- This topic has 5 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
Senate Backs Apology for SlaveryThe senate has voted to apologize for slavery but specifically states the apology is not grounds for reparations. But the best part of the article is a quote from a professor at Vanderbilt. Here it is:
Even among proponents of a congressional apology, reaction to yesterday's vote was mixed. Carol M. Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University who had pushed for the Bush administration to issue an apology, called the Democratic-controlled Senate's resolution "meaningless" since the party and federal government are led by a black president and black voters are closely aligned with the Democratic party. "The Republican Party needed to do it," Swain said. "It would have shed that racist scab on the party."
What gets me is how conveniently it is forgotten that it was a Republican presidetn who wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and a Republican president who oversaw the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the constituion. She also conveniently forgets that the Democrats were the party of slaveowners and also were the party of Jim Crow laws and the poll tax. The Democratic party has done a magnificent job of whitewashing there role in slavery and the oppression of blacks in the south through the 60's. The Republican party was partially created by abolitionists. Apart from the political issues, I am horrified by the blatant ignorance or misuse of history. I would be willing to bet a years pay that the press will not point out the historical inaccuracy or labeling Republicans the party of racism. They certainly dont in this article.
Yes it is. It seems the Sith do indeed exist.I wonder who the other Sith Lord is, it is certainly not Joe Biden
What gets me is how conveniently it is forgotten that it was a Republican president who wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and a Republican president who oversaw the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. She also conveniently forgets that the Democrats were the party of slave owners and also were the party of Jim Crow laws and the poll tax. The Democratic party has done a magnificent job of whitewashing there role in slavery and the oppression of blacks in the south through the 60's. The Republican party was partially created by abolitionists. Apart from the political issues, I am horrified by the blatant ignorance or misuse of history. I would be willing to bet a years pay that the press will not point out the historical inaccuracy or labeling Republicans the party of racism. They certainly don't in this article.
Far too true; ranks with Bill Clinton apologizing to black Africa for slavery. The Senate is sadly lacking anything close to general historical knowledge... they haven't got a clue.
Wow…those comments by Prof. Swain really are something else. Maybe that's how she gets the following kind of job. From her web site:
Carol Swain is now a contributing political blogger for The Huffington Post. Her first post on Moving Beyond Republican Chaos and Self-Destruction is now live at...
From what I know, the vast majority of Americans are against reparations (thankfully) and so it will remain "talk" and nothing else.
Well, her statements reflect either ignorance or a willfull twisting of the historical record. It is up to us to determine which it is. I personally think her statements reflect the postmodern, deconstructive thread of modern scoiety in which it is permissible or even encouraged to interpret the facts in whichever way suits the purpose or viewpoint trying to be conveyed.
Understanding history is only going to happen when we use historical empathy; we must put ourselves in that time and mindset to get the true picture of what it was like then. Sounds bad to say but for many people in that time slavery was not just acceptable it was the social norm. It is abhorant now but was the way of life for many then.As long as we judge yesterday (or another culture) by today (or our culture) yesterday will always come out looking bad. History is what was not what we'd like to think it was. Can't apologize about things we don't like but we can see that we don't do similar again.
I don?t know how many times I have got into the argument about whether historians should make value judgments about the past. I say no, it is disingenuous at best to apply contemporary morality to past actors. Historians must understand the past in the context of the times in which they occurred. I agree with you 100% on that point.
I don?t know how many times I have got into the argument about whether historians should make value judgments about the past. I say no, it is disingenuous at best to apply contemporary morality to past actors. Historians must understand the past in the context of the times in which they occurred. I agree with you 100% on that point.
That has always been my position also
