Author |
Message |
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 9:46 am
That's a whole nother top Chili and I agree with you. Jb the universal 'your', not saying you directly. ed'd But also the atrocities did continue well past the 1900's. Just sayin.
|
Ladytex
Member
09-27-2001
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 10:06 am
that is a different issue and is also being addressed with apologies for the atrocities served upon the Native Americans. and I, too, doubt the sincerity of the apologies that would be given except that if it does pass, it would be interesting to hear the deliberations and/or vote. It's symbolism. Virginia would not be the great state that it is if it weren't for slave labor and almost everyone there benefits today from that prosperity in one form or another. The apology would be like a recognition of the wrongs done.
|
Hermione69
Member
07-24-2002
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 10:16 am
Did I read correctly that no state has officially apologized? As a Virginian, I would love my state to be the first to do so. I agree with Ladytex's
quote:Virginia would not be the great state that it is if it weren't for slave labor and almost everyone there benefits today from that prosperity in one form or another. The apology would be like a recognition of the wrongs done.
and Karuuna's
quote:Virginia was a state with an immoral law, from which its citizens benefitted. What's wrong with now saying "we're sorry for what our predecessors did. We acknowledge it was wrong and caused incredible human suffering."
|
Juju2bigdog
Member
10-27-2000
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 10:51 am
That is true, Chilli, and so you understand what an apology would mean to you. It needn't and can't be given by the actual offending parties because they are all dead. But somebody sure as hell needs to acknowledge that a great wrong was done. The absolute refusal of the beneficiaries to offer an apology for past wrongful actions from which they benefitted tacitly means approval of the wrongful actions and that you, the unbowed, unapologetic, would commit the same actions all over again given the chance.
|
Chiliwilli
Member
09-04-2006
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 11:11 am
An apology doesn't mean much to me. It will not restore what rightfully belongs to my ancestors nor bring any of them back that were murdered. It will not return people stolen from their homeland to their families they were stolen from. Will the people who were made wealthy from deeds past done give any of that money for bettering the people they have wronged? I doubt it.
|
Chiliwilli
Member
09-04-2006
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 11:15 am
I have no doubt that the unbowed, unapologetic would commit the same actions all over again given the chance. I just don't know why anyone alive today should be apologetic except the people who benefited from those past deeds.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 11:26 am
I fully understand the recognition of a wrong and the acknowledgement of past wrongs but I still don't see the validity of apologizing for something that you did not do and could not prevent. You could easily extend that premise to imprisoning a son for his Father's crimes. Even worse it would be imprisoning a son for the crimes of a Father that he never even knew. I also see an apology as being different than being sorry for something that happened. For example, while I am sorry that the slave trade ever existed, to the best of my knowledge, none of my ancestors had anything to do with it. All that being said, if an apology by the State for past wrongs will make African Americans feel better, then I'm totally in favor of them doing it. I guess the State is acting as an independent entity, more or less representing itself in an apology such as this, rather than representing its current day electors (many of which are African American and would therefore be apologizing to themselves). While it's not clear to me that the majority of present day white Americans are still benefiting from a history of slavery, it is clear to me that we are all benefiting from the conquest of land from the native people who were here before us. In fact, African Americans are benefiting from that as well, so maybe they should apologize for that along with the rest of us. Sadly, as Chiliwilli stated, I'm not sure what good that will do at this point and she doesn't want us to apologize anyway.
|
Tishala
Member
08-01-2000
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 11:46 am
It is not a personal apology, but an apology by the state for past wrongs. It was, after all, not a personal policy, but one of the state and federal government [i.e, the 3/5 rule, children following the condition of the mother, turning a blind eye to rape of black women, mutilation, etc.]. The apology does not implicate anyone in particular but instead recognizes the role the state played juridically in the chattel slavery system. BTW, i would argue that America as such [in other words, all of us who didn't suffer the dehumanizing effects of slavery] did indeed benefit from the chattel slavery industry, but that is another argument altogether.
|
Chiliwilli
Member
09-04-2006
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 11:48 am
I do not believe anyone alive today owes me an apology. However, I do believe that if any Indian tribe today still owned any land worth taking, someone would find a way to take it from them. Greed is a never ending thing. Didn't they just legalize townships taking land from anyone they want if they can come up with a good enough excuse for doing it? I know they just forced a man to give up his home of many years here because it was a river front property that the city wanted for some b.s. city thing.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-31-2000
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 12:06 pm
Tishala put it very well. A state is an entity itself, regardless of whether the people running that state or not participated in its earlier actions. The state as an ongoing and continuing entity owes an apology for its past actions.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 12:18 pm
If we consider a State to be an independent entity in and of itself, then I think that it should clearly apologize. However, I am a bit troubled by the idea of the State being an entity onto itself, in a representative democracy. It kind of implies that the State can and should act independently without representing its electors. I'm having a bit of trouble getting my mind around that one. Who speaks for the State?
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 1:08 pm
Jimmer you said you don't see the validity of the apology. Well are 'you' being apologized to? So what does that matter if you don't see it?? And I'm missing your logic in that AA's should also apologize to the Native Americans. Also I'm not sure but I don't think that Chili is speaking for all Native Americans like I'm not speaking for all black folk.
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 1:09 pm
And according to the constitution we're still considered 3/5s of a person.
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 1:11 pm
And waitaholdit you aren't even in the US... Where did your ancestors hail from?
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 1:12 pm
quote:I have no doubt that the unbowed, unapologetic would commit the same actions all over again given the chance.
Michael Richards proved that one with his lynching comment...
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 1:40 pm
Jimmer you said you don't see the validity of the apology. Well are 'you' being apologized to? So what does that matter if you don't see it?? It doesn't matter at all. As I said previously, if an apology by the "State" for past wrongs will make African Americans feel better, then I'm totally in favor of them doing it. I'm missing your logic in that AA's should also apologize to the Native Americans. I'm just following along with the logic. Since AA's are benefiting from the land that was wrongfully acquired from the Native people, they should apologize for it or give it back, similar to how some people have suggested that people today are still benefiting from the history of slavery, although they had nothing to do with it. I don't believe that personally, but that seems to me where the logic is heading. Also, I'm still a little uncomfortable with the idea of a "State" or a democratic Country being an entity, independent of its people. Doesn't the Constitution say "We the people of the United States ...." And waitaholdit you aren't even in the US... Where did your ancestors hail from? LOL – My ancestors on my Mom's side of the family came to Canada in the 1750's. On my Dad's side, my Great Great Grandparents came from Austria but that was a long time ago too. So I guess unless we want to go way back, I could say that my ancestors are Canadian.
|
Escapee
Member
06-15-2004
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 1:49 pm
Are we asking dead people to apologize to other dead people?
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 1:52 pm
Gotcha Jimmer lol. So Canadians didn't benefit from slave labor? Forgive my ignorance of not knowing if they did or not. I know there were slaves who escaped to Canada but that's bout all. Oh and no one is saying the State is independant of it's constituants. At least I don't think they are. Escapee, honey I can't even go there with you.
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 2:00 pm
I tell ya google is my friend lol. Found some info on the Canadian slave trade: Slavery: (1) Drudgery, toil (2) Submission to a dominating influence (3) the state of a person who is a chattel of another (4) the practice of slaveholding. One must realize that "the African Slave Trade" was not only a segment of U.S. History, but it also played a part in Canadian History. However, unlike our U.S. counterparts, who have recorded the history of slavery through documentaries, books and the T.V. Mini Series "Roots", little has been written with regards to slavery in Canada. Canadians did not refer to the term "slave", as it was potentially controversial with the United States, and therefore referred to the term "servant." A popular impression that the first slaves in Canada were introduced into the Maritimes Provinces by the Loyalists, in 1783, is false. Historical records indicated that slavery was established in Quebec, by the French, through a royal mandate issued by Louis XIV in 1689. This mandate not only gave permission to "Canadians to avail themselves of the services of African slaves", but declared as well that all negroes who had been so bought or held should belong to the person so owning them, in full proprietorship. This system was given further legal recognition through a number of royal declarations regarding slavery and slaves in 1721, 1742 and 1745, making it possible for slaves to be listed often with "effects and merchandise in parish records, legal notices and the official documents of the times. From the royal mandate in 1689, it took approximately sixty years for the practice of slavery to reach Nova Scotia. The first reported Black man in Canada was Mathieu Da Costa who served under Governor de Monts in 1608, as a translator between the MicMac & French. As time passed it was not unusual to see ads appear in the newspaper for slaves, as this is proven by an ad place in "The Nova Scotia Gazette and Weekly Chronicle", March 28, 1775, carried the following for sale item: "a likely, well-made negro boy, about sixteen years old." The same paper, in January 1779, advertised the sale of "an able Negro wench, about twenty-one years of age, capable of performing both town and country work." By the time the Loyalists arrived in 1783, slavery was a flourishing element and there was no consideration at this time of abolishment. Thirty-Five Hundred (3500) Black people who arrived with the Loyalists were free, as they fled the Southern States during the American Revolutionary War. The British promised them protection, land and a better life. Between 1783-4, some 1232 Black slaves were brought by British masters into Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Of this number, 26 went to Prince Edward Island and 441 went to New Brunswick. The number of slaves in Upper Canada during the Loyalist immigration was estimated to be about 500 while Lower Canada accounted for 304. Of a total of some 2000 slaves who entered Canada in 1783-4, more than half that number were distributed in the Atlantic Provinces, with Nova Scotia receiving the largest consignment, Annapolis Royal leading with 230 and Digby second with 152. T. Watson Smith provided a break-down of the distribution of 1232 slaves in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. link
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 2:02 pm
I was about to say something similar Mocha. Not remotely as predominant as in the U.S. and it was abolished much earlier, but sadly it certainly existed.
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 2:06 pm
So that being said Jimmer, do you think Canada should apologize also? Or the individual provinces?
|
Chiliwilli
Member
09-04-2006
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 2:29 pm
Are we asking dead people to apologize to other dead people? It appears so. Or else we are asking live people to apologize to live people for something they didn't do to someone it wasn't done to. Does that make sense?
|
Escapee
Member
06-15-2004
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 2:38 pm
@ Chilli.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-31-2000
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 3:08 pm
I think a state is an entity, an ongoing entity, whose constituents change. Just as a country is an ongoing entity, whose participants/constituents change. The entity continues to have a life, as it were, even though people move in and out of it, are born into it and die out of it. The state still goes on, as an independent, existant entity, until it is dissolved. As an entity, a state has responsibilities, laws, and the effects of those laws. Much like the United States as an entity owed an apology for the actions taken against Japanese Americans during WWII; the state of Virginia, as an entity whose laws (endorsed by the constituents of the state at that time) endorsed slavery, owes an apology for its immoral laws to any and all who feel effected by those laws. That's the way I see it. 
|
Escapee
Member
06-15-2004
| Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 4:02 pm
The state is not a state without the people of that state who did not commit the crimes in question.
|
|