Slave population of North Carolina
This week, North Carolina’s House voted unanimously to apologize for slavery and the legal discrimination against blacks imposed during the Jim Crow years. Procedurally, the House adopted a resolution already passed by the state senate, meaning that this essentially means that the apology reflects the will of both chambers.

With this action, the state is the third in the US (behind Virginia and Maryland) to publicly express “profound regret for the institution and lasting effects of slavery.”

In 1998, President Clinton acknowledged the evils of slavery. Six years later, President George W. Bush talked about the evils of slavery from Goree Island, where thousands of Africans left the continent as slaves.

Bush on Goree Island

Last December, British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed “deep sorrow” over Britain’s role in the African slave trade, coinciding with the 200th anniversary of legislation that abolished slavery in Britain. But none expressed regret or extended, on behalf of the government, an apology.

The NC resolution itself makes for a fascinating and detailed history lesson in the scope, nature and spread of slavery in the Americas. Did you know, for instance, that:

An 1826 law provided that a free black who moved into North Carolina and failed to leave after being notified of the law, after 20 days, could be fined $500.00 or held to labor for 10 years or less.

Four years later, the state passed a law providing that a slave could be sentenced to 39 lashes if he or she was found guilty of teaching another slave how to read.

At the beginning of the Civil War, the General Assembly required free persons of color to select their own masters and become slaves.

Although the Supreme Court ordered the end of segregated public schools in 1954, where I live in Durham, the schools were not formally integrated for another 20 years.

Some have criticized apologies as too little, too late. Others contend that since they had nothing personally to do with slavery and never directly benefited from it, their governments should not have to express any regret for them.

For me, there is a difference between a personal apology, for something that passes between one or a few human beings, and apologies extended on behalf of entities, including governments. Personal apologies can be “too little, too late,” and, to be effective, must reflect some kind of direct responsibility for an injury caused.

But state apologies are fundamentally different. What they represent is an official acceptance of a history to date covered up or ignored. And they reflect a political willingness to deal with it in a more productive way.

I am not guilty of condoning or practicing slavery; in fact, one of my ancestors, John Kirk, fought as a Southerner with the Union to combat slavery. His brother, George Washington Kirk, led the North Carolina campaign against the Ku Klux Klan after the war (and was eventually jailed for it).

But I recognize that the prosperity of my surroundings and the relations between people in my community remain profoundly influenced and shaped by slavery’s legacy. This is what our government needs to address, and an apology is an excellent first step.

What happens when governments fails to take this step – or actively oppose it?
Turkey presents a sobering example. Recently, Turkey expressed its opposition to an exhibit created by a British-based antigenocide group that was scheduled to be presented in the UN headquarters in New York. Meant to commemorate the 13th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, the exhibit referred to the 1915 mass murder of the Armenians and included this reference. “Following World War I, during which one million Armenians were murdered in Turkey, Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin urged the League of Nations to recognize crimes of barbarity as international crimes.”

As the New York Times reported in an editorial, the exhibit’s organizer was willing to omit the words “in Turkey” (technically, “Turkey” did not exist until the founding of the republic in 1923). “But that was not enough for the U.N.’s craven new leadership, and the exhibit has been indefinitely postponed,” the Times scolded.

It’s odd that Turkey’s leaders have not figured out by now that every time they try to censor discussion of the Armenian genocide, they only bring wider attention to the subject and link today’s democratic Turkey with the now distant crime. As for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his inexperienced new leadership team, they have once again shown how much they have to learn if they are to honorably and effectively serve the United Nations, which is supposed to be the embodiment of international law and a leading voice against genocide.

In other words, the failure to apologize festers, corrodes and continues to twist the future. The ramifications are, I believe, huge. History suffers, particularly what is taught in schools; policy suffers, since policy makers can ignore the very real effects of these crimes in the present day; and the country suffers, and along with it international efforts to prevent such atrocities in the future.

Apologies can and should lead to specific measures to redress wrongs. At this point, personal payouts (like those that took place, after much insistence, after the forced relocation of Japanese Americans) make no sense. But we can and should increase our government spending on education, job training and economic development support for poor African Americans. We should also insure that the history we teach our children, from the earliest age, reflects an appropriate and accurate telling of the history of slavery. Others have proposed congressional funding for studies of slavery’s effects and a national slavery museum.

Who could have guessed that in 2007, the UN Secretary General could be censoring information about a genocide that is almost 100 years old? And, as the Times pointed out, hampering on-going efforts to stop on-going genocides and prevent them in the future.

State apologies are important and necessary. These three former members of the Confederacy, who once stood in defense of slavery, should be congratulated for now leading the way to acknowledge the wrong done and propose ways to redress it and build a better future.