Memories In Blood

If black South Africans, whose oppression is so recent that it burns within their memories, can talk about accepting the unfairness of history, why can't black Americans? Powell believes that such an argument misses an important point. ""I would be very happy to forget about slavery,'' he says, ""if we could also forget about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.'' For slavery (and the policies developed in its wake) continues, like those documents, to define a large part of America--in terms not only of attitudes and resources but also of life possibilities. Until the country comes to terms with that, maintains Powell, there will not be a ""serious process of healing.'' Like Counter, Powell believes a memorial would be a monumental help, provided that it is not merely a shallow or symbolic gesture.

The Counter-Powell hope, in essence, is that a better understanding of American history will somehow affect the way we see--and presumably implement--social policy today. If we can make the connection between slavery and, say, inner-city poverty, we will be better prepared to combat it. And we may also be more willing to do so.

I am not convinced that the will to resolve social inequality has much to do with a sophisticated understanding of history. Nor am I persuaded that a monument on the Mall will lead to a massive reawakening of American consciousness. Counter and Powell, however, are fundamentally correct in their insistence that the past matters. And they are right to search for ways to remind us of that; just as the creators of the new Museum of African-American History in Detroit were right to showcase the American tragedy of slavery. The reason is not that such knowledge will necessarily lead to good policymaking, but that ignorance will surely lead to bad.

© 1997