By Millie McMillan, Year 12.
The debate surrounding the question of historical guilt is a controversial and emotionally fraught conversation.
For the campaigners that lobby governments to admit their involvement and express their repentance for past actions, an apology is a necessary step towards reconciliation. For the government, and many citizens, an official apology seems like a misguided action, conceding their financial liability and provoking backlash from their citizens. This question can be explored through the example of the British Empire; regarded as a symbol of colonial oppression by its critics, and a nostalgic reminder of bygone British power by others.
“The United Kingdom is one of the few countries in the European Union that does not need to bury its 20th century history.”
This statement, allegedly tweeted by Liam Fox (Secretary of State for International Trade) in March 2016, exposes many of the problems surrounding the issue of historical guilt, for two reasons. Firstly, the word ‘bury’ is intriguing, implying the general desire of nations to hide or suppress their own questionable historical actions by refusing to address the significance and impacts of them. Whilst this is not at all surprising, it does raise questions about many nations not accepting accountability for their actions, and whether this is the best way to approach a future of reconciliation. Moreover, this statement exemplifies how many citizens see British imperial history in a ‘nostalgic’ light. However, whilst one can disagree with the sentiment expressed, it is the wider repercussions of such attitudes that are almost more alarming.
The question lies not with whether Britain should bury her history, but why it is perceived that nations need to bury theirs in the first place.
You may have personal grievances with the way in which Fox chooses to view the British Empire, yet even disregarding this fact, his statement is a symbol of a wider culture of glorifying historical achievements, whilst vehemently refusing to acknowledge those which we would rather forget. We feel the need to bury our morally ambivalent actions, producing a warped view of historical events.
Surely it is this very approach; of sweeping historical misdeeds under the carpet, of equating ‘forgetting’ with ‘forgiving’, that is most detrimental?
This question of historical guilt has but another facet – it is not only about whether we should apologise, but also if we are able to. The generations of today had no input into past actions, and therefore an apology is either a reconciliatory mark of separation from past mistakes, or an ‘empty’ gesture, with little significance or substance behind it. If an apology is defined as an expression of one’s regret at having wronged another, then it seems not only counterintuitive, but disingenuous to deliver an apology for an action that you didn’t commit.
Nevertheless, if we choose to view an apology as a necessary step towards changing attitudes and actions, an opportunity for education along with a sign of mutual respect… it renders an apology far more significant and long lasting. A strained apology is hollow and superficial; a sincere apology offers solace and closure, twinged with optimism for a future encompassing different approaches and education.
Tony Blair’s 2006 expression of “deep sorrow” is the closest to an apology for the activities of the empire that the British Government has released thus far. Meanwhile, in other cheery news, a poll in 2014 revealed that 59% of those surveyed believed the British Empire was “something to be proud of”. It is not that the British Empire was solely a negative influence, but it is this perception of it being a source of ‘pride’ to generations that had no involvement in its creation or demise that seems somewhat confusing.
It is indicative of a flaw in the way in which the education system chooses to portray British history, glossing over the barbaric aspects of British rule and igniting a misplaced sense of patriotism amongst those eager to listen.
The question of whether countries should apologise for their actions remains, and will likely be a contentious issue for many years to come.
It is certain that we can no longer continue to ‘forget’ the events of the past. This approach achieves nothing, except fostering a culture of ignorance and misguided ‘pride’. A reformed approach to national education regarding the perceptions of Britain’s past is surely the best way in which historical guilt can best be repented. An apology is but mere words; however, the longevity of an informed population with changed mind-sets, who no longer believe their homeland is infallible, is undoubtedly more significant.
Let us not feel the ‘need to bury’ the mistakes of the past, and instead use enhanced knowledge and wisdom of our history to create a better future.