Dizzy gets himself in a tizz this morning about Australian PM Kevin Rudd’s apology for past wrongs inflicted on the indigenous Aboriginal population. Although Brendan Nelson’s Liberal party have welcomed the apology Dizzy sees this as part of a particular vogue among politicians on the left to apologise for “things they had bugger all to do with” and firmly rejects the idea that we should bear any guilt for past wrongs. I share his contempt for some people’s readiness to lay every problem at the door of the ‘British Empire’ but can we simply ignore these things because we weren’t around?
My understanding is that these are apologies on behalf of the nation state - a sort of proxy apology for the crimes of our ancestors who obviously aren’t in a position to do so themselves. The whole thing is complicated of course by the clash of historical context and contemporary values but since we recognise some sort of continuity of state we recognise the shared responsibility for these things. Dizzy’s argument rests on the premise that that continuity of state doesn’t exists – no-one alive today had responsibility for the slave trade so why should anyone apologise. But if you reject that continuity you have to do so for everything – not just the nasty things. Our claim to half the paintings, sculptures and artefacts in our museum immediately becomes doubtful – we can’t invoke the old heritage arguments any more. How would territorial claims be impacted? – why should the Falkland Islands remain British if you can’t invoke any sort of historical context at all?
Like I say, I have as little time as Dizzy for the sort of uber-liberal brow-beating that sees everything in the world as our fault – but if my country was up to it’s neck in something as despicable as the slave trade I don’t really have any issue with saying sorry about it….
My understanding is that these are apologies on behalf of the nation state - a sort of proxy apology for the crimes of our ancestors who obviously aren’t in a position to do so themselves. The whole thing is complicated of course by the clash of historical context and contemporary values but since we recognise some sort of continuity of state we recognise the shared responsibility for these things. Dizzy’s argument rests on the premise that that continuity of state doesn’t exists – no-one alive today had responsibility for the slave trade so why should anyone apologise. But if you reject that continuity you have to do so for everything – not just the nasty things. Our claim to half the paintings, sculptures and artefacts in our museum immediately becomes doubtful – we can’t invoke the old heritage arguments any more. How would territorial claims be impacted? – why should the Falkland Islands remain British if you can’t invoke any sort of historical context at all?
Like I say, I have as little time as Dizzy for the sort of uber-liberal brow-beating that sees everything in the world as our fault – but if my country was up to it’s neck in something as despicable as the slave trade I don’t really have any issue with saying sorry about it….
11 Comments:
It's a device dizzy uses often, and with good reason. Every time anyone reminds him of the divisive nature of the Thatcher government, or the sheer incompetence of John Major, or Norman Lamont, or the downright dishonest of Archer, Aitken Porter and co. it allows him to say... "Nothing to do with us guv, we were still in short trousers when those things happened."
So at least dizzy is consistent. More sensible people try to learn the lessons of history, rather than hide behind their hands and hope it will go away.
One can inherit ownership of tangible objects - until Labour manages to outlaw it - but no one should inherit guilt.
No one is suggesting we ignore these things. We should learn the lessons history can teach us. Indeed Australians already have and there is no claim that such terrible practices are being conducted today.
I think you are mistaken to assume that inherited guilt is part of a continuity of state. You certainly have nothing to apologise for in respect of the slave trade - and nor for that matter has anyone alive today.
I also got into a tizz over this.
You can't apologise for something you didn't do. You can learn from the mistakes of others, and do what you can to rectify them. But you can't apologise for them.
Tony & Thunderdragon - I take your point but it feels like a semantic objection to me. The apology is on behalf of the nation state - so I agree, you can't apologise for something you didn't do but the state (via its elected representatives) can and in some cases should apologise for the things it DID do.
You can then go down an obscure alley asking can the state as a concept be guilty of something but like I say that's semantics.
Sorry Cas but you're stretching the concept past breaking point. The facts are disputed and the people who should have apologised are long since gone.
Cassilis, the opposite is in fact true: it is semantics to apologise for someone else.
It may have been the nation state that did it, but not those who currently run the nation state. They haven't done what they are apologising for, and it is pure semantic posturing to do so.
Rather than offering an "apology"on behalf of others, Rudd [and others who make faux apologies for slavery and the like] should just publicly accept that what was done is wrong in our eyes and say that we will learn from their mistakes.
And to presume to apologise for someone else's deeds is arrogance on a massive scale.
Your argument doesn't hold up Thunderdragon - if liability only attaches itself to individuals rather than the concept of the state then the state has no responsibility to, say, war veterans or people injured while working on behalf of the state.
As head of Government Gordon Brown has no legal responsibility for anything pre-June last year (or 97 if you stretch the idea). In reality state liability works nothing like that and there's an accepted norm around the continuity of state, hence the government reparations recently for those who fel victim to MOD testing.
Rudd's apology is given as the head of state (or actually government in the case of Australia) not in a personal capacity. He's articulating an apology from the state on behalf of something the state did - it's actually quite simple.
To responsibility to APOLOGISE doesn't lie with the state. The responsibility for THAT lies with individuals. But the responsibility to look after those who have been injured whilst working on behalf of the state is the responsibility of the state.
So... am I clear about Thunderdragon's position... The state has a responsibility to look after those injured working on its behalf... but not for those injured by it.
How very perplexing.
No Bob, I said the responsibility to apologise for it doesn't lie with the state, but the individuals.
I didn't say the state doesn't have a responsibility to do what they can to fix it.
But that doesn't mean just handing money over.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home