National Apologies for Ancestral Sins and Historical Evils

https://www.humantruth.info/ancestral_sins.html

By Vexen Crabtree 2024

The history of humanity is full of horrors and atrocities, often committed by those with power against those without₁. Generations later, we have to find a way to address that injustice. It is basic ethics to admit that individuals aren't culpable for the sins of their ancestors, and asking for apologies from them can only cause insult. But basic ethics doesn't heal wounds. Those in power who represent their people and their past, don't speak for themselves. They speak for history. And in that case, apologies should be heartfelt, genuine, clear and direct. They should acknowledge the shadows and cast light on them, and those who receive the apology will know if they mean it. That's advanced ethics, and it makes humanity a civil species.

1. Introduction: The Past Casts Shadows

#poland #romania #slavery

Although the specifics are complicated and historically technical, many past injustices inflict upon descendants a simplistic emotional want for correction. Sometimes those associated with the "winners" want to show remorse, and sometimes the ancestor victims want to see others acknowledge history. Prof. Steve Pile says that past events "continue to influence events today; we still live with these events - not all the time, and not everywhere, but they nonetheless sometimes cast shadows"₂. Also, some people justify subconscious (or conscious) greed by disguising it with a historical-sounding morality. They pretend to be insulted by the past because they see an opportunity to gain from it. In other cases, people genuinely want a simple apology. Much of the time, Pile reminds us, people do not really know what they want - "sometimes the demands of the past are inarticulate, emotional [..., ] it is not always clear what those people want, nor how these injustices might be appeased"₂.

“Can a terrible historical injustice ever be recompensed? The answer should be yes. But any attempt to redress past wrongs has to pass certain commonsense tests to do with the length of time that has passed since the outrage and the ease with which victims and victimisers can be identified. Those criteria can never be objective: atonement is not statistically measurable.”
The Economist (2002)₃

Some continuing dramas include:

Disputes about immigrants - even though "we" were sometimes responsible for their original displacement such as during the slave trade years.
There are legal attempts to reclaim land that was stolen many decades or centuries ago by families, companies and governments.
There are "fierce rows in such countries as Poland and Romania over how far to probe communist-era collaboration"₄.

The longer things stay as-they-are, the more peace will be obtained. Disruption begets continued unhappiness and debate, whereas stability fosters acceptance. Secondly, all land, and people, have complex histories that cannot and should not be "fixed" by trying to paint the present into some idealized golden past. The black humour of Douglas Adams takes the idea to an extreme - how far back do you go, in order to erase our errors?

“This planet has [...] a problem, which was this: most of the people on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy. And so the problem remained; lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable [...]. Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.”
"So long, and thanks for all the fish" by Douglas Adams (1985)₅

2. This Isn't About Individuals₆

#el_salvador #india #islam #judaism #rwanda #UK

You don't have to apologize for something that wasn't your fault. This is basic ethics. Even if you do thus apologize, you don't have to mean it, because it wasn't really you. No child is responsible for what their parents or grandparents done, not least for random and unrelated compatriots. To ask individual to apologize for someone else is normally insulting, unless that other person was acting under your direction. We alive today shouldn't be apologizing for the sins of our ancestors. That's, as we started out with, basic ethics.

To expand our view, everyone's historical ancestry is exponential. We all have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 grand-parents. In a 200-year history, we have hundreds, nearly always from multiple countries. Professor of philosophy Anthony Grayling thusly points out that "all of us are descended from slaves, or serfs, or bonded people. All of us are. And, many of us, if not indeed all of us again, are probably descended from people who owned slaves or who benefitted from slavery. The whole world rests on historical foundations, many of which involve great wrong"... and he asks if we really should all be bumping into each other and apologizing for our ancestors₇.

But let's go beyond basic ethics, because our species has grown beyond self-centered individualism. If you represent a people, then, you are a symbolic figurehead. The more power you have, the greater the number of people you represent, and the deeper your collective history as a commune, the more responsibility you have towards collective justification. Your actions are political and your words speak between communes and histories. When you're not speaking as an individual, you take on the weight of history.

Such as person doesn't speak just for themselves. When the Archbishop of Canterbury apologized unreservedly for the Church's extensive role in the Slave Trade₇, or Bill Clinton apologized for American policy in Rwanda and El Salvador, they were not speaking merely as individuals. A symbol speaks for hir people and their history. His words can only make things better, for those who were unjustly treated. It doesn't matter that it wasn't he himself who gave any orders, it matters that he recognizes, acknowledges and attempts to extend a hand. The attempt has meaning; the opposite, to refuse to apologize, is to stir up division, perpetuate injustice, and perpetuates the symbolic harm being done. This failure extends a middle-finger, which quite rightly, is inhumane. That's why politicians and representatives must leave basic ethics behind, and accept themselves as a symbol of their people, rather than as a simpleton individual

When Pope John Paul the 2nd asked forgiveness for all of the Crusades which Christendom waged against heretics Jews and Muslims; and the UK's "Queen has apologised to the Maoris for dispossessing them of their land and to the people of India for the Amritsar massacre"₇, no harm was done, and the heavy burden of history became slightly lighter. Sometimes, that's all that's required.

3. Ownership of Property and Land

3.1. Should We Return All Land to its Original Owners?

An individual on a public forum was discussing English 'clearance' of the Scottish highlands, and declared that "the rich English aristocrats who stole my [ancestor's] land should give it back to me and my clan". Although it is easy to understand why this person thinks his clan should have the land back, it is far from an exclusive claim.

If we trace back the history of every piece of land, we will find that it was historically owned by someone else, and probably was fought over, captured, claimed and lost multiple times. It is a difficult task to justify why land should be returned to its previous owner without also, accidentally, causing the deeds to be launched even further back in time. If it makes no sense to return land to one particular owner rather than another, then, therefore, it makes little sense to return it to anyone. Peace won't be restored through further re-claiming; going backwards is rarely the way forwards and if we get into the trap of trying to fix the present by rewinding land ownerships to the past, we shall create an endless and thankless task, and rather than make people happy we will cause perpetual and cyclic unhappiness. The longer land stays as it is, the more likely it is that peace and satisfaction will prosper.

If antecedency is the argument, then all land should be returned to its very first owner; and be warned, that not a single white person was the first to lay foot anywhere, as far as history can tell. But why does this argument have to stop with humanity?. The natural world owns all, and do we have a right to own anything? Before going to this extreme, we should consult nature itself. The vast majority of social species demark territory and boundaries for individual groups and devote a lot of time to defending it against others₈. It is therefore part of the natural order that animals do claim ownership of land. What is clear that a developed species, we should no longer be forcibly displacing peoples from their land. Our argument must be that in history as in nature, land has changed hands without the consent of the original owners. If that's true, we can 'own' land, and most land now is probably in the hands of its owners. To prevent future injustice and an ongoing cycle of disturbance, no more land should be forcibly exchanged unless it's for the good of all involved, and is therefore voluntary and just.

Although the solution of just leave it as-it-is is practical, it still leaves the foul smell of injustice hanging in the air. And when the people who represent the victims quite rightly voice unhappiness, it is down to the people who represent the oppressors to either give back land after all, or if they cannot, they should be truly, genuinely, openly, honesty and sincerely apologetic about what has gone on before.

3.2. Doubting Colonial-Era Borders as a Cause of Conflict ₉

#sectarianism #south_sudan #sudan #violence #war

Despite ongoing comments by some leaders and the occasional political theorist that conflicts today are a result of historical colonial empires drawing arbitrary borders, it is in general not true. Europe´s own post-independence borders have just the same arbitrariness, as do many in the world, and yet exist in a settled and peaceful manner₁₀. Many borders, such as in the Balkans, were never set by colonial powers and yet have enduring conflicts. Religious groups and some ethnic groups are simply determined to fight; if there´s a border, they fight over the border. If there is no border, they fight within a single country. The borders themselves are rarely the actual cause of the conflict, nor the solution to it. Also, borders that were set by indigenous processes suffer violence too - for example, the new (2011) border between Sudan and South Sudan remains the most problematic and dangerously violent region in the world₁₁_,₁₂, despite the fact that it was defined locally.₁₀.

In extreme cases where there is clear and definite current suffering being caused, and if the United Nations or another independent international body makes sensible and rational recommendations after making careful studies of the causes and effects, land can be divided or refactored, granting different peoples ownership. But given that this causes a new round of cyclic claims of injustice, the practical case for doing so must be strong.

3.3. Immigration and Slavery: Mass Repatriation is Arbitrary

#australia #christianity #immigration #migration #slavery #UK

Popular trash-culture spokespeople and newspapers frequently assert that immigrants should be sent home. Many countries are however, made of immigrants. The United States and Australia's modern citizens are both comprised entirely of imported Westerners on top of an ancient native population that was heavily displaced by the newcomers. But even those natives themselves trekked to these islands on land that is now submerged or frozen. The Native Americans genetically resemble those from the Mongol people of Northeast Asia, who made their way there during the ice age twenty to thirty thousand years ago.

If we are to send immigrants home, then we should all leave our countries and travel back to Africa, which is where all Humans come from. Perhaps all Americans should come back to Europe, all Europeans go back to the Middle East and Africa, etc. It makes no logical sense to say that people should 'go back to where they came from'. It is irrational, reactionary and arbitrary. It is normally the xenophobic reaction of people who do not accept that they themselves were immigrants.

A different issue sits with those who were forcibly imported as slaves. As we destroyed their forefathers' lives bringing them here there are certainly no grounds for disrupting more lives, again, by making them now leave for countries they have never seen.

“Lawyers claiming to represent some 30m descendants of American slaves have launched a series of lawsuits against companies that profited from slavery before it was abolished in 1863. The legal side of their case is complicated, not to say tendentious. But the plaintiffs seem to hope that political pressure will make up the deficit. [...] The plan is to force companies such as Aetna (which 150 years ago insured the lives of slaves for their owners) together with the federal government (which, after all, sanctioned the practice) to set up a compensation fund for the victims and their lawyers. Given the companies' keenness to avoid embarrassment, the guilt most Americans feel about slavery and the relative poverty of many black Americans, the chances are that the plaintiffs will get something.”
The Economist (2002)₃

Many national leaders have now apologised personally for their countries' role in the historical slave trade. The Archbishop of Canterbury, a Christian leader in the UK, "apologized unreservedly" for his own Church's role₇. Tony Blair merely offered "regret", causing an uproar₇. As the symbolic head of his people, it was upon him to give meaningful condolences, not a half-way-word.

But the world is not a simple case of bad guys and good guys. African slaves were often acquired and sold by African slave companies ran by indigenous Africans. Arabian and European traders merely came and bought many slaves. The slaves moved from one owner to another, from one continent to another: Yet most claims for compensation are directed at Western countries₁₃. If the people involved were fighting a moral battle, they would also challenge the African descendants of slave-owner collaborators, and not just the companies that happen to be solvent.

3.4. Museums and National Property

Museums' international artefacts often contain items that were forcibly taken, or stolen, from around the world. Some of these events took place hundreds of years ago and most the time, it is a matter of common sense and peacefulness that the items simply remain where they are. But sometimes, someone decides that on behalf of their ancestors, they want something back. For example in 2009 Greece claimed right to some marble sculptures that Lord Elgin sauntered off with in the early 1800s, from the Parthenon. If the British Museum didn't return them, now 200 years after the event, then it would imply they "condone the snatching of the marbles and the monument's carving-up 207 years ago".

Although it's clear that the staff of the British Museum don't condone theft, there are competing values. The Greek people have a shining moral right to have the matter considered. Considering the categorical imperative, what would it mean? All Museums must give back artifacts; leaving the world devoid of the experience of foreign affairs. Is the moral claim better, or the educational one? And somewhere inbetween both, at some point did the artifacts truly come to belong in the homes of their thieves?

The moral and educational claims can be reconciled: it is surely possible for most artifacts to be returned to their rightful homes, and then, for friendly 5-years swaps to occur between museums. In other words, every 5 years the British and Greek museums swap a horde of artifacts, so that each country can experience the other. Once a Museum does this with several countries, both justice and education can be served.

But what of the other claim - at some point, did the artifacts become truly the children of foreign parents? There are few rational ways to justify this; one argument in its favour is that of adoption: there are many objects that have only survived because they were retrieved and stored elsewhere. The Taliban and other extremists have devoted time to intentionally destroying idols and monuments that they didn't agree with: some things should be kept for safe-keeping, just the same way you may, with your morals intact, save an animal from an abusive owner. The minimum claim is that humanity's heritage is worth safe-keeping, but, if a country is safe, this argument cannot be made. Greece should have its things back.

These problems have been discussed internationally on many occasions, and the general conclusions are that there are practical limits as to what we should attempt.

“You cannot go very far in righting those wrongs without entangling the world's museums in a Gordian knot of restitution claims. That is why, in December 2002, 18 of the world's leading directors [...] argued for a quid pro quo. The Munich declaration, as it is called, asserts that today's ethical standards cannot be applied to yesterday's acquisitions; but in return it acknowledges that encyclopedic museums have a special duty to put world culture on display. [...] This has led to a new level of co-operation between museums over training, curating, restoration and loans. Thousands of works are now lent each year between museums on every continent.”
The Economist (2009)₁₄

If education and public service matter, then, the Greeks should agree to exchange programs where they use their historical claim to the items to ensure the British Museum will loan them, in exchange for other items of interest (of which Greece has many). This way, rotating museum displays results in a better and more interesting education for both Greek and British Museum visitors. Nationalistic claims to ancient property, just like claims to ancient lands, results only in a degraded quality of life for all those affected by the disturbances.

4. World War Two

#france #japan

Modern-day governments have apologized for various misdeeds during World War Two. For example in 2005 the Japanese President, Mr Koizumi, on the 60th anniversary of Japan's surrender, "offered an unequivocal apology, saying that Japan greatly regretted the suffering that it had caused during the second world war"₁₅. Should he have to apologize for things he didn't do? Should he speak on behalf of his people and make it sound like they were involved? Should the British apologize for colonial misdeeds?

The answer is yes. Not just yes, but YES. The legacies of pain last longer than the proceeds and gains, and leaders have more at stake than petit defensiveness: an apology alone can do good, can help heal people who feel injured - both symbolically through history, or in reality through the existing and current depravations caused by injustices enacted on their predecessors.

An apology teaches compassion; and an apology from those in power, who have no need to kneel, is even more powerful. To lead is to be responsible, and to be responsible is to encourage responsibility, and you can encourage responsibility by broadcasting with humility what shouldn't be repeated.

In 1997 French president Jacques Chirac accepted responsibility "for the arrest and deportation by the Vichy regime of 76,000 Jews to German extermination camps during the second world war"₁₆. To say that this was wrong, to apologize for it, is to help prevent its return. He speaks well for the French, boosts the world's opinion of the maturity of French, and at least symbolically treats victims kindly; to object to apologizing is to the opposite, and encourage back the attitudes of power-games and pride that led to the war in the first place.

5. Conclusions

Apologies can have a genuine emotional impact on those alive today, especially when it comes to events that only a generation or two ago, such as world war two. But aside from those, and political issues, any attempt to redress evils of more than anything older than a hundred years ago is illogical. It seems arbitrary to me because you can trace through every generation many historical evils all of which need apologising for: why insist on one and not the others, merely because it's one that you happen to know about? It is easier to do so than to pedantically refrain and it is certainly more sympathetic to acknowledge atrocities rather than ignore them, but, the whole idea of selective apologies for specific things done by specific ancestors seems very inconsistent.