AMERICAN PERISCOPE. Saying sorry

Commemoration of historical events is an occasion for reflection. Along with the speeches, it also appears to be a time to demand an apology for past wrongs. With many sides to history and with changing norms in society, there is no shortage of perceived wrongs.

Mexican President Manuel Obrador, commemorating the 500th anniversary of Spanish conquistador Cortes’s landing, demanded that the current Spanish King Felipe VI should apologise for the imposition of Spanish civilisation and the killing of thousands of natives.

The centenary of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre resulted in demands for an apology from the British government. Prime Minister May expressing ‘deep regret’ was not enough to satisfy some.

They began parsing the difference between apology and regret, insisting the former took on the additional meaning of admitting responsibility for the wrong. And there are many shades in-between. In many out-of-court settlements with celebrities and corporations, the US government collects sizeable fees without the accused admitting guilt!

This presumably is to prevent further litigation. Thus one concern for hesitating to apologise is the question of compensation, or reparations. One of the currently aspiring US presidential candidates thinks there is a strong case for paying reparations to African-Americans for the injustice of slavery in the past, and the continuing exclusion of opportunities in the present.

It may appeal to the minority base of voters. Shashi Tharoor cleverly asked the British for a symbolic one pound a year.

It is easy to apologise when you know you are not responsible, like the meeting organiser apologising for delayed start due to the chief guest being caught in traffic.

An apology can carry weight if it comes officially from a government, like Canada’s minister apologising to the indigenous people for past racist policies.

But it also grabs headlines when several hundred Christians gathered in Jerusalem to apologise to Muslims and Jews for the horror of the Crusades! One important reason for demanding an apology is to admit that a wrong was committed, and another is to begin a process of reconciliation. So to be complete, an apology must be followed by forgiveness.

The US did not apologise to Japan for dropping two nuclear bombs, but is unwilling to give up its own arsenal. One Japanese prime minister offered his apology for Japan’s wartime conduct including the issue of South Korean sex slaves. Can the present really apologise for the past? The current governments of former colonial powers are not very happy at having to apologise for what their forefathers did. As against the criminal trials in The Hague after WW II which stressed revenge and punishment, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission allowed lots of healing by allowing the truth to come out, some mistakes to be acknowledged and also some compensation. It certainly helped a relatively non-violent transfer to a black majority government.

Perhaps the right way to think about all this is to appreciate the beautiful Urdu expression, ‘ gustakhi maaf .’

Often used as part of leave taking, it embodies a request for forgiveness of unintended hurt. That would be a good place to start recognising that the goodness of our behaviour is not so much the intent but how it is perceived by the recipient.

The writer is a professor at Suffolk University, Boston.

COMMENT NOW