A Worthless Apology

There's an interesting little article, tucked away in the July 17, 2006 issue of "National Review." It seems that Englishman Andrew Hawkins - who believes that he is a descendant of seadog, knight and part-time slaver Sir John Hawkins - is determined to apologize for things Andrew had absolutely no control over: namely, the actions of his 16th century relative and the 16th century African slave trade.

Apparently, in the company of 26 other like-minded penitents, Andrew traveled to Gambia, where he donned yoke and manacle and apologized for John's participation in the enslavement process, all of which took place before Andrew's great-great-great grandfather drew his first breath. The point is not (or at least it shouldn't be) that Andrew is related to some long dead slaver. Look far enough back in all of our genealogies - be we white, black or any shade in between - and we can all probably find someone who owned a slave. The point is that you simply cannot effectively apologize for the actions of people you had no control over. It's sad enough when governments attempt to do so, generations after the fact. I'm sure the U.S. government will someday put on ashes and sack cloth over Antebellum slavery. But the process can be downright embarrassing when individuals attempt to do so in the name of their long dead ancestors. Witness Andrew Hawkins' dog and pony show in Banjul.

I would have far more respect for Andrew if he apologized for his own misdeeds or if he worked to stamp out modern day slavery, which still exists in several countries today, including some in Africa.

Now I realize that blogs can have the lifespan of a Tibetan sandpainting. But, should any of my descendants actually read this, please do not apologize for me. I did what I did based on my own beliefs which were shaped by my own decisions and by my era's mores. If anything I did fails to agree with future generations' beliefs and sensitivities, let my record stand on its own merit. Better that you apologize for your own personal shortcomings and work to correct your own era's tragedies.

Join the ALA?

A final comment before I call an end to my day's writings.

I would like to support a statement by a fellow blogger. Greg McClay, of SHUSH, encouraging moderates, conservatives and liberterians alike to join the ALA. This might seem a strange endorsement considering the issues Greg has with the association. But believe me, his reasoning is sound. If only liberals join the ALA, it will forever remain a liberal organization. However, if the rest of librarians - those who actually use a degree of logic and clear thinking in their decision making - join, they might actually see the association change for the better. It is at least a thought to consider as we librarians wonder whether or not to write a check to an association that fails to share our viewpoints or, in some cases, fails to look out for our well being.

I once had a similar discussion with a fellow educator about joining the National Education Association. My co-worker refused to join because 0f the NEA's open hostility to the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. My comment at the time was: "And that will always be NEA's stance on gun rights unless people like you and I join."

I doubt that he joined. But I still believe my argument was valid.

By the way, I am a Life Member of the NRA.

ALA New Orleans

I just finished reading Greg McClay's account of the recent American Library Association's conference in New Orleans. According to Greg's blog SHUSH (a fine blog, by the way), it doesn't appear there were a lot of surprises.

True to form, the ALA was determined to officially issue statements on everything from the right to unionize to the Darfur Genocide. I happen to believe there is indeed a right to unionize and I would like to see the violence in Darfur ended, but once again I would rather have seen the ALA concentrating on the issues of libraries, librarians and freedom of expression.

Apparently, the ALA also voted to support the idea of single payer, universal healthcare. I suppose this does legimately fall into the ALA's circle of interest. Librarians need healthcare like everyone else and, considering the small paychecks many of them receive for their labors, it's not totally foolish for the association to consider having the government play a role. I realize I part company with many of my fellow libertarians on this issue. The whole point of libertarianism is individual freedom and rights. A citizen should shape his own destiny and having the government provide assistance to one's healthcare can certainly be seen as interferring with those ideals. But then again, so can relying on your employer and/or insurance company for your healthcare. Few things say "loss of freedom" more than having to stay in a job you hate, just to keep your family's health insurance intact. I also don't believe it's good for our economy to have the purchase price of an American automobile include an estimated $1,500 worth of insurance for the automobile workers. This certainly places a burden on American automobile manufacturers when they compete against foreign companies that don't pay for their workers' insurance since their government handles that task.

But back to the ALA conference. I've certainly seen no indication that the ALA revisited the issue of the Cuban librarians imprisonment. No big surprise there.

I wonder how Barbara Bush was received at the conference. Perhaps, some readers who attended her speech would like to report on that. I would be interested in how that session went and if the ALA members were, at least, polite to the First Lady.