By Zenitha Prince

Washington Bureau Chief

In a building partly built by slaves, the U.S. House of Representatives, in an unprecedented move on Tuesday, apologized for African-American enslavement and the injustices of Jim Crow laws.

The non-binding resolution, passed by a voice vote, signals the first time the federal government has made a formal apology for America’s history of almost 400 years of oppression of Blacks.

It was introduced by U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., a White lawmaker, who represents a majority-Black district in Memphis.

“An apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs committed can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help Americans confront the ghosts of their past,” House Resolution 194 read.

Black lawmakers were elated.

“Today represents a milestone in our nation’s efforts to remedy the ills of our past,” said U.S. Rep. Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). “I applaud Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and all the co-sponsors of H. Res. 194. We must now continue our efforts to free African Americans from the shackles of inferior education, inadequate health care and lack of jobs.”

For decades, others have tried to prod the feds to say those two little words, ‘We’re sorry.”

Since 1989, Rep. John Conyers, D- Mich., has agitated for the creation of a commission to study slavery's impact and possible remedies. Rep. Tony Hall, an Ohio Democrat, proposed an apology resolution in 1997. And, earlier this year, Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said they were considering introducing similar legislation in the Senate.

Apologies have been issued to Japanese Americans for holding them in camps during World War II—survivors also received $20,000—and to Hawaiians. The Senate also apologized for failing to pass anti-lynching laws.

That it has taken this long to receive a similar apology for slavery and Jim Crow is a shame, said Alice Huffman, president, NAACP California Conference and member of the Democratic National Committee.

“It signifies how deep the racial divide is in this country,” she said, and later added, “The fact that it’s taken this long for people to come to terms with it does not speak well for our country but, better late than never.”

The federal resolution came after five states—Virginia first during its Jamestown celebration, followed by Maryland, North Carolina, Alabama and New Jersey—issued similar mea culpas.

Opponents of such measures say they place an unfair burden on contemporary Whites and perpetuate racial unease.

“An apology for slavery on behalf of the nation presumes that Whites today, who predominantly oppose racism, and never owned slaves, and who bear no personal responsibility for slavery, still bear a collective responsibility—a guilt they bear simply by belonging to the same race as the slave-holders of the Old South,” wrote Robert W. Tracinski in a commentary on the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights’ website. “Such an apology promotes the very idea at the root of slavery: racial collectivism.”

But because slavery and segregation were national institutions, whose effects can be seen today, the nation still bears a responsibility, argued bill sponsor Cohen in a Dec. 18 Judiciary Committee hearing on the measure.

“Some say nobody’s around today that had slaves,” he said. “[But] it was our country that did it and our government that sanctioned it and it’s an original sin of our government that needs to be expiated.”

Most detractors are opposed to an apology because of fears that it would legitimize calls for reparations, said Dr. Ronald Walters, political science professor at the University of Maryland at College Park.

“The reason why legislators are skittish about apologizing is because they think it would be used in court by reparations activists,” Walters said. “What it does is to slowly build a consensus that there is something owed to this community for what happened.”

To head off the possibility, Alabama and New Jersey added language to the resolution, saying the apology cannot be used to sue the state.

At the base of those claims for monetary restitution, however, is the belief that differences in socioeconomic status among African Americans—in housing, health, wealth, teenage pregnancies and more—stem from the damage caused by centuries of enslavement.

The resolution acknowledges, “African-Americans continue to suffer from the complex interplay between slavery and Jim Crow—long after both systems were formally abolished—through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity, the frustration of careers and professional lives, and the long-term loss of income and opportunity.”

While some think an apology and reparations are separate issues, others believe the two are inextricably entwined.

“An expression of regret is not sufficient as a means of reconciliation,” said Walters, author of The Price of Racial Reconciliation. “There could be no real reconciliation without fair restitution.”