Topics Ethics

Question APOLOGIES FOR HISTORICAL EVENTS I have been concerned in recent years about the tendency of governments and other bodies to apologise for shameful events perpetrated by their predecessors. Instances that spring to mind are the Australian government's apology to the aboriginal population for their previous maltreatment, the British government's apology to the descendants of First World War servicemen shot for cowardice, and most recently, the British Prime Minister's apology to people who were displaced and sent to Australia as children to lives of abuse and hardship. The first thing that springs to my mind is that it's easy to apologise for something that you personally had no part in. It seems to me that it is most likely done for political enhancement rather than true remorse. Surely the only people who could legitimately apologise are those who perpetrated the act, and if they are long dead, then the time for true apologies has expired. The fact that the recipients of these apologies (usually the descendants of the victims), seem to take comfort from them makes me very uncomfortable. I can't help but feel that they have been short-changed and are settling for a pseudo-apology when the real thing is no longer possible. I have no problem with a modern government condemning the wrongdoings of its predecessors, but I think that these apologies are a cheap and cynical ploy to achieve political popularity. Don't you agree that the only person who can legitimately apologise for an injustice or atrocity is the perpetrator?

Accepted:
March 4, 2010

Comments

I don't agree. I think that societies often see themselves, rightly, as linked with those who came before them and to those who will come after, and feel that responsibility is similarly extendable. After all, those of us alive today benefit to a degree from the actions of our predecessors, and if those actions were deplorable, then we should apologize for them, and more importantly, seek to provide restitution.

I am sure you are right about the cheap political motives of the governments who do the apologizing. This does not disguise the fact that where a wrong has been done, then those who are their descendants can meangingfully apologize. It is a bit like the case when a country's government apologizes for the hooliganism of its soccer supporters. Ministers are not saying that they themselves are hooligans and now regret their actions. They apologize on behalf of their country for the evil actions of some of their citizens. The fact that those events take place today, and other events took place in the past, is irrelevant, since they are all connnected to the country.