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?
Read another response by Oliver Leaman
Read another response about Ethics