The pressure in so many discussions for those alive today to apologise for decisions and actions executed before they were born is highly undesirable, and for several reasons. The fact that no one can be responsible for the actions of those now departed this life is not the most significant reason
First, where does one stop? If the Christian west should apologise fot the Crusades, should the Islamic world apologise for the explosion of Islam out of Arabia after the death of the Prophet, which led to the seizure of the Holy Land ( and North Africa, and Spain for seven hundred years) ? But secondly, and more fundamentally, to apologise for the past is to impose our current values on situations different and often remote from today's world, and to crystalise judgments ( including the acceptance of blame) which might be, and very often are, simply wrong on the historical evidence
As regards values, some years ago a very sweet lady broadcast the fact that she was travelling to Australia to meet the descendants of those who had killed her great grandfather, a Christian missionary, She would apologise for his attempts to impose Western values on them, and they would apologise for killing him. The fallacy of this analysis is apparent - he was taking to Australia the greatest good news in the world, and they were defending their land - advisedly so, in view of what happened afterwards. This lady's analysis was intellectually and I think morally corrupt but it is clear that sweetness and light would follow her visit.
As regards blame, if I remember correctly.Pope John Paul II, when surveying the history of the Church's actions against the Jews over the centuries, did not apologise but said that what had happened on so many occasions was reason for great sorrow - and this seems a possible way through the problem. Moreover, even apart from the question of blame, an apology often crystalises a supposed solution which is in fact wrong, or at least only partial. There was nothing that England could have done about the Irish Famine, to prevent the failure of the potato crop in two successive years, and to bring food in any quantity to Ireland in the years of the "Hungry Forties" in England itself, and at a time when reserves of food could not be accessed as they can today. But the apology by Tony Blair no doubt contributed to a relaxation of tension and to an extent dissolved resentment on behalf of many of the Irish. In many cases an apology can have beneficial effects, even if from a corrupt base.
It would be best if no one wanted to ask for an apology for a distant action. Both parties should rise above these contortions and deal with the matter at a detached and reflective level. But I appreciate that human nature will not in many cases be able to overcome what is after all a very human desire.
