Jump to content

Home

The House Apologizes for Slavery


*Don*
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not really sure what to think about this :\. I...guess it's polite? I mean, bluntly speaking, and absolutely no racism intended, I'm white so I suppose I can't relate to this in the same way a black person might. To me, though, it just seems a little.... :\ <- that face, for lack of an actual word. I would associate this more with Senator Cohen trying to appeal to his primary voters.

 

I think it's important to remember that every single person on Earth that was involved in American slavery is now dead, as slavery was outlawed over a century and a half ago by the federal government. Apologizing for the whole time period now seems a few decades too late to be of much significance since all those directly affected by it, slaves or no, are gone. Don't get me wrong, I know families are still affected by the past.

 

Like I said, I don't really know what to think. It just seems sort of out of place to me, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone in this century should apologize for someone else’s past. Unless they were involved with slavery themselves, I don't think that making an apology is rational. What people should apologize for is not changing. We live in a very different world today, which reverse discrimination has started to become a common occurrence. How we move forward is important. Discrimination is discrimination. Regardless about whom is carrying out the act, your ethnic background does not excuse anyone from being an exception to the discrimination laws. Within today's United States social structure, people of minority are becoming discriminative towards Europeans. Unless we do something else to cool the engine down, we could be looking at a serious issue in the future.

Edited by The Source
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I do not feel there is a time limitation on an apology. Sure this proclamation should have been done 143 years ago, but then again a nation whose best know political phrase is “All men are created equal” should not have allowed slavery in the first place.

 

Let us also remember that the apology also encompasses Jim Crow laws era, there are many American still alive today that remember that era and have felt the ramification of those raciest laws. Even citizens that were not alive during that period are still feeling the effects of laws designed to keep a segment of the population down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone in this century should apologize for someone else’s past. Unless they were involved with slavery themselves, I don't think that making an apology is rational. What people should apologize for is not changing. We live in a very different world today, which reverse discrimination has started to become a common occurrence. How we move forward is important. Discrimination is discrimination. Regardless about whom is carrying out the act, your ethnic background does not excuse anyone from being an exception to the discrimination laws. Within today's United States social structure, people of minority are becoming discriminative towards Europeans. Unless we do something else to cool the engine down, we could be looking at a serious issue in the future.

 

I would have mostly agreed with you had it not been for;

 

A. Most people discriminating against Europeans are old white Republicans.

B. Majority of discrimination is taking place against those of Middle Eastern descent, namely Arabs. However many people not even of Arab descent are being held with hostile attitude, such as Persians, Turks, and Indians.

 

And as has been pointed out, they also covered the Jim Crow, overly racist attitudes still projected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A. Most people discriminating against Europeans are old white Republicans.

Actually, he didn't say who was doing the discrimination against Europeans. And due to recent European attitudes towards Americans over Bush, which are often plagued with misconceptions and downright ignorance, discrimination towards Europeans is getting more common among all groups. ...And I dare say rather acceptable for the reasons mentioned above.

 

B. Majority of discrimination is taking place against those of Middle Eastern descent, namely Arabs. However many people not even of Arab descent are being held with hostile attitude, such as Persians, Turks, and Indians.

Actually, "reverse discrimination" is pretty common, but it's not talked about as much, thus, it's less visible. Discrimination is common towards and from a variety of people, I know an old Jewish man who's very racist against Blacks. A lot of the "common" racism doesn't get talked about because it's not interesting, everyone knows it exists so nobody cares to hear about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is what does discrimination against someone of European decent have to do with the House of Representatives passing a resolution apologizing to African-Americans for slavery and the era of Jim Crow? Does the fact that there is some form of isolated reverse discrimination now mean that the slavery trade never happen or there was no state sponsored forms of discrimination in this country? I really fail to see what one has to do with the other, as I do not believe two wrongs make a right.

 

Again I have no problem with the apology and I do believe it was over due. Personally, I found it interesting that the Senate passed a resolution in April apologizing to Native Americans. I also feel that apology was long overdue, but it means very little to my ancestors, as they are gone, and has nothing to do with me (as my Scottish and Irish blood has drowned my Cherokee blood).

Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We're sorry about something that no one alive was present for, not us, and not you."[/Quote] maybe you should read the entire article.
Does this really have any meaning?[/Quote] yes

I don't see that it does.
Oh, sorry that explains why you missed the Jim Crow part, you're blind. :xp:

 

I don't think racism should be an issue for any people of any color anymore.
Two examples 1. Racial Profiling 2. James Byrd Jr.

 

Racism is still an issue and it has been less than 40 years since state sponsored racism was common in this country.

Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez... Why is racism still such an issue today? This problem should have stopped being a 'hot topic' long ago... Besides TV stereotyping, I don't think racism should be an issue for any people of any color anymore.

 

This screams "I live in an affluent white neighborhood."

*Snort*

 

"We're sorry about something that no one alive was present for, not us, and not you."

 

Does this really have any meaning? I don't see that it does.

 

This snide commentary only works when it's based on facts. However, since your premises are wrong, it isn't as valid as you'd like it to be. Sorry.

 

_EW_

Edited by Jae Onasi
snipped flame
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, he didn't say who was doing the discrimination against Europeans. And due to recent European attitudes towards Americans over Bush, which are often plagued with misconceptions and downright ignorance, discrimination towards Europeans is getting more common among all groups. ...And I dare say rather acceptable for the reasons mentioned above.

 

 

Actually, "reverse discrimination" is pretty common, but it's not talked about as much, thus, it's less visible. Discrimination is common towards and from a variety of people, I know an old Jewish man who's very racist against Blacks. A lot of the "common" racism doesn't get talked about because it's not interesting, everyone knows it exists so nobody cares to hear about it.

 

I never said anything against this. kthxbai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well personally speaking, my take on the issue was similar to most of yours'.

 

Imo its just an empty gesture that really can't do much at this point in time.

Most of my neighbors (especially the senior citizens) feel that it wasn't enough.

One person in particular (who just so happens to be nearly 100) feels that it was hollow and doesn't fairly compensate for the injustices done by the Jim Crow laws. She went on to say that nothing has become equal even after all these years and that minorities still lag behind whites due to unequal education systems, urban decay, etc...

 

I don't completely agree with her but felt it was an interesting point to note...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a similar issue up here in Canada a few weeks ago, when the Conservative Government apologised to Aboriginal Canadians for the Residential Schools the Government sponsored a few decades ago.

 

But there's a difference: the people who were directly affected by the Canadian Residential Schools are still alive today - sure, they may be getting up there, but a good number of them are still very much alive. No one who was affected by European/American slavery is alive today to acknowledge the apology, and anyone who drags it up as an issue today is only looking for an excuse to fuel their own racism. It's outrageous to hold the current administration and/or society responsible for something their great-grandfathers did to someone else's great-grandfathers; which is why if I were an American citizen, I would somewhat resent my government for apologising on my behalf for something I have no reason to apologise for.

 

I do not, however, have a problem with the apology for the Jim Crow laws. That was a sad era of disturbingly recent history that I agree does warrant a full apology.

 

Though one does have to question Cohen's motives for introducing such a resolution, being the representative for a majority black constituency. Though I acknowledge that if he was elected, the people there must think he's doing something right, and that I have no knowledge of his policies or ideals. So perhaps his apologetic attitude towards the issue is genuine - a rare trait in any modern politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said anything against this. kthxbai

 

yes, actually you did, or are you denying you wrote the following?

 

I would have mostly agreed with you had it not been for;

 

A. Most people discriminating against Europeans are old white Republicans.

B. Majority of discrimination is taking place against those of Middle Eastern descent, namely Arabs. However many people not even of Arab descent are being held with hostile attitude, such as Persians, Turks, and Indians.

 

And as has been pointed out, they also covered the Jim Crow, overly racist attitudes still projected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, actually you did, or are you denying you wrote the following?

 

Did I deny reverse racism is happening? No. You know why? Because I know it's happening. I'm hassled for a lot of ****, race being one.

 

All I was saying was my reasons for not agreeing completely. If you have a problem with that, tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I was saying was my reasons for not agreeing completely. If you have a problem with that, tough.

~snipped~

 

You made a statement of disagreement based upon your own presumption that the poster you replied to originally stated that it was old white republicans who were discriminating against Europeans.

 

The poster you quoted did not make such a statement in their post. therefore your disagreement upon that basis has no foundation. IE: you cannot disagree with someone over a statement they did not make.

 

secondly, the poster made no specific mention of whom was on the receiving end of most of the racism. You assumed something(what I can't fathom) and then disagreed with their statement, claiming that Muslims and Arabs and people who look like them are on the receiving end of "most" racism.

 

Again, since the poster did not make any comment on who was receiving "most" of the racism, disagreeing with a statement they didn't make simply doesn't work.

Edited by Jae Onasi
snipped flamebaiting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poster you quoted did not make such a statement in their post. therefore your disagreement upon that basis has no foundation. IE: you cannot disagree with someone over a statement they did not make.

 

I never stated any disagreement with what the poster said, I simply stated why I do not agree (opinion-wise) with the entire sentiment of the statement. I do not have to address each correct point and say "I agree" to make myself clear, it should be understood that these were merely added issues of racism that branch my opinion from the original posters. So while we have essentially the same idea, I felt a few extra points to be added.

 

I was not debating, merely stating my slight difference of the same opinion. Way to try and makes lemons out of lemonade.

 

Also if you would like to continue harassing me for something you obviously did not comprehend I can have another moderator look into this situation to be dealt with appropriately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...