New Jersey considers apology for slavery

[tsg]

Oh, sorry, that motion didn't pass, but this one did:

"...profound regret for the state's role in Joe Piscopo and apologizes for the wrongs inflicted by Mr. Piscopo and his aftereffects in the United States of America"

What's a "Joe Piscapo?" Never heard of it. If it happened, and I seriously doubt it did, it was without our knowledge or consent.

ETA: Yes, I'm a Joe Piscapo Denialist.

 

[BPSCG]

For an apology to be in any way meaningful, there has to be a living offending party, and there has to be a living injured party.

Since the state of New Jersey is considering making the apology, you have to ask whether the state of New Jersey was at all complicit in the existence of slavery.

Lincoln would have said yes. In his second inaugural address, he spoke of "American slavery," not attempting to pin the entire blame for it on the south, and he speculated that the Civil War was God's punishment on the entire country for having allowed it to exist. So if the state of New Jersey in any way aided and abetted the existence of slavery, then the state of New Jersey owes an apology.

The issue then become, to whom is the apology due? Who are the injured parties? There are no living ex-slaves anywhere in the U.S., let alone in New Jersey. For the state of New Jersey to apologize to the descendants of those slaves would be no more meaningful than if the government of Egypt were to apologize to me for enslaving my ancestors back in the time of Moses. The state could issue an apology to those dead slaves, but I don't think they would benefit any from the apology.

Those who say the descendants of the slaves are due an apology should also demand that an apology be tendered to the descendants of the men who died in the cause of destroying slavery. And shouldn't an apology be tendered to those who fought and died on the side of slavery, who did not themselves own slaves?

 

[a_unique_person]

There is a similar situation in Australia, with the indigineous people asking for an apology, and the conservatives, who were just voted out, saying exactly the same arguments against an apology.

There are some points to consider.

1) Before we turned up, they had a functioning society that had existed for thousands of years. I'm not saying I would have liked to live that life, but for something to last that long, it must have had a good measure of functionality or it would have self destructed. Once we took over, their society has become, in many areas, highly dysfunctional.
2) We are doing very well out of Australia, and they aren't.
3) There is a lot of resentment about their current position in society.

I'm quite happy to say 'sorry', not because I directly cause the problems they are experiencing, but because I can see quite clearly that even today, I am causing problems indirectly. We have pretty well all their land, and the wealth. It was only in the 1960's that we even acknowledged they were citizens in their own land, and even more recently that the doctrine of 'terra nullus' was overturned. That is, we recognised they even lived in this country before we got here.

They had no drug problems before we got here, nor many of the diseases. It was not an idyllic life, but it worked better then, for them, than it does now.

 

[tsg]

Lincoln would have said yes. In his second inaugural address, he spoke of "American slavery," not attempting to pin the entire blame for it on the south, and he speculated that the Civil War was God's punishment on the entire country for having allowed it to exist. So if the state of New Jersey in any way aided and abetted the existence of slavery, then the state of New Jersey owes an apology.

The "State of New Jersey", as in the land the state occupies, was in no position to either condone or condemn slavery and would be hard to get an apology from in any case. Blood from a stone, and all. The "State of New Jersey," as in the people of that state, who may have aided and abetted slavery are long since dead and will be hard to obtain an apology from for similar reasons.

I will apologize for living inside the same imaginary line as they did, as that is all I, as a current resident of the State of New Jersey, am responsible for.

 

[Damien Evans]

I wouldn't call the Stolen Generation part of a policy of genocide. Many of the children who were taken away were called "half caste" and that they threatened the "racial purity" of both the Aborigines and the Europeans. At the time they thought that full Aborigines would die out because they couldn't sustain themselves.

The problem is now that I will probably be called a "racist" or a "Nazi" because of what I have just written. Stupid touchy subjects.

To be fair though, the regular people in 1967 don't seem to have the same belief as the government. The '67 referendum received 90.77% of the vote. As well as that the referendum only allowed Aborigines to be counted in the census (repealed section 127 "In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.") and deleted "other than the aboriginal race in any State" from section 51.

I think the easiest way to describe the White Australia Policy would be (in a way that I think shows stupidity) as:

"OMG AZNS GONNA TAKE$ OUR LANDZ!!!!"

(Note the above could equally describe what Pauline Hanson thinks about immigration)

Further to aboriginal rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_of_Australian_Aboriginals

 

[Damien Evans]

There is a similar situation in Australia, with the indigineous people asking for an apology, and the conservatives, who were just voted out, saying exactly the same arguments against an apology.

There are some points to consider.

1) Before we turned up, they had a functioning society that had existed for thousands of years. I'm not saying I would have liked to live that life, but for something to last that long, it must have had a good measure of functionality or it would have self destructed. Once we took over, their society has become, in many areas, highly dysfunctional.
2) We are doing very well out of Australia, and they aren't.
3) There is a lot of resentment about their current position in society.

I'm quite happy to say 'sorry', not because I directly cause the problems they are experiencing, but because I can see quite clearly that even today, I am causing problems indirectly. We have pretty well all their land, and the wealth. It was only in the 1960's that we even acknowledged they were citizens in their own land, and even more recently that the doctrine of 'terra nullus' was overturned. That is, we recognised they even lived in this country before we got here.

They had no drug problems before we got here, nor many of the diseases. It was not an idyllic life, but it worked better then, for them, than it does now.

Your first point does not apply to slaves in America, as the vast majority were not native Americans

 

[mr rosewater]

Does it set a precedent for this;
No state has offered reparations to slave descendants, and New Jersey's measure states that the resolution cannot be used in litigation.

I don't entirely buy this won't be used in litigation.

 

[BPSCG]

Does it set a precedent for this;
No state has offered reparations to slave descendants, and New Jersey's measure states that the resolution cannot be used in litigation.

I don't entirely buy this won't be used in litigation.

You don't apologize to someone you haven't injured.

Conversely, if you apologize to someone, it's acknowledgment that you have injured him.

From admitting injury, it's a tiny step to a demand for recompense for damages.

 

[BPSCG]

The "State of New Jersey", as in the land the state occupies, was in no position to either condone or condemn slavery and would be hard to get an apology from in any case.

No, but the government of the state of New Jersey has existed continusously since the time of slavery. Again, I'm not saying I think an apology is a good idea - it's a stupid one, IMHO - but it, and financial compensation might be warranted were there still any living former slaves.

 

[mr rosewater]

You don't apologize to someone you haven't injured.

Conversely, if you apologize to someone, it's acknowledgment that you have injured him.

From admitting injury, it's a tiny step to a demand for recompense for damages.

Agreed, small steps.

 

[tsg]

No, but the government of the state of New Jersey has existed continusously since the time of slavery.

"The government of the State of New Jersey" is an abstraction. It doesn't exist except on paper. Like the land the state occupies, it can neither condone nor condemn slavery, or apologize for either. It is composed of people, however. But those people who may have aided and abetted slavery (as well as those who gave them the power to do so) are no longer alive.

Again, I'm not saying I think an apology is a good idea - it's a stupid one, IMHO - but it, and financial compensation might be warranted were there still any living former slaves.

I understand you aren't advocating the apology. The point that I'm trying to make is that there isn't anyone left to owe the apology, nor anyone to owe it to. The "State of New Jersey" that was even capable of aiding or abetting slavery no longer exists, and therefore can't owe an apology.

To me, the whole thing sounds more like a notpology.

 

[BPSCG]

To me, the whole thing sounds more like a notpology.

"I'm sorry (i.e., I regret) that your ancestors were enslaved by people who were not my ancestors. I'm also sorry taking the Cowboys and the points against the Redskins last Sunday afternoon didn't work out for you.

"None of that should be interpreted as meaning I accept any personal responsibility for any of the above events, or that you have a claim to any of the contents of my wallet.

"Now get on with your life."

 

[scratchy]

This apologizing for things that was never your fault seems to be such a nice and shining moral hat to put on. I just wish i could find out something for me to apologize for. Any help, someone? A middleaged well off white male from Sweden, there must be something.

 

[BPSCG]

This apologizing for things that was never your fault seems to be such a nice and shining moral hat to put on. I just wish i could find out something for me to apologize for. Any help, someone? A middleaged well off white male from Sweden, there must be something.

You could start by apologizing to Norway.

 

[timhau]

This apologizing for things that was never your fault seems to be such a nice and shining moral hat to put on. I just wish i could find out something for me to apologize for. Any help, someone? A middleaged well off white male from Sweden, there must be something.

The Northern Crusades and the christianization of Finland. You bastard.

 

[Gravy]

This apologizing for things that was never your fault seems to be such a nice and shining moral hat to put on. I just wish i could find out something for me to apologize for. Any help, someone? A middleaged well off white male from Sweden, there must be something.

A while back I was reading at a table at the New York Public Library and a well-dressed woman calmly walked up to me, leaned over, and screamed, "YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HOLOCAUST! YOU!"

So I guess I should apologize for that. Sorry. My bad.

 

[BPSCG]

There are two sides to every coin. If you're apologizing for something bad you had nothing to do with, you might as well take credit for something good that you had nothing to do with, as well.

You can do so by clicking here.

 

[Beerina]

The issue then become, to whom is the apology due? Who are the injured parties? There are no living ex-slaves anywhere in the U.S., let alone in New Jersey. For the state of New Jersey to apologize to the descendants of those slaves would be no more meaningful than if the government of Egypt were to apologize to me for enslaving my ancestors back in the time of Moses.

Weren't you being punished by your mountain god? The Egyptians were just following His will, unknowingly, much like Judas, I suppose. Remember that Yahweh could beat up the Egyptian god in that snake battle-by-proxy.

 

[rjh01]

Your first point does not apply to slaves in America, as the vast majority were not native Americans

Actually it partly does. The ancestors of many Americans had a functional society in Africa. These people were then removed by force from that land and taken to America. Their descendants are still discriminated against. So really their should be an apology given to all people who suffer discrimination because of the colour of their skin. Compensation should also be given in order to end this discrimination. This may not be in the form of money.

 

[tsg]

Actually it partly does. The ancestors of many Americans had a functional society in Africa. These people were then removed by force from that land and taken to America. Their descendants are still discriminated against. So really their should be an apology given to all people who suffer discrimination because of the colour of their skin. Compensation should also be given in order to end this discrimination. This may not be in the form of money.

Apologizing for injustices currently (or even recently) being inflicted is another matter entirely from apologizing for injustices whose practice ended 150 years ago.