4 ms·

IDK - given organisations can have longer lifespans than individual humans, it's not unreasonable for them to apologise for things they actually did. Also, 200

IDK - given organisations can have longer lifespans than individual humans, it's not unreasonable for them to apologise for things they actually did. Also, 200 years seeming like a long time to you is not 'true', it's just one cultural taste among many. 200 years isn't long to mainstream Chinese culture, for example, nor to the British Aristocracy, nor to many individuals who read a lot of history. My sense of 'the present' is a window of about 400 years. The Guardian should though perhaps consider apologising for its thin news coverage and superabundance of trite opinion columns.

adastra22 4y ago
I strongly disagree with it’s your point about 200 years being a long time. That’s entirely missing the point. It’s a strong principle of both western morality and our system of laws that “the sin of the father does not fall upon the son.” If you traffic in slaves you have some explaining to do. If your father trafficked in slaves, that by itself has nothing to do with you as long as you weren’t involved. If your great-great-great-great-grandfather trafficked in slaves, well that’s purely of historical interest.
- widdershins 4y ago
  What if your father's slave trading generated a huge fortune, which is bequeathed to you?
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Statute of limitations exist for a reason.
    - crispinb 4y ago
      With your characteristic ignorance of .. anything at all related to the case, you neglect to notice England has no such statute. You're presumably thinking of the USA. The Guardian is not American. Your mushy notion of 'Western Culture' is no more than your own personal local set of prejudices and ill-informed opinions.
- crispinb 4y ago
  Not sharing your values is not ipso facto "missing the point". Whether or not something is a strong principle of some historically mushy and faux-reified "western morality" is of only pop-anthropological value and of no interest to me (chauvanism just isn't my thing). And neither is any of this related to "our" 'system of laws' (whose and which - US? UK? English? Scottish? European? Common law? Napoleonic?), as no legal question has been raised. What is however true of all human societies is that people associate in, and identify with, groups. Most nations, including the UK where The Guardian is based, institute a variety of laws and mores to cover various categories of organisations' behaviour. Amongst the mores is that company or organisation representatives can speak for the group, without there being any confusion amongst initiates of the culture that they are speaking for themselves as individuals. There's nothing in the statement to suggest that the people speaking for the Scott Trust have any individual or family connections with the events cited. They are not personally apologising. But The Guardian, qua centuries-old organisation, did, so it is. But "The Guardian", being a group rather than a mammal, doesn't have a mouth with which to speak. Hence the statement from a representative. People who get hysterical about perfectly reasonable (and oh so nearly universally understandable) expressions of sorrow or shame about a group's past behaviour from representatives, for some reason always seem remarkably relaxed about similar expressions of pride. Especially when it's a group the red-faced critic has some sympathy with. You'd almost think some people want the reflected glory (ah we have Western Culture which makes us all very ethical and we did the Industrial Revolution and we invented Science so I am great!), but without the shame (but slavery was nothing to do with me, how dare you!). Good-oh. Nice work if you can get it.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    What I mean by "missing the point" is that you were addressing something completely out of left field and had nothing to do with what I wrote. Now you are doing it again.
    - crispinb 4y ago
      No, your point is pretty clear, and manifestly false to anyone with any understanding either of history or of what The Guardian (an organisation, not an individual) is trying to do.

adastra22 4y ago

I strongly disagree with it’s your point about 200 years being a long time. That’s entirely missing the point. It’s a strong principle of both western morality and our system of laws that “the sin of the father does not fall upon the son.” If you traffic in slaves you have some explaining to do. If your father trafficked in slaves, that by itself has nothing to do with you as long as you weren’t involved. If your great-great-great-great-grandfather trafficked in slaves, well that’s purely of historical interest.

widdershins 4y ago
What if your father's slave trading generated a huge fortune, which is bequeathed to you?
- adastra22 4y ago
  Statute of limitations exist for a reason.
  - crispinb 4y ago
    With your characteristic ignorance of .. anything at all related to the case, you neglect to notice England has no such statute. You're presumably thinking of the USA. The Guardian is not American. Your mushy notion of 'Western Culture' is no more than your own personal local set of prejudices and ill-informed opinions.
crispinb 4y ago
Not sharing your values is not ipso facto "missing the point". Whether or not something is a strong principle of some historically mushy and faux-reified "western morality" is of only pop-anthropological value and of no interest to me (chauvanism just isn't my thing). And neither is any of this related to "our" 'system of laws' (whose and which - US? UK? English? Scottish? European? Common law? Napoleonic?), as no legal question has been raised. What is however true of all human societies is that people associate in, and identify with, groups. Most nations, including the UK where The Guardian is based, institute a variety of laws and mores to cover various categories of organisations' behaviour. Amongst the mores is that company or organisation representatives can speak for the group, without there being any confusion amongst initiates of the culture that they are speaking for themselves as individuals. There's nothing in the statement to suggest that the people speaking for the Scott Trust have any individual or family connections with the events cited. They are not personally apologising. But The Guardian, qua centuries-old organisation, did, so it is. But "The Guardian", being a group rather than a mammal, doesn't have a mouth with which to speak. Hence the statement from a representative. People who get hysterical about perfectly reasonable (and oh so nearly universally understandable) expressions of sorrow or shame about a group's past behaviour from representatives, for some reason always seem remarkably relaxed about similar expressions of pride. Especially when it's a group the red-faced critic has some sympathy with. You'd almost think some people want the reflected glory (ah we have Western Culture which makes us all very ethical and we did the Industrial Revolution and we invented Science so I am great!), but without the shame (but slavery was nothing to do with me, how dare you!). Good-oh. Nice work if you can get it.
- adastra22 4y ago
  What I mean by "missing the point" is that you were addressing something completely out of left field and had nothing to do with what I wrote. Now you are doing it again.
  - crispinb 4y ago
    No, your point is pretty clear, and manifestly false to anyone with any understanding either of history or of what The Guardian (an organisation, not an individual) is trying to do.