Posthumous Threats

[Cheryl]

Posthumous apologies are commonplace (although often meaningless)
these days, but we don't often get dead people issuing threats. (From
BBC online)

Reports suggested the gang had tried to attack the village recently, but
had been repelled by a vigilante group. But some of the bandits were
killed in the process and had threatened a revenge attack.

I suppose that it's possible that as some of the bandits were breathing
their last, they found time to say something like "My friends will be
back to revenge me."


--
Cheryl

[Steve Hayes]

Shouldn't that be "avenge"?

Can "revenge" be a verb?

On the posthumous apology side, I recall Tony Blair apologising posthumously
for British participation in the slave trade. He will leave it to posterity to
apologise posthumously for his leading Britain into three aggressive wars.






--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Peter Brooks]

On Oct 15, 5:02 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:02:33 -0230, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
> >Posthumous apologies are commonplace (although often meaningless)
> >these days, but we don't often get dead people issuing threats. (From
> >BBC online)
>
> >Reports suggested the gang had tried to attack the village recently, but
> >had been repelled by a vigilante group. But some of the bandits were
> >killed in the process and had threatened a revenge attack.
>
> >I suppose that it's possible that as some of the bandits were breathing
> >their last, they found time to say something like "My friends will be
> >back to revenge me."
>
> Shouldn't that be "avenge"?
>
> Can "revenge" be a verb?
>

Yes - see below

>
> On the posthumous apology side, I recall Tony Blair apologising posthumously
> for British participation in the slave trade. He will leave it to posterity to
> apologise posthumously for his leading Britain into three aggressive wars.
>

Quite. Phony Tony was happy to apologise for anything that wasn't his
fault.

" [OED]

revenge, v.

(rɪˈvɛndʒ)

Also 5 Sc. reweng, raweng(e; 6 reueng.

[a. obs. F. revenger (var. of revencher, mod.F. revancher), f. re- re-
+ venger to venge.]

1. a.1.a refl. To avenge oneself; to take revenge on or upon (rarely
of) a person for (or †of) a wrong, injury, insult, etc., received or
resented. Also without const.

   1375 Barbour Bruce xviii. 232 He tuk purpos for to ryde‥in-till
Scotland, Till revenge hym, with stalward hand, Of the tray, travaill,
and of teyne.    1456 Sir G. Haye Law Arms (S.T.S.) 199 Quhethir gif
ane abbot wald slaa ane of his monkis, quhethir aw he to defend him
agayn his abbot, and to revenge him.    1530 Palsgr. 690/1 Who so ever
doth me a displeasure, I wyll revenge me and I can.    1560 J. Daus
tr. Sleidane's Comm. 275 In the whiche thing verely, I will so revenge
me upon you.    a 1593 Marlowe Edw. II, v. i, Methinks I should
revenge me of my wrongs.    1633 Bp. Hall Hard Texts, N.T. 322 Know my
omnipotence, and how easily I can revenge my self.    1672 Wycherley
Love in a Wood v. vi, You would not revenge yourself upon the parson?
   1818 J. C. Hobhouse Hist. Illustr. (ed. 2) 435 Monti at least
revenged himself of Pius for placing him below Metastasio.    1874
Stubbs Const. Hist. I. xii. 520 He saw that his true policy was not to
revenge himself by executions and confiscations.

b.1.b In pass. Chiefly const. of, on, or upon.

   c 1425 Wyntoun Cron. iv. v. 524 Hir awantagis for to se How best
scho mycht rawengit be.    1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 30 b,
Josue commaunded the sonne to stande styll in one place, vnto he were
reuenged vpon his ennemyes.    1598 Shakes. Merry W. ii. i. 30 How
shall I be reueng'd on him? for reueng'd I will be?    1602 ― Ham.
iii. iii. 75 Now Ile doo't, and so he goes to Heauen, And so am I
reueng'd.    1683 W. Penn Acc. in Burton Eng. Emp. Amer. (1685) 116 In
this they are sufficiently revenged on us.    1736 Gentl. Mag. VI.
331/2 Failing in that, she was amply revenged upon him in the next
Reign.    1773 Observ. State of Poor 67 The poor are but too often
revenged on their oppressors, by making reprisals on their property.
   1820 Scott Let. in Lockhart (1837) IV. xi. 382 She has‥a most
decided desire to be revenged of him.

2.2 trans. To inflict punishment or exact retribution for (an injury,
harm, wrong, etc., done to oneself or another).

   1456 Sir G. Haye Law Arms (S.T.S.) 199 He is behaldin to defend
him[self], and to revenge his dede at all his powere agayn him that
wald sla him.    1470–85 Malory Arthur xx. x. 814 Therfor lete vs
shape a remedy for to reuenge their dethes.    1509 Hawes Past. Pleas.
xi. (Percy Soc.) 44 Who is opprest with a lytell wrong, Revengyng it
he may it soone encrease.    1573 L. Lloyd Marrow of Hist. (1653) 242
Princes ought not to do wrong, nor yet revenge wrong with wrong.
   1639 S. Du Verger tr. Camus' Admir. Events 25 One of the wounded
desirous to revenge his hurt [etc.].    a 1727 Newton Chronol. Amended
(1728) 246 Her brother‥ was slain, and she revenged his death.    1779
Johnson L.P., West (1787) IV. 201 They revenged the disappointment by
calling him a Methodist.    1819 Shelley Cyclops 704, I should have
done ill to have burned down Troy And not revenged the murder of my
comrades.    1865 Kingsley Herew. ix, So Hereward went off to‥revenge
the wrongs of the Countess Gertrude.

b.2.b Const. on or upon (a person).

   1608 Shakes. Per. iii. iii. 24 The gods revenge it upon me and
mine, To the end of generation!    1665 Manley Grotius' Low-C. Wars
275 Supposing‥that the Clemency of the Enemy would not break its
wonted bounds, and revenge the injury upon the innocent pledges.
   1721 Swift Proposal Irish Manuf. ⁋18 When my Betters give me a Kick
I am apt to revenge it with six upon my Footman.    1840 Dickens Old
C. Shop vi, Kit‥felt more than half-disposed to revenge the fact upon
him.

c.2.c To maintain, uphold, or vindicate (one's cause, etc.) by some
act of retribution or punishment.

   1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 51 As communly passionate
persones doth, lyke wood beestes, in reuengynge theyr owne quarelles.
   1579 Lyly Euphues (Arb.) 169 That his authoritie was so
miraculously reuenged with the horrible destruction of Chorah, Dathan,
and Abiron.    1592 Greene Conny Catch. 23 The woman wept for anger
that she had not some one by that might with iustice reuenge her
quarrell.    1697 Potter Antiq. Greece iii. v. (1715) 51 Who undertook
to revenge the Quarrel of Athens on the Bœotians.

3.3 To avenge (a person, etc.).

   1470–85 Malory Arthur ix. xxxii. 389, I wille be in the feld with
you and reuenge you of youre enemyes.    1560 J. Daus tr. Sleidane's
Comm. 90 To the intent he myght revenge his kynsfolkes.    1585 T.
Washington tr. Nicholay's Voy. iii. ii. 71 b, [He] reuenged and set at
libertie his countrie and people.    1799 Sheridan Pizarro ii. i, He
may revenge, but cannot save thee.    1841 Elphinstone Hist. Ind. I.
593 The brother of the deceased immediately took up arms to revenge
him.

†4.4 To punish, to exact punishment for (a wrong, crime, or sin).
Obs.

   1563 Homilies ii. xvii. i. (1640) 236 What is the cause of penury
and scarceness‥but a token of Gods yre revenging our wrongs and
injuries done one to another.    1579 Lyly Euphues (Arb.) 160 If there
were‥a God that woulde reuenge the oppression of the widdowes and
fatherlesse.    1611 Bible Ecclus. v. 3 The Lord will surely reuenge
thy pride.    1697 Dryden Virg. Georg. iii. 709 Revenge the Crime, and
take the Traytor's Head.    1713 Garth Epil. to Addison's Cato 8 Would
you revenge such rash resolves—you may.

†b.4.b To inflict punishment or take revenge upon (a person). Obs.

   1573 L. Lloyd Marrow of Hist. (1653) 237 Dion of Alexandria, who
with silence revenged more his foes than with words.    1580 in Ellis
Orig. Lett. Ser. ii. III. 95 She is without a lawful heire‥who may
either reward her frinds or revenge her enemies.    a 1653 Gouge Comm.
Heb. iv. 13, I will rescue my childe, and revenge the wrong-doer.

5.5 absol. To take vengeance or revenge.

   1456 Sir G. Haye Law Arms (S.T.S.) 199 Agayn him selff he will
nocht geve him nouthir leve na gude will, to revenge agayn him.
   1573 L. Lloyd Marrow of Hist. (1653) 240 Princes that revenge
hastily, and especially wrongfully.    1598 R. Grenewey Tacitus, Ann.
i. xi. (1622) 20 Germanicus‥had an armie in readinesse to reuenge vpon
the rebels.    1611 Bible Nahum i. 2 The Lord reuengeth, and is
furious.    1633 Bp. Hall Hard Texts, N.T. 16 In that he‥was both
grievously displeased with these sinnes and yet loath to revenge.
"

[Bob Martin]

Hence all the sequels to "The Magnificent Seven"

[Harrison Hill]

It is not uncommon for the dying to linger in hospital for days or
weeks, giving rise to all kinds of odd concepts: "The murdered man
woke and asked for a cup of tea".

[Guy Barry]

"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
news:b7vm78lpvuvegqoro...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:02:33 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:

> >I suppose that it's possible that as some of the bandits were breathing
> >their last, they found time to say something like "My friends will be
> >back to revenge me."

> Shouldn't that be "avenge"?

> Can "revenge" be a verb?

I wouldn't use it that way. However Burchfield has examples going back to
Dickens, and there's a suggestion that the meaning may be slightly different
from "avenge", suggesting to vindicate oneself rather than to serve the ends
of justice. Most of the cited uses of "revenge" as a verb are reflexive,
though.

--
Guy Barry

[Iain Archer]

Harrison Hill wrote on Sun, 14 Oct 2012

There's the often cited example of prolepsis (for so 'tis called,
apparently):

"So the two brothers and their murder'd man/Rode past fair Florence..."
in Keats' Isabella.

In the current example, I suppose it's also possible that the potential
revenge had been sworn long previously; though it would have been much
more clearly expressed as a separate sentence, such as "They had
threatened that any of their deaths would be revenged."
--
Iain Archer

[GordonD]

"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:b7vm78lpvuvegqoro...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:02:33 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>
>>Posthumous apologies are commonplace (although often meaningless)
>>these days, but we don't often get dead people issuing threats. (From
>>BBC online)
>>
>>Reports suggested the gang had tried to attack the village recently, but
>>had been repelled by a vigilante group. But some of the bandits were
>>killed in the process and had threatened a revenge attack.
>>
>>I suppose that it's possible that as some of the bandits were breathing
>>their last, they found time to say something like "My friends will be
>>back to revenge me."
>
> Shouldn't that be "avenge"?
>
> Can "revenge" be a verb?
>
> On the posthumous apology side, I recall Tony Blair apologising
> posthumously
> for British participation in the slave trade. He will leave it to
> posterity to
> apologise posthumously for his leading Britain into three aggressive wars.

Benny Hill issued a posthumous tribute to Frankie Howerd.

They died less than twenty-four hours apart but Benny's body wasn't
discovered until two days later. In the meantime his agent had released a
quote which was published in Frankie's obituary..
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

[John Holmes]

"Cheryl" <cper...@mun.ca> wrote in message
news:ae10ci...@mid.individual.net...

> Posthumous apologies are commonplace (although often meaningless)
> these days, but we don't often get dead people issuing threats. (From
> BBC online)
>
> Reports suggested the gang had tried to attack the village recently, but
> had been repelled by a vigilante group. But some of the bandits were
> killed in the process and had threatened a revenge attack.

Was it from a story about Haiti, by any chance?

--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

[Cheryl]

On 2012-10-15 12:38 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:02:33 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>
>> Posthumous apologies are commonplace (although often meaningless)
>> these days, but we don't often get dead people issuing threats. (From
>> BBC online)
>>
>> Reports suggested the gang had tried to attack the village recently, but
>> had been repelled by a vigilante group. But some of the bandits were
>> killed in the process and had threatened a revenge attack.
>>
>> I suppose that it's possible that as some of the bandits were breathing
>> their last, they found time to say something like "My friends will be
>> back to revenge me."
>
> Shouldn't that be "avenge"?
>
> Can "revenge" be a verb?

My mistake. I should have picked that up.

>
> On the posthumous apology side, I recall Tony Blair apologising posthumously
> for British participation in the slave trade. He will leave it to posterity to
> apologise posthumously for his leading Britain into three aggressive wars.

I have never seen the point of third-party apologies. If I die owing
someone an apology, I don't see the point of my friends and relatives
doing it for me. And If someone wrongs me, I don't want their friends
and relatives to apologize for him or her.

--
Cheryl

[Cheryl]

On 2012-10-15 7:55 AM, John Holmes wrote:
>
> "Cheryl" <cper...@mun.ca> wrote in message
> news:ae10ci...@mid.individual.net...
>> Posthumous apologies are commonplace (although often meaningless)
>> these days, but we don't often get dead people issuing threats. (From
>> BBC online)
>>
>> Reports suggested the gang had tried to attack the village recently, but
>> had been repelled by a vigilante group. But some of the bandits were
>> killed in the process and had threatened a revenge attack.
>
> Was it from a story about Haiti, by any chance?
>

No, northern Nigeria, and although I didn't know that village, I used to
live in that state, so it caught my eye.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19941593



--
Cheryl

[GordonD]

"Cheryl" <cper...@mun.ca> wrote in message

news:ae2eld...@mid.individual.net...

Which is why I've never seen the point of those people who demand that the
Japanese government apologises for what they did in World War Two. I doubt
many of them were even alive at the time so "they" did nothing.

[Arcadian Rises]

I see no parallelism.

What you call "posthumous apologies" (apologizing for the acts
committed by the deceased while alive) is parallel to avenging the
(memory of) the deceased, a.k.a "vendetta".

[Arcadian Rises]

> Cheryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's understandable at an individual level.

What about the concept of "collective guilt"? Should we all continue
sine die to apologize for the original sin, or more recent sins?

[Cheryl]

I don't accept the concept of collective guilt. The existence and nature
of a connection between collective guilt and original sin are
challenging concepts to work through, although perhaps of most interest
to people who believe in both concepts.

--
Cheryl

[Robin Bignall]

Doesn't happen these days. The NHS uses the Liverpool Care system that
ensures you die well before your time.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

[Peter Brooks]

I agree that they are rather peculiar.

There is actual guilt, though, as part of a collective, in a shared
enterprise with it. If you join a lynching, you might claim that you
only did it for the beer, but you're certainly not innocent of the
matter - you didn't try to stop the lynching, for example, despite
being there.

Similarly, with a larger collective, if you connive, silently, at
crimes against humanity then you share some of the guilt.

It is a difficult matter, though, to work out quite where individual
responsibility ends. I don't think that we're obliged to hunt down and
kill mass murderers, we can allow the criminal courts or international
courts to do that for us - a good thing, generally, as it prevents
vendettas. If, however, the guilty are allowed to go free after paying
a bribe or two, then the question is more difficult. If you can't
expect the law to stop the equivalent of the mad axeman, then you
might have a responsibility, at least, to try to put something calming
in his tea. Failure to even try would make you, along with the others
who didn't, collectively responsible.

[R H Draney]

Arcadian Rises filted:

>
>What about the concept of "collective guilt"? Should we all continue
>sine die to apologize for the original sin, or more recent sins?

Why can't we have both?...r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Arcadian Rises]

On Oct 15, 1:31 pm, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Arcadian Rises filted:
>
>
>
> >What about the concept of "collective guilt"? Should we all continue
> >sine die to apologize for the original sin, or more recent sins?
>
> Why can't we have both?...r
>
> --

Because it's Monday.

I know it sounds mixing original sin with collective guilt like
minggling apes and orangs; but I but I made an absurd comparison just
to make an ad absurdum reasoning: how absurd is (IMO, of course) to
held us responsible for the sins of our ancestors, like the Spanish
Inquisitions and the like.

[Cheryl]

In any real tragedy, there's usually more than enough guilt to go around.

But I am not responsible for the actions of a mad axeman in any
collective sense. I may have had the knowledge of psychology to treat
him - but he may have had the right to refuse treatment. I may have
failed in a diagnosis through simple error, gross neglect, or some other
reason. But if, in the absence of a special duty or knowlege of
treatment, I simply wondered uneasily just how bad this episode was
going to be rather than drugging him, I wouldn't have been guilty of
anything.

--
Cheryl

[Lanarcam]

We, as citizens, are not responsible for what our ancestors
did, but the State is responsible for what the State at that
time did. See for instance the penalties that Germany had
to pay after WWII. It has stopped not so long ago and
neither today's regime nor citizens have anything to do
with the Nazi era.

[Cheryl]

So there's no real point in changing a government - say, government A
does something terrible, and some citizens organize a political party,
win an election, and put into place their own policies on this terrible
thing. The state is now simultaneously guilty and not guilty. The state
both carried out this offense, and stopped it. How can that be? Because
all states have what, permanant hereditary guilt so they're not really
not-guilty?

I tend to suspect that when people talk of organizations (states,
businesses) and guilt they are really talking about a source of money or
else trying to alter the political or economic landscape by convincing
the public that human beings aren't responsible for wrong-doing, the
various social structures they create are.

--
Cheryl

[Lanarcam]

I am sorry, and sowewhat thick, presumably, but I don't see your
point. I didn't speak about guilt but about responsibility. The
State, being the representant of the land on the international
arena, has the obligation to pay for the wrongs done by previous
governments. That doesn't mean that a given citizen or even a
given politician is guilty of what happened earlier.

[Mike L]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:01:14 +0100, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

It's not so much for the sake of the victims. The point, at least as I
see it, is that atrocities leave a psychological residue which could
have dangerous effects far into the future. Germany has faced up to
the Nazi episode and been able to grow away from it into a healthy and
successful polity; Japan still keeps its vile behaviour secret, which
is unhealthy in itself, and may already have led to problems.

--
Mike.

[Cheryl]

Well, that's a theory, I suppose, but I'm not sure how you'd go about
proving or disproving it.

--
Cheryl

[Cheryl]

That would be a interesting point to discuss - can there be guilt
without responsibility? Are they the same thing, or different? I think
the whole business of personal vs corporate (or state) responsibility
for wrongdoings, especially of others, is often confused and confusing.
It's full of pitfalls even if I accepted that a government inherited
responsibility for everything from previous administrations. I don't
think I do, not entirely.

You mention Germany - a previous German government did not - could not -
make the reparations for WW I - and arguably the attempt to force them
to do so led to WW II. So who gets to decide on the appropriate level of
reparations for damages caused by an earlier government? An institution
is not an individual, but with individuals we mostly agree that there
are wrongs that cannot be made right, and we talk about punishment or
rehabilitation rather than repaying wrongs.

I'm probably not expressing myself clearly. I'm rambling on and on about
some ideas rather than making a clear and logical point.

--
Cheryl

[Arcadian Rises]

On Oct 15, 7:19 pm, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
>
> That would be a interesting point to discuss - can there be guilt
> without responsibility?

I don't see the relevance of this question, but of course it can; for
example, people who are raised by very disciplinarian parents and
teachers who feel guilty just about everything, or people who thought
they committed a crime when in fact they didn;t.

I guess your question was if it can be responsibility without guilt. I
have many examples, one is the typical felony-murder case when the
confederate who waits in the car to drive his accomplice who is
robbing the bank is charged with murder because his accomplice's gun
accidentally shut one by stander. Is the driver, who doesn't know how
to use a gun and wouldn't kill a fly, guilty of murder? Now you can
see the difference between guilt and responsibility.

> Are they the same thing, or different? I think
> the whole business of personal vs corporate (or state) responsibility
> for wrongdoings, especially of others, is often confused and confusing.
> It's full of pitfalls even if I accepted that a government inherited
> responsibility for everything from previous administrations. I don't
> think I do, not entirely.

I believe that it's very clear. An abstract entity cannot be guilty,
it would be anthropomorphic. But it can be responsible to repair the
damage. A bus company cannot be guilty of driving under the influence,
you get the point.

>
> You mention Germany - a previous German government did not - could not -
> make the reparations for WW I - and arguably the attempt to force them
> to do so led to WW II. So who gets to decide on the appropriate level of
> reparations for damages caused by an earlier government? An institution
> is not an individual, but with individuals we mostly agree that there
> are wrongs that cannot be made right, and we talk about punishment or
> rehabilitation rather than repaying wrongs.

But an institution such as a state, can make reparation to compensate
for the damage. The "appropriate level" is, IMO, arbitrary, especially
when the damage is a mixture of moral and material damage. You cannot
compensate past slavery with affirmative action (again IMO) but any
attempt to repair something is better than nothing.

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:21:56 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:01:14 +0100, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com>
>wrote:

>>Which is why I've never seen the point of those people who demand that the
>>Japanese government apologises for what they did in World War Two. I doubt
>>many of them were even alive at the time so "they" did nothing.
>
>It's not so much for the sake of the victims. The point, at least as I
>see it, is that atrocities leave a psychological residue which could
>have dangerous effects far into the future. Germany has faced up to
>the Nazi episode and been able to grow away from it into a healthy and
>successful polity; Japan still keeps its vile behaviour secret, which
>is unhealthy in itself, and may already have led to problems.

The same thing happened in Yugoslavia, where World War II was also a civil
war.

The post-war government (led by Josip Broz Tito) adopted a "brotherhood and
unity" policy, based on "forgive and forget", and so no one talked about
wartime atrocities. After Tito's death all those old resentments came bubbling
to thre surface, resulting in the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

But that was still within living memory of some people.

Tony Blair's apology for the slave trade, which ended over 200 years ago in
British-controlled territory, while refusing to apologise for his own sins in
his own generation, was facile and hypocritical.




--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:49:14 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:

>On 15/10/2012 4:28 PM, Lanarcam wrote:

>> I am sorry, and sowewhat thick, presumably, but I don't see your
>> point. I didn't speak about guilt but about responsibility. The
>> State, being the representant of the land on the international
>> arena, has the obligation to pay for the wrongs done by previous
>> governments. That doesn't mean that a given citizen or even a
>> given politician is guilty of what happened earlier.
>
>That would be a interesting point to discuss - can there be guilt
>without responsibility? Are they the same thing, or different? I think
>the whole business of personal vs corporate (or state) responsibility
>for wrongdoings, especially of others, is often confused and confusing.
>It's full of pitfalls even if I accepted that a government inherited
>responsibility for everything from previous administrations. I don't
>think I do, not entirely.

And then there is the difference between psychological and forensic guilt.
English doesn't really make a distinction between them.

People can feel guilty without being guilty, and can be guilty without feeling
guilty.

[Guy Barry]

"Steve Hayes" wrote in message

news:mcpp78hofouik3ham...@4ax.com...

> Tony Blair's apology for the slave trade, which ended over 200 years ago
> in
> British-controlled territory, while refusing to apologise for his own sins
> in
> his own generation, was facile and hypocritical.

Didn't he say "History will be my judge"? Maybe that's the new political
philosophy - you can do whatever you like without contrition, safe in the
knowledge that someone in the future will eventually apologize for you.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:08:19 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>

wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:02:33 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
>
>>Posthumous apologies are commonplace (although often meaningless)
>>these days, but we don't often get dead people issuing threats. (From
>>BBC online)
>>
>>Reports suggested the gang had tried to attack the village recently, but
>>had been repelled by a vigilante group. But some of the bandits were
>>killed in the process and had threatened a revenge attack.
>>
>>I suppose that it's possible that as some of the bandits were breathing
>>their last, they found time to say something like "My friends will be
>>back to revenge me."
>
>Shouldn't that be "avenge"?
>
>Can "revenge" be a verb?
>

>On the posthumous apology side, I recall Tony Blair apologising posthumously
>for British participation in the slave trade. He will leave it to posterity to
>apologise posthumously for his leading Britain into three aggressive wars.

There is a problem with this sort of thing.

There is no word in general use to describe that sort of "apology".

The central meaning of "apologize" today is:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/apologize?q=apologize

express regret for something that one has done wrong

We do not seem to have a word that means to:

express sorrow for or abhorrence of something done by one's
predecessors and to distance oneself from what was done

where "distance oneself from" means:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/distance?q=distance

declare that one is not connected with or a supporter of (someone or
something)

Both words "apologize" and "regret" relate to something the apologizer
or regretter has done

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/regret?q=regret

regret
verb
feel sad, repentant, or disappointed over (something that one has
done or failed to do)

noun
a feeling of sadness, repentance, or disappointment over an
occurrence or something that one has done or failed to do

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:53:14 +0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>

wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:21:56 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:01:14 +0100, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Which is why I've never seen the point of those people who demand that the
>>>Japanese government apologises for what they did in World War Two. I doubt
>>>many of them were even alive at the time so "they" did nothing.
>>
>>It's not so much for the sake of the victims. The point, at least as I
>>see it, is that atrocities leave a psychological residue which could
>>have dangerous effects far into the future. Germany has faced up to
>>the Nazi episode and been able to grow away from it into a healthy and
>>successful polity; Japan still keeps its vile behaviour secret, which
>>is unhealthy in itself, and may already have led to problems.
>
>The same thing happened in Yugoslavia, where World War II was also a civil
>war.
>
>The post-war government (led by Josip Broz Tito) adopted a "brotherhood and
>unity" policy, based on "forgive and forget", and so no one talked about
>wartime atrocities. After Tito's death all those old resentments came bubbling
>to thre surface, resulting in the disintegration of Yugoslavia.
>
>But that was still within living memory of some people.
>
>Tony Blair's apology for the slave trade, which ended over 200 years ago in
>British-controlled territory, while refusing to apologise for his own sins in
>his own generation, was facile and hypocritical.

If Tony Blair thinks that his actions were correct or justified he would
see no reason to apologise for them.

[bob]

The concept of organisations having identities that extends beyond the
individual members of the organisation is one that is recognised in
law and in wider culture in many ways. Armies or segments thereof
claim "battle honours" for battles that took place long before any
current members were born. Sports teams claim the credit for past
victories in competitions even where all of the players involved in
that particular event have since retired. In the reverse direction,
the organisation that committed a shameful act, or that permitted it
to be carried out by others, can also bear a guilt independent of the
individual members of the organisation. In this case, I think there
is a value in the organisation recognising and appologising for its
misdeeds in the past.

Robin

[Lanarcam]

That was the case for France after WWII, the governments after
the war always denied that the Vichy State represented France,
they claimed that it was puppet of the German occupier. It was
the president Chirac that declared ca 1995 that France was to
be held accountable for the deeds commited against the Jews
during the occupation, which still angers today the opponents
of the repentance* movement.

* do you have that word in English?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:46:32 -0700 (PDT), Lanarcam <lana...@yahoo.fr>
wrote:

Yes.

It tends to be used of individuals and is used particularly in a
religious context:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/repentance?q=repentance

noun
[mass noun]

the action of repenting; sincere regret or remorse:
"each person who turns to God in genuine repentance and faith
will be saved"

[Nick Spalding]

Lanarcam wrote, in
<86b093fb-9fa9-4876...@googlegroups.com>
on Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:46:32 -0700 (PDT):

Yes. I thought it might be spelt "repentence" but Agent's spell checker
accepts it your way.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Mike L]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:40:02 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:

>On 15/10/2012 7:51 PM, Mike L wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:01:14 +0100, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Cheryl" <cper...@mun.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:ae2eld...@mid.individual.net...

>[...]

>>>>
>>>> I have never seen the point of third-party apologies. If I die owing
>>>> someone an apology, I don't see the point of my friends and relatives
>>>> doing it for me. And If someone wrongs me, I don't want their friends and
>>>> relatives to apologize for him or her.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is why I've never seen the point of those people who demand that the
>>> Japanese government apologises for what they did in World War Two. I doubt
>>> many of them were even alive at the time so "they" did nothing.
>>
>> It's not so much for the sake of the victims. The point, at least as I
>> see it, is that atrocities leave a psychological residue which could
>> have dangerous effects far into the future. Germany has faced up to
>> the Nazi episode and been able to grow away from it into a healthy and
>> successful polity; Japan still keeps its vile behaviour secret, which
>> is unhealthy in itself, and may already have led to problems.
>>
>
>Well, that's a theory, I suppose, but I'm not sure how you'd go about
>proving or disproving it.

Well, to some extent Germany itself offers evidence. Eastern Germany
moved from one totalitarian regime to another without thorough
rehabilitation; and, as I understand it, it was mostly in the East
that "neo-Fascist" groups sprang up after reunification.

--
Mike.