The Non-Apology Apology

By: Yvonne Kendall

Yvonne Kendall earned her doctorate at Stanford University. She currently serves time as an associate professor at a state university in Texas.

You know what? I’m sick of the non-apology “apology.” Sick, sick, SICK!

The non-apology apology (NAA, pronounced “naw” as in “no way will I ever apologize”) occurs when A Somebody Special (ASS) has done something that is undeniably, unmistakably wrong, wrong, wrong. Next, somebody or other (or 200 media outlets or so) call them on it. Then, and this is the good part (or not, depending on who you are), the ASS issues a statement that pretends to be an apology. It might even have the words “I apologize” in it. But no, it’s not an apology. It’s an ASS in jackal’s clothing.

You can tell a NAA because in it, the ASS never takes responsibility, nearly always tries to explain why their wrongdoing was not wrong in the first place, and always blames the victim. The spoiled cream whipped to a frenzy on top is the loyal supporters of the ASS who then dismiss the targets of the abuse as trying to make trouble over honest mistakes.

Don’t believe me? Let’s just look at the for-instance of “The Family Leader: Strengthening Families” whose “Presidential Pledge” initially said that Black children were better off as slaves. Oh yes, you heard me. Better off as slaves. “How could they not know that was wrong?” you might say. Oh my poor sweet innocent. You are still living in the fact-based world. Step over to the looking glass on the right and join us inside just for a moment.

This is what they said:

“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

After Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann signed this (I guess she’s one of the three lawyers on earth who sign documents they haven’t read) and all hell broke loose, this ASS group decided that they would retrench into a NAA.

This is their apology:

“After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children into slavery can be misconstrued. We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.”

It’s a practically perfect NAA. Notice that anyone who reads and comprehends their words to mean what they say, which is that Black children were better off as slaves, has “misconstrued” those words. This is blaming the victim. (My favorite along these lines is Newt Gingrich’s “anybody who quotes what I actually said is a liar” trope. I just LOVE that one!!) Notice that they apologize for “any negative feelings.” This evades responsibility. They don’t say that making the statement was the right thing to do, after all, but neither do they apologize for a fact-free statement that displays an astonishing ignorance of a national practice in which children and parents were actually sold away from each other. The parents of slave children were often forbidden to marry. The children were sometimes the result of rape. But, hey, those are just facts.

[Step out of the mirror for a breather. You can’t stay in too long on your first attempts. You might build up too much ignorance in your system and need to decompress.]

Okay, take a few deep breaths and step back in. Let’s try another one. Douglas Lambourn (R-Colorado) compared President Obama to a “tar baby,” a person he doesn’t care to be “associated with,” but of course this isn’t racist. If you’re in ROFLMAO mode, get ahold of yourself. He really said that and then said he didn’t know it could be offensive!

Here’s what he said:

“Now, I don’t even want to have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby and you get it, you’re stuck, and you’re a part of the problem now and you can’t get away. I don’t want that to happen to us, but if it does or not, he’ll still get, properly so, the blame because his policies for four years will have failed the American people.”

Here’s his apology (from his website):

“Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05) today sent a personal letter to President Barack Obama apologizing for using a term some find insensitive. Lamborn was attempting to tell a radio audience last week that the President's policies have created an economic quagmire for the nation and are responsible for the dismal economic conditions our country faces. He regrets that he chose the phrase ‘tar baby,’ rather than the word ‘quagmire.’ The Congressman is confident that the President will accept his heartfelt apology.”

This is a good one. NAA to the max! Okay, I’m willing to believe that a White Republican from the land of whiteness so intense that it frequently falls from the sky might be too ignorant to imagine why calling the first Black President a tar baby might be offensive. But look at the finesse: Note the fine misuse of the word “apology.” And his “sorry some find this insensitive” mode blames the victims — a textbook case. His “quagmire” as a substitute word is one of those, “what I said wasn’t really wrong” things, and nowhere does he take responsibility for his ignorance. But WAIT! There’s MORE!

Rep. Lambourn has the arrogance to decide he can speak for the president, implying that the president has no character if he disagrees with Lambourn. "I am sure that he will not take offense and that he'll be happy to accept my apology because he is a man of character."

This is a very special twist (kind of like a wedgie) that takes the NAA to the next level. It’s becoming very popular among those afflicted with nerophobia, otherwise known as “fear of a black planet.” It indicates the deep unspoken suspicion among victimizers that they might, just might, be in the wrong. So on the theory that the best defense is a good offense, they decide what Black people will need to think before we have gotten around to thinking it. I agree with the website Colorado Pols when it points out that “we know… most smart politicians …have never used this phrase [tar baby]…knowing how it can be interpreted… as highly “racially insensitive.” “Smart” is the operative word, I suppose.

But let’s move on to the Wizard of NAAs. I give you Patrick Buchanan, failed presidential candidate, longtime racist (sexist, homophobe, anti-Semite…) and pundit about town. Mr. Buchanan was having a spirited conversation with Rev. Al Sharpton about the debt ceiling deal when, suddenly, things went awry.

Here is what he said:

Buchanan: And let me tell you, your boy, Barack Obama, caved in on it in 2010 and he'll cave in on it again.

Sharpton: My what? My president, Barack Obama? What did you say?

Buchanan: He's your boy in the ring, he's your fighter.

Sharpton: He's nobody's boy. He's your president and he's our president. And that's what y'all are going to get through your head."

This is the same arrogant abusive insensitivity that designated us as 3/5 of a human being. Of course the moment a Black person takes issue with racist language (even if it was unintentional or subconscious or something) he or she is viewed as hypersensitive. Must be that missing 2/5 of humanity that keeps us from having a stiff upper lip when we’re treated like dirt.

Here is Mr. Buchanan’s “apology”:

“Some folks took what I said as some kind of a slur,” Buchanan said. “None was meant, none was intended, none was delivered.”

Note the lovely bouquet of “blame the victim” stinkweed in “some folks.” And it wasn’t really wrong, just “some kind of a slur.” Here is Pat Buchanan, a White male who has never done anything I know about to acknowledge the depths of racism, telling us what we feel so as to avoid responsibility for having said a wildly inappropriate thing. In fact, au contraire mon frere, this is the same ASS Pat Buchanan who said that integration of Blacks and Whites would likely result in “the incapable [being] placed…side by side with the capable.” This is the arrogance of many White (and misguided Blacks) who say, “get over it,” as if acknowledging the reality of our lives is some type of importunate whining.

Noticing and documenting racism against Black people makes you a racist against White people in the world of the fact-free American. However being, as Stephen Colbert’s show once termed it, “factose intolerant,” I like truth. The truth will set us free. That is why Pat Buchanan can certainly say he didn’t mean or intend calling the president of the United States of America a “boy” but he can’t say no slur was delivered. I heard his message alongside those of The Family Leader and Doug Lamborn loud and clear. I don’t speak their language, but I do understand it.

About the Author:

Yvonne Kendall earned her doctorate at Stanford University. She currently serves time as a professor at a state university in Texas.