What's going to be the next pointless historical apology?

What's going to be the next pointless historical apology?

It seems to be the in thing these days for some political leader or government to apologise for things that happened a long time ago in a different type of society. Is there any point to this idom? Sometimes when no-one had control over a situation. Blair's Irish Famine stunt was typical.

Now how far up yourself and so patronising ignorant is the passing comment about Acorn15 and I?! Ignorance knows no bounds. If some people do not want to hear something or have alternative views they seems to think that ridicule is an intellectual way of doing business. Shows a weakness and the real intelligent opinion here will see through such sillyness. Considering so many Scots have contributed to progress in the world it betrays an ignorance for all to see. Trouble is that such people miss the obvious.
Historical apologies are part of the modern thinking of the deluded liberalists who think they have sole use of the moral hightground. It is all part of the PC nonsense that is helpoing our decline.

You see the actual point parkerjm but there again this is too simple for the people who think they know everything and the rest of the world is too beneath them to grasp the nettle. Instead we get waffle. Punctuated by nice words but waffle.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

It makes a difference to all of us that see Turing as a hero (not just a war hero) for his pioneering work that made the computer you are currently sitting at possible.

Having a degree in computer science and studying language and computability deeply, I understand the greatness of Turing. No one is arguing that he was not a hero and that what happened to him was a tragedy that undoubtedly slowed progress in mathematics and computer science. What I am, arguing, however, is that an apology by Gordon Brown makes no difference. Brown had no part in the happening. It would be like me making a forum post apologizing on behalf of my family for the death of Turing. It is pointless. It is obviously a tragedy and was obviously wrong, but that doesn't make arbitrary apologies meaningful. If France apologized for 9/11, would you suddenly feel better about it?

And in the case of remembrance days and retrieving the remains of former soldiers, this is a different ballgame altogether. Those people died as citizens of a country, and a country remembering its citizens is like a family remembering their elders upon passing, whose actions made the family what it is today. When we remember battles past, we remember contributions that got us to where we are today, happy and safe.

Don't mistake me... I am all for *remembrance* of Turing and ceremonies celebrating him and his achievements, but I just don't see what that has to do with apologies made by arbitrary parties.

Well, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom isn't an arbitrary party in this case, something say the Prime Minister of Sweden would have been. He is the second representative (an apology from the Queen would have had even more weight, and she was the Queen even back then) of the UK government, the body responsible for the post-war treatment of Turing.

Originally posted by parkerjm:

What I am, arguing, however, is that an apology by Gordon Brown makes no difference. Brown had no part in the happening. It would be like me making a forum post apologizing on behalf of my family for the death of Turing. It is pointless. It is obviously a tragedy and was obviously wrong, but that doesn't make arbitrary apologies meaningful.

It is meaningful - just because it doesn't change the situation of Turing, or his colleagues, or his family, doesn't matter. When has an apology ever actually changed the circumstances of anything?

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Those people died as citizens of a country, and a country remembering its citizens is like a family remembering their elders upon passing, whose actions made the family what it is today.

Exactly. We have countless remembrances of war heroes, and rightly so. But do we have any remembrances of deserters? Does it make a difference whether one is shot as a hero or as a deserter?

Originally posted by parkerjm:

but that doesn't make arbitrary apologies meaningful.

It isn't meaningful for whom? You? Have you asked the global gay community to be sure it isn't meaningful to anyone there? Or Bletchley Park? Etc.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

We have countless remembrances of war heroes, and rightly so. But do we have any remembrances of deserters?

Yes. Sorry, it's in german and the english article doesn't contain this part. It's a list of memorials, mostly for people who deserted from the Wehrmacht during World War II. For some inconceivable reason they still cause controversy

Originally posted by Macallan:

For some inconceivable reason they still cause controversy

Ah, well. Looks like it matters to some people then!

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Macallan:

For some inconceivable reason they still cause controversy

Ah, well. Looks like it matters to some people then!

Absolutely. I think everyone here can name at least two forum members who would violently oppose any such memorial

Anyway, you'd think that in Germany a memorial for deserters from the nazi military would be a non-issue. Unfortunately it's not.

Yep! Count me as one!
I'm still waiting for an apology from the Gaels for invading Alba.....

And I am awaiting old red socks to apologise for claiming Patrick as one his is bead rattlers.

Jeez, I apologized two years ago (check back) about reptiles ruling the world.

How could you. Probably would do a better job than the US of A?

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/10321886.stm">British Prime Minister Cameron says "sorry".</a>

Originally posted by BBC:

Prime Minister David Cameron has said there is no doubt that what happened on Bloody Sunday was "unjustified and unjustifiable".

Speaking in the House of Commons on Tuesday Mr Cameron said: "The Government is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces.

"And for that, on behalf of the Government, indeed on behalf of our country, I am deeply sorry."

Originally posted by jax:

British Prime Minister Cameron says "sorry".

Where do we divide the line between pointless and relevant? The victims of Bloody Sunday have family that are still alive. Mind you, the descendants of the slave trade are living, all too often, in conditions determined (or at least affected) by their skin colour, and the manner of their circumstances is directly related to the working lives of their slave ancestors.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Does it make a difference whether one is shot as a hero or as a deserter?

Did I die?

I can understand apologies regarding something done a few years or decades ago. That will mean that the people who committed a particular act are regretting what they have done to others.

What I can't understand it's 500 hundred years apologies. There's absolutely no communication and even a common world besides two, three generations at maximum.
It doesn't make any sense interpreting past circumstances based at the actual ones.
Pretending that past generations are guilty of not have lived in our times it's what historical apologies are.

Past it's a distant and foreign country. It's not subjected to political correctness.

So right there Belfrager. I am waiting for an apology re Attila the Hun which will be the last straw.

Those bleeding Romans never did apologise for invading Engelterre.

I'm still waiting on an apology from Mr. Howie for the atrocities committed by the British Empire.

My dear unfortunate living where you do. I will quote one of your Generals (I think) who said "You will wait until Hell freezes over."

Yes the Romans were very feisty invaders who conquered our cousins down in England. However they couldn't conquer up here and got as far as roughly a line from central belts and even then they had ro have two walls. They did bring a form of civilsation to this island though?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Yes the Romans were very feisty invaders who conquered our cousins down in England. However they couldn't conquer up here and got as far as roughly a line from central belts and even then they had ro have two walls. They did bring a form of civilsation to this island though?

Yup, they brought it to England, hence the sorry state of the rest of the island

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I'm still waiting on an apology from Mr. Howie for the atrocities committed by the British Empire.

I think you'll struggle getting him to accept the facts and reality of the British Empire - atrocity, ethnic cleansing, exploitation, slavery etc etc.

History isn't his strong point. Fantasy on the other hand....

Gary, it honestly interests me to understand how Spanish speaking countries feel about their history. I once asked my Ecuadorian friend why people in Latin America were proud to speak Spanish, as it is the language of the oppressors. He said that it is their language now, and it's all they've ever known.


But still, Spain destroyed your culture, and yet, you guys seem to love the supplanted culture... why? Is it just that it's all you've got?

Originally posted by parkerjm:

you guys seem to love the supplanted culture...

Name a culture that's not supplanted in one way or another - you're not going to find many.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Name a culture that's not supplanted in one way or another - you're not going to find many.

I'm going back to Sumerian culture.

Who's ready to eat some mud?

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Name a culture that's not supplanted in one way or another - you're not going to find many.

I'm going back to Sumerian culture.

Better get a cuneiform font then

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Gary, it honestly interests me to understand how Spanish speaking countries feel about their history. I once asked my Ecuadorian friend why people in Latin America were proud to speak Spanish, as it is the language of the oppressors. He said that it is their language now, and it's all they've ever known.

But still, Spain destroyed your culture, and yet, you guys seem to love the supplanted culture... why? Is it just that it's all you've got?

How do you feel about speaking a language destroyed by Normans?

Norman who?

Originally posted by parkerjm:

But still, Spain destroyed your culture, and yet, you guys seem to love the supplanted culture... why? Is it just that it's all you've got?

Spain in Ecuador.

Spain in Spain.

Seems to be a bit of a referral thing going on with the Ecuador picture.

"Referral"?

I mean that I just get a Tripod picture, presumably because you're referring to it from this different server over here.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Norman who?

His name was William. William the Bastard.

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Gary, it honestly interests me to understand how Spanish speaking countries feel about their history. I once asked my Ecuadorian friend why people in Latin America were proud to speak Spanish, as it is the language of the oppressors. He said that it is their language now, and it's all they've ever known.

But still, Spain destroyed your culture, and yet, you guys seem to love the supplanted culture... why? Is it just that it's all you've got?

It's an exceedingly complex part of the Mexican psyche, one with many contradictions, as far as I can see. But bear in mind, most Mexicans are either of Spanish descent or a mix of Spanish and indigenous Amerindian blood, so there can be no loathing of Spanish crimes of the past without a certain amount of self loathing. There's also the matter of appreciating what Mexicans can relate to today. Gorditas and guitar are in, sacrificing virgins and decapitating sports captains from the losing side are out. More's the pity, as far as the latter is concerned....

Mexicans today simply recognise the Spanish atrocities and remember, celebrate and protect (as far as possible) the ancient Mexican civilisations, which weren't totally destroyed by the Spanish by any means. Some parts, such as language, spread in certain ways. You know how to say 'chocolate', after all. Mexico today is a combination of all its historical parts, some larger than others, but all have a place.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Norman who?

His name was William. William the Bastard.

Don't be trying to educate me! I've lived happily for decades in the dark.

Originally posted by garydenness:

so there can be no loathing of Spanish crimes of the past without a certain amount of self loathing.

Maybe for Mexicans, but I can "loathe" my ancestors perfectly fine without "loathing" myself.

Originally posted by garydenness:

Some parts, such as language, spread in certain ways. You know how to say 'chocolate', after all.

If a few words are all that remains then it's most certainly destroyed.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Maybe for Mexicans, but I can "loathe" my ancestors perfectly fine without "loathing" myself.

Fair point. But the point I was making is that they can't simply hate the Spanish for being Spanish, particularly with regards to being descended from Spaniards, when they are mostly of Spanish descent themselves. If that makes more sense....

Originally posted by Frenzie:

If a few words are all that remains then it's most certainly destroyed.

I was referring to words that actually spread beyond Mexico's borders, not to what remains within Mexico. There are dozens of languages still spoken as a first tongue (sometimes as the sole tongue) by indigenous peoples in Mexico. They are protected by law. But language being language, the future is of course uncertain.

Originally posted by garydenness:

Fair point. But the point I was making is that they can't simply hate the Spanish for being Spanish, particularly with regards to being descended from Spaniards, when they are mostly of Spanish descent themselves. If that makes more sense....

Ah, right. Loathing someone just for something they had no part in choosing (nationality, ethnicity...) would be rather stupid regardless. Now if someone (a particular individual) says that the Spanish atrocities were a good thing - that's when loathing becomes an option.

Originally posted by garydenness:

They are protected by law.

Are you saying they're more than just official languages?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Are you saying they're more than just official languages?

No. Perhaps I worded it poorly. There were, quite some time ago, programs to integrate everyone into a single language society. That was stopped, again some time ago, with laws recognising minority languages as official languages, and with programmes to encourage multi language education etc.