Is it right to apologise for the past?

[RSS News]

Gordon Brown is to apologise for the UK's role in sending children to former colonies. What difference will it make?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

[9]

None. Obviously.
Oh, Newsbot. What are we going to do with you. :rolleyes:

[Tifosi]

Oh good on you Mr Brown:rolleyes:

[leninpuncher]

There are lots of things Gordon Brown should be apologizing for. This isn't one of them.

There's a trend amongst politicians to apologize for their country's crimes, long after they've ended or been stopped by other forces. In 100 years, maybe we'll have someone apologizing for Iraq.

Like a serial murderer only apologizing for that time his dad raped a girl.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I certainly think it can have an effect, but only if the country really has changed its ways. For example, Germany apologizing to the Jewish population for the holocaust (and then apologizing some more) is meaningful because they got out of the genocide business.

The US apologizing to Vietnam while invading Iraq would make no sense, however.

And if a country denies an event that happened to the point they are in absolute denial, it's meaningful, but only if some corrective action is taken. If the US government apologized to the Native Americans, well that's a start but doesn't exactly help them out much.

[Plagueround]

If the US government apologized to the Native Americans, well that's a start but doesn't exactly help them out much.

Haha this actually was in the latest defense bill as some sort of bizarre footnote, with this attached:

The resolution expressly does not authorize any funds or serve as a settlement of any claim against the United States. It is simply an apology to make right the relationship between the United States and the Native American Indians.


Um...thanks for the apology...I guess?

[RedSonRising]

Well without the apology, a government would be criticized for overlooking or ignoring the fact. Putting it out in the open allows for a more honest historical examination without so much nationalist justification. Obviously, the British government has a lot more to answer for and it would be nice if it were a progressive socialist government reversing its various problems but its not. However if a leader can point out a mistake from a nation's past, it opens doors to bring to light the sameness in nature that modern atrocities share with old ones, such as vietnam and iraq. Doesn't change much, but it's better than not doing it in my opinion.

[blake 3:17]

In my political circles, I seem to be one of the very few in favour of these types of apologies. They seem to have been mostly done by centre right governments.


I think their value is in setting parts of the historical record straight.

The Stephen Harper apology for the residential school system wasn't nothing. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/11/aboriginal-apology.html

[chegitz guevara]

Apologies can mean a lot when the alternative has been a complete blackout of an historical injustice. For most human beings, a sincere apology (or thanks) can mean a lot. Many lawsuits could be averted if an apology were made up front, but in our litigious society, an apology is an admission of wrong-doing, which means you accept responsibility and liability.

An apology tucked into a military appropriations bill ain't gonna cut it.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Haha this actually was in the latest defense bill as some sort of bizarre footnote, with this attached:

The resolution expressly does not authorize any funds or serve as a settlement of any claim against the United States. It is simply an apology to make right the relationship between the United States and the Native American Indians.


Um...thanks for the apology...I guess?

We do not in any way accept any responsiblity for your predicament, past, current, or future, nay we are merely acknowledging that we accept it and that, therefore, you do to.

[Invincible Summer]

In my political circles, I seem to be one of the very few in favour of these types of apologies. They seem to have been mostly done by centre right governments.


I think their value is in setting parts of the historical record straight.

The Stephen Harper apology for the residential school system wasn't nothing. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/11/aboriginal-apology.html

Yeah, well the thing is, the residential school system left permanent scars on Canadian Aboriginal society. The effects of it will be felt for generations to come, perpetuating the inequality that the First Nations already face. Plus, the last residential school was closed ~15 years ago... a bit late, don't you think?

Plus, First Nations in Canada are still among the most disadvantaged visible minority groups in the country, so apologizing for residential schools means jack shit if little is done to repair the damage.

[9]

As far as I'm concerned, an apology is meaningless if present actions don't demonstrate a change in behavior. Words are empty without actions to back them up; it's just posturing.