Belated Apologies

There has been a trend of late to apologize and sometimes even offer compensation for wrongs done in the distant past. Japan recently apologized to China for its WWII aggression, and to its WWII Korean and Chinese sex slaves ... 60 years after the war ended. The United States apologized to Hawaii for overthrowing its Kingdom 100 years after the act. Going back even further, this year Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina formally apologized for their part in perpetuating the slave trade.

Just today we see that people are finding much less momentous transgressions deserving of apology:

THE descendants of Papua New Guinea cannibals who killed and ate four Fijian missionaries in 1878 have apologised.

Fiji's High Commissioner to PNG, Ratu Isoa Tikoca accepted the apologies at a reconciliation ceremony near Rabaul in PNG's East New Britain Province yesterday in front of thousands of people.

and that they're going back even further.

More than 1200 years ago hordes of bloodthirsty Viking raiders descended on Ireland, pillaging monasteries and massacring the inhabitants.

On Wednesday, one of their more mild-mannered descendants stepped ashore to apologise.

The Danish Minister for Culture, Brian Mikkelson, who was in Dublin to celebrate the arrival of a replica Norse longboat, apologised for the invasion and destruction inflicted.

The question is, are these apologies meaningful or useful? Is it morally meaningful for people who have no guilt to apologize to people who are not victims? Is there any living soul who is not related both to someone who has committed terrible mideeds and to someone who has been an innocent victim? Does it make sense to judge ancient acts by modern standards? And do these apologies do any good or do they just promote the perpetuation of grievances?

I think that these apologies are pointless, and that they diminish both the apologist and the recipient. By making these empty gestures, the very idea of contrition is cheapened. Is it really worth it?