Government means rarely having to say you're sorry

[Gentle Giant]

This, however, is heartening to me. Of all the shameful chapters in US history (and there have been many), this is one of the worst. If this passes, it's time to work harder on apologizing for slavery. Not, of course, that this is any kind of compensation for the atrocities committed, but it's an important step to take IMO.

Senate panel eyes apology to Indians
Maltreatment, violence cited
By Sam Hananel, Associated Press | May 26, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Legislation that would offer a formal apology to American Indians for centuries of government mistreatment and neglect received a warm reception at a Senate committee hearing yesterday.

Introduced last month by Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, the resolution would apologize for the ''many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by citizens of the United States."

''While we cannot erase the record of our past, I am confident that we can acknowledge our past failures, express sincere regrets, and work toward establishing a brighter future for all Americans," Brownback told the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

The resolution recounts the long history of government mistreatment of American Indians, including forced relocation, the outlawing of their traditional religions, and the destruction of sacred sites.

Congress rarely apologizes for official government conduct. Exceptions include a 1993 apology to native Hawaiians for the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and a 1988 apology to Japanese-Americans placed in detention camps during World War II.

Efforts to win an apology for slavery have failed to gain momentum in Congress.

Tex Hall, president of the National Congress of American Indians, called the apology ''a long time coming" and urged Congress to recognize ongoing problems in Indian relations with the US government.

''Tribal leaders have cautioned that the apology will be meaningless if it is not accompanied by actions that begin to correct the wrongs of the past and the present," Hall said.

Edward Thomas, president of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, called the issue a distraction from the true problems facing American Indians, such as what he called ''Third World conditions" on reservations and the erosion of tribal rights.

John McCain, committee chairman and an Arizona Republican, said he would help Brownback steer the resolution to the full Senate for consideration.

The committee passed the resolution last year, but the Senate never acted on it.

[crawjo]

I don't know...part of me agrees with you and part of me thinks that it's just a hollow, meaningless gesture so that Americans can feel good about themselves. I think the time for apologies has long since passed.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I don't know...part of me agrees with you and part of me thinks that it's just a hollow, meaningless gesture so that Americans can feel good about themselves. I think the time for apologies has long since passed.

To purposely commit acts which are known to be wrong and then, decades later, apologize is a meaningless farce. I doubt whether there will be much actual reaction by the native peoples, positive or negative. It just too damn late .
The same thing will probably be done IF the fiasco in Iraq is ever over.

[Gentle Giant]

I agree that the apology itself does little good. Personally, I'm against even the financial reparations being made to Holocaust survivors, and would not endorse making same for descendents of slaves.

However, the act of apologizing, especially coming from this Administration, would send an important message to the Native Americans and to the world: that we are not completely arrogant, that we can admit to our mistakes, and that we can acknowledge the rights of those we've harmed.

Part of what we need to do in this country is to have a dialogue about our dirty laundry, instead of sweeping it under the flag. And if that dialogue doesn't include, let alone begin, with the government, then the healing can't begin.

Think about what a big deal it was that Reagan took so long to mention AIDS. Nobody even emphasized whether the government was doing enough to fund research; the big thing was that he didn't even mention the disease. Don't underestimate the power of words. Think about how much hot air politicians expend just getting their names mentioned or how much energy goes into just being photographed or seen shaking hands with people. An apology is a symbol like those, but a positive one. And once it's given, it can't be rescinded.

It's taken so long to apologize because it's been so hard to do. Do it, and it will make a difference. Don't do it, and that in itself will make a statement.

[crawjo]

I'd much rather Bush apologize for the torture of detainees, personally, and I don't think there's much value in the Republicans of the 21st century apologizing for crimes that were committed over a century ago. Let's be honest here: do any of these politicians feel any personal guilt for what happened to the Native Americans? I would certainly think not.

I think the most important lesson to be drawn from slavery, from what happened to the Native Americans, is that crimes should not be swept under the rug when they happen. The presidents who should have apologized for what happened to the Native Americans were guys like Andrew Jackson, Tyler, Polk, Harrison, etc. etc. Likewise, the presidents who should have apologized for slavery were, well, everybody up through Lincoln. Rutherford B. Hayes should have apologized for selling Reconstruction down the river in order to gain the White House; Woodrow Wilson should have apologized for resegregating the federal government, and FDR should have apologized for putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps. Bush should not apologize for these crimes; he had nothing to do with them. Bush should apologize for the crimes that either he is directly responsible for, or that have occurred under his administration, such as the murders of detainees, and the various acts in violation of the Geneva Convention. I don't want some half-assed apology 100 years from now for what's happening right now, I want somebody to apologize NOW, and fix the mistakes NOW, while they are still there to be fixed.

If this government wants to do something to help Native Americans, then let them work with them on improving the education and quality of life on the reservations, and if this government wants to do something to help African-Americans, then let them invest in urban renewal programs. All that would be meaningful; apologizing for stuff that happened a long time ago would not, in my opinion.

[patricia]

GG and Crawjo, I agree with both of you.
GG's contention that it is HUGE that any apology at all is given is unfortunately true. Of course, it never seems to happen until long after the damage has been done.
The tragedy is, and always has been, that the acts by the government go on at the time, with the approval of the people, if only by their apathy. These things could be stopped while they are still happening, but what happens is that decades go by, then the apology , as if that makes everything OK.
Unfortunately, the dead stay dead and the bad feelings eat away the global reputation of the U.S. like a malignant tumer, ever spreading.

[walto]

Aren't the "Holocaust reparation" issues about things like various firms being forced to pay back life insurance premiums when valid claims were never paid? Seems a bit different to me, but I don't really know the details.

Re Rutherford Hayes (and why I always make the effort to defend him is a mystery even to me--it's not like I knew the guy) I give this:

[Content provided by the Encyclopedia Americana]
Hayes, Rutherford Birchard

Hayes, Rutherford Birchard (1822-1893), 19th president of the United States. Unjustly, he is usually recalled only for the disputed election of 1876 and as the Republican president who terminated Reconstruction in the South. He did end the Radical, or "Black," Republican program of supporting with federal troops the so-called carpetbag state governments in the South. But Reconstruction was already on its way out. Hayes merits being remembered for much more.

Historians generally have come to view Hayes as an above-average president, a high-principled "gentleman in politics," who elevated the prestige of the presidency despite an electoral victory over Samuel J. Tilden that was subject to challenge. In addition to working to heal the nation's war wounds, he took the first effective steps toward a federal civil service system. He also pursued a sound monetary program and well-intentioned policies with respect to the newly freed blacks, American Indians, and other minorities.
Considerable prominence in Cincinnati came early to Hayes from several criminal cases. As volunteer counsel for the "underground railroad" he helped fugitive slaves win their freedom. Like many Whigs, he had been avoiding a strong stand on the slavery issues, but his acceptance of these cases revealed that he had made up his mind. In 1856 he helped found the Ohio Republican party. In 1858, beginning his public life, he was elected city solicitor.

In Civil War and Congress. Although already the father of three sons, Hayes engaged in military service in the Civil War. He served four years, mainly with the 23d Ohio Volunteers, in which another future president, William McKinley, also served. Courageous in combat, and wounded five times, Hayes won the rank of major general. While still in service, he was nominated for Congress in 1864 and elected, despite his stated position that "an officer fit for duty who at this crisis would abandon his post to electioneer ought to be scalped."

On major issues in the House he lined up as a Radical Republican. Having some private reservations about Radical Reconstruction, however, he sponsored an unsuccessful effort to have the 14th Amendment include an educational test for all voters, black or white. Yet he accepted the ultra-Radical Thaddeus Stevens as leader. In a less controversial area, Hayes achieved a personal success as a congressman by promoting legislation that helped the development of the Library of Congress.

Ohio Governorship. Returned to Congress in 1866, Hayes had scarcely started his new term when he was nominated for the governorship of Ohio. He resigned from Congress and was elected governor. Oddly enough in view of his later stand on Reconstruction, his party had chosen him for governor in 1867 because he represented harsh "Black" Republicanism, the question of ratification of the "freedom" amendments to the federal Constitution having become a burning state issue. He was reelected in 1869.

As governor, Hayes pressed zealously for various reforms, especially in the mental hospitals, prisons, poor-relief bureaus, and the state's school system. He played a crucial role in establishing the land-grant agricultural college that became Ohio State University. At the time, he himself felt his main achievement as governor was Ohio's ratification of the 15th Amendment, which protected the right to vote for African Americans.

Spurning a third nomination for governor in 1871, Hayes ostensibly retired permanently from politics to live the life of a farmer-capitalist at Fremont, having inherited his uncle's large estate there. Actually, politics was deep in his makeup. So when Ohio Republicans in 1875 urged on him a third nomination for governor because they feared the Democrats especially on the greenback and Reconstruction issues, Hayes accepted. He campaigned largely as a "sound-money" man, scoring a victory over the popular William Allen, a greenback advocate, mainly on that issue. The triumph made Hayes a national figure.

Presidency. Thus he was not quite the "dark horse" of legend when he won the Republican presidential nomination on the 7th ballot in Cincinnati in June 1876 over the leading contenders, James G. Blaine, Roscoe Conkling, Benjamin H. Bristow, and Oliver P. Morton. Representative William A. Wheeler of New York was chosen as Hayes' running mate.

It was ironic that Hayes, who prized a reputation for probity above nearly all else, was fated for involvement in the most openly corrupt election up to that time. The irony was heightened by his having been mostly passive in the campaign, leaving the electioneering to others. Moreover, he was personally just as inactive in the tangled proceedings that decided the election, for the political "bargain," including the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, was made through party associates. (For an account of the election dispute and its settlement, see Hayes-Tilden Election.)

That Hayes had developed more liberal attitudes was highlighted by the inclusion of two figures in particular in his cabinet: his interior secretary, the reformer Carl Schurz, a leader in the Liberal Republican revolt against President Grant in 1872; and his secretary of state, the urbane William M. Evarts, legal defender of President Andrew Johnson in his impeachment and then Johnson's attorney general. Both Schurz and Evarts signaled a "new" Hayes on Southern policy and in his bold independence from spoils politicians. Secretary of the Treasury John Sherman was an exceedingly capable financial expert.

Perhaps the most dramatic cabinet appointment, though in general terms already called for by the election "bargain," was the choice of David Key as postmaster general. Key, a Democrat, had been a Confederate colonel and was now in a position to award federal jobs to other former Confederates with Hayes' blessing. In sum, Hayes built a cabinet remarkably in accord with the statement he was proudest of in his inaugural address: "He serves his party best who serves his country best." His main political objective was to get the Republican party established in the South and thus make it a national party, like his old Whig party, but in this he failed.

In domestic affairs, aside from reconciliation with the South, his administration was noteworthy for two achievements, both giving evidence of a strong president resolute in his relations with Congress: resumption of specie (mainly gold) backing of the paper currency and bonds that financed the war, and the beginning of civil service reform. Hayes' first step in civil service reform was to issue an executive order in June 1877 forbidding federal civil servants to take an active part in politics. This order brought him into fateful collision with Conkling and other congressional spoilsmen. In this mainly victorious test, Hayes removed not only a subordinate, Alonzo B. Cornell, from the New York customhouse but also the port collector, Chester A. Arthurboth Republicans. (When Arthur himself became president, he backed major civil service reform legislation, so that the sequel to this explosive episode was another irony.) Hayes also won a significant duel with Congress over riders attached to army appropriation bills to keep him from protecting blacks' rights to vote in line with the 15th Amendment.

Hayes also won a significant duel with Congress over riders attached to army appropriation bills to keep him from protecting blacks' rights to vote in line with the 15th Amendment.

Foreign affairs also engaged Hayes' attention. He declared that a U.S.-controlled canal across Panama was a goal of his government. Chinese coolie immigration in California had become a flaring issue. Hayes' fairness was influential in settling the problem amicably. He vetoed a Chinese exclusion bill enacted by Congress because, in his view, it violated treaty obligations. His administration then reached an agreement with the Chinese government permitting the United States to regulate immigration of Chinese laborers.

Last Years. After keeping his pledge to serve only one term, Hayes left the White House in 1881. He thereafter eschewed further participation in politics. For the dozen remaining years of his life, he devoted himself to promoting such causes as public education (especially in the South), prison reform, aid to blacks, manual training, and the welfare of various universities, notably Ohio State. Interestingly, he began more definitely to express social ideas that classed him as a rather advanced liberal for his day.

[Gentle Giant]

I appreciate whenever folks like you and crawjo share such good historical information. It's so easy to make broad assumptions when looking back at history.

As far as the worth of apologies go, and I don't want to go to my grave defending the value of them when I agree that the lives of Native Americans are not going to improve markedly with an apology alone, but I want to make clear: an apology from this Congress and this Administration does not depend on the individuals themselves expressing personal remorse. The power is that the apology is official US policy. It's the nation's apology, not Bush's or Frist's or anyone else's. To me that's a very meaningful distinction.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

I appreciate whenever folks like you and crawjo share such good historical information. It's so easy to make broad assumptions when looking back at history.

As far as the worth of apologies go, and I don't want to go to my grave defending the value of them when I agree that the lives of Native Americans are not going to improve markedly with an apology alone, but I want to make clear: an apology from this Congress and this Administration does not depend on the individuals themselves expressing personal remorse. The power is that the apology is official US policy. It's the nation's apology, not Bush's or Frist's or anyone else's. To me that's a very meaningful distinction.

I agree, but still apologies given for actions taken, knowing that they are wrong at the time, while significant, don't make the actions right, or moral. Morality seems to be included in much of today's rhetoric and I think that that is the grossest hypocracy. Killing innocent people is never moral. It is an arrogance that is becoming more and more acceptable and I think that is beyond sad.

[crawjo]

Walto, thanks for that article. I was aware of Hayes's liberal proclivities during his political career, but his involvement in the compromise that led to his winning the presidency has always been a bit of a mystery to me. It seems to me that a man with his views should not have accepted a deal which ended Reconstruction. Of course, the political winds were rapidly changing during this time, and Reconstruction was increasingly unpopular, so maybe it is the case that there just wasn't enough Congressional support to bother continuing the experiment.

Originally Posted by GG

However, the act of apologizing, especially coming from this Administration, would send an important message to the Native Americans and to the world: that we are not completely arrogant, that we can admit to our mistakes, and that we can acknowledge the rights of those we've harmed.

Well, we gave them tax free casino's. Doesn't that count for something?

But yes, the Bush admin pointlessly apologizing for something that happened well over a century ago would certainly show the world that we are not as arrogant as they think we are. There would also be much singing and rejoicing in the streets. All would be forgiven. Then and now.