I was wondering what you good people think of the trend in the last few years of governments apologizing for past atrocities.
It's been bothering me for a while, because it seems to me that everybody wants an apology for something these days (especially if they can get some money too), but maybe you see it differently? Also, how far back in the past should one go when looking for things to apologize for?
What really made me think about this recently was an article in the Sunday Times which was about new DNA evidence showing that the vikings did not kill off all the Celts, as some people had believed. They had killed some, and basically scared the rest off, and the Celts went to live everywhere in Britain apart from England.
What really struck me was that in another article on the same subject, it was mentioned that if the DNA tests had shown that the vikings had indeed been guilty of genocide against the Celts, the Scandinavian governments would have had to apologize for this.
What do you think? Should the line be drawn at the point where none of the perpetrators nor the victims are alive anymore, or somewhere else?
[This message has been edited by Klodomir (edited 12-10-2001).]
It's been bothering me for a while, because it seems to me that everybody wants an apology for something these days (especially if they can get some money too), but maybe you see it differently? Also, how far back in the past should one go when looking for things to apologize for?
What really made me think about this recently was an article in the Sunday Times which was about new DNA evidence showing that the vikings did not kill off all the Celts, as some people had believed. They had killed some, and basically scared the rest off, and the Celts went to live everywhere in Britain apart from England.
What really struck me was that in another article on the same subject, it was mentioned that if the DNA tests had shown that the vikings had indeed been guilty of genocide against the Celts, the Scandinavian governments would have had to apologize for this.
What do you think? Should the line be drawn at the point where none of the perpetrators nor the victims are alive anymore, or somewhere else?
[This message has been edited by Klodomir (edited 12-10-2001).]