The Passage of House Joint Resolution 1:
Apology for slavery is a step toward healing racial wounds
With a sweeping majority in the House and Senate, Connecticut became the seventh state to formally apologize for slavery along with New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida and Maryland. This official step is an acknowledgement of slavery, exploitation and legalized racial segregation condoned by the State of Connecticut.
It’s hard to imagine, in 2009, that such a society existed and was sanctioned by law, that the laws of the nation provided for segregation and enforced fugitive slave laws. The fact still remains that slavery and Jim Crow Laws are stains upon what is a great nation and government. This is an apology, not reparations, but it is more that symbolic. The men and women of the 2009 Connecticut General Assembly acknowledged the past actions of the legislature and said they were mistaken in its treatment of its Black citizens.
A portion of the resolution to issue an apology states as a justification: 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 as well as other indignities.
The apology should by no means close the door on the discussion of reparations, a concept that deserves a full debate not just in Congress, where political interests cloud reason, but also in academia and business. Black Americans continue to experience wealth gaps, education gaps, homeownership gaps and salary gaps based on crippling policies that sprang out of chattel slavery.
Regardless of the level of agitation that one engages in to address the impact of enslavement, it won’t change the way America culture responds to this time in history. People continue to reject the notion that consequences of the enslavement of others still play a large role in the way we behave toward one another and the enormous economic gains made by families in this country and elsewhere. At least, however, it reaffirms the abolitionists’ principles and opens the door for acknowledging that our peculiar institution was a destructive institution.
Kenneth P. Green
State Representative, 1st District
Connecticut General Assembly
|
