Last week I posted an apology for lack of content. I got really swamped and when I had a chance to post, I really didn’t have a lot of time and I didn’t have any idea what I was going to post. I ended up posting several paragraphs on the subject of apologies. The other day, a comment was added to that post:
Peter, I don't read your "Ramblings" every day, but I try to catch up almost
always weekly. This blog, "My Apologies" reminded me of recent requests, no
demands, that we in the South should apologize to our African-American brethren
because almost 150 years ago, some blacks were kept as slaves by some whites.
Now, who knows how many of our forefathers were slave owners and how many were
slaves? With a Junior Achievement Program, I worked with a very fine black man
and in one of our conversations, he said that his family came to the US from one
of the islands in the Caribbean long after the War between the States. I
believe that somewhere in my family history someone had slaves, but I do not
know this for sure, and, if it is so, who they were. What I am saying, just what
good is it for me to apologize to the blacks for the possibility some of their
relatives might have been slaves?
I don’t think that anything in my post had anything to do with slavery, but, there it is. I read a similar question a year or so ago, something to the effect of, “Why do you want me to apologize to you for something that someone I never met did to someone that you’ve never met?” On the other hand, an apology generally makes it easier to forgive.
I have also heard the statement made that “If you are white, in America, you have benefited from slavery.” I have also heard that all generalities are false. I can certainly see the point, White America, back in the day, certainly benefited from having a cheap source of labor. At the same time, many white abolitionists made some huge sacrifices to free the slaves (as big as what the slaves sacrificed? of course not), how did those people benefit from slavery?
I think that his particular situation gets very complicated when one stops to think about it, too. Who exactly should apologize, and, to whom, exactly, should they apologize? The simple answer, of course, is that the whites should apologize to the blacks. Let me ask the question, though: Consider a hypothetical situation: suppose that a black man, whose mother is white, whose father’s family immigrated to the United States during the twentieth century, so none of his ancestors were ever slaves (at least, not in America), in fact, it is not inconceivable that he had ancestors (on his mothers side) that owned slaves. I don’t think that an apology to him serves much purpose, but, at the same time, an apology from him wouldn’t mean much to the people that feel that they are entitled to an apology, just because he doesn’t look like a plantation owner.
Some people have suggested that Christianity ultimately is to blame for slavery; there were a lot of preachers that taught from the pulpit that slavery was biblical and just. I have no defense at all for any preacher that ever taught that; there are only two reasons I can think of why they would: either they were racist, or they had a number of slave-owners in their congregations who were large contributors. Either way, this is hardly Christianity—although that certainly fits the stereotype (please excuse me if I refuse to believe that televangelists are representative of Christian ministers in general). I will admit that slavery is talked about in the Old Testament, and there are even scriptures in the New Testament that say that servants (which sounds a whole lot nicer than saying slaves) should serve their masters well. At the same time, even in the Old Testament, Israel was ordered to free slaves after six years of service, and, in the New, slavery was an institution of the Roman Empire, not the Christian Church.
Further, if Christianity does deserve some blame for slavery, who deserves the credit for Abolition? Do you think any of the Abolitionists were not Christian? You might convince me that there were a few, but I can’t help but believe that the vast majority were men of faith, and most of them, men of the Christian faith.
I have also heard the statement made that “If you are white, in America, you have benefited from slavery.” I have also heard that all generalities are false. I can certainly see the point, White America, back in the day, certainly benefited from having a cheap source of labor. At the same time, many white abolitionists made some huge sacrifices to free the slaves (as big as what the slaves sacrificed? of course not), how did those people benefit from slavery?
I think that his particular situation gets very complicated when one stops to think about it, too. Who exactly should apologize, and, to whom, exactly, should they apologize? The simple answer, of course, is that the whites should apologize to the blacks. Let me ask the question, though: Consider a hypothetical situation: suppose that a black man, whose mother is white, whose father’s family immigrated to the United States during the twentieth century, so none of his ancestors were ever slaves (at least, not in America), in fact, it is not inconceivable that he had ancestors (on his mothers side) that owned slaves. I don’t think that an apology to him serves much purpose, but, at the same time, an apology from him wouldn’t mean much to the people that feel that they are entitled to an apology, just because he doesn’t look like a plantation owner.
Some people have suggested that Christianity ultimately is to blame for slavery; there were a lot of preachers that taught from the pulpit that slavery was biblical and just. I have no defense at all for any preacher that ever taught that; there are only two reasons I can think of why they would: either they were racist, or they had a number of slave-owners in their congregations who were large contributors. Either way, this is hardly Christianity—although that certainly fits the stereotype (please excuse me if I refuse to believe that televangelists are representative of Christian ministers in general). I will admit that slavery is talked about in the Old Testament, and there are even scriptures in the New Testament that say that servants (which sounds a whole lot nicer than saying slaves) should serve their masters well. At the same time, even in the Old Testament, Israel was ordered to free slaves after six years of service, and, in the New, slavery was an institution of the Roman Empire, not the Christian Church.
Further, if Christianity does deserve some blame for slavery, who deserves the credit for Abolition? Do you think any of the Abolitionists were not Christian? You might convince me that there were a few, but I can’t help but believe that the vast majority were men of faith, and most of them, men of the Christian faith.
If it helps, than I will apologize for slavery. I am particularly ashamed of those men that called themselves Christians, and used scripture out of context to justify an abominable, unjust, inhumane practice. So, once again, my apologies.
Posts
1 comment:
First - apologies are optional, so apologies extracted by demand are meaningless.
Second - Even if we're not directly responsible for a wrong, we can choose to associate ourselves with a wrong... consider that Jesus "apologised" to God for the sins of humanity, despite being blameless. He chose to associate himself with us, in order to restore and heal - and God accepted his apology!!
If a white person decides to "volunteer" as a representative of slavery, and a black person is willing to "volunteer" as a representative of the slaves to forgive them, then their past personal history is less relevant than their willingness to identify themselves with a wrong situation that still needs healing.
Note also, asking for forgiveness makes you more vulnerable than merely apologising - if you say, "I'm sorry", there's no meaningful opportunity for the offended party to respond, but if you say, "Can you please forgive me?", it puts the ball in the other person's court to say, "yes, I forgive you"
Post a Comment