Tweet
HISTORIC APOLOGIES JUST POINTLESS GESTURES
The New Zealand Herald
March 12, 2013 Tuesday
In India recently, British Prime Minister David Cameron rightly refused
to apologise for the 1919 Amritsar massacre. He laid a wreath on the
commemorative site (another pointless gesture), then in response to
demands for a formal apology said, "We are dealing with something that
happened more than 40 years before I was born. I don"t think it"s right
to look back in history seeking out things for which to apologise."
This apologising by politicians to groups whose ancestors suffered from
some outrage committed by the ancestors of others is a recent-years
fad and amounts to politician show-ponyism.
Two weeks ago, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny apologised to women who
- as orphans, pregnant girls and the like - had under compulsion served
as virtual slaves, sometimes with the state"s collusion, in workhouse
laundries run by embittered, bullying nuns. Given that some of the
victims are still alive, this apology was justifiable. But most are
just plain silly.
For example, recently, Massey University lecturer Jim Veitch demanded
the Government apologise for the 1943 massacre of 48 Japanese prisoners
of war in Featherston. There are disputed reports on what happened
after the prisoners staged a sit-in and refused to work but it"s hard
to believe it wasn"t an outrage. As Veitch says, "It"s nothing to do
with the Japanese behaviour during the war, it"s got to do with our
guys violating the Geneva Convention." Be that as it may, Veitch"s
request was absurd. You can"t apologise for the infamy of others on
behalf of the innocent. It"s like me punching someone in Auckland and
50 years later an Invercargill housewife apologising to her neighbour
for this.
As it is, the Japanese take a belligerent view when it comes to
admitting, let alone apologising, for the sins of their fathers,
notably in respect of the so-called "comfort women", namely Korean
girls forced into becoming a harem for World War II Japanese soldiers.
Some, now elderly, are still alive. So too with Japan"s unbecoming
attitude, virtually one of denial, for their troops" appalling conduct
in China and towards prisoners of war.
A few years ago, Helen Clark apologised to Maoridom for some historic
offence, while about the same time Australian Prime Minister John
Howard, pressured to apologise to Aborigines for a resurrected
past outrage (since revealed to have been hugely exaggerated),
point-blank refused. Always sensible, Howard stated the obvious,
namely the relevant parties no longer exist.
I"m not suggesting the past be forgotten but human history is littered
with vile behaviour by nations or groups towards other nations or
groups, all participants now long dead. In recent years, Jack Johnson,
the first black man to win the world heavyweight championship, which
he did in Sydney 105 years ago, has been the subject of a ridiculous
number of revisionist plays, films, musicals and books in America
for being allegedly wrongfully imprisoned.
In fact, he was found guilty under the Mann Act because he was guilty
and was in good company, other notables such as Charlie Chaplin
and Frank Lloyd Wright also being prosecuted. Introduced in 1910
to combat white slavery, the act forbade, as with so much American
catch-all criminal legislation, transportation across state borders,
in this case women for immoral purposes. In those days immorality
encompassed sex between unmarried partners and, believe it or not,
the act still exists.
In 2009, the previous year"s presidential candidate, boxing buff
John McCain, secured a unanimous vote in Congress in support of a
presidential pardon for Johnson. President Obama wisely declined,
doubtless recognising it as simply fashionable behaviour.
We certainly shouldn"t forget past atrocities but today"s blameless
generations should not be held responsible. We"re approaching the
centennial of the first modern-era massacre in which an estimated
one and a half million Armenians were murdered by the Turks, an event
that helped give currency to the term genocide.
Ever since, the Armenians have gone on and on about it because the
Turks refuse to apologise and admit to genocide. They should let it go,
but instead remain obsessed by the Turks" refusal. So office-holding
foreigners visiting the capital, Yerevan, no matter how minor, are
carted up to the memorial museum overlooking the city and a plaque
recording their visit joins dozens of others. It has its humorous
side, the plaques encompassing the ilk of Minister of Transport for
Lesotho or Mayor of Wollongong, all of this somehow substantiating
the genocide claim, as if that"s needed.
The worst victims of this behaviour are Germans, still unjustly hated
for the Holocaust, as if they are responsible for events 70 years ago.
A friend of mine is tall, blond and blue-eyed. A few years ago, he
and his wife toured Israel. One night they popped into their hotel
lounge for a pre-dinner drink. Only a few people were there but they
were seemingly invisible as nothing would attract the two waitresses"
attention. Tiring of this, my friend went to the bar, whereupon the
barman quickly scuttled out the back and stayed there. Suddenly the
coin dropped. At the top of his voice my friend shouted, "I"m not a
German." Instantly the barman emerged, the waitresses rushed over,
there were effusive apologies and drinks were on the house. It"s
ridiculous.
The New Zealand Herald
March 12, 2013 Tuesday
In India recently, British Prime Minister David Cameron rightly refused
to apologise for the 1919 Amritsar massacre. He laid a wreath on the
commemorative site (another pointless gesture), then in response to
demands for a formal apology said, "We are dealing with something that
happened more than 40 years before I was born. I don"t think it"s right
to look back in history seeking out things for which to apologise."
This apologising by politicians to groups whose ancestors suffered from
some outrage committed by the ancestors of others is a recent-years
fad and amounts to politician show-ponyism.
Two weeks ago, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny apologised to women who
- as orphans, pregnant girls and the like - had under compulsion served
as virtual slaves, sometimes with the state"s collusion, in workhouse
laundries run by embittered, bullying nuns. Given that some of the
victims are still alive, this apology was justifiable. But most are
just plain silly.
For example, recently, Massey University lecturer Jim Veitch demanded
the Government apologise for the 1943 massacre of 48 Japanese prisoners
of war in Featherston. There are disputed reports on what happened
after the prisoners staged a sit-in and refused to work but it"s hard
to believe it wasn"t an outrage. As Veitch says, "It"s nothing to do
with the Japanese behaviour during the war, it"s got to do with our
guys violating the Geneva Convention." Be that as it may, Veitch"s
request was absurd. You can"t apologise for the infamy of others on
behalf of the innocent. It"s like me punching someone in Auckland and
50 years later an Invercargill housewife apologising to her neighbour
for this.
As it is, the Japanese take a belligerent view when it comes to
admitting, let alone apologising, for the sins of their fathers,
notably in respect of the so-called "comfort women", namely Korean
girls forced into becoming a harem for World War II Japanese soldiers.
Some, now elderly, are still alive. So too with Japan"s unbecoming
attitude, virtually one of denial, for their troops" appalling conduct
in China and towards prisoners of war.
A few years ago, Helen Clark apologised to Maoridom for some historic
offence, while about the same time Australian Prime Minister John
Howard, pressured to apologise to Aborigines for a resurrected
past outrage (since revealed to have been hugely exaggerated),
point-blank refused. Always sensible, Howard stated the obvious,
namely the relevant parties no longer exist.
I"m not suggesting the past be forgotten but human history is littered
with vile behaviour by nations or groups towards other nations or
groups, all participants now long dead. In recent years, Jack Johnson,
the first black man to win the world heavyweight championship, which
he did in Sydney 105 years ago, has been the subject of a ridiculous
number of revisionist plays, films, musicals and books in America
for being allegedly wrongfully imprisoned.
In fact, he was found guilty under the Mann Act because he was guilty
and was in good company, other notables such as Charlie Chaplin
and Frank Lloyd Wright also being prosecuted. Introduced in 1910
to combat white slavery, the act forbade, as with so much American
catch-all criminal legislation, transportation across state borders,
in this case women for immoral purposes. In those days immorality
encompassed sex between unmarried partners and, believe it or not,
the act still exists.
In 2009, the previous year"s presidential candidate, boxing buff
John McCain, secured a unanimous vote in Congress in support of a
presidential pardon for Johnson. President Obama wisely declined,
doubtless recognising it as simply fashionable behaviour.
We certainly shouldn"t forget past atrocities but today"s blameless
generations should not be held responsible. We"re approaching the
centennial of the first modern-era massacre in which an estimated
one and a half million Armenians were murdered by the Turks, an event
that helped give currency to the term genocide.
Ever since, the Armenians have gone on and on about it because the
Turks refuse to apologise and admit to genocide. They should let it go,
but instead remain obsessed by the Turks" refusal. So office-holding
foreigners visiting the capital, Yerevan, no matter how minor, are
carted up to the memorial museum overlooking the city and a plaque
recording their visit joins dozens of others. It has its humorous
side, the plaques encompassing the ilk of Minister of Transport for
Lesotho or Mayor of Wollongong, all of this somehow substantiating
the genocide claim, as if that"s needed.
The worst victims of this behaviour are Germans, still unjustly hated
for the Holocaust, as if they are responsible for events 70 years ago.
A friend of mine is tall, blond and blue-eyed. A few years ago, he
and his wife toured Israel. One night they popped into their hotel
lounge for a pre-dinner drink. Only a few people were there but they
were seemingly invisible as nothing would attract the two waitresses"
attention. Tiring of this, my friend went to the bar, whereupon the
barman quickly scuttled out the back and stayed there. Suddenly the
coin dropped. At the top of his voice my friend shouted, "I"m not a
German." Instantly the barman emerged, the waitresses rushed over,
there were effusive apologies and drinks were on the house. It"s
ridiculous.