I found this article in one of my favourite reflections of Canadiana, The Walrus. I think it is a great read and would certainly make for some interesting discussion surrounding policies and results of our government’s practice of apologizing to groups that have been wronged in our country’s history.
“A Sorry State” by Mitch Miyagawa
If we are not alright with apologizing to make up for our past indiscretions, then what is a better approach? After the apology, should we be concerned with the results, such as the residential school compensations? When I have had time, these are questions that I ponder.
Miyagawa also mentions a satirical book based on this world trend, Eating Crow by Jay Rayner. Can anyone recommend or comment on it?
I must admit, I don’t know much about the specifics of any of the apologies our government has offered, but as I was ready the article I couldn’t help but wonder about forgiveness. Does offering an apology equate to asking forgiveness? Does accepting an apology mean forgiving, or just moving on? Does an official apology make it any easier to move on? Miyagawa uses the word forget a few times and it makes me think about the saying ‘to forgive and forget’ and then I think some more. Forgiving and forgetting are not the same thing, nor do they need to go hand in hand, and I hope the government apologies are not about forgetting.
One issue with government apologies is that fact that they are often not issued by the same people who made the mistake in the past, nor are they accepted by the same people who were wronged. I’m not saying that its too late to apologize, but asking if it changes the authenticity when both parties are removed.
Well, that’s it for my first post!
And I take the plunge.
I have often thought about this issue and need for the apologies. I think that for me it began when I first became aware of the issue of native land claims in BC. As a “Canadian” (Irish-Russian-Icelandic-Anglo-Dutch-and other northern European), I wondered where this would lead. Did I have a claim against the English crown for the centuries of abuse and misfortune my Irish Catholic ancestors suffered? Would I find myself the proud owner of a piece of bog? It just seemed silly to me that we are trying to repair the mistakes of the past. Should the peoples of Eastern Europe and Western Asia be going after the Mongols for the terror inflicted by Genghis Khan? Where and when do we draw the lines?
Being married to a Japanese person, who is an immigrant, throws a different light on the stories of families like Miyazaki. My wife, and most Japanese immigrants, do not see these families as being Japanese and have little to do with them. In Japan, the government constantly apologizes to their neighbours in Asia, but no one is ever happy. When the time is right, the Chinese or Koreans will point fingers at Japan’s leaders and say that nothing has changed. Most Japanese people I knew and know have ‘forgotten’ the atrocities and wrong doings of the war. This forgetting may be institutionalized in the Japanese education system, but they are reminded of it in the foreign media. However, they have moved on–the world has changed and they have more important things to deal with. I won’t say that modern Japanese society is healthy or better than ours, but they do not concern themselves with these issues of forgiveness; I think they just don’t see these things as belonging to the people of today. It belongs to ‘that’ generation.
The other thing that I thought of as I read this article, was to question when the Canadian government would apologize for interning my grandfather during the early days of WW2. He was a communist and a union agitator, and was put into a ‘concentration camp’ when Russia invaded Poland. He wasn’t released until after Germany invaded Russia. I don’t know if there has been an official apology. I wonder if I should start to lobby for one? My answer is ‘no’ because I don’t really see that it serves any good.
Hmmm. We need to know these things, we need to understand the history, and strive as human beings to not repeat the errors of the past.
Ok, enough from me…sheesh, this thinking is hard work and it is even harder to try to put the ideas into something that is vaguely coherent.
The issue of government apologies reminds me of Br’er Rabbit and the Tar Baby. You can try just skipping by and ignoring it, but something inevitably offends you about it. But if you take a swing at this tar baby, you are suddenly stuck. The more you try to extricate yourself, the more completely entangled you become. `
In 1998 I got into an argument with a good friend whose Japanese grand-parents had been interned. I confidently asserted that apologizing for history was a stupid idea; and providing compensation was merely compounding the error. She cried and called me an asshole. “You have no idea, what my grand-parents went through,” she sobbed. She was right, I didn’t. But it was beside the point, I thought. At that time, I thought the point was practicality, not justice. As I am a lot older now, I like to think of myself as infinitely more enlightened, (or as the author put it, “educated, post-colonial, post-modern, well-travelled, curious, vaguely liberal”). I like to think I have attained some wisdom, so I was somewhat amused that my “ignorant” opinion as a fifteen year old was shared by none other than Mr. Canadian Enlightment himself, Pierre Trudeau.
But what was Mr. Trudeau’s core belief? Reason before passion. And the government apology tar baby requires a lot of reason because there is a lot of emotion involved.
Do we all accept the author’s definition of an apology as an admission of harm done, and an acceptance of responsibility? If so, then there really are three issues to address about government apologies in my opinion. The first is the admission of harm, and the second is the acceptance of responsibility. The third is dealing with the emotional impact. The first two are messy and the third is impossible but I just couldn’t skip by.
I can accept the government apologizing for clear injustices. But there probably should be a statue of limitations. We can’t go back and apologize for all the wrongs of history, but within one generation, for people still living, well, maybe that’s not unreasonable. But I think the bar should be set high in terms of the burden of proof of injustice. For me, there is huge difference between the internment of Canadian citizens and stripping them of their property versus the Chinese Head Tax or turning away a boatload of Indian immigrants from landing in Canada. But this is where I think all sorts of political games can be played and maybe Trudeau was being wise and practical in just saying no to every apology request. It is a more elegant solution than fighting over which situations warrant an apology, but it is not just. The silly optimist in me clings to the hope that good government could determine which injustices warrant an apology. It’s the second part of the apology definition that frightens me.
It is far easier to admit harm done, than to accept the cost of it. The fact that the government is writing legislation to limit legal liability makes the cynic in me smirk, (but even God Almighty doesn’t have enough money to compensate all the victims of humanity). But seriously, when you are forcibly confined and stripped of all your property and possessions, you deserve to be compensated, in my opinion. The government clearly has to be worried about the cost of accepting responsibility. And here’s where it gets messy. Given the limited resources of society, we will end up with a judge, or worse, bureaucrats working in a dysfunctional committee, deciding just how much someone’s pain is worth. But hey, at least it will be consistent with our healthcare system is evolving…
The third point is the most impossible to deal with, in my opinion. Even if the government can admit harm and reasonably compensate victims, I think it is impossible that they can heal the emotional pain. Interestingly enough, I didn’t grasp a key point the first time I read the article. Roy Miki, a member of the Japanese negotiating committee said “our goal wasn’t an apology or compensation… The focus of healing distracts from the issue of justice.” I admit I missed the importance of that statement, which I now think is significant. What is the point of these apologies? Justice or healing?
For me, apologies should be about justice, because they are hopelessly inadequate at healing. (ask the spouse who was cheated on, or the parent of a six-year old killed by a drunk driver, how much an apology will help.) Sorry just doesn’t cut it. A mealy mouthed, Stephen Harper speech vetted by the Justice ministry for legal liability isn’t going to heal you…what you really need is therapy.
The leaders of these apology-seeking movements all seem to insist that it is imperative that we should never forget. I get that…but we will. It’s the nature of government (and humans) to do these things…now Br’er Fox, whatever you do, don’t throw me in that briar patch.
I walked into the public library yesterday and they had a display of books on Human Rights out. This was a double score for me because I’m working with a couple students on human rights essays, and I’ve been thinking about the issues involved in this thread.
I picked up a book by Christopher MacLennan called Toward the Charter: Canadians and the Demand for a National Bill of Rights, 1929-1960. The major impetus, early in the book, towards a bill of rights was the internment of labour organizers, communists and the deportation of Japanese Canadians. Go figure–this is becoming more interesting all the time.
Didn’t mean to hijack the thread away from the apology issue, but thought I’d throw this one out there.