It was a strange conversation, one that ranged from genocide to Mel Gibson’s latest gaffe, but in many ways last night’s exchange was representative of the apology’s protean ways. It can clearly be used to make peace, but it’s more commonly used to save face. But when the rare apology does what it’s supposed to do, it always rings true.
Last night Abraham Lincoln emerged as the world’s greatest apologist. His second inaugural address, a remarkable mix of religious and political insight is — according to Aaron Lazare — the apology supreme. It meets all the criteria: an acknowledgment of slavery, remorse and reparations. It also happens to be a rhetorical masterwork. For those of us who don’t have Lincoln’s gift we can follow Barbara Brown Taylor’s example: forget the apology, go straight to repentance and change our ways. But in a pinch, we can do as Chris suggests: buy flowers.
Like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cookies_bouquet.jpg
Or more artsy, like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bouquet_%28Jan_Brueghel_the_Elder%29.jpeg
Great show–Thank you!
I’m no expert, but on the topic of Committees for Truth and Reconciliation, I understand that these spring from a system of jurisprudence which is itself conciliatory, rather than adversarial, as is ours. Of course, that begs the question, does our cultural approach to resolving differences force us to agonize, to some extent, over apologies? Think of surgeons who can’t apologize for their mistakes because of the risk of malpractice suits…
As great as the Lincoln apology was, wouldn’t “the apology supreme” have had to come from the South? It’s easier to apologize when your the winner. A perfect apology would come from the doer of grief, no?