• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

davidg

Apologising for stuff you never did

Recommended Posts

Politicians love it. No not fiddling their expenses but apologizing for stuff you never did.

Blair for the slave trade

O'bama for lots of stuff http://www.heritage.org/europe/report/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-superpower

Macron for French colonialism

Chirac then Hollande for the round up of non French jews in the Spring of 42.

Now Marine le Pen has shocked the bien pensants of the French Meejah by claiming it was "nuffink to do with me, guv'"

With 2 weeks to go before the presidential elections is it a gaffe or a high risk strategy designed to appeal to people who are fed up with feeling guilty about stuff?

To give a bit of background, Spring 1942. France is defeated and occupied by the Nazis. The country is nominally run by a puppet government based in the spa resort of Vichy. The Germans ask the French to hand over the country's Jews to be deported to labour camps in the east. Pierre Laval, the French PM agrees, but only non-French jews. 7000 police are used to round up the victims who are sent to concentration camps in Eastern Europe.

So should a French presidential candidate de-apologize? The le Pen's have history. Le Pen senior claimed that the gas chambers were a "detail of the second world war". He was prosecuted successfully for this claim. I think he was right, the first thing people fighting the Nazis knew of the gas chambers and death camps were when they found them. They were not even a detail but a very well kept secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting one davidg. Quite often (always?) the decision to abuse, take advantage of or kill is made by those in power.  Then years after the act, politicians are apologising on behalf of us all.  Quite often the ordinary working people were treated in a very similar fashion.  

I dont see politicians apologising for enclosure, clearing or press gangs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, One percent said:

Then years after the act, politicians are apologising on behalf of us all.

Apologising for 'slavery' when my ancestors were forced to work down the pits by the industrial revolution.

I want 5 generations worth of compensation for the brutal working conditions for which they were economically forced to work in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologising for historical events in which no one alive today played any part is ludicrous

For example, slavery in the British Empire was abolished in 1833. Universal male suffrage in the UK did not occur until 1918 and female suffrage until 1928. Blair therefore was apologising on behalf of the British people for a legal institution which the vast majority of the population had no role in either creating or abolishing.

You see similar dissonance with regard to the subject of colonialism. Thus the European Empires between 1500-1945 are regarded as something to be ashamed yet we had an event last year celebrating the presence of African legionary and auxiliary troops occupying fortifications in Britain in the 2nd Century AD as part the Roman Imperial Army of occupation. Were the historical depredations of the British Empire in Africa during the 19th century  worse than the apparently genocidal campaigns conducted by the African Emperor Septimius Severus against the Caledonian tribes over a seventeen hundred years earlier ?  While one set of events is closer in time today than the other all the participants in both, be they perpetrators or victims, are equally dead.

I have noticed this inability to grasp simple historical realities even when discussing events that are within the collective folk memories of families. Despite the recent commemoration of the Great War I doubt that many people even now realise that a good proportion of the British troops who fought and died in it had no vote. To get some idea of the scale of disenfranchisement in Britain prior to the First World War  it should be noted that after the passing of the Representation of the People Act in 1918 the electorate in the UK tripled in size

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies on the part of people long dead are ridiculous as already noted. I think apologies on behalf of a country for very specific things can be valid though. E.g. this:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/text-of-stephen-harper-s-residential-schools-apology-1.301820

I went to a talk by a well known Canadian writer who'd been to one of those places and, despite being remarkably unbitter about it, he said that Harper's apology meant a lot to him as formal recognition of how horrible it had been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TheBlueCat said:

Apologies on the part of people long dead are ridiculous as already noted. I think apologies on behalf of a country for very specific things can be valid though. E.g. this:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/text-of-stephen-harper-s-residential-schools-apology-1.301820

I went to a talk by a well known Canadian writer who'd been to one of those places and, despite being remarkably unbitter about it, he said that Harper's apology meant a lot to him as formal recognition of how horrible it had been.

Why does that require an apology though. 

I just can't see what worth apologising for something you didn't do has. A statement recognising it happened sure, but an actual apology makes no sense to me. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Flirtygirty said:

For example, slavery in the British Empire was abolished in 1833.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-39567632

 

Seems to be rearing its ugly head again in Africa

 

Quote

Africans trying to reach Europe are being sold by their captors in "slave markets" in Libya, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) says.

Victims told IOM that after being detained by people smugglers or militia groups, they were taken to town squares or car parks to be sold.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Flirtygirty said:

Apologising for historical events in which no one alive today played any part is ludicrous

For example, slavery in the British Empire was abolished in 1833. Universal male suffrage in the UK did not occur until 1918 and female suffrage until 1928. Blair therefore was apologising on behalf of the British people for a legal institution which the vast majority of the population had no role in either creating or abolishing.

You see similar dissonance with regard to the subject of colonialism. Thus the European Empires between 1500-1945 are regarded as something to be ashamed yet we had an event last year celebrating the presence of African legionary and auxiliary troops occupying fortifications in Britain in the 2nd Century AD as part the Roman Imperial Army of occupation. Were the historical depredations of the British Empire in Africa during the 19th century  worse than the apparently genocidal campaigns conducted by the African Emperor Septimius Severus against the Caledonian tribes over a seventeen hundred years earlier ?  While one set of events is closer in time today than the other all the participants in both, be they perpetrators or victims, are equally dead.

I have noticed this inability to grasp simple historical realities even when discussing events that are within the collective folk memories of families. Despite the recent commemoration of the Great War I doubt that many people even now realise that a good proportion of the British troops who fought and died in it had no vote. To get some idea of the scale of disenfranchisement in Britain prior to the First World War  it should be noted that after the passing of the Representation of the People Act in 1918 the electorate in the UK tripled in size

I recently convinced my wife that the historical men in control, women under the thumb narrative was a load of cobblers.

What pursuaded her was the fact that the enlisted men fighting in WW1 didn't have the vote. The first man to vote in my mother's family was her grandfather. In historical terms that's a blink of the eye timespan.

History is now commonly presented through the lens of the apex fallacy. It's all to do with political agendas, division, and control.

19 minutes ago, Thombleached said:

Is no-one on here married? I'm constantly apologising for things I haven't done.

We're all red pilled.

Never apologise! xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said:

I recently convinced my wife that the historical men in control, women under the thumb narrative was a load of cobblers.

What pursuaded her was the fact that the enlisted men fighting in WW1 didn't have the vote. The first man to vote in my mother's family was her grandfather. In historical terms that's a blink of the eye timespan.

History is now commonly presented through the lens of the apex fallacy. It's all to do with political agendas, division, and control.

We're all red pilled.

Never apologise! xD

People are generally incredulous when you point out that the franchise was only extended to all men only 10 years before all women, and essentially at the barrel of a gun when the troops came back from WW1. Also that unmarried women were entitled to vote prior to that if they fulfilled the property requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said:

History is now commonly presented through the lens of the apex fallacy. It's all to do with political agendas, division, and control.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” 
― George Orwell, 1984

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” 
― George Orwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gilf said:

Why does that require an apology though. 

I just can't see what worth apologising for something you didn't do has. A statement recognising it happened sure, but an actual apology makes no sense to me. 

 

 

 

Harper didn't do it, but the Canadian government, which he lead at the time, did. That was the point the guy made and I think he was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By TheBlueCat
      The Grauniad publishes something moderately insightful for once:
      https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/30/jeremy-Steptoe-tony-blair
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.