The best way for the United States Senate to condemn lynching is to get to work on legislation that would offer African-Americans and other Americans better access to good schools, quality health care and decent jobs.”
Also, getting back to “fault”, that seems to be the main point:
“An apology begins with an acknowledgement of wrongdoing,” said Hilary Shelton, the director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “For those who weren’t willing to do that, you have to pause and take wonder as to why they’re here in the first place.”
So, it’s not about “responsibility” or “privilege” or anything like that. It’s about “wrongdoing.” You apologize because you did something wrong. Lamar Alexander looks like he has it right here. Don’t “apologize” — condemn it and present a pledge to change it. That accepts responsibility, without acknowledging “fault”.
It looks to me like most of the posters here should have been happier with Lamar Alexander’s bill than the one that actually passed.
Why i’m taking your bait Richard, I don’t know, but here goes.
So you’re telling me that Alexander couldn’t have done both? Its impossible for him to apologize AND commit to his “celebrating black history month” proposal?
As for the president of the World Bank, I think you need to read up on your history. The World Bank may not have an army but they have something even more powerful than that: money. Their actions, which included providing monetary loans to the Hutu regime and their supporters, helped facilitate the genocide. I recomend you read “We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families” by Philip Gourevitch for a complete picture of the role of the U.N., the U.S., the World Bank, and other world powers in the genocide that took place in Rwanda. That is yet another thing the U.S. really should apologize for, but they won’t.
“So you’re telling me that Alexander couldn’t have done both? Its impossible for him to apologize AND commit to his “celebrating black history month”? proposal?”
Alexander spokeswoman Alexia Poe said the senator would have voted for the apology if it had come up as a roll call.
The implication here was that anyone who didn’t co-sponsor the resolution — or didn’t co-sponsor it quickly enough — was opposed to it. Often Senators choose not to vote for a law because they feel it is inappropriate, or doesn’t do enough.
Alexander is saying, essentially, “Yeah, I would have voted for it if I had to, but I wasn’t going to be a SPONSOR, because this bill give fault without responsibility, while I prefer the opposite. Also, the thing that I actually sponsored, and would have done a better job, flopped.”
It just seems crazy to me that people are attacking people for not SPONSORING the bill! They didn’t vote against it. They would have voted for it if it came up for a roll call vote. But they didn’t sponsor it because it wasn’t their idea of the best way to procede.
This is just a game of “Gotcha” taken to the extreme.
Sydney, here’s a link about the issue you raised with Alexander….who’s voting record on civil rights issues is bad even for a Republican. His state Tennessee was a state with lots of lynchings, and was where Ida B. Wells-Barnett did her anti-lynching campaign well into the early 1900s.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/senator-lamar-alexander-r-tn-only.html
excerpt:
“I reminded her that Senators are not forbidden from supporting black people more than once a Senate session, that I wish he would consider doing so more often on legislation that really matters, and that there was no reason for him not to have co-sponsored this legislation, or at least–now that it’s passed as a voice vote–to go back and co-sponsor it now, so that his support is registered.”
——————————————–
But it goes back to an apology being a start of action, not the closing of a chapter in the history. when you have a lot of senators including sponsor Bill Frist, who’s got an even worse record on racial issue than Alexander. Why would two senators with dismal records on civil rights and race denounce lynching, abeit separately, and as has been said, ONE TIME A PIECE.
Politics. After all, what else do Frist and Alexander have in common?
That’s why, short of the type of conversion that either occurs over a long period of time, or through a lightning bolt(for example, Paul in the New Testment), it’s hard to see this as anything but pandering and politics, which is what it is.
And obviously no change of belief systems has occurred here. Which is why I’m extremely skeptical of the motives of the Frists, Alexanders, etc. of the world. White supremacism and sexism has got them both where they are, as wealthy, powerful elected officials, so why change reality?
I wonder how much fun it would be to have this discussion about rape, and getting men to take responsibility for it. Just a note—look who’s making excuses for people who don’t apologize, or try to minimize the problem as ‘local’.
‘Local’ means not important, not huge, not societal. Complicity must be active, too—not passive, because that makes everyone guilty. And if passivity makes you guilty, well, then, all these people getting defensive about rape and/or lynching on various threads are representing society, and it is a huge problem.
First people deny the problem exists. Then they make excuses. Then they blame the victim. Then the problem appears to get better. Then somebody apologizes, and people get freaked out over apologizing. Apologizing truly means you can’t say crap like, “IF I did this or said this” or “If I offended you” and expect it to be an apology. An apology has to be about taking the blame and the responsibility. The problem has to be named and the offender identified.
That’s why people get so upset over PC. Calling it local is PC, trying to deflect the impending identificaiton of the offenders.
Of course the last stage of any problem-solving is the solution. Nobody ever offers that.