Apology + Apathy = 0

For starters, please forgive the graphic image. But, our nation's history has never been pretty...

At any rate, I was listening to NPR the other day and the argument about an official 'apology' for lynching came up. One of the guests was Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA); who has become well known for openly supporting a national apology for lynching. Normally, I'm not a fan of politicians, but, I have to give it up to her and Senator George Allen (R-VA) who -- inspired by horrific images of lynchings -- organized an effort to procure an apology from the Senate to the families of lynching victims. This act was to make up for the Senate's historic failure to pass anti-lynching legislation when the practice was more commonplace and widely accepted.

Senators Landrieu and Allen have starting to realize something that most African-Americans have known for years: we need to fully expose the shameful past of this nation and recognize its shortcomings before we can all progress. It's time to pull off the sheets of the past (no pun intended). We can start by exposing the raw and unembellished truths.

Lynching was nothing more than a non-sanctioned, domestically practiced form of terrorism; violent scare tactics used to keep Blacks as a subservient underclass. There's no telling how many blacks had land and assets stolen from them or how many blacks had to curtail educational and professional dreams out of fear that their dreams and aspirations would leave them dangling in a tree or burning to a stake. Don't get me wrong, many lynchings came from Blacks who looked at white women the wrong way or who were defiant 'troublemakers' (not saying that those are any better or justifiable). But, we can't discount the lynchings that resulted in economic theft or those that were done out of fear of the black man's potency. How much of our nation's wealth and acquisition was obtained by greedily coveting and stealing from the Blakc man? It's hard to tell; mainly since history books have never really underscored this shameful component of our past. History has never documented all the land and property that was "acquired" or its costs in human lives.

There's a great book out there, Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America, that captures the nature of lynchings in photos that were frozen in time. As this book shows, lynchings were -- if you can believe this -- social outings, public spectacles, and celebrations. White men brought their families, food and drink, and had a grand ole time. They didn't barbecue burgers and hotdogs; they barbecued humans. They didn't just hang out with each other; they hung men. Some people would even go as far as to collect 'souvenirs' from the lynchings; a finger, an eyeball, a tooth; whatever was available.

Even though seven different administrations urged Congress to end lynching, the Senate stayed quiet about the issue. I think that it's important to note that at least the House of Representatives took initiative to pass three different anti-lynching bills. But, knowing that the Senate remained dormant during these discussions is unnerving. Since the anti-lynching bills never made it passed the Senate floor, the government was essentially left powerless to suppress the violence behind lynching. In fact, Senator Richard Russell (D-GA); after whom the Russell Senate Office Building is currently named; actually considered any actions against lynching as an insult to Southern heritage! Do you believe that?!

Very disturbing...

Don't get me wrong: I'm grateful that the Senate finally wised up and offered an apology (even if it was, as Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) called it "long overdue"). But, there are still some issues here that disturb me. For instance, why wasn't this apology fully supported by everyone in the Senate? Why is it that neither of Mississippi's senators, Trent Lott or Thad Cochran, supported the Senate's decision, especially since Mississippi has historically been more guilty of lynching than any other state? Why was this vote conducted during an evening session instead of during the day's roll-call vote? Was it that some senators didn't want to openly comment on our nation's shameful history while the cameras were rolling?

Perhaps the biggest question for me is: since Congress (most of them, anyway) recognize and apologize for the shameful history of this nation, what do they plan to do about it? An apology doesn't mean a thing unless you're willing to put more tangible actions behind it. Since the late 80's, my state Representative John Conyers (D-MI) has suggested that Congress form a committee to examine the effects of past racial discrimination to black generations of the present. This includes analyzing the impact of slavery, Jim Crowism, lynchings, and how reparations would benefit blacks. But, as if it's a surprise, Conyers has received very little Congressional support. On the one hand, I accept the fact that our nation is facing all sorts of difficult and troubling issues, stemming from war, the economy, rising health care costs, corruption, Social Security, etc. But, Congress doesn't need to patronize us with some hollow and worthless apologetic gesture unless they are willing to back it up with corrective action.

What do you get when you mix apology with apathy?

Nothing.

- ACL