Slavery apologies
Now even though an apology however sincere cannot change the harsh reality of what has been done particularly, nor the historical ramifications, it is certainly an intelligent and diplomatic move on the part of these apparently extremely Progressive American states. It is a modern handshake, a tip of the hat, and a show of sophisticated respect that this American African for one both appreciates and is somewhat humbled by.
Now if only the British, Spanish and Portuguese in particular would take some kind of similar symbolic action seeing that they were such ancient hands in this world tragedy. It could only help in my humble opinion mon.
Gracias por este.
This letter has not been edited.
How about an apology from the people living on the western coast of Africa? You do realize, of course, that few of those slave traders actually went on expeditions to round up slaves. They traded with the locals for people who had been captured/enslaved from neighboring areas.
It just seems to me that we should be thorough in this.
Posted by Politically Incorrect on April 3, 2007 05:49 PMHey Grant-You're a babbling moron. We have been saying sorry in the form of affirmative action FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS!
Oh, btw, I hate to break this to you but anyone having anything to do with slave trading HAS BEEN DEAD FOR OVER 150 YEARS!
It sounds to me like you're looking for a handout from people that are so far removed its comical. Wake up,grow up and get on with your victim oriented existence.
You can't apologize for something someone else did. Apologizing for something that your ancestor did to someone else's ancestor makes no sense. It's simply impossible. Only the wrong-doer has the actual ability to repent and apologize for a wrong.
That's like saying that Fred owesyou $10, but I come along and I forgive that debt. I dont' have the right to forgive someone else's debt. Only you can forgive that debt.
There is such widespread misunderstanding about the nature of forgiveness.
Btw, howabout the massive amount of slave trade that goes on TODAY in Africa? There are more slaves in the world today than there were 200 years ago. Christians in particular are persecuted and enslaved just for their religion, in countries like Sudan. Howabout I apologize for the actions of those slave traders. Will that make things better, there? Nope, didn't think so.
Apologize for what YOU did. Not for what other people did.
Posted by bar Jonah on April 3, 2007 09:46 PMHow about an apology from the Blackstone Rangers, an african american gang in Chicago in the 60s that killed 100s of caucasians in the Chicago area....
Posted by Tim on April 3, 2007 10:00 PMI say that whenever someone brings up something embarrassing about our history, we should quickly change the subject. Tim, Jonah, and Really are students of mine and I have taught them well, though I took no part in depriving Really of the ability to think like a human.
Posted by on April 4, 2007 06:06 AMSign me up for the Blackstone Rangers Colorado chapter!
Posted by Hahahahaha!!! on April 4, 2007 09:42 AMbar Jonah is correct that slave trading is an international tragedy that today far larger than it was 200 years ago, and not just in Africa. Research it and you may be shocked. It is an ongoing and very profitable criminal enterprise, second only to the drug trade. Very little is being done to combat it.
As for the symbolic apology of those states, if it makes you feel better, what harm does it do?
Posted by on April 4, 2007 11:29 AMIt was not an apology by individuals but by a state, the same state that was there when the goings on were going on. It's similar to the Catholic Church's apology for the way it treated the Jews. It's similar to the apology which the China, the United States and other countries think that Japan should make for its treatment of the "comfort girls" and the atrocities committed in WWII. It's similar to Germany's apology for the Holocaust. It's not at all an uncommon thing and it appears to serve a purpose.
Posted by Truth on April 4, 2007 01:23 PMIt only serves the purpose of politicos trying to get votes from a target group. Any person alive today, apologizing for slavery in the U.S. either has an agenda, or really needs to get a life.
Posted by on April 4, 2007 03:11 PMWhy apologise for slavery? The jesus believers are supposed to have some slaves because it says so in the bible. In Leviticus 25:44 it says that you can even will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life. So what is all the fuss about? In Exodus Chapter 21:20, it says you can beat your slave. In Titus 2:9 it says slaves are to show entire and true fidelity. So, there you have it. No apologies are needed according to the bible. Hey, it is Easter soon, so take your slave to your little Easter service and have them serve you.
Posted by JC on April 5, 2007 05:21 PMJC-
No one believed in Jesus in Leviticus. If you want to quote Scripture, would it be asking too much for you to STUDY it a little? Or perhaps you are just providing comedy relief?
Truth- I have to say I agree with you again.
bar Jonah- The concept of sins being passed down for a few generations might apply in some instances of this- but really, what you have is a governmental body speaking to the responsability of governmental policy-albeit long ago. The operative issue here is the author saying, "I appreciate it." That's enough for me to say it doesn't hurt to say, "I'm sorry the government that I represent did some horrific things before I came along." Think on it a while- I bet what really bothers you is the idea of some people trying to use this whole thing for political statements, pandering, and image. If it's just an acknowledgment of a previous wrong, what's the big deal? It's not really like me forgiving a debt owed to someon else- it's like me saying, while I settle my dad's estate, "I'm sorry, my dad owed your dad some money, but he's gone, your dad is gone, and I'm not in a position to pay it to you for him. Sorry he passed before he got it taken care of." This author is not "entitled" to an apology from me or you- and if he demanded it, I would be reluctant. But he appreciates a gesture made by someone who represents a concept. That's ok with me.
Really?- I hope you don't call yourself a conservative in public. Guys talking like you shame me to be identified with them.
Disagree with this author all you want, but he is a genlteman. You are not.
Sure Truth, study, study, study and still no proof that Jesus ever existed. You either believe everything in the bible or you don't. Jesus freaks cannot have it both ways. Now go pretend that Easter is not a Pagan holiday. And don't forget to get an easter bunny.
Truth, I studied some more and it apparent that the reason many Bible thumpers get upset about the repulsve stuff that is in the Bible, that I have poinnted out, is because they have not actually READ the Bible. Here is an example that proves that the Jesus character n the Bible is an idiot. You like Bible verses so how about this one.
In Matthew 18 verses 7 through 9, Jesus speaks:
If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
Matthew 18:7-9
This Bible stuff is repulsive on three levels;
1. Jesus is such an idiot here and completely wrong
2. It demands that people maim themselves.
3. The entire concept of "hell" repulsive.
Jesus is an idiot. Cutting of your hand or gouging out an eye accomplishes nothing. If youu jhave a problem with unproductive behaviors, what you need to do is see a therapist ot talk to a counselor. Self amputation is absurd and Jesus dispenses advise that is completely useless and dangerous. So, Truth, did people believe in Jesus when he said this or can you twist it around and to suit your beliefs?
Posted by JC on April 6, 2007 11:01 AMJC
It is remarkable that you are taking Truth to task for what was probably my comment. Even more remarkable is that you think it is somehow going to incite and inflame me if you become more offensive than you were previously.
However, since you insist on making a spectacle of yourself, I will offer one more example of your ignorance. When observing a comment written in a culture other than your own, you might do well to learn something of that culture. Similarly to the difference in meaning if an American were to say, for example, “That house is quite nice,” verses a Brit saying the same thing, words and sentence construction mean different things in different cultures, and the words in this passage do not mean what you have taken them to mean. Nor anything remotely like your understanding of them. Of your three complaints against this example from the Bible, two are not relevant to this passage at all, read with any awareness of the cultural context. Your one complaint that can even be called appropriate for discussion from this passage is your description of the concept of hell as repulsive to you. (It may sound remarkable for you to hear it, but Jesus actually had a habit of saying things people did not want to hear. I doubt he would have been put off by the thought of offending your delicate sensibilities.)
As best I can tell, you are person who is all a-twitter and excited about entering into the grand debate with other people, panting and perspiring with anticipation, expecting to demonstrate your rapier intellect and lightning logic. Beyond that, it appears that you hope to fan the flames of impassioned argument by attacking such bourgeois institutions as organized religion, daring the proposed gods of your opponents to strike at you and reveal themselves- or to fail to do so, and reveal themselves frauds-and to that end seek the devout, challenging them to a duel of what you think is “wit” and “acumen.” Yes, what a romantic hero of the enlightened age of philosophical discourse you will turn out to be! Well, good luck with all that. May I recommend to you that you might benefit from waiting at least until you have completed your education and broadened your horizons a bit? Your ignorance, frankly, embarrasses me on your behalf- and I don’t even like you.
What an interesting debate. It's Michael Trimble v.s. JC. You are quite the chatterbox with all the big sounding words. As an empty suit and educated idiot, who weats a tin foil hat, you have become the talk of the RMN editorial letters. Very amusing.
Posted by Buzz on April 6, 2007 02:34 PM