Will Democrats Apologize for Slavery and Segregation?

[Formaldehyde]

It is a relatively simple problem to fix, as it largely has been in every single other advanced country besides the US.

But the light bulb has to want to change.

 

[LucyDuke]

I'll apologize for all of it.

We're really sorry about what Grandpa did. He was taught very wrong stuff when he was little. Yeah, he made an obvious mess and we're not happy about it either. He's deaf, scolding will not improve this situation. Please help us try to clean up instead.

 

[Hygro]

The Democratic Senate did issue an apology for slavery in 2009

I did a little page 1 google fu, apparently this was a thing in 2008.

 

[Agent327]

For decades community leaders in South Carolina — and across the country — have been calling to get rid of this symbol of hatred, and action has been long overdue.

But this is just the beginning of a conversation we as a society need to have about race, bigotry and violence in this country — not the end of one.

Good enough. It’s good to know you wish to begin this conversation and I am happy to oblige. Let me begin with this question:

Will the Democratic Party finally apologize for supporting slavery, segregation, lynching, and the Ku Klux Klan?

Thoughts?

I was unaware the Democratic party still supported slavery, segregation etc etc. Is this kind of sidestepping the issue typical for this publication/author, you think?

 

[Gary Childress]

I was unaware the Democratic party still supported slavery, segregation etc etc. Is this kind of sidestepping the issue typical for this publication/author, you think?

It probably is. There are dozens of conservative journals, blogs etc out there. If it weren't for trashing "liberals" or blaming all the world's problems on them Republicans might have no significant platform at all I guess.

 

[Agent327]

Well, I don't know about Republicans, but it's a sad thing if conservatism is only about 'what is bad about the world today'. Conservatism used to actually mean something. (Although it might be hard to pinpoint what exactly...)

 

[Gary Childress]

My take on "conservative" is that a conservative views change with at least some degree of suspicion. For example, a true "conservative" would be critical of the pace of technological change in the computer age, pointing out that the pace of change has outpaced the ability of society to successfully adapt to those changes or come to terms with the impact of those changes. I would think a true "conservative" would also be more into environmentalism as overpopulation forces enormous changes on the environment and the world around us from what we've seen in the past. Just a couple examples. Of course the past is no picnic either. But perhaps only a reactionary would want to turn back the clock. Conservatives just want to slow it down. At least that's what I heard in a Bill Moyers interview with historian John Lukacs, IIRC.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes. I'm serious. Many want a national dialogue on race, here it is from the Republican side I guess. While I don't think there are any Democrats in office today who have the same policies as the Democrats had during more evil times, I guess it is a little paradoxical that the Democratic party which is perhaps trying to lead the way in reform of race relations was the party that most contributed to maintaining the split to begin with. I don't think we can deny that fact.

I know some conservatives believe that liberals are simply creating a welfare state that isn't really helping minorities or the country. Sometimes it's hard to figure out who is right and who is wrong when you really sit down and try to sort out what people really think by listening and probing into what they have to say on things. Perhaps conservatives are being used as scapegoats to blame all our problems on without really listening to what they have to say on matters. I'm not aware of any Republicans who believe that slavery was a good thing either. I believe the bill that passed in the Senate was coauthored by a Republican and a Democrat together.

Wrong on so many levels. First, it's not really a Democrat/Republican thing, it's a liberal/conservative thing. And the conservatives have always been on the wrong side. As has been stated, in 150 years the parties have changed many things many times. But if you do want to blame the parties, the Democrats have at least been trying to undo the damage over the past 50+ years. The Republicans have been actively trying to keep the damage intact.

As to the welfare state, it has helped immensely. But it hasn't gotten all the job done. And that is because of remaining conservatism. The "War on Poverty" ended when Reagan took office, and the government switched to a "War on the Poor". If conservatives actually wanted to help the poor, and particularly the black poor, they would support higher minimum wages, stronger unions, more public employment, less privatization of public services, welfare with fewer strings attached, more and better early childhood education, lower unemployment and higher wages as a whole, end the drug war, demilitarize the police, and a whole host of other things which are direct opposites of core Republican policies.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, I don't know about Republicans, but it's a sad thing if conservatism is only about 'what is bad about the world today'. Conservatism used to actually mean something. (Although it might be hard to pinpoint what exactly...)

Conservatism is about the preservation of tradition, traditional power relations, the status quo in general. It's based on the assumptions that tradition and status quo are in and of themselves good things. But that's only ever been true for a minority of the population.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Conservatism now only essentially means "what is good for GM is good for the country". Corporations have literally bought America lock, stock, and barrel. The rich are in complete control.

But that also holds true for the Democrats, even though they are allowed to pretend that they aren't as solely interested in becoming rich themselves. That the fairly minute differences in their platform represent something different, instead of being small variations of the same theme.

As George Carlin liked to point out, we only have the illusion of having any control of the government by being allowed to vote for one of their two candidates in the general election.