Unapologetic

I.

Amy’s great-grandmother left Turkey in 1915, precisely forced to leave. That year in April, dozens of Armenian notables living in Istanbul were arrested including Amy’s great-grandfather. These men were all deported to smaller cities escorted by Turkish soldiers. Several of them never made it to these cities as they were tortured and executed on the way while the others arrived in worse physical condition. Eventually, every one of them was killed ruthlessly and irreverently.

Subsequently, their families were ordered to leave; deportations began. To unknown destinations, women, kids and the elderly marched. Several people died in this cruel march, as they were denied food, water, shelter and rest. Some were even executed, unapologetically.

Many kids were put in orphanages & tortured. The ones who managed to survive this death march to the Syrian deserts eventually sought refuge in America. All of this was done by the Turks of the then-ruling Ottoman empire to the Armenians until Turkey was free of the Armenians.

The new Turkey state was established in 1923 – the Modern Turkish Republic. It implied that this Armenian genocide conducted by the Ottoman Empire was grim news from the past, a long-forgotten cruelty, in the minds of the Turkish people.

Amusingly enough, Amy narrates this entire incident to Asya’s family with such care given the delicate nature of the topic, who are native Turks residing in Turkey, when she visits them one summer.

Contrary to her fear, the entire family hadn’t taken it. That gave her a sense of relief. However, something else seemed to be nagging her – had they really “taken” it at all?

They neither refused to believe her nor attacked her with counterarguments. In fact, they seemed sympathetic to her situation and listened attentively.

Amy was not happy with the outcome. What did she expect from them?

II.

British came to one of the richest countries contributing to around 25% of the world GDP in 1700 & 1800. Over 200yrs of exploitation, loot and destruction, reduced India to a poster child for third-world poverty. When the British left India in 1947, the state accounted for 3% of world GDP, over 90% of the below-poverty line population, 17% literacy and 27% of life expectancy. British India’s growth rate was 0.001%. They drained the country of its taxes and resources; used it for self-centered reasons that led to the Great Bengal famine, mass Opium & Indigo cultivation in our soil, leveraging our war resources and a lot more.

It’s been 75+ years since all of this adverse tribulation ended. However, it has been gravely etched in the hearts and soil of India.

We mock our fellow British mates for the misery incurred by our ancestors, that was caused by theirs, without missing a chance to take it out on them to date, even if it’s as a joke.

It’s fair to be enraged at what unfolded not in a day or 2 but almost 4 centuries. It can’t be quickly forgotten.

The colonizers are long dead, and so are the colonized.

What now? What do we expect from them?

III.

Vandalism of statues that commemorate war figures in Australia; a warrant for the destruction of statues and memorials associated with the stain of slavery in England – Rhodes must fall, Bristol benefactor Colston has no place, Tobias Rustat’s memorial removal – because they believe history needs to be corrected for the stigma of racism, colonization, slavery to be eradicated.

(Rhodes, Colston & Rustat are famous historical figures who were told to be involved in the slave trade back in the day)

According to Sumpton, a historian & lawyer, the main reason is to just show the world which side they are on. A useless exercise in its entirety because we are all on the same side now. They are merely showing they are more enraged than others, a stunt for personal exhibitionism.

Nobody considers slavery justifiable anymore. Values and virtues were different back in the day, centuries ago. In fact, slavery was not only legal at the time of the Atlantic slave trade that Tobias’ memorial is charged for, but also perfectly moral.

We fail to notice how Colston supported and endowed schools, houses for the poor, almshouses, and hospitals; and Rustat’s memorial was raised for his philanthropy, not his deeds of slavery.

IV.

The post-colonial theory interprets truth quite differently. This political revisionism urges today’s generation to bear guilt for the past, and hold moral responsibility for the deeds of an older generation.

Protesting against what is happening and what could happen are quite practical and might even contribute to a change in the attitude of the oppressors/assailants. What good does protesting about something from the past do?

Elif Shafak writes, “Slowly it dawned on Amy that perhaps she felt disconcerted with their response because she was awaiting an admission of guilt from Asya’s family for what the Turks did to the Armenians in 1915.”

Shashi Tharoor says, “Britishers are long gone, we don’t need any reparations, we are looking for atonement. Britain owes a moral debt to India, more than a financial one.”

Apologies are like band-aids attempting to fix a car’s shattered windshield. Exactly, they make no difference.

Why do we even think a moral debt is owed to us? How does it matter when paying off the debt is neither going to undo what happened nor mend the current ties? How does it help to know that the other party is apologetic about anything?

Personally apologizing has resolved several issues in my life. Even worse, admission of guilt implies catering to the moral obligation that leads to mending ties. In fact many a time, nobody really wanted a solution for my screw-ups, a mere admission of guilt and they would resolve it by themselves.

Are moral codes & apologies overrated? If it can resolve issues easily, why are people so hesitant to do it? Are people so stingy in throwing apologies only because of the inflated value it holds? I fail to understand it.

Lord Sumpton mentions in an interview that the notion behind apologizing for the past comes from a place of collective and inherited guilt. Descendants of the victim feel entitled to an apology from the descendants of the assailants.

21st-century British people, Australians, Turks, Rustat and Colston are not responsible for the colonization of India, slavery, Armenian genocide or the Atlantic slave trade that happened till the 19th century.

We don't do the things that we regard as deplorable in our ancestors. Haven’t we collectively learnt the lessons from the past? Haven’t we largely evolved from there on? The slave trade is not lawful anymore, it’s a punishable offense. Conscious colonization is a far-fetched cry. Unless we have evolved in the wrong direction in this regard, why do we still seek a petty moral obligation? (Although I believe we aren’t entirely evolving in the right direction as a species, that’s a topic for another day.) Doesn’t the lesson learnt fare enough to pay off the “moral debt” anyway? Isn't ensuring the history doesn't repeat itself a bigger admission of guilt?

What occurred in the past is certainly unfair. Raging against the past can’t erase it.

If an apology can resolve issues, let’s do it. Yet not seek it.

To ponder: Echoing Symptom’s thoughts, “are we criticizing people from the past instead of tackling complex problems from the present day?” 
Perhaps, we are. Or not.