|
Every time I hear one group demand an apology from another for any offense, from mere slight to large-scale atrocity, I roll my eyes in disbelief.
1) Statute of Limitations: After the first century or so, the longboat has pretty much sailed. When the last of the actual injured or injuring parties has shuffled off the mortal coil, the apology becomes moot at best. The victims' descendants (who in most cases were not there) get a cheap acknowledgement of their ordeal from the aggressors' descendants (also: usually not involved). Sometimes they weren't even asking for it.
2) Talk is Cheap: If there are lingering injustices being borne by subsequent generations of descendants, skip the apology and RIGHT those wrongs while everyone's actually alive.
3) Again, Talk is Cheap: What possible benefit accrues from a mere apology, even if the anatognists ARE still with us? Unless it's to avoid international scandal because someone's glass at the State Dinner had lipstick stains on it, the apology is generally too little, too late. Again, if it's wrong, DO something about it. Redemption comes not from acknowledging the wrong, but from remedying it, going forth and sinning no more.
Shakespeare said that public apologies were merely 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. OK, not really. But, much like the public figures who solemnly take 'full responsibility' for professional misconduct then blithely go back to their desk and resume business as usual, the public apology does signify nothing, except 'yeah, whatever'.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(484 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
