Difference between revisions of "Historical apologism"
(Created page with ''''Historical apologism''' is a tendency of some, typically liberal, historians to attempt to apologise for actions in the past, judged by standards of the present. For e...') |
ThomasMacD (talk | contribs) m ("Blamed" seems better than "tried.") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Historical apologism''' is a tendency of some, typically [[liberal]], [[historians]] to attempt to apologise for actions in the past, judged by standards of the present. For example, apologising "on behalf of the white race" for slavery in the [[United States]], despite the fact that both the slave-owners and slaves are long since dead, and supporting "compensation" to African- | + | '''Historical apologism''' is a tendency of some, typically [[liberal]], [[historians]] to attempt to apologise for actions in the past, judged by standards of the present. For example, apologising "on behalf of the white race" for [[slavery]] in the [[United States]], despite the fact that both the slave-owners and slaves are long since dead, and supporting "compensation" to [[African-American]]s, by virtue of the crimes of another generation. |
| − | Historical apologism can be said to violate the principle of [[justice]] that a person cannot be | + | Historical apologism can be said to violate the principle of [[justice]] that a person cannot be blamed for the crimes of their ancestors. Leading [[law]] expert Richard Carter described such an idea as "setting an absurd precedent; should the [[Italians]] apologise for the actions of the [[Romans]], the [[Mexicans]] for the [[Aztecs]]?" {{Citation needed}} |
| + | |||
| + | ==See also== | ||
| + | *[[Holocaust denial]] | ||
| + | *[[Revisionism]] | ||
| + | *[[affirmative action]] | ||
| + | *[[Original sin]] | ||
Latest revision as of 21:29, September 28, 2011
Historical apologism is a tendency of some, typically liberal, historians to attempt to apologise for actions in the past, judged by standards of the present. For example, apologising "on behalf of the white race" for slavery in the United States, despite the fact that both the slave-owners and slaves are long since dead, and supporting "compensation" to African-Americans, by virtue of the crimes of another generation.
Historical apologism can be said to violate the principle of justice that a person cannot be blamed for the crimes of their ancestors. Leading law expert Richard Carter described such an idea as "setting an absurd precedent; should the Italians apologise for the actions of the Romans, the Mexicans for the Aztecs?"[Citation Needed]