Couple of things
- Ah yes. Should have figured something like this must have been in the works. I'm curious though, I thought those in the Republican leadership who opposed the bill apologizing for slavery were doing so primarily because we wanted to focus on the present and the future. I would imagine they'd naturally oppose this bill then, right?
- While I agree the overall process to review our current alcohol ordinances is a good thing, I would have liked to see the Athens Banner-Herald's editorial board come out against the whole 'banning-Happy-Hour' thing. As Hillary and I discussed yesterday, if you really just enforce the existing laws on the books, giving our law enforcement the necessary resources to do so, you'd probably see an improvement in what you're hoping to do.
- I absolutely love the concept of the editor's note.
- This is why we should all follow Bob Barker's advice.
- While I agree the overall process to review our current alcohol ordinances is a good thing, I would have liked to see the Athens Banner-Herald's editorial board come out against the whole 'banning-Happy-Hour' thing. As Hillary and I discussed yesterday, if you really just enforce the existing laws on the books, giving our law enforcement the necessary resources to do so, you'd probably see an improvement in what you're hoping to do.
- I absolutely love the concept of the editor's note.
- This is why we should all follow Bob Barker's advice.
posted by Jmac at 7:47 AM
14 Comments:
I like the editor's note too, but I also like the idea of people being in the phone book. Practically no one is these days, and it's annoying.
Re: confederate remembrance day, or whatever it's called,
1. I it's hypocritical for Georgia Republicans (or southern conservatives in general) to support the one (conf. remembrance) and not the other (slavery apology), then it's just as hypocritical for Georgia Democrats (or southern pro-Union liberals in general) to support the one (slavery apology) and not the other (conf. remembrance).
2. I can't claim to have read every statement by people who oppose slavery apologies, but I haven't really noticed their argument as being that we need to "move on" and let the past stay in the past. Rather, it's that (as we discuss a bit in a thread from a few days ago) apologies require responsibility, and responsibility requires that you have some control over what happens. It's wrong to hold contemporary whites/government responsible for things that were done in the past, over which the contemporary apologizers had absolutely no control. That's the idea as I understand it, and since a Confederate Remembrance Holiday does not require anyone to apologize or take responsibility for things they didn't to, the two situations really aren't the same.
I think you're mistaken Xon.
Concerning No. 1, much of this is important in context. The apology for slavery is a concession for a wrong committed by the state, while the proposal to establish a Confederate Remembrance Month is honoring something that many Georgians, particularly African-American Georgians, feel is directly responsible for what needs to be apologized for.
So, yes, they're not the same scenarios, but not necessarily for the reasons you suggest.
I also don't understand the need for those who are hesitant to issue an official apology for slavery to make this an insanely personal issue. That is to say, I don't comprehend the counterargument 'I'm a contemporary white man ... I never owned any slaves so why should I apologize?'
But that misses the point entirely (and also kinda misses the point of representative government). The point is not that you, Xon, or me, Jmac, or the Georgia General Assembly's Speaker of the House Glenn Richardson are assuming personal responsibility in this apology, but that the state of Georgia, acting through its elected officials, is acknowledging its grave mistake in condoning slavery (as well as Jim Crow, segregation, etc.).
The point is that the state of Georgia itself is culpable, not the individuals who are casting their vote. So I don't think you or me should personally apologize for slavery since, well, we've never owned slaves. I do think the state of Georgia should apologize for permitting slavery to happen in its past.
But who is the "state of Georgia" that would be doing the apologizing? Or, who would Sonny be apologizing on behalf of? Is he apologizing for you, me, and other living citizens of Georgia? But there's nothing to apologize for on our behalf, as you already said.
So is he apologizing on behalf of "the government" as an abstraction from any specific people? The government which existed then, and still exists now, is what is taking responsibility? But, again, does this really make any sense? Isn't the government of Georgia, when abstracted out to this level, nothing more than the people of Georgia? And so we are back to the question of which people are being apologized for? Is it you and me, alive today? But we didn't do anything. Is it the dead Georgians who were part of the slavery system back then? Is that who we are apologizing for? Would Sonny be claiming to speak for the dead if he issued an apology for slavery? And would anyone really take that seriously?
"That Alexander Stephens, what a bigot he was."
"Hey, dude, he apologized for all that slavery stuff, remember?"
"He did?"
"Well, yes, by proxy. Sonny issued an official apology on behalf of Georgia."
"Oh, that makes me feel, uh....not much better."
And I have no particular interest in a Confederate Holiday, for what it's worth. Nor do I really care all that much about official "apologies" for this or that at a governmental level. Like I said in the earlier thread, I actually believe in the idea of corporate or collective responsibility. Because I'm not a liberal. I do have questions about exactly who or what is being apologized for, though, if Sonny Perdue were actually to issue such an apology.
It should be noted, though, that these arguments about corporate responsibility don't only come up in the context of whether or not this or that government agency should apologize for some past injustice. There are a number of (usually) "progressive" political prescriptions that involve compensating people for past injustices that they themselves did not directly experience. Not just reparations (which might not be all that popular with progressives taken as a group), but affirmative action, quotas, diversity standards, etc. I do grant, though, that here the line gets blurry between past injustices and continuing effects of those injustices, and so these policies are not grounded only in a notion of collective responsibility.
Frankly, wouldn't the basic gist of what people want be accomplished with a statement more like the following?:
"In the past, the government and the general population of Georgia perpetrated some horrible injustices. Such as, x, y, z.
As Georgia moves forward into the future, and that future is bright, we want to do so having made as clean a break as we possibly can from these past horrors. But that always starts with acknowledging them for what they were. And these policies and actions were injustices, and I want to make that absolutely clear. There is much to be proud of about Georgia and her history, but this is a black eye we will have to wear forever. No matter how many other states or governments were doing the same thing, and no matter how much other stuff might have been good about Georgia back then. These injustices, without qualification, were bad/wicked/evil. Any government that is committed to justice must never repeat these mistakes. I pledge to you that I, as your governor, would and will never countenatnce any policies which would even hint toward returning to such a course that we previously trod. Slavery; wrong yesterday, wrong today, wrong tomorrow."
I can see how the governor might make a statement something like this, and even how he could/should give it on behalf of all Georgians (or just the white ones? That's a slightly awkward wrinkle...). What I don't see, though, is where the word "apologize" needs to come into play, especially given the seeming difficulties with such a notion in the context of injustices that nobody alive today could have prevented no matter what they did. The idea of "apologizing" for such things just doesn't seem to wash.
What does it hurt to apologize?
I agree with Hillary's sentiment, particularly in light of what I think is a very well-done suggested statement. What harm would there be in tweaking this to read ...
Any government that is committed to justice must never repeat these mistakes. And, to whatever extent the state of Georgia played in these mistakes - whether they be slavery, segregation or other means of racial discrimination - this government offers an apology for those who cannot do so. I pledge to you that I, as your governor, would and will never countenance any policies which would even hint toward returning to such a course that we previously trod.
So the governor is apologizing on behalf of the actual perpetrators, not on behalf of you and me?
Would that be a compromise you could live with?
... because you and I are apparently negotiating the language of the official apology. :)
As Xon questions the identity of the state government, we see philosophy gone awry -- disconnected from the real world. Those who are affected by and participate in government action accept similar assumptions about the identity of the government. It actually makes a lot of sense for government officials to treat the government as an entity and make policy statements as if it were an entity.
I realize we are closer to one another than may have first appeared, JMac, but to me it is significant whether or not we call this statement an "apology." What I have suggested so far is not an apology, as I understand that term. It is an acknowledgment of a past mistake and a pledge not to repeat that mistake. This is not the same as taking responsibility for the original mistake, which to me is a prerequisite for an apology.
Adrian, plenty of philosophers have made the same point you are making, that government can and should be thought of as an entity in abstraction from the people who actually compose it. In fact, I would think such abstractionism is a much better illustration of "philosophy run amok" than the position I've suggested. Philosophers love to talk about "strawberriness" as some distinct element from actual strawberries. We have a long history of this sort of thing. My own particularism (particular people are responsible for misdeeds, not abstract entities) is an anti-philosophical move, as I see it.
I'm something of a communitarian paleo-conservative, or something. I'm not a liberal, whether the kind of liberal we are talking about is a progressive, a libertarian, or a "neo-conservative." And I myself believe in such a thing as corporate or collective responsibility (though there have to be some conditions met for such a thing to be acceptable, i.e. we can't just run around ascribing it whenever we feel like it; and I'm skeptical of many contemporary political policies that are prescribed on such a basis; and I don't think such responsibility is ascribable to abstract entities like governments).
My question here is how a self-identifying liberal can advocate such a thing as collective responsibility. So my question, Adrian, is not with all people who want to talk about the government as an entity separate from the people who actually make it up (though I am a bit skeptical of doing this kind of abstraction in this particular case). Rather, my question is how you, assuming you think of yourself as a liberal of some sort, can advocate treating government as an entity apart from the people who make it up? What does this mean? What happened to government by, of, and for the people? And are these just official statements that policymakers make, or can they actually put some of them into practice in a way that is felt and experienced by actual people? If they can, then how can this be justified on liberal-individualist presuppositions? (I'm being effected by policies that are put in place in the name of an abstract entity...how am I sufficiently connected to my government in the way liberalism requires if this is the case?)
As is often oddly the case, I'm somewhat with Xon here. On the other hand, I'm still in favor of the apology. I just think it also means everyone the government represents is apologizing, and that that's the right thing to do.
Just put up a huge billboard in the middle of the state with 'Slavery: our bad' on it. Then the blacks can feel all fuzzy when they look at it.
Post a Comment
<< Home