|
The New York Times
New
Jersey
On Politics
A Slavery Apology,
but Debate Continues
By JEREMY W. PETERS,
nytimes.com January 13, 2008
TRENTON -- WHEN apologizing, a
simple “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” usually does the trick quite nicely.
But as an alternative, there is the nonapology apology, an expression of
contrition that typically involves regret or remorse but stops short of a
full-blown apology.
For years, presidents and former slave states have done just that when
addressing the nation’s shameful history of human bondage.
But last week, when the New Jersey Legislature formally apologized for slavery,
it took the full step by offering an unequivocal “we’re sorry.” It is only
the third state to do so, joining North Carolina and Alabama.
While the distinction may seem like semantics to some, for those who have
pressed Congress and state legislatures to apologize for slavery, there is a
considerable difference between expressing regret — which they consider
insufficient — and an unambiguous apology.
“The concept of apologizing carries special meaning to people because when a
person apologizes, there’s the opportunity to accept it or reject it,” said
Carol M. Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt
University who has advocated a national apology for slavery. “With an
expression of regret, that’s something that you may acknowledge, but there’s no
expectation that you’re going to accept it. Symbolically, the notion of an
apology carries greater weight.”
So in that sense, what New Jersey did last week had significance beyond the fact
that it was the first expression of contrition for slavery from a northern
state.
Legislatures in Maryland and Virginia did not use the word apology in their
recent resolutions condemning their history with slavery. Neither did
former President Bill Clinton and President Bush when they spoke about the
subject.
In 1998, Mr. Clinton expressed regret about the United States’ role in the slave
trade. And Mr. Bush harshly condemned slavery during a visit to Africa in
2003, but went only as far as saying that Africans were forced to endure an
“assault on their culture and their dignity.”
New Jersey, the last northern state to abolish slavery, not only apologized for
it but also spent a great deal of verbiage — 1,602 words in all — musing about
slavery’s horrors and the damage it inflicted.
“Africans were captured and sold at auction as chattel, like inanimate property
or animals,” the resolution approved by the Legislature on Monday said.
The bill went on to say that “for many African-Americans the scars left behind
are unbearable, haunting their psyches and clouding their vision of the future.”
Then, near the bottom of the measure, was the lightning-rod statement:
“The Legislature of the State of New Jersey expresses its profound regret for
the State’s role in slavery and apologizes for the wrongs inflicted by slavery
and its after effects.”
The resolution sailed through both chambers, passing the Senate by 30 to 1 and
the Assembly by 59 to 8.
The few dissenting legislators were not opposed to owning up to New Jersey’s
disgraceful history with slavery. But they questioned whether an apology
was the appropriate way to do so.
It seemed as if those who were opposed to apologizing for slavery — much like
those who supported it — were caught up in what “I’m sorry” means.
“An apology is an admission that you have committed a wrong, and herein lies my
problem,” Assemblyman Richard A. Merkt, a Republican from Morris County, said
from the floor of the Assembly when it was debating the resolution. “For
not one — not one — of the 215,000 people that I represent in my district is
culpable in any way in the sin of slavery. Nor for that matter, my
colleagues, are any of the living individuals in any of your home districts.”
|
