Arkansas Blog

Bully for Miz Flowers!!

Politician's words/talk and resolutions are cheap, and generally meaningless once they fall on the ears. If you are serious about making amends or (shudder) righting past wrongs, then do something concrete about it to carry out your change in heart.

As the old Romans used to say, "Acta, non verba."

If I were a decendant of slaves I would be so Happy and appriciative of the fact I am in America and not in Africa or in some other poor country!
I think to appoligize to them would be like saying I wish you had never come to America. That is BS. They are like everyone else whether they are white or collored WE ARE A WHOLE LOTS BETTER OFF. They are owed NOTHING because being in America is the best reward anyone could have! AMEN

I've been thinking about this for a couple of weeks since the issue was first raised. Someone raised the point that it was the State of Arkansas that allowed slavery within our borders. It was the State of Arkansas that voted to secede from the Union.

So maybe it is proper, though mostly worthless, for the State of Arkansas to issue a formal apology in memory of the black people whose lives sucked because the past leaders of our state weren't very enlightened or compassionate.

It would be better as Rep. Stephanie Flowers suggests that there be some real teeth in the apology. No one can make up for past sins...except by being better people in the future.

What teeth? What action?

Instead of speaking in vague generalities I'd like to hear an actual proposal.

Words without Actions are hollow and devoid of meaning. You can tell me you are sorry while still holding me down. Sorry means nothing unless you let me go.

Some of the things said here are why I never liked the word "apology," preferring instead "acknowledgement."

Because here's the deal, and I bet we all know it just from the postings here: If you are going to link recompense with the "apology" the plain truth is that you are going to increase the talk ten-fold and eliminate the action *entirely.*

I think the question of reparations has to be resolved at the federal level. Putting in an element of recompense at the state level allows too many objections that have validity. My ancestors were slaves in Louisiana and Tennessee. Should I receive recompense from the State of Arkansas?

Just a piece of paper? Perhaps. But I never favored the acknowledgement as some kind of justice for the victims of slavery. I favored it as confession by the State, to history and to its citizens.

To me, there would be value if the State of Arkansas (not the Legislative Council) stood up and said, "We made laws that allowed men to breed other human beings like animals, torture and maim them at will, rape their women, tear their families apparent, destroy their culture, and ultimately take their lives. When we did this we did an evil, evil thing."

You see, the acknowledgment wouldn't be for *me.* It would be for people like chasv, and his philosophical descendants.

ChasV:

Them Roman fellers had a few words for you, too: "Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem."

Gnaw on it fer a bit.

"I think to appoligize to them would be like saying I wish you had never come to America." --chasv

That's exactly what it's supposed to mean, my friend, because it's directed, on behalf of the kidnappers, the traders, the slave-owners, all long dead, *to* the also long dead victims who were kidnapped and brought here under barbaric circumstances, were mistreated, denied human rights and allowed to die from their treatment for many generations--*not* on your or my behalf to the present generations of slave descendants.

To them, we owe all the opportunities their ancestors, and they more indirectly, have been denied because of this past sin.

I agree with TAP that the entire country, not just individual formerly slave states, owes this apology *and* full opportunity for the American dream in the future.

Anything less would be un-Christian.

The federal government sent thousands of Union soldiers to fight against the slave-holding states and abolished slavery, albeit a bit late in the game. Why lay it on Washington, except for purely logistical convenience?

Once the state apologizes for slavery, does it open itself up to demands for reparations? Doesn't an aplogy serve as an admission of guilt? If the state of Arkansas makes an apology to those who demand it, will demands for reparations (money) be next?

Current Arkansans are NOT responsible for the actions of those in the past. For those who are asking for an apology, I pose this question - How have you been damaged by slavery? Slavery was made illegal over 100 years ago. Why do you dwell on these things from the past which have not harmed you in the least?

While not apologizing for the comments of chasv, he does make a valid point that those blacks who live in the United States today are much better off than the vast majority of Africans.

Will you be demanding an apology from those African nations which sold their own people into slavery? This brings up another troubling issue - those nations didn't even exist until the middle of this century. Are the current residents of those countries responsible for the actions of their ancestors? Europeans didn't have to "go out and hunt" for slaves. Africans were eager to supply them with as many slaves as the Europeans wished to BUY.

Why hold the federal government accountable? That's a good question Peabopolis. I think the words of the United States Supreme Court, rendered in the 1856 make a pretty good answer. Here they are, verbatim. (Or here is a synopsis--the Consittution of the U.S. recognizes the nego as a thing, personal property, therefore such Negros have "no rights which the white man is bound to respect:).

"The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?

One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution....

The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who ... form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives....

The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement [people of Aftican ancestry] compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty?

We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.

On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such, ****in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence, and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States.***** The slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies, as slave labor was found more or less profitable.

Oooops. The words are those of Chief Justice Roger Taney, in the Dred Scott decision.

Make that: "those nations didn't even exist until the middle of THE LAST century."

Personally, I don't favor monetary reparations, but that's another thread.

What I have to wonder is this: Now why would anyone demand reparations of from unknown individuals in a foreign country who may have acted on a personal or communal whim -- rather than the country of which the wronged are citizens, and the country whose *laws* and *Constitution* triiggered the harm complained of?

Long post for chasv:

Slavery as a legal institution lasted for about 250 years up until the Emancipation Proclamation of 1865 and for another 100 years, African Americans were subjected to Jim Crow laws of which they were not seen as legally equal until 1965. Initially, reparations were to be paid by giving freed slaves 40 acres of land and a mule, but the bill was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson in 1869 after having passed in Congress. However, the issue was far from being put to rest.

One hundred years later in 1969, the Black Manifesto was published, demanding monetary compensation equaling $3 billion dollars from predominantly white places of worship (Catholic, Protestant and Jews) depending on the predetermined amount that the National Black Economic Development Conference calculated. This request stemmed out of the Civil Rights movement, a fundamentally moral position taken up by religious leaders. Its more radical counterpart, the Black militant and power movement felt that the Civil Rights movement did little to improve the economic situation despite what was given in the legal sense through the Equal Rights Amendments of 1964 and 1965. Initially, there were religious groups and churches fighting for social programs to eradicate poverty and working against forms of discrimination, "By fall of 1968 nearly $50 million had been pledged and some millions expended." However, these actions resulted in more emergency, short-term help rather than systemic change.
click on Knoc

"Slavery as a legal institution lasted for about 250 years up until the Emancipation Proclamation of 1865. . ."

WRONG. The Emancipation Proclamation freed no one. It "freed" only the slaves in the states currently at war with the US. There were still hundreds of thousands of slaves who were never even mentioned.

In addition, how could Lincoln "free" a group of people he had no jurisdiction over. This woudl be like Lincoln proclaiming that all the slaves in Brazil were free. Would his pronouncement have freed them? No.

"Initially, reparations were to be paid by giving freed slaves 40 acres of land and a mule, but the bill was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson in 1869 after having passed in Congress. " Yes, but there have been hundreds of laws that were passed by Congress and then vetoed. How does the non-existence of a law have any bearing?

TAP - you're good and I love you.

Those "unknown individuals in a foreign country who may have acted on a personal or communal whim" acted as a "local government."

If the present state of Arkansas has to apologize for the actions of any previous form of the state of Arkansas, then the current countries of Africa are just as responsible for the actions of previous governmental bodies - no matter how small.

-- In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags. --

Si me rogas, potes abire et tu ipse cacare. Quisque comoedus est.

Interesting article from "Salon" by David Horowitz:

http://tinyurl.com/23ohpb

Slydog,

You make a good argument -- you always do -- and you may be right. Rather than signing on to your theory just yet, for now I'll offer my respect for you and my appreciation for your opening me up to a new line of thinking.

And I'll stand down for a while and let others post!

I know! Let's ask those Arkansas government administrators of the time of slavery to apologize!
There, that oughta do it.
Next, what about reparations for Paris Hilton?

Some people just keep dredging up the past and demanding accountability. They should be ashamed.

Can you imagine that some descedants of the 120 mostly Arkansans massacred by the equivalent of Mormon fundamentalists in 1857 at Mountain Meadows Utah *still* keep hounding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for an apology or acknowledgement that the wrong was done (even if without authorization) under the Church's banner?

The nerve, huh?

Seek the truth and the truth will set you free....
You know what? I have seen blacks of my age grow up and I can say they have just as much or more than I have. I never owned a slave. Neither did my ancesters.
I know now, today, that blacks are receiving money from the government that would make Abe Lincoln turn over in his grave. Folks no one is worthy to receive any reparation for any reason..just go to work and make it on your own. As I said, We are very very fortunate to live in the best Christian country in the world.
Well, it was, but it is getting worst all the time. There is too much to be said about this and it will never end, I reckon.

I never owned slaves, don't even know a slave. Does this mean we can revamp welfare? Then, can we send Illegals back to their country of origin and ask them to follow the rules? I think I would like an apology for the way the Irish were treated when they LEGALLY immigrated. What a mess, what a mess.

I'm good with apologizing to the Irish for any oppressive *laws* enacted by a sovereign of which I'm a citizen. Why not? I actually like repudiating evil once practiced by an entity of which I'm a part. Now, to the extent that individuals flocked to the Know-Nothing party or posted their NINA signs, there's a disconnect between those private acts and me.

What's an apology cost? Nothing. If it helps one single person, it's a success.

Anyway, the impacts of slavery and the mentality that allowed it have been felt in our lifetime. Ask MLK.

Get a grip. White males run everything, and I can say that because I am one. Refusing to say we're sorry is petty arrogance, like a spoiled child.

If we're not sorry that slavery happened, then morally we deserve to step aside and let some other group be in charge.

Like I said, I'm fine with apologies, but it can open a giant can of worms. If you apologize to one person or one group...you gotta start passing them out for all.

Who will apologize to the victims of Wayne Dumond? What about the Japanese Americans at Rohwer, did Arkansas apologize? The people forced off their farms when Fort Chaffee was built in 1942?

We've covered the Indians, but that's a gigantic amount of ground to cover. Our state and country's sins are great and it would take forever to dig up all the dead people we need to apologize to.

But what the hell? I'm for it! That and 3 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

I am so ashamed - on behalf of males everywhere, I am compelled to apologize for the unrighted wrongs and oppressive behavior of my caveman ancestors who, through their wanton subjugation, domination and mistreatment of cavewomen, continue to enjoy the privileged status gained from this atrocious and inappropriate behavior.

Reparations are required as penance for these prehistoric injustices and therefore, I call upon all males to salve these wounds with works of service - honoring females by offering them our physical protection, opening car doors and building doors for them, engaging them in polite conversation, assisting them in seating at the table, holding an umbrella for them in the rain and satisfying their physical desires whenever possible.

Payment of these reparations must continue matching one generation of reparations for each generation in which this reprehensible behavior occurred.

The wrong side of history
'Don't ask, don't tell' is as repugnant as the 'separate but equal'
pact before it

By Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor of law at the University of Chicago
and the author of "War and Liberty: An American Dilemma: 1790 to the
Present."
June 12, 2007

Americans need to elect a president in 2008 who can inspire us to be
the
best we can be. In that light, I watched last week's Republican
presidential debate with special interest. The moment in the debate I
found most revealing was when the moderator asked the 10 candidates to
raise their hand if they believe gay and lesbian Americans should be
allowed to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces.

Not one of them raised his hand.

At a time when our military is desperate to recruit qualified men and
women, when more than 80 percent of Americans oppose discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation, and when our national security
depends
on our credibility as a nation dedicated to the values of religious
liberty, individual dignity and equal justice, it is deplorable that
candidates for the White House still embrace and defend a policy that
excludes tens of thousands of qualified Americans from military
service
and denies patriotic gays and lesbians the right to serve their nation
unless they deny who they are, lie about their identity and return to
the closet.

That sorrowful moment in the debate called to mind an earlier
generation
of American "leaders": the generation of Orval Faubus, Ross Barnett
and
Strom Thurmond. Exactly half a century ago, Gov. Faubus expressed his
concept of "American values" by calling out the Arkansas National
Guard
to prevent nine African-American children from entering Little Rock's
Central High School.

Several years later, Gov. Barnett rose to power in Mississippi by
proclaiming that "the Negro is different because God made him
different
to punish him." A fierce defender of American values, Barnett
ferociously opposed James Meredith's 1962 admission to the University
of
Mississippi, promising that Mississippi would never "surrender to the
evil ... forces of tyranny."

Sen. Thurmond of South Carolina came to national prominence when he
stormed out of the 1948 Democratic National Convention after the party
endorsed civil rights for African-Americans. Thurmond declared that he
would never "admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming
pools, into our homes and into our churches." Racial segregation, he
added, was red-white-and- blue American, for it was "honest, open and
aboveboard."

I don't know whether John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney agree
with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, who recently
opined
that gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military
because
he believes that homosexuality is "immoral."

Perhaps they don't share that belief but are merely pandering to the
extreme right wing of the Republican Party.

Frankly, I'm not sure which is worse: a presidential candidate who
sincerely holds beliefs forged at a time when men burned witches or a
candidate who is thoughtful and decent enough to know that such
beliefs
have no place in American law, but who is so cynical that he is
willing
to endanger the nation and support indecency to mollify extremists who
still hold such beliefs.

I recognize, of course, that not everyone accepts the analogy between
discrimination against blacks and discrimination against gays.

But those who fail to see the power of that analogy have blinded
themselves to reason, in the same way that Strom Thurmond, Ross
Barnett
and Orval Faubus blinded themselves (or pretended to be blind) to the
moral connections between slavery, racial discrimination and "separate
but equal" laws.

Like racial, gender, age, disability, religious and ethnic
discrimination, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is
grounded in ignorance and immorality. It is a deeply irrational policy
that has no more place in American law than a rule forbidding Mormons,
Italians, Aquarians or those born on Friday the 13th from serving
openly
in the military. Our nation is dedicated to the proposition that we
are
all "created equal." It embraces and celebrates the principles that we
are all endowed with certain "inalienable rights," that we are all
entitled to "equal protection of the laws" and that we are all
deserving
of equal dignity and respect.

We do not always live up to those principles, but the history of our
nation is one of progress toward a more tolerant, more open, more
reasoned society. It is a source of righteous pride that we Americans
have overcome the prejudices, hatreds, fears and narrow-mindedness of
those who came before us.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is not a policy that reflects true American
values. Like "separate but equal," it is at best a transitional
compromise with bigotry. Perhaps, for a time, it was a necessary evil.
But by failing now to condemn that policy, the GOP presidential
candidates have shamed themselves, their party and their nation.

And they are on the wrong side of history.

Thanks, TAP, for your thorough and thought-provoking response to my question about the federal government's responsibility in all this. Sorry about the slow acknowldegment on my part. Dang computers.

Gee whiz, TAP and Slydog, I'd love for you fellers (or if you're ladies, all the better!) to join me for drinks and dinner at the 1620 (or Sonic, your choice) so I could just sit and listen to the two of you talk about this. And I ain't a kiddin'.

I'm beginning to think TAP and slydog are a couple.

I'm beginning to think TAP and slydog are a couple.
--- widj

Widj,

A couple of what?

Sigh.

Even in apologizing, the Alabama format copied by Arkansas's legislative council slipped in an excuse for slavery in America.

According to the DG, it mentions that " slavery began in Mesopotamia in 3,500 B.C. and that "Slavery was unfortunately part of the culture of the state of Arkansas ..." (i.e., "Hey, we didn't invent slavery; it's just a fact of life.")

Truth is, slavery was common among ancient people as a result of war or conquest, but it took Europeans of unspeakable evil to invent slavery based on "race' or physical characteristics, complete with breeding and marketing of slaves and a system of children born into slavery.

So, if we apologize for slavery everyone will want one! What about Irish who couldn't get jobs? What about people whose land was stolen?

Click on TAP below, and then posit those questions.

Sigh.

Clicking TAP will take you to a source for the information about the "New Slavery" born in the U.S.