Deep Sorrow

Tony Blair is planning on expressing "deep sorrow" for the British role in the slave trade at commemorations in March of the abolition of British slavery, which came 200 years ago. He has been adivsed not to issue a full-fledged "apology," as that might fuel demands for reparations.

I understand the political reasoning behind marking this historic occasion, and I certainly agree with the sentiment involved of expressing sorrow over the slave trade. However, it seems to me to be a semantic bit of silliness to refuse to offer an apology for fear of bolstering the case for reparations. Reparations are either a good idea or they are not, and offering an official apology from the Government will not change the analysis. I happen to think that reparations are ill-conceived and impractical - but that view wouldn't change one way or another by an official apology from the British, or American, Government.

Incidentally, there's the additional question of whether or not an official apology would mean anything anyway. On a practical level, of course, the answer is no. No one's life will be made better by a Government apology. However, the acknowledgement that wrongs have been committed in the past by the Government can be an important symbolic gesture that conveys true meaning. So long as it is sincere, I endorse such efforts. I just don't support ham-fisted half-measures such as this half-apology. Either go all the way, or mark the occasion solemly but without official comment of sorrow.