Senate FINALLY Passes Anti-Lynching Legislation

[j_p]

Demo:

I'm not certain how I feel about this apology; I think it is just a self-serving empty gesture, but people more intimately damaged by lynching that I have been apparently disagree.

 

It is fine and right for people to apologize for their offenses. For some-one else's? I don't think so. But that's not really the point I wanted to make originally.

 

I just wanted to pointed out that there are reasons other than expected disapproval by constituents that would cause a Senator to not co-sponsor a non-binding resolution that would pass with no dissent.

[-Demosthenes-]

It is fine and right for people to apologize for their offenses. For some-one else's? I don't think so. But that's not really the point I wanted to make originally.

They are apologizing for certain events. You can't apologize for an event, "Dude, I'm sorry that happened to you."

Although nice, I still hold that it accomplishes nothing.

[budullewraagh]

"Doesn't look like it was banning lynchings, looks like an apology to me."

as i said, it's both. and see, it makes sense. you apologize, then you show your sincerity by actually DOING something to prevent a future repeat of the problem. it's the senate, buddy. legislation is what they do.

 

and i agree with demosthenes.

[j_p]

Demo:

I think we are agreeing here for the most part.

 

However, my understanding is that the Senate is defining itself a single continuous entity and apologized for previous acts of that entity, though not of any individual senators.

 

Is the Senate's view of itself valid? If so, the apology is valid.

If the apology is valid, is it important?

 

My initial response to both questions is, "No". But I would like to be talked out of it.

 

As to your other point, "I'm sorry" is not always an apology, right? [Though the resolution explicitly "apologizes".]

[j_p]

"Doesn't look like it was banning lynchings' date=' looks like an apology to me."

as i said, it's both. and see, it makes sense. you apologize, then you show your sincerity by actually DOING something to prevent a future repeat of the problem. it's the senate, buddy. legislation is what they do.

[/quote']

 

109 Congress, First Session

Senate Resolution 39

June 13, 2005

 

...[cut to the chase]...

 

Now, therefore, be it

 

Resolved, That the Senate--

 

 

(1) apologizes to the victims of lynching for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation;

 

 

(2) expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching , the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States; and

 

 

(3) remembers the history of lynching , to ensure that these tragedies will be neither forgotten nor repeated.

[partial quote, italics mine]

 

I hate to harp on a single point, but where does this resolution say anything about banning lynching?

 

I don't want to post the entire resolution, but if you go to:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm

 

and type "lynching" in the keyword search, you get four hits; two refer to S39, quoted in part above.

 

[s44, which has been introduced but not enacted, also says nothing about banning lynching. S113 is about a commemorative postage stamp.]

[-Demosthenes-]

Okay, that's what I thought the resolution was.

 

So anyway, it is your point that the senate is made up of different people now and is different than the one that existed when the lynchings took place, so they cannont apologize because they are not the same senate, they didn't do anything wrong, right? It seems that they could express their sympathies and apologize that this happened even if they weren't responsible, couldn't they? I'm not saying that it actually does anything for anyone, but couldn't they experess how bad they feel?

[j_p]

Right, that's my point. Well, my original point was that I would find that a valid reason for not co-sponsoring the resolution, although NOT for actually voting against the resolution. [Maybe I should change my signature to 'Born to Quibble'].

 

Your point involves the dual usage of "I am sorry"; it can be used to apologize or express regret for something for which one is not responsible [like condolences at a funeral]. But the Senate specifically apologized, and, in general, I dislike that kind of corporate apology, because I think it cheapens what should be a profound personal act.

 

But I've changed my mind about this one. They passed the resolution on my birthday. So, I've decided that it was a serious and profound acknowledgment of past transgressions with the inherent promise to do better in the future.

 

Thank you, Senate [not "Senators", of course], for the birthday present.