A key difference, though, is that many of those victims and victimizers are still alive today.
I wouldn’t argue with any of that.
Keep in mind that I’m just asking questions to try and see this problem from different angles, and if a certain assumption leads to nonsensical or at least highly suspect conclusions. That’s one way I use to analyse situations like this.
Of course someone should apologize if they feel some responsibility or want to offer some condolence. But do they have some obligation to apologize? I don’t see it.
Hey Hippy, you might want to take a look at some old SDMB threads on reparations (in case you haven’t already). It may give you a lesson on how the topic has been handled here before.
This is out and out nonsense. It is sad that you have learned to do this, but I was taught by my father that a man will take responsibilty for his actions. When I am wrong, I will take ownership and apologize. The flip side of that is that I will not apologize for something I have or had no control over. If I do, I weaken the quality of my apology. It becomes hollow.
The flip side of owning up to your own mistakes and apologizing is not letting other people weasel out of apologizing for something everyone knows they did wrong, too. Personal and group-affiliated respnsibility.
The only judge of whether an apology is any good or not that counts is the person or persons being apologized to. Period. People apologize on behalf of other’s mistakes all the time in the best societies. It’s not inappropriate apologize on behalf of one’s group’s misbehavior.
The only measure of an apology’s worth that counts for anything is the sincerity and earnestness in which it is given. (Timeliness counts for a lot, too, obviously.)
Every objection I’ve heard so far is some variation on 1) a misguided presumption that an apology for slavery is worthless because too much time has passed and 2) or posters projecting their own reluctance and insecurity about being the beneficiaries of slavery on an institution’s written acknowledgements of that basic truth.
Sometimes in the real world for very real wrongs, you do take ownership of other people’s apologize for the actions of others
Chiming in late, here. Looking over the article I really don’t see what else Wachovia could have done. They were required, by some other organization to publicize whether they company, or any other companies that they had acquired, had profited from slavery in the US.
Given that they did have to publicize the data, I believe that they had to apologize for it. I don’t think they could simply publish the data and leave it without any comment.
As for whether the apology is worth anything…
I agree with all the other posters who believe that some real contribution to fight slavery around the world, or even in the US, would be a good idea. (Before people jump on me for claiming that slavery still exists in the US, there are articles in the news with distressing regularity about illegal immigration rings that keep their ‘immigrants’ in hovels as slave labor. It is not legal slavery. But it does happen here, too.) Without some kind of concrete contribution by Wachovia, this is just legalese CYA.
Askia, hilarious and true. (See what they did? They made you talk to yourself!)
*Are you familiar with the concept of White privilege? *
Spot on, Hippy Hollow, but here’s the rub: white privillege, or more aptly, non black privillege (wouldn’t want to leave Anaamika out) is precisely why some people react so negatively to perfectly reasonable attempts to deal with the history of slavery in the US.
Debra Dickerson, in her insightful book, The End of Blackness, notes that unearned privillege can drive its beneficiaries crazy. When the fact of it is openly acknowledged, it can make peoples lives and achievements seem less than legitimate, gained under questionable circumstances. What good is winning if the game is obviously rigged?
If privillege is crazy making, Dickerson notes, it’s also impossible to give up. Few people want to acknowledge the unfair advantages they enjoy over others, but nobody wants to give up those advantages either. To put it another way, no one concedes power willingly.
This particularly true in the US because the myth of meritocracy has a stronger hold here than most Western countries. Toby Young, in his bitter, hilarious* How To Lose Friends and Alienate People,* he notes how almost every person manages to rise at Vanity Fair is connected through family ties or close friendship with power brokers at the magazine or in the journalism world in general. Almost nobody makes it on their own.
OTOH almost every American wants to believe that it’s possible to make it on one’s own. History, ethnicity, family, social class, aren’t supposed to matter. The fact that they matter a lot is merely an inconvenient fact that’s far to gauche to mention.
Holy crap, you with the face! That thread exposed so much vitriol and hatred. Very disappointing, but it was a Pit thread, I guess…
Khadaji,Askia answered your post better than I could have. Are you suggesting that President Bush, for example, is less of a man for his apologies to Eastern Europe over Yalta, or to Japan for the accidental sinking of a trawler by a U.S. submarine? He certainly wasn’t responsible in any imaginable way for the former, and not directly for the latter. Part of responsible leadership entails taking responsibility for actions over which you may not have direct involvement, but the organizations or entities you represent do.
I’m shocked that some posters feel that there is a statute of limitations on expressing regret for actions that harmed, and in some ways, continues to harm, people.
Does Wachovia have anything to do with Saudi Arabia, or any other form of slavery currently practiced? Why should they work to end it today? Why should they do more to end it than you, me, or anyone else?
Do you demand other corporations get upset about slavery? Or is your call for action limited to Wachovia for some strange reason?
More importantly, why do you think that apologizing for their role (or their subsidaries’ role) in slavery detracts in any way from the wrong of contemporary slavery? Do you think they’re being hypocritical?
Finally, the “socially acceptable” point is a moot one. In Sudan, it is socially acceptable to own slaves. Do you think the form of chattel slavery practiced in the US was condoned by all societies at the time? Don’t you think west Africans* would have been appalled to learn how their brethren were being treated in the New World? Do you think their opinion on the subject mattered one little bit?
Your outrage rings a little false to me.
Maybe it is just a PC move. Or maybe the CEO has a conscience and wants to clear the air. He/she didn’t do anything bad, but the company’s history is sordid. And now the record book will show that the company apologized. Case closed. Good consciences can be had.
Exactly. And the same can be said for governments. If 20 years from now you found out the government hadn’t given you all the tax refund money you were due this year, nothing would stop you from getting the matter addressed. It wouldn’t matter that the White House had gone through several different administrations. It wouldn’t matter if the tax code had changed. You would treat the government as a perpetual entity.
If Wachovia was handing out checks to people to compensate for slavery, I would raise my eyebrows. But all it is doing is simply acknowledging the regrettable relationship it has to slavery. Even though it can be seen as an empty gesture, it’s not one to me. I’m glad that finally some institution is standing up and saying, “Hey, we profited from a really bad, fucked-up thing, and although it happened a while ago, we feel some shame about it.” No qualifications about it being “socially acceptable” at the time. Just a statement. Our own government doesn’t have the same balls. Frankly, Wesley Clarke, I feel we can’t say a single thing about any other country’s problems unless we can at least acknowledge our own, both now and in the past. We haven’t done this, so the high horse we sit on is undeserved IMHO.
It was fortunate for the survivors of the Holocast that they got some compensation and that benefiting institutions came to their senses while those survivors were alive. But unfortunately, the same consideration was not given to slaves, because most Americans were blinded by hatred and racism while those former slaves were alive. Folks died before they were given the simple kindness of an apology.
And that wound it still open.
I’m bothered by the “too much time has passed” kind of comments. They’re so convenient. The government had ample time to apologize and compensate to direct victims, but for decades it chose to intentionally deny them of any fighting chance to get what they were owed. It’s like a tobacco company waiting for all the lung-cancer victims to die before it starts paying out settlement rewards it owes them. It gets off scott-free, but the wrong is still hanging there in the air like so much foul stankness.
This isn’t the case of a person apologizing. It is a corporation, which lives in perpuatity as long as its trademark and holdings stay in operation. Wachovia believes that it owes an apology to slaves. That debt doesn’t evaporate just 'cuz they came to this conclusion too late and all of the direct victims are now dead. It’s doing a good thing.
If someone terrorized your family generation after generation and then stopped once you were born, would the terrorist owe you an apology. No, not in any objective sense. But it wouldn’t make you sad if you got one, now would it? That’s how I feel about the whole thing.
*I’m aware that many slaves were sold from other Africans.
Nope. I’ll apologize for anything I did, or even could do something about and didn’t, no matter how long ago it was. I just won’t apologize for something I didn’t do.
I don’t know. It does not seem important or appropriate to me, but on the other hand it seems important to some people.
It cost little to be polite. To sooth some nerve.
I question who the heck would want to receive an apology from people who did nothing wrong, given to people who were not wronged. Seems pretty New Age to me.
If he were apologizing on behalf of himself, yes he would be wrong in doing so. He was apologizing on behalf of the US which could have prevented those tragedies.
You are correct. And you support my point.
How, may I ask, could the current business of Wachovia prevented slavery? If you can tell me, I will concede the point that they owe an apology. Should they invent a time machine?
Are you saying that the sinking of the Japanese trawler by a US submarine is the same as Wachovia having merged with companies that used to own slaves? Note that the trawler sunk DURING Mr. Bush’s tenure. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/10/japan.substrike.03/The slaves were not owned during anyone who works at Wachovia’s lifetime.
Wachovia is not apologizing for owning slaves. Wachovia never owned slaves. Two companies that Wachovia eventually acquired had owned slaves before Wachovia existed. Wachovia owes no apology for anything, and the Chicago ordinance is divisive and stupid.
Yes, they are. Wachovia did own slaves. Doesn’t matter if the companies they acquired owed them, when they acquired those companies they acquired the wealth that was accumulated through slavery. Thus, they are partially responsible for that.
So being in possession of the wealth accumulated through slavery is the samething as being in possesion of slaves? Can you run that train by me one more time? Perhaps a bit slower?
