Reply #76: I think the second article makes some interesting points, though I'm not sure how it relates

[fishwax]

to slavery or to an apology for slavery.

I think the first article is bunk--I'm glad it worked for the author, but I think it's absurd to suggest that the secret to happiness is to "never ever never feel sorry for yourself." That's just crap, and it's crap made all the less convincing by a questionable timeline (she only had four sessions with the therapist because she died shortly thereafter--last april--and yet the author hasn't felt sorry for herself for years?) and the loose/lose grammatical error in the list of characteristics of victims and non-victims. If it worked for her, I'm all for it, but it falls far short of a cogent argument that everyone should live their lives that way, and is simply absurd as an argument about how society should determine social policy.

As for the second article, I think it raises some interesting points in terms of difficult interpersonal relationship situations, despite the misrepresentation of the story of Sojourner Truth (who actually bared her breast to the crowd at a rally in Indiana, not at I don't, however, see that as inconsistent with continuing to strive for the ideal, which is (rather arbitrarily, I think) labeled "victim mentality." And always accepting that the ideal is forever impossible--even if it's difficult or impossible now--is, imo, a poor strategy for getting what you want out of life in the long run.

And as for how it relates to an issue like an apology for slavery, well, that's a fatally large leap in logic, that fails to recognize the difference between an individual person and society as a whole.

Addressing the points you raised:

In a relationship, it is bad to bring up incidents from your significant others' past during an argument. Your SO cannot change the past. If you constantly bring up their past and blame them for it, they have no recourse. They cannot change it, and if you keep bringing it up, all you will do is continuously cause them pain. Once you forgive your partner for something, it is absolutely critical that you never bring it up again.

I don't see how this analogy helps your case--has slavery been forgiven? If an individual wishes to be forgiven, so as not to be battered over the head with past mistakes, isn't an apology the appropriate place for that individual to start? One can't simply expect forgiveness based on the passage of time, right?

And I'm not sure that it's really true that, once forgiven, it must never be brought up again. Imagine Joe and Jane are married, and Joe cheats on Jane. Imagine that, after an apology and some serious emotional stress, Jane forgives Joe. A few months later, Joe has another affair. You're saying it's unfair for Jane to bring up this other incident, since it's been forgiven, even though it now is worth investigating as a pattern of behavior?

As I've said, I don't think we can surmise a one-to-one correlation between individual relationships to societal scenarios, but if we are to apply lessons from the process of interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation, then it seems to me what we ought to take from that is that reconciliation is not possible without forgiveness, that forgiveness is not possible without an acknowledgement of wrong, and reconciliation is unlikely without some modification of behavior.

As the resolution states: "WHEREAS, in the Commonwealth, home to the first African slaves, the vestiges of slavery are ever before African American citizens, from the overt racism of hate groups to the subtle racism encountered when requesting health care, transacting business, buying a home, seeking quality public education and college admission, and enduring pretextual traffic stops and other indignities; and

WHEREAS, European and African nations have apologized for their roles in what history calls the worst holocaust of humankind, the Atlantic Slave Trade, and racial reconciliation is impossible without some acknowledgment of the moral and legal injustices perpetrated upon African Americans; and

WHEREAS, an apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help African American and white citizens confront the ghosts of their collective pasts together"

But History does have a value. The value of History, is Knowledge. The saying "Never Forget" implies the need to use past knowledge in a way that prevents the mistakes of the past from repeating themselves. But in doing so, one must be careful not to use the past as a "weapon" against which no one has a possible defense.

First, the wrongs aren't being used as a weapon against individuals. Second, it seems to me, given the enormous history of egregious wrongs committed by this country against its black citizens, that reminding the society as a whole of these wrongs in an attempt to inspire them to action is not at all embracing a victim mentality, but rather embracing the empowerment outlined in article 2. Accepting the reality that blacks are not treated as equal citizens in our society, this strategy then makes the best of the situation by attempting to raise awareness and inspire reconciliation.

To use Slavery to make some kind of claim to "righteousness" or "justice" clearly indicates that you have fallen into a Victim Mentality (from above). Slavery only exists today as knowledge. It only exists in a history book. From the moment you were born, slavery has had no effect on your life. It is harmful, both to you and to society, to claim "victimization" from slavery.

I'm not sure what you mean by using slavery as a claim to righteousness or justice, and the issue is not about being victimized by being literally enslaved, but by being victims of the continued legacy of slvaery, the residual effects and attitudes of which continue to wield a major impact on our society today. There are real victims, as the second article points out. The Holocaust may have been over in 1945, but that doesn't mean the suffering stopped. It isn't a "victim mentality" to acknowledge that what happened in the '40s will continue to influence jews and gentiles for generations.

Forcing today's society to apologize for the actions of a past society does nothing except magnify the victim mentality of those that choose to victimize themselves.

I don't see that as the case at all. I don't see why the Virginia government acknowledging and apologizing for mistakes that IT made (not some "past" society, but that very institution) magnifies victimhood.