SLAVERY Should the nation apologize? Critics argue substance is need, not

  symbolism

  Bill Nichols

  06/18/1997

  USA Today

  FINAL

  Page 01A

  (Copyright 1997)

  Children learn that few things can be more powerful or just than a simple

  apology.

  And in the touchy-feely decade of the '90s, that moral lesson is being translated

  into public policy as the U.S. government and others around the world have

  issued formal apologies for past behavior.

  President Clinton's apologies this year to the black men who were unwitting

  subjects in the Tuskegee syphilis study and to seven black veterans denied the

  Medal of Honor in World War II appeared to move the nation.

  But the country seems thrown off stride by a new proposal under debate in

  Congress and the White House: an apology to African-Americans for the

  sufferings their ancestors endured during more than 200 years of slavery.

  To be sure, the idea of an apology has drawn strong support in Congress and in

  the country. The gesture, they say, would be long overdue, bringing closure to a

  racial rift that sparked civil war. But others, both black and white, find the idea

  vaguely insulting, off the point and unnecessary. The common criticism, which

  crosses political and racial lines, is that an apology would be little more than

  empty symbolism.

  The Rev. Jesse Jackson, in an interview, called the proposal ``a meaningless

  gesture with no meaningful commitment to deal with the impact of something so

  serious as slavery.''

  Even one member of Clinton's newly named panel on race, former Mississippi

  governor William Winter, said Tuesday that an apology for slavery would be a

  distraction from real healing.

  ``We have to go beyond mere words,'' Winter told a meeting of the Joint Center

  for Political and Economic Studies. ``We have to go beyond mere expressions.

  We have to understand we still have a legacy of discrimination from slavery.''

  Gwen Daye Richardson, editor of Headway magazine, a leading journal for black

  conservatives, said she thought such an apology could be ``an important

  symbolic gesture.''

  ``But I don't think people should take it as more than that,'' she said. ``It might

  not do anything more.''

  The idea for an apology for slavery sprang from an unlikely source -- a white,

  Democratic congressman from Ohio, Tony Hall. Hall said that when he could

  find no record of an official government apology, he felt one was necessary.

  ``When you hurt somebody, whether it's your best friend or someone in your

  family, unless you go back and apologize, there's this underlying sense of hurt,''

  Hall said. ``I thought this is the right thing to do.''

  `Power in words'

  Hall, after running the idea by the Congressional Black Caucus, got 11

  co-sponsors -- all white and six of them Republicans. Four more signed on this

  week. Reparations are not proposed in the House bill.

  Rep. David Weldon, R-Fla., said that as a Christian, he ``reflexively'' thought

  Hall's idea was a good one.

  ``I think there's power in words of apology and I believe very strongly that this is

  the sort of thing that can allow us as a nation to truly be able to wake up in the

  next century in a country where everybody, no matter their race, is able to

  achieve their full potential,'' said Weldon.

  History bears out Weldon's argument. Apologies, though largely symbolic, have

  shown healing power both in this country and elsewhere.

  In 1988, for example, Congress both apologized and offered reparations to

  Japanese-Americans who were interned during World War II.

  Dan Lee, a professor of ethics at Augustana College in Rock Island, Ill., says

  that most such apologies are really ``statements of regret,'' since the people who

  suffered the injuries are no longer alive.

  But Lee said that, from an ethicist's viewpoint, such statements are often useful.

  ``The real purpose of a statement of regret is that it clearly defines the character

  of the institution in the present,'' Lee said.

  That's part of Hall's goal. Hall let the White House know his plans last week as

  Clinton was preparing to give a major speech on race in San Diego in which he

  called for a national conversation on race.

  In subsequent interviews, Clinton said that while he opposes the idea of

  compensating black Americans for slavery, he said he would consider the idea of

  an apology.

  ``I think it has to be dealt with,'' he told the American Urban Radio Network

  Monday. ``There's still some unfinished business out there.''

  The proposal has generated support among African-American members of

  Congress. However, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who chairs the

  Congressional Black Caucus, says in the end, the issue is for white people, not

  blacks.

  ``I think we will be enlightened by this debate,'' said Waters, while declining to

  actually endorse an apology. ``There's a time for blacks to sit back and see what

  people are thinking.''

  Some religious leaders, perhaps drawing from their own efforts to own up to past

  segregation, also support the idea.

  Even as a secular politician, Clinton recognizes the distinctive power of religious

  ritual, said Robert Franklin, president of the the Interdenominational Theological

  Center in Atlanta, the nation's largest historically black seminary.

  ``Rituals help to mediate the difficult moments in life,'' he says. ``I think this

  really is a time of reckoning with our national past . . . I'd like us to take a deep

  breath and say the tough things that need to be said.''

  Apology or avoidance?

  The apology idea grew into a national debate after House Speaker Newt

  Gingrich, among others, dismissed the proposal as mere symbolism, ``an

  avoidance of problem-solving'' and ``a dead end.''

  Spokeswoman Christina Martin, however, said Gingrich still wants to see the

  details of Hall's legislation. He will give a major speech tonight on the topic of

  race.

  Other veterans of the civil rights movement, such as George Mason University

  professor Roger Wilkins, said an apology could remove the focus from

  real-world solutions.

  ``I think it's a bad idea. There are real things that need to be done,'' says Wilkins.

  ``The problem with the apology is that it makes people feel that they've done

  something when they haven't really done anything significant about the problems

  that face real American human beings that are alive and in need of help today.''

  Hall waves off such criticism as inside-the-Washington-Beltway chatter. ``What

  you're hearing are the people who . . . have a soapbox, who like to yell the

  loudest,'' he says.

  But out in the country, there seems to be a similar sense.

  Interviews Tuesday in Ann Arbor, Mich., Boston, Los Angeles and Anacortes,

  Wash., a coastal town 90 miles north of Seattle, found skepticism and a

  suspicion that politicians were using the issue to divert attention from substantive

  racial issues.

  ``It doesn't matter one way or another. Who cares? It's just words,'' said Leviticus

  Chase, 25, an aspiring writer and M.B.A. student in Ann Arbor, who is black.

  Chase doesn't underestimate the value of symbolism. But something on the scale

  of the Million Man March is more effective, he said, than a political debate.

  In Anacortes, Shane Aggergaard, 26, who owns a whale-watching firm, said,

  ``The people making the apology have nothing to do with slavery. Our

  government today is for equal rights. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars to bring it

  up. It's nuts.''

  In Boston, Phillip Leong, 20, of Amherst, a senior at University of

  Massachusetts, said he didn't think an apology would be harmful.

  ``But I'm not so sure it would help anything either,'' said Leong, who is Asian.

  ``And it could be used as some sort of political smokescreen.''

  University of Maryland political scientist Ronald Walters, a leading

  African-American scholar, says he's been thinking for days about why seemingly

  disconnected whites and blacks seem to share this wariness.

  The issue, he said, is ``just too explosive. I don't think anybody is eager to get

  into it.''

  Contributing: Dennis Cauchon, DeeAnn Glamser, John Larrabee, Jonathan

  Lovitt and Lori Sharn

  TEXT OF INFO BOX BEGINS HERE:

  Living in an era of apologies

  A proposal in the House would apologize ``to African-Americans whose

  ancestors suffered as slaves under the Constitution and laws of the United States

  until 1865.'' The measure does not require presidential approval.

  If passed, the apology would join a growing list of official governmental or

  instituional regrets for past actions. Among them:

  President Clinton apologized this year for the government's role in the Tuskegee

  Syphilis Study, and for not awarding Medals of Honor to African-American

  soldiers in World War II.

  ``We can look at you in the eyes and finally say on behalf of the American

  people: What the government did was shameful and I am sorry,'' Clinton said of

  the syphilis study, which beginning in the 1930s, exposed 399 black men to the

  disease without treatment.

  Last month, British Prime Minister Tony Blair apologized for his country's role

  in the Irish potato famine of 1845-1851.

  ``That 1 million people should have died in what was then part of the richest and

  most powerful nation in the world is something that still causes pain,'' Blair said.

  Australian Prime Minister John Howard, also last month, expressing his personal

  regrets over the Australian government's seven-decade policy of seizing

  Aborigine children from their parents to be raised by white families and

  orphanages.

  The government, fearing legal claims, has not formally apologized.

  Japanese Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama apologized in August 1995 for

  suffering inflicted in World War II.

  ``I . . . express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my

  heartfelt apology. Allow me also to express my feelings of profound mourning

  for all victims, both at home and abroad,'' he said.

  East German lawmakers apologized in April 1990 for the Holocaust, after four

  decades of denying responsibility.

  In 1988, Congress apologized and made reparations to Japanese-Americans who

  were interned during World War II.

  Pope John Paul II offered an apology in May 1995 for violence during the

  16th-century Counter-Reformation. ``I, the pope of the Church of Rome, in the

  name of all Catholics, ask forgiveness for the wrongs inflicted on non-Catholics

  during the turbulent history of these peoples,'' he said.

  PHOTO, B/W,UPI; PHOTO, B/W, GNS