Tuesday the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution apologizing to African-Americans for the “fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity” of slavery and Jim Crow segregation laws. The apology has drawn mixed reactions across the country.

Since it was the first time that the federal government has publicly and formally apologized for the hundreds of years of human rights injustices against African-Americans, many people like Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, praised it as a milestone in “our nation’s efforts to remedy the ills of our past.” Others saw it as “too little too late.” While others criticized it as a ploy by Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen, who introduced the resolution, to garner black votes in his reelection bid. Rep. Cohen is the only white lawmaker to represent a majority black district and he faces a formidable black challenger in the Memphis primary face-off next week, reports the Associated Press.

Here is a sampling of reactions:

UK Guardian columnist Lola Adesioye argues that while this long-overdue apology is an important step, it does not go far enough. She says that without real programs to help African-Americans, Congress’ apology for slavery and Jim Crow is an empty gesture, explaining:

While the resolution expresses a commitment “to rectify the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African-Americans under slavery and Jim Crow and to stop the occurrence of human rights violations in the future” it does not set out when, how and in what form this will take place.

Keith Josef Adkins over at The Root, had these words for black Americans:

I'm not a singing victim, or ungrateful cynic. I'm just not convinced that a Federal apology has any weight. I'm certainly interested in how they're going to “rectify...”, but in the end the real work must happen at home. We must tell our own stories, retell our own histories, honestly and courageously. We must challenge ourselves and attempt to end the intra-dismissiveness and emotional abuse. We must advocate for stronger policy to correct education and garner stronger leadership.

A columnist in a local Tennessee daily, The Paris Post-Intelligencer, asked:

Is [an apology] enough to atone for centuries of shame? Of course not. The scales can never be balanced, because we can’t change history. The best we can do is to work to stamp out vestiges of unequal treatment under the law…the best atonement for centuries of injustice is centuries of justice. That’s the task before us.

Over at New America Media, columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson argues that the United States has yet to shake its legacy of slavery and points out:

The resolutions the states and Congress passed were mild, innocuous, and ultimately toothless. In truth that's all they were supposed to be. But the House resolution was still important. It was tacit acknowledgement of something that the slavery apology opponents vehemently deny and that is that slavery was not just the evil doings of greedy Southern planters.

Five states have issued apologies for slavery, but past proposals in Congress have stalled, partly over concerns that an apology would lead to demands for reparations. While Cohen's resolution does not mention reparations, it commits the House to rectifying “the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African-Americans under slavery and Jim Crow” since African-Americans today continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow laws that fostered discrimination and segregation.

Some people hope that the resolution can open the door to a serious dialogue on reparations. According to a 2005 survey, 89% of African-Americans believe the government should provide slavery reparations. Syracuse University professor Boyce Watkins told BlackAmericaWeb.com:

When you admit to guilt, the next thing people say is, ‘what are you going to do to make it right? If you admit something was stolen, you have to give something back. It opens the door for additional conversation about reparations.

The U.S. House deserves credit for taking this step, but the proof is in the potato salad. If you don’t follow the apology with action, talk is cheap. Talk is less expensive than reparations.

Congressman John Conyers has reintroduced his reparations resolution every year since 1989. His resolution argues for the establishment of a commission to study the impact of slavery and the feasibility of paying reparations to blacks. But most agree the resolution has little chance. As Hutchinson underscores:

The Conyers’ bill will likely continue to be stillborn in Congress. Reparations is simply too risky, divisive, and distracting for Congress to seriously consider. Both presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain oppose reparations.

The brutal truth is that a mainstay of America's continuing racial divide is its harsh and continuing mistreatment of poor blacks. This can be directly traced to the persistent and pernicious legacy of slavery. The House's symbolic apology was a good thing, but it's just not enough.

Labels: african americans, Congress, race and racism, reparations, slavery, the root

Some pundits are still debating whether the South is politically important. But both Democrats and Republicans know that the future of Congress may depend on who can gain momentum in the South.

Why? Redistricting.

As we've reported before, the South is the fastest-growing region in the country -- and as a result, Southern states will gain up to nine Congressional seats and Electoral College votes after the 2010 Census, mostly at the expense of states in the Northeast.

But which party will benefit from the South's growing political clout? Sam Stein at The Huffington Post takes a look at the battles over redistricting that will happen after the 2010 Census.

The upshot: States vary widely in who draws up new district maps -- and therefore, determining whether new seats will favor Democrats or Republicans. But in all but eight states, governors play a decisive role, with the power to veto or otherwise influence redistricting decisions.

Right now, Republicans have a decisive edge, Stein reports:

[B]ecause of shifting populations, there is likely to be one more congressional seat added in Georgia, California, Nevada and Utah; possibly two more added in Florida and Arizona; and the chance of four more seats added in Texas. Every state on this list, except for Arizona, currently has a Republican governor. All but Utah will hold a gubernatorial election in 2010. If Republicans hold their power they will be well positioned.

Stein misses two more Southern states that others believe could likely add a Representative and elector to pick the 2012 president: North Carolina (which currently has a Democratic governor) and South Carolina (a Republican).

The current redistricting climate may favor Republicans, but many governor's races will be up for grabs in 2010 -- 36 to be exact, compared to just 11 this cycle. Stein also notes there will be more than 1,150 state senate races and more than 4,950 state house races held nationwide in 2010, which will impact post-Census redistricting.

Either way, whoever can win the state political battles of 2008 and 2010 in the South will see their national clout in Congress and the Electoral College significantly grow.

Labels: 2010 census, Congress, democracy north carolina, demographics, electoral college, Florida, Georgia, growth, redistricting, South Carolina, Southern Politics, texas

We wanted to pass along the following message from the folks at the Katrina Information Network:

The House of Representatives passed a domestic supplemental spending bill, but it did not include much needed funds for affordable housing in the Gulf states. On May 22, the Senate voted for a domestic spending amendment that included Gulf States funding by a vote of 75-22.

Advocates in the Gulf Coast have worked long and hard to secure these additional funds for affordable housing. They have succeeded in convincing the Senate Appropriations Committee and full Senate of the immense need that still exists in areas affected by the 2005 hurricanes. Now they need your help to make sure the full House of Representatives follows suit.

Please use this toll free number, 1-877-210-5351, for the congressional switchboard and ask to be connected to the housing staffer for your representatives' offices. Or send them an email: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2114/t/2612/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=24693

Thanks for your continued support,

Katrina Information Network

As we've reported here before, homelessness in New Orleans has doubled since Katrina, and thousands of families across the Gulf Coast still live in temporary housing -- including FEMA trailers containing dangerous levels of toxic formaldehyde. More than two and a half years after the disaster, the region's lack of affordable housing remains one of the most pressing problems facing the recovery effort.

Labels: Congress, Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch, housing, Hurricane Katrina, Katrina Information Network

When General Petraeus testified yesterday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he was speaking to a group heavily invested in the war effort. That's according to a new report from the Center for Responsive Politics, which examined federal lawmakers' personal financial holdings -- and discovered that the elected officials charged with overseeing war are staking their personal fortunes on its continuation:

According to the most recent reports of their personal finances, 151 current members of Congress had between $78.7 million and $195.5 million invested in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. In all, these companies received more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to FedSpending.org, a website of the budget watchdog group OMB Watch.

The minimum value of Congress members' personal investments in these contractors increased 5 percent from 2004 to 2006, but because lawmakers are only required to report their assets in broad ranges, the value of these investments could have risen as much as 160 percent -- or even dropped 51 percent. It is also unclear how many members still hold these investments, since reports for 2007 are not due until May 15, 2008. In 2004, the first full year after the Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers -- both hawks and doves -- had between $74.9 million and $161.3 million invested in companies under contract with the Department of Defense.

The lawmaker with the most money invested in companies with DOD contracts is Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), with a stake somewhere between $28,872,067 and $38,209,020. Among Southern lawmakers, the leader is Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.), who holds between $9,232,037 and $37,105,000 in DOD-related investments. Other Southerners among the top 10 DOD-invested lawmakers are Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) at $2 million, Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Texas) at $1,163,231, and Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), between $1,000,001 and $5 million.

Kerry holds a special responsibility for war oversight as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. Members of that committee and the Armed Services Committee had between $32 million and $44 million invested in companies with DOD contracts, and between $3 million and $5.1 million invested in firms engaged directly in war-related work such as weapons manufacturing.

As for the leading presidential candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) had stock in several defense companies but sold it in May 2007, while Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Az.) reported no such holdings. The Center also found that while Democrats had more money invested in DOD contract holders than Republicans in 2006 ($3.7 million compared to $577,500), more Republicans than Democrats held stock in actual defense companies (28 compared to 19).

Among the experts cited in the report is Cheryl Smith, executive vice president of Trillium Asset Management, an investment firm that emphasizes social responsibility. While noting that some of the defense contracts would be in place even if there weren't a war, Smith recommended that lawmakers who want to take a stand against the war avoid investing in companies with weapons contracts. She also offered suggestions on where lawmakers might invest instead:

Smith ... said that lawmakers who plan to divest could consider putting that money into community rebuilding, such as in hurricane-damaged New Orleans, or alternative energy projects to reduce U.S. dependence on oil. "There's a lot of opportunities to make a double statement by taking [the funds] from one place and putting them into another," she said.

Labels: Congress, Department of Defense, socially responsible investing, war