February 24, 2007
The Psychology Of The Apology
One of the most famous apologies ever uttered was not an apology. The full transcript of that utterance is here. This post is brought about by the recent "apology" by the Virginia Legislature for, are you ready for this, slavery.
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Meeting on the grounds of the former Confederate Capitol, the Virginia General Assembly voted unanimously Saturday to express "profound regret" for the state's role in slavery.Sponsors of the resolution say they know of no other state that has apologized for slavery, although Missouri lawmakers are considering such a measure. The resolution does not carry the weight of law but sends an important symbolic message, supporters said.
"This session will be remembered for a lot of things, but 20 years hence I suspect one of those things will be the fact that we came together and passed this resolution," said Delegate A. Donald McEachin, a Democrat who sponsored it in the House of Delegates.
The resolution passed the House 96-0 and cleared the 40-member Senate on a unanimous voice vote. It does not require Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's approval.
Of course, given the namby-pamby cowardice of politicians today, I suppose that this is a "good thing." NOT!!!!! I'm having difficulty believing that not one house member, not one Senator had the guts to say "You can't apologize for something you didn't do." And therein lies the crux of the matter.
We have become a nation, indeed western culture has become a culture of apologists because some idjit somewhere decided that to apologize for something you had no control of was the right thing to do. Well, guess what, the whole idea of an apology is to gain forgiveness. Now, tell me, if you can, how someone can forgive someone for something not done to the first someone.
I'm sure I'll have a few folk commenting on this, so let me spell it out for them. If my great grandfather beat your great grandfather up in a bar room fight, how does my apology to you and your forgiveness of me solve anything or make any substantive changes in either my life or yours?
Now, does it make either one of us feel good? Sure, and that must be the whole idea behind it because it really changes nothing. If, on the other hand, I do you some harm, later come to regret it and apologize to you sincerely, attempt to make amends to you, the person I've harmed and you accept my apology and waive amends then something has occurred worth having. To apologize for something you didn't do to someone who you didn't harm is meaningless.
So is the non-apology apology. You know, the one that goes "If anyone was offended by my remarks...." What a crock of manure. If I say something in a public forum and I was wrong to say it, I need to apologize thusly:
Yesterday, I used a word for which I am deeply ashamed. I offended a number of people and for that I am deeply sorry."That is called taking responsibility. The crap of "If anyone was offended..." is placing the responsibility on the victim of the crassness.
Clinton apologized to Africa for the slave trade. If forgiveness was given, which was of course his whole purpose in uttering the apology then why does Virginia need to apologize? After all, wasn't President Clinton the president of ALL of the states including Virginia? Now, I know a whole bunch of you are thinking "Clinton wasn't apologizing, he was grandstanding," and of course, you'd be correct. Clinton didn't have the power to apologize for the actions of someone else. Those he apologized to didn't have the power to forgive something that wasn't done to them. When he should have apologized (for the Monica affair) he didn't. There are those who think Bush should apologize for the Iraq war. But Bush doesn't think he was wrong and therefore hasn't apologized. He did apologize for mistakes made in the aftermath, but he took responsibility for that and in his mind an apology was appropriate.
When you take away all the dross, all the PC BS there can be acknowledged only one set of circumstances in which an apology is appropriate. That you take responsibility for your actions, that you are sincerely contrite and wish to make amends, that you will strive not to do that again and that you hope that the person you harmed will forgive you.
In my counseling practice, I also tell clients that once you forgive someone, you cannot contiue to bring up their transgressions. You have fogiven them, even if you cannot forget. Also, once you apologize, the inherent promise in the apology is that you will truly strive not to re-offend again. So, the drunk that apologizes for being drunk but goes out and gets drunk again and again didn't really mean the apology. The serial philanderer that apologizes to their spouse but repeats the behavior wasn't sincere and didn't mean it. That's the way it works folks.
And, for anyone who is offended by this post, tough! Get over it, I've written nothing I'm sorry for.
Posted by GM Roper at February 24, 2007 10:10 PM | TrackBackYou've really articulated well why this apologizing for actions we had no role in (especially when the actions occurred before we were born) makes no sense.
Of course, you realize that now that the agitators have gotten Virginia to apologize for slavery, it will only be a matter of time before their next step will be to demand reparations. After all, they will argue, if you've accepted responsibity by apologizing, then you need to do something to make amends. (Never mind the question as to the connection between slaves and today's blacks. After all, having departed from logic, why not continue along the same path.) The Virginia legislators stepped into that steaming pile with their eyes open!
And you're absolutely right about the "if anyone was offended" non-apology "apology" and how that turns the tables on the offended party and makes it their problem. After all, it doesn't matter what you intended: someone was offended by what you said. The issue is whether you believe you said something wrong (in which case you apolgize) or whether you don't believe you said something wrong (in which case you have nothing to apolgize for). It's that simple.
Excellent article.
Posted by civil truth at February 24, 2007 10:41 PM
GM, I want to apologize to you for all the bad things that happened to you during your life. I know I am not responsible, which makes this apology so much easier.
You see, not only can you not hold me accountable, but even if you could, you understand that I care. So I am sorry. I even wipe away my tears. I'd show you but since I'm typing this you can't exactly see.
Oh, I feel so much holier than thou because I apologized for the actions of other people. It's a lot easier than apoligizing for my own ills toward society.
Posted by Jeff Blanco at February 24, 2007 11:07 PM
"You can't apologize for something you didn't do."
The "my grandfather/your grandfather" argument fails utterly when applied to a government entity. There is no doubt that the State of Virginia played a huge role in enabling and promoting the slave trade. That the current government of Virginia would apologize, however belatedly, for the wrongdoings of previous governments is a noble thing. Even if it is only a symbolic act.
Of course I know what's really got your knickers in a wad. You fear slave reparations. More of your hard earned tax dollars going to people you don't think deserve them. Just burns you fellas up, don't it? Breathe easy... I doubt it will ever happen.
Posted by e. nonee moose at February 25, 2007 12:48 AM
GM -- Well said.
To pursue the matter of Clinton's "apology", the funny part is that the majority of those dragged off and enslaved in Africa were dragged off by fellow Africans from other tribes, and those who shipped the slaves to America were Europeans.
To pursue the matter of E.N. Moose's comment, there have already been attempts to sue large companies whose fledgling, 150+ years ago origins included slave owners -- prior to mergers, shareholders and massive expansion, etc -- thereby seeking damages against individuals who brought in major sums of capital and changed the courses of the firms' fortunes a century or more after slavery was abolished.
If you don't think this bogus legislation will also set a precedent for more of this private sector, as well as public sector action, you need to rethink your POV.
As far as accountability by today's government, well -- how much of the U.S. taxpayer's money has already gone to welfare and all its related programs, how many more qualified people have been cast aside from job eligibility due to Affirmative Action, how many criminals have been slapped on the wrist so they could continue their lives of crime due to blame being placed on "society" for those malcontents' actions?
The government (city, state and federal) owes no apologies to anybody for anything that occurred well over a century ago. It is very definitely time to put the past in the past and get on with the now and with working toward the future.
Posted by Seth at February 25, 2007 04:33 AM
A little anecdote here....
Years ago, one of my fifth-grade students--a nice enough young man, but one who used every excuse under the sun for not doing his homework--told me, "The reason I don't have my homework done is that my ancestors were slaves."
Well, the truth is that my family was too dirt-poor to have even one single slave. But that's not the point. This student actually believed that he should not be accountable for his laziness in the now because his ancestors had been slaves. Never mind that his father was one of the most prestigious doctors in the D.C. area!
I told this student, "You were never a slave. So get over it." He did.
-------------------------------------------
Our society has gone absolutely mad with the mea culpa syndrome. The vast majority of these apologies are manipulative and meaningless. And they denigrate genuine apologies.
Furthermore, the apologies are never enough in the eyes of those to whom the apologies are made.
One of my dear friends--she's now a principal--is inundated with demands for apologies for all sorts of things. She can't get her work done because of all these demands for apologies, all of which relate to supposedly racist things she has done! Just yesterday, she and I spent a lot of time discussing the very topic of this posting. The higher ups have told her that the underlying apology is her Georgia drawl. Is she supposed to apologize for THAT?
Posted by Always On Watch at February 25, 2007 07:06 AM
Moose:
"Even if it is only a symbolic act."
You are right Moose, it is "symbolic" and thus meaningless. It does not express remorse for what you have done, it expresses remorse for something someone else has done. Thus, it is not and cannot be an apology.
You are totally wrong in saying my analogy doesn't apply (the my great grand pop vs. your great grand pop thingy) It is an absurd extension of the current crop of mea culpas going around that changes nothing. If those who voted for this are racist and nasty and unfaithful to their wives and beat their children and steal from the government ect., fine, they can ligitimately apologize for that, but not for something they didn't do.
Should Queen Elizabith II, then apologize for the trepidations of King George III? Should Tunisia apologize for the wanton destruction caused by Hannibal? If not, why not, it is the same as your statement that one government should apologize for the actions of a previous government. How about this, should the liberals and democrats apologize for the massive killing fields in South East Asia following the defunding of support for South Vietnam? Well, on that one yes, they should as it was something they did specifically.
And no, I don't fear reparations, as you said, they aren't going to happen, why be afraid of something that won't happen?
Posted by GM at February 25, 2007 09:02 AM
Slavery flourished long before the discovery of the Americas. This fact does not justify what happened in the United States, but it does tend to show that slavery was a social convention in ancient times. It existed in Egypt, Greece, and Rome – and indeed, Muslims were the principal wholesalers of the odious human bondage trade. I am amazed that given the role of Muslims in the slave business that any African American would convert to Islam.
The Virginia legislature might have considered that one of the world’s bloodiest conflicts erupted over this issue, and that hundreds of thousands of white Americans died or were maimed for life in order to force the end of slavery and the success of our Republic. What more is needed to communicate how “sorry” our ancestors were?
Worse than the physical bondage that occurred in the early days of America, however, is the economic bondage perpetrated against blacks following the Civil War. Jim Crow laws, imposed by democrats, intended to deny the success of American blacks living in the south – and in spite of the anti-slavery movement in northern states, few white northerners welcomed black populations during any of their mass migrations from the southern states.
The fact is that the idea of slavery existed in our country for far too long, and I’m not sure that we as a nation have even today rid ourselves of racial bias and prejudice. Still, GM is correct . . . apologizing for something that we (today) didn’t do is an empty gesture employed only for political purposes. What we should be doing is working on the fact that racial issues continue to exist among blacks and whites – because such a focus would serve a greater (contemporary) good.
Posted by Mustang at February 25, 2007 10:49 AM
When a liberal apologizes as you've described, it's usually meaningless.
When a liberal demands that a conservative apologize for something and if the conservative does it, then the liberal can say that he won the argument and has forever quieted the conservative on the subject. That's their point in their demands. This often falls within discussions on feminism, homosexuality, or race matters over which the lefty acts self-righteous.
Whenever some lefty demands that I apologize for something to which they are overreacting or wanting to stop discourse, I make sure that I DO NOT apologize, and I don't care how many demand or how many times they demand it.
And, I apologize if reg was offended by my calling him a dumb ass.
Posted by Woody at February 25, 2007 01:21 PM
A politician's or governing body's formal apology is OK, even historic, provided it also insists on a forward-looking unity, isolating the race-hustlers, honoring abolitionist heroes of all races, and reaffirming national values. Provided all that, I'm OK with an apology.
(Although, while they're at it, the VA Legislature could also apologize to the Unions states for seceding.)
Posted by Jeremayakovka at February 25, 2007 02:41 PM
I see moose's point, that there is a difference between the past actions of individuals, whose connection with current citizens is tenuous, even if biological, and the responsibilities of a continuing entity. Virginia has boundaries, for example, that were set by convention by people who have an equally tenuous relation to current citizens. That does not make those boundaries invalid or unimportant.
Still, it is always dangerous to apologize for the sins of others to those who were not harmed. It obscures the meaning of responsibility. It provides an opportunity for moral grandstanding.
I wouldn't assume it's all about the money, moose. That's an unwarranted accusation, particularly against an individual. Sometimes people do object on principle.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at February 25, 2007 09:42 PM
