Comments on: A claim which cannot be settled cheaply

By: Chris Young

Chris Young — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:30:00 +0000

No, there has to be an apology, it’s a necessary piece of punctuation. Any Germans reading this thread? Do you feel lots better now? Thought not. However most of you probably don’t want to spiral into a trade war with Italy either. Apologies (except for accidents), whether personal or political, don’t usually mean “Everything I have said or done is worthless, the only thing that will keep me from topping myself is the gift of schadenfreude at my expense that I have given you”. They mean “Please don’t hit me”, or, as in this case, “Look, we have to go on doing business, shall we move on”. Punctuation. German and Italian civil servants can now sit back down and carry on doing whatever they were doing last week. But I agree about historical apologies. At best useless, at worst damaging, and historically embarrassing.

By: zippy

zippy — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:01:47 +0000

I think it’s funny that everyone seems to buy into the root concept, to wit “Something was said that someone somewhere might find offensive, so there must be an apology.” My response: why? As noted in this article (though in a muddled fashion), apologies serve no purpose – they are most often made out of political necessity, and thought of (again, often in a muddled fashion) as a way to avoid the consequences of one’s statements. If a speaker makes a statement, presumably he agrees with his/her OWN sentiments. If a large number of people disagree, that’s fine – they can then hash it out. Why avoid the issue by getting the original speaker to “unsay” it? PC piffle. Rank silliness.

By: Jurjen

Jurjen — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:28:45 +0000

At the risk of coming off as a sycophant, I started reading this blog because the Farrell siblings contribute to it. I think Warner has a point; often apologies are worded to spread the blame so wide that, since evryone is guilty, no-one is guilty. And a fine example of apologising in order to absolve onself of any further responsibility (particularly to offer any kind of redress) may be seen in, for example, the Japanese government’s handling of the “comfort women” issue in recent years. This is, I think, a better example than the issue of American slavery, because (some of) the actual victims are still alive.

By: Maria

Maria — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:23:21 +0000

charlie b & james hamilton; do yourselves a favour, if you don’t like the other posts, and can’t handle that, then just don’t read them. Our posts are clearly labelled so it shouldn’t be too difficult. If you feel compelled to read and respond, then please try within reason to keep your posts relevant and appropriate. I don’t think anyone on this blog is doing it to get flamed, for no discernible reason, as bigots. Ad hominem/feminam attacks are just unpleasant for all concerned and don’t add anything to the discussion.

By: James Hamilton

James Hamilton — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:27:36 +0000

I’d like to add weight to Charlie B’s comment above. I can’t understand what Junius is doing here either – his blog was intelligent, refreshing and at times healthily disagreeable-with, but Crooked Timber thus far strikes me as a straw man factory with far too high an opinion of itself. My advice to Chris, for what little it’s worth, is to get out before you get tarred as a bigot.

By: Greg

Greg — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:27:00 +0000

I find it interesting that Blair, rather than the Queen, issued that apology for the Famine. The apology might have had more weight behind it then, if the Queen, as personification of the United Kingdom, had apologised. Instead, one of her ministers did so… I’d be curious to see his exact words.

By: Charlie B

Charlie B — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 01:41:45 +0000

I do find it depressing that Chris Bertram has got caught up with this kind of stuff – the tone of which is so self-rightous, the content of which is nugatory and the slant of which is so predictable. Junius was a breath of fresh air and Chris a model of fairness. He never gave people the opportunity for facile Bush-bashing comments (which prove what?)

By: henk

henk — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:58:13 +0000

mr or mrs anno-nymous, i’m not sure bush did apologize for american slavery. i thought he did at first, but what actually happened was more or less that he called it a bad thing what his country did. see also http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2884573,00.html

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:44:09 +0000

Can anyone please tell me whether the Republic of Mongolia has offered a recent apolgy for the Mongol invasions of the 13th century?

By: Factory

Factory — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:30:48 +0000

Although these apologies may be in bad faith, political leaders can be quite against the notion all together. Frex John Howard and an apology to aboringinals.

By: Anno-nymous

Anno-nymous — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 21:50:17 +0000

Don’t forget Bush’s apologies for American slavery this past week. I’m glad America, as a nation, is finally ready to face up to that ugly era of our past…