Book Review: The Politics of Official Apologies (Essay Sample)

Book Review – The Politics of Official Apologies
Author
Melissa Nobles, author of The Politics of Official Apologies (Nobles, 2008), is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She is the Department Head of the Faculty of Political Science and also the Ruth Sloan Professor of Political Science. Prof. Nobles is presently working on “constructing a database of racial murders in the American South, 1930-1954” (MIT, 2014), and she also works in the area of restorative justice at Northeastern Law School’s Civil Rights and Restorative Justice law clinic (MIT, 2014). She has written a number of books, besides the text of this review, and is working on another text provisionally entitled ‘The End of Law’.  She graduated with a BA in History from Browns University. In an interview, she noted that she became interested in official apologies when heard about “…the Canadian government’s apology to indigenous Canadians … [she thought it was] interesting and unusual, because governments don’t usually apologize” (Mouradian, 2008). Prof. Nobles’ curiosity led her to investigate other apologies, or lack thereof, such as the US government apologizing to interred Japanese-Americans during the Second World War, the genocide of the Armenian people that the Turkish government has not apologized for, and the other non-apologies, i.e., to African-Americans and Native Americans for their treatment in the past.
The interview with Prof. Nobles is insightful, as it informally discusses many of the points made in her text. For example, Prof. Nobles speaks of the difference in apologies given by a government vs. a head of state. She notes that government apologies are typically followed by reparations (Mouradian, 2008), whereas an apology by a head of state is generally “more unpredictable and don’t usually come with any kind of compensation. The complicated example cited is Australia, where the government, at the time of the interview, was resisting making an apology, while “at the same time they’re saying, We are going to change Aboriginal policy-making…” (Mouradian, 2008; Nobles, 2008, 36). In Australia, the government had taken Aboriginal children away from their parents.
Purpose of the Book
In her text, Nobles puts forward a theory of membership, that is, that “…successful apologies can affect national membership in ways consistent with indigenous demands” (Nobles, 2008, 37). In other words, when there is an apology, which is termed successful when there is some type of exchange, the people who have been victimized interpret the apology as a type of acknowledgement of being part of something. This generally ties in with indigenous peoples’ demands to be accepted for who they are and for acknowledgement of their identity and place within a society. Noble notes in the interview that when there is no apology, the distinction between the dominant and the dominated remains. “It’s kind of unavoidable. Look at the situation of the Native Americans. It’s disgraceful … It’s our country’s history. We don’t want to talk about it” (Mouradian, 2008). The text carries the argument further when it notes that nonresponsibility is a powerful constraint and that “… Feelings of national pride, derived from certain interpretations of national history, also play a role” (Nobles, 2008, 25). This supports her comment in the interview where she notes that “I think many Americans think that the dispossession of the Native Americans was justified in some way. They think, we certainly are not going to give anything back, we love the US now and the Native American circumstance is just the unfortuante result of history” (Mouradian, 2008). This type of thinking is what perhaps hampers US-Native American relations as Noble notes in her text that apologizing is “…tied to an overall determination of elites to change policy” (Nobles, 2008, 35). The absence of an apology, therefore, signifies more clearly that ever, a lack of will to change.
How book’s arguments advance understanding of the topic
Nobles advances our knowledge of apologies and the politics of apologies as she notes the legal measures that apologies present. The first is that apologies are not legally binding in any way, as the apology does not promise that an act will not be repeated and there is no sanction for not apologizing. The second is that apologies are open to “public participation” (Nobles, 2008, 30) by way of official commissions as well as by public debates. It suggests societal engagement in the apology. The third is that “official apologies assign or urge acceptance of collective guilt” (Nobles, 2008, 30). This is perhaps best demonstrated in the case of Germany and reparations paid to Israel and the Jews who survived the concentration camps. The reparations serve “…as an exemplar of successful reparations” (Nobles, 2008, 142). In other words, in the case of Germany, the acceptance of guilt for the Nazi crimes against the Jewish people is an acknowledged fact, as is the giving of reparations. Similarly, in the case of South Africa, reconciliation was undertaken through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where amnesty was granted to those who came forward to acknowledge a wrong and to apologize (Nobles, 2008, 31). This is a unique manner of apologizing and serves to provide acknowledgment without aportioning blame and measurement of crimes, allowing a society to heal through the telling of past wrongs.
Relating the material
The material in the text is easily relatable, particularly with respect to Native peoples and reparations. This is perhaps because in Canada the topic is still current because there are so many land claims that are ongoing in the courts and there are Native peoples who have a living memory of being taken away from their parents and institutionalized in residential schools, and also Native peoples who remember being dispossessed and having their land taken away from them. Nobles’ text seems current and very much aware of the true status of the politics that underlies the many kinds of apology, or lack of an apology.
As well, the example of Australia and its government’s refusal to actually apologize seems anachronistic to the present day and dominant, like a patriarchal denial of a truth, yet it is also a living, relict of a historical context long gone. The Australian government’s lack of an apology begs the question of why a seemingly progressive government would want to hold on to a past that no longer has a context in today’s world? This behavior, if viewed in light of Nobles’ remarks regarding the quality of an apology, would suggest that the Australian government is aggravating the situation, as Nobles’ notes that “research also shows partial apologies can actually aggravate matters when evidence clearly points to liability on the apologizer’s part” (Nobles, 2008, 30). Based on this theory, how the relationship between Aboriginal Australians and the dominant majority will play itself out in the future is, therefore, uncertain.
Significance and importance of the topic
The topic is significant and important because over the past decade, the advent of the International War Crimes Court and local war crimes courts, e.g., the Special Court for Sierra Leone, indicates a global climate for condemnation of wrongs done to peoples, even at the state level. This has perhaps ignited the support and debate about wrongs committed against indigenous peoples around the world and the sense that someone or some institution should take responsibility, is very strong. Some governments have continued to resist this trend, and this is primarily due to the fact that if an apology is given, there needs to be some form of meaningful exchange for the apology to be thought worthwhile (Nobles, 2008, 7).
Insightful observations in the book
An insightful observation in the book that is worth noting is that most apologies between heads of state or governments is directed to people within their own national borders. The exceptions are the German government to the Jews and Israel, and the Belgian government’s apology to the people of the Congo over the assassination of Patrice Lumumba (Nobles, 2008, 6, Footnote 7). These exceptions would stand outside of Nobles’ membership theory in terms of a national state, but would grant to the Jews and Israel the acknowledgment of the right to exist, and to the people of the Congo, the acknowledgement that Patrice Lumumba was an international statesman, a valid member of the international community.
Disturbing or confusing aspects of the book
A disturbing aspect of the book is the reference to The Indian Act, which is still strangely entrenched in Canadian law. The Act “…codifies Indian status” (Nobles, 2008, 46) stringently and, while it