Theodore Dalrymple wrote about a subject that is near and dear to my heart: the tendency of modern folks to fall over themselves apologizing for something that somebody else did ages ago. And Dalrymple calls it "The False Apology Syndrome." Excerpts from the recent issue of In Character, on forgiveness:
"There is a fashion these days for apologies: not apologies for the things that one has actually done oneself (that kind of apology is as difficult to make and as unfashionable as ever), but for public apologies by politicians for the crimes and misdemeanours of their ancestors, or at least of their predecessors. I think it is reasonable to call this pattern of political breast-beating the False Apology Syndrome."
"....Let us examine briefly the apology for the Crusades as an example of the whole genre. It is not exactly a new discovery that the Crusaders often, perhaps usually or even always, behaved very badly. It is not in the nature of invading armies to behave well, even when discipline is strong, morale is high, and control of the foot soldiers is firm; it is no secret that these conditions did not exist during the Crusades, to put it rather mildly."
"They were, however, rather a long time ago. The Crusades were an attempt to recover for Christendom what had been lost by force, with all the accompanying massacre, pillage, and oppression that the use of force in those days implied. No one, I think, expects an apology from present-day Arabs for the imperialism of their ancestors, either as a matter of moral duty or political likelihood. We are all born into the world as we find it, after all; we are not responsible for what went before us."
And should companies and universities be apologizing for the slave trade? Are Black Americans justified in seeking reparations for slavery?
"...The demand for an apology supposes that there is a clearly definable person, or group of persons, who can be held responsible for the trade, or at the very least to have been the beneficiaries of it. In other words, the world can be neatly divided into historical oppressed and oppressor, victim and perpetrator."
"Most historical situations and their consequences are more complex and ambiguous than this simple schema would suggest, and the slave trade is no exception. For medical reasons having to do with relative immunity to malaria, if for no others, the supply of slaves depended crucially on the co-operation of African suppliers who captured slaves for sale. No apology from their descendents is required. The trade was abolished almost entirely through the efforts of white abolitionists. However discontented with their lot present-day American descendents of slaves may be, they are much better off than they would have been had their ancestors not been brought to America. Are they morally obliged, then, to offer up thanks to the slave traders who brought their ancestors to America?"
"Thus the demand for an apology for the Atlantic slave trade is a demand that people with no personal responsibility for it apologize to people who have suffered no personal wrong from it. From the point of view of morality, this is a very strange demand."
I wonder what acceptable things our society is doing now that, in another 40 years or so, we'll look back on in disbelief and disgust.
He is completely correct but be readied to be labeled a racist.
Posted by: ousslander | October 13, 2008 at 09:10 AM
We have a poor understanding of the slave trade in the U.S., which was - surprise! surprise! - a fraction of the total slave trade in the New World. And the African slave trade to the Americas was a fraction of the slave trade conducted by Arab Muslims in North Africa. That system had a very high mortality rate, especially for the eunuchs. And not many people know about the 1-2 million Christian Europeans that were enslaved by Arab Muslims. Any reparations for them?
Posted by: Kelly | October 13, 2008 at 08:41 PM