What I find mildly amusing and ironic is most of the people who are in favor of apologizing for actions done 50+ years ago, are typically the same people who vehemently oppose capital punishment on the grounds that a simple act will not make the initial act of evil go away. Yes, they are very different creatures, but they both have the same goals... restitution and justice.
So why do we have it in our heads that apologizing for something that the perpetrators who committed the offense are dead, and the victims are either long dead, or nearing the end and likely uninterested in rehashing the past will somehow make things better.
Should we forget? Nope. Should we erect monuments to atrocities and serious discriminatory mistakes? Sure, why not.
Should we as a society be expected to grovel and pay out to the descendants for something they neither witnessed, experienced or quite probably understand? No. The act in itself is discriminatory since every "civilized state" does not acknowledge every atrocity they have committed. We acknowledge some, and ignore others. Do Italian and German Canadians get apologies and payouts for being wrongfully interred? Nope... I mean, sure, their homelands were aggressor states, but they weren't... hell, Italy switched sides and became an ally. Yet, Japanese Canadians received an apology and reparations... Has France formally apologized to Germany for Versailles which essentially gave rise to Hitler? Nope. That act of selfishness created a desperate and wounded state capable of anything... and it did... indirectly leading to the death of millions. Have England and France apologized for the hell they have wrought in Africa and the Middle East through their Imperialism? Nope. Their blunders are directly related to the border wars in Africa and the unease in Palestine/Israel causing the deaths of millions. Why are some atrocities more important than others?
|