Will Apologies always make up for past wrong-doings?

Post Reply New Topic

Here in the UK, I've been hearing about calls for the King and the government of Britain to officially apologise for the slave trade and for reparations and sometimes I feel does one apology really make up for the deaths of millions caused of hundreds of years of slavery ? A part of me feels like its not enough but another part of me feels it may allow the former oppressors and oppressed to come to terms with each other and move on together.

I also remember when the prime minister made a state visit to India and visited the site of the Amritsar Massacre where in 1919, over a 1,000 peaceful protesters were gunned down by British troops and expressed regret but didn't apologise. Another was when the Emperor of Japan came to Britain and WW2 veterans turned their backs on him and he said he expressed ''deep sorrow for what happened'' but didn't apologise. I also remember when President Barack Obama visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and didn't apologise for the atomic bombings. Turkey will probably never apologise for the genocides during Ottoman rule even if most other countries recognise it as genocide. All these examples do make me in some way feel quite angry that even when visiting the sites in which terrible things happened, its as though they find it hard to apologise while another part of me as I said earlier thinks does one or two or three apologies really make up for the deaths of so many people.

No, of course they don't. For an apology to me meaningful, It has to be sincere. I don't think it can be if both parties are so far removed from the original act. The best apology is one that actually shows a change in behavior. Yes, this thing that happened a decade, or a century ago was very bad, but we aren't doing that now.

Sometimes the wrong is so horrific it can't be undone or apologized away. But I don't think hollow words from someone who had no part in it help anyone.

I wouldn't hold my breath, mate. It's never going to happen.

Apologies are a bad way to "fix things". You might not entirely or have nothing at all to do with the problem you're accused of, but apologizing removes all doubt of responsibility. In fact, by admitting guilt, they're less likely to accept reasonable, mutual terms and more likely to bolster themselves at your expense. I never apologize for being myself - I seek what's best for me, and if other people are offended by my acts or mistakes, I exit the relationship.

Apologies are good for sincerely repentant people. They do not bring, for example, murder victims back to life. They might erase some of the emotional distress. An apology can be especially effective when combined with restitution. Kids broke a window? Well, they can tidy up the broken glass, pay for a repair, and help fit a temporary covering while you wait - that way you aren't hurt as badly by the wrongdoing.

I think there's some value in authority figures acknowledging history evils, and apologising for the injustice. It isn't going to magically erase the injustice, but it might be of some emotional benefit to the people who are still feeling the ramifications. Many people report feeling somewhat better after receiving an apology, and some research backs that up. If you are the leader of a nation then you can meaningfully apologise for things done by the nation, even if they had nothing to do with you.

An apology without repentance is usually meaningless.

Will an apology 100 percent right a past wrong?

Nobody claims that it does (single handidly 100 percent) right any wrong. So why ask the action?

Does it partially right a past wrong?

Maybe. Depends. It maybe a symbolic first step in the right direction by acknowledging the wrong in the first place.

I, for one, applaud the Pope for apologizing to First Nations Canadians for RCC's Indian school system of the early 20th century.

But in that case, both the perps, and the injured parties, are still around. The abused children are still around as adults.

Does the fact that slavery was commited centuries ago make it different? Maybe. Neither perps nor victims are still around.

The British Empire promoted and benifited from the transatlantic slave trade, but later in history Britain also did more than any other country in the world to end the Transatlantic slave trade as well.

No, I don't see what the "sins of the fathers" have to do with the sons. If it turned out my grandfather had committed mass murder, I wouldn't see it as any more my duty to do anything about it than I would if somebody from the other side of the world had done the killing, and if I were to apologise, I'd feel a fraud. If somebody unilaterally does harm and then dies, that's pretty much the end of any hope of justice, revenge or retribution. But if somebody out there gets some kind of relief out of such proxy remorse, I wouldn't stand in its way.

I hear a lot of people telling other people to feel ashamed about their country's imperial past, its almost as though that even the ordinary working class and poor people who lived at the time of the British empire and had nothing to do with it are also responsible for the wrong-doings of the past. Surely we can't always really blame the people. I mean I know there were lots of people in Germany who raised their right hands to salute Hitler in the 1930s as I have seen video footage and photos and so on but surely not every German was responsible for the Holocaust and there were lots of Germans who bravely resisted Hitler but ended up losing their lives as a result.