I was just wondering what you guys thought about this:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/29/house.slavery/index.html)
I live in a predominantly african american neighborhood so the opinions I have recieved have mostly been biased...
I think it's cool to apologize but it seems like it came a little late.
Everyone suffers, the sooner people forget about the trivial matters real progress can be made.
That said, it is about time an apology came.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
*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.
"We're sorry about something that no one alive was present for, not us, and not you." maybe you should read the entire article. Does this really have any meaning? 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 (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
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_
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
Nothing more than an empty symbolic gesture.
Nothing more than an empty symbolic gesture.
Well, yeah. I don't think you'll find anyone that disagrees with that, it's the government we're talking about here.
Quite right. Was even gonna add "which is about all you can expect from govt anymore, anyway", but had already hit that pesky post button. Oh well...
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...
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.
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.
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.
Wow, the heat sure went up in this thread today. Keep it civil, folks. Thanks.
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.
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.
All I can say about it is....GET READY FOR REPARATIONS! :disaprove :headbump
All I can say about it is....GET READY FOR REPARATIONS! :disaprove :headbumpI fail to see how an apology equals reparations. I didn’t see us give back Hawaii in 1993 when the Senate passed a resolution apologizing for overthrowing the Kingdom of Hawaii. I didn’t see reparations given to Native Americans when the Senate apologized to them in April.
Even in 1988, when the U.S. government apologized to the Japanese-Americans held in detention camps only those still living received reparations. Personally, I am in favor of reparations to all living former slaves.
Web Rider, El Sitherino, take that to PMs please, for further discussion. It's way outside the 'friendly discussion' spirit of this forum. The snarkiness is getting infraction-worthy, and there will be no more warnings on this.
I fail to see how an apology equals reparations. I didn’t see us give back Hawaii in 1993 when the Senate passed a resolution apologizing for overthrowing the Kingdom of Hawaii. I didn’t see reparations given to Native Americans when the Senate apologized to them in April.
Even in 1988, when the U.S. government apologized to the Japanese-Americans held in detention camps only those still living received reparations. Personally, I am in favor of reparations to all living former slaves.
Lets just say that Hawaiians and Native Americans are not as vocal (nor are there as many of them) as the descendants of slaves.
Here comes a foreigner...
Slavery was a worldwide problem, which lasted for millenia. It falls upon us all to recognise the harm caused by it. My country has taken a lot of flak over the years for it as well. Perhaps it would be appropriate to remember those who strove to abolish such an abominable practice? An apology is a welcome gesture, if sincere, but little more.
That said, your government, and many of your people, should be apologising for segregation more than anything else. It took good people's lives to change that, and I'm sure there are plenty who still remember it and many who are still affected by it - consider the disgraceful conduct of the Federal Government after the hurricane that hit New Orleans.
In a 'land of the free', it is treating your citizens as second class based on skin tone in the 21st century that needs to be apologised for.
To me, it sounds pointless, however, it obvously matters to a lot of people, so I guess it's a good thing.
Slavery IS a worldwide problem, which have been going on for millenia. It falls upon us all to recognise the harm caused by it.
Fixed.
Native Americans are not as vocal
I can tell you never meet my grandmother. :xp:
@mur'phon (#31) - A wise change and unfortunately accurate assessment. As you say, it is a continuing problem.
Perhaps the 'world police' should be turning its attention to the present situation, rather than dwelling on one that is, for all intents and purposes, resolved?
I can tell you never meet my grandmother. :xp:
I meant the population, not individuals.
I meant the population, not individuals.
I knew what you meant. :xp:
To me, it sounds pointless, however, it obvously matters to a lot of people, so I guess it's a good thing.
I agree. Its a nice gesture, but really, apologizing for something that our ancestors did? Slavery in the U.S. was a horrible institution, but isn´t it a bit late for apologies anyway? Do I feel bad for the descendents of slaves for what their ancestors had to go through? Of course I do, but I´m not going to go around apologizing for something that happened centuries ago. While its a nice gesture, shouldn´t the House focus on the many present problems before worrying about the past?
My ancestors are from Italy, many from Rome. Am I going to apologize to the descendents of the millions of people the Roman empire enslaved and mistreated? No, I´m not. I should not have to bear the responsibilty of my ancestors actions.
If anything, the House should apologize for segregation, as that is still going on in many areas of the U.S. To be blunt, since I´m white and my ancestors have never been enslaved, this does not mean to me, what it would mean to an African American. But if it makes people happy...I guess its good thing.
-HOP
I love the amount of not reading that's going on.
Of course I do, but I´m not going to go around apologizing for something that happened centuries ago. And no one is asking you too. I don’t understand why everyone is making this personal. This is the Federal Government of the United States apologizing for state sponsored laws that allowed slavery and later laws designed to keep a segment of the population down. This is not individual citizens apologizing this is a apology by the Federal Government.
I should not have to bear the responsibilty of my ancestors actions. Who is saying you should bear the responsibility? If anything, the House should apologize for segregationThey did.
I love the amount of not reading that's going on. I think people are confusing Jim Crow with
http://www.bottlebooks.com/American%20Medicinal%20Spirits%20Company/0484313.gif)
If I missed anything while reading (and it sound like I missed a lot) sorry. Iґm in another country, and everybody is so nosy at this cafe its hard to concentrate...a bad excuse, I know. My apologies. :)
Yeah I know nobody is asking me to bear the responcibility, I was just making a comparison between slavery, the U.S. Governmentґs apology situation, and the cruelties undoubtedly committed by my ancestors. That and the U.S. government is ultimately bearing the responsibility of past actions.
Yeah, I know the House apologized for segregation, but what I had meant to say was segregation is the more predominant of the two in the U.S. today, and it just made more sense to apologize for it.The govґt really should be working harder to quash it, rather than taking up time writing an apology, though. I know it is a consolation to those who have been targets of discrimination, but I think every one of them would rather segregation be decreased rather than the government just saying sorry.
-HOP
Yeah, I know the House apologized for segregation, but what I had meant to say was segregation is the more predominant of the two in the U.S. today, and it just made more sense to apologize for it.The govґt really should be working harder to quash it, rather than taking up time writing an apology, though. I know it is a consolation to those who have been targets of discrimination, but I think every one of them would rather segregation be decreased rather than the government just saying sorry.
-HOP
:nod: Agreed.
Laws and whatnot to end segregation aren't enough though - the perceptions and attitudes of the people have to change. There is little a government can do to achieve that. Government action, such as the various 'affirmative action' policies may serve only to entrench divisions.