Rectifications (20) – I will not apologise for….

Rectifications (20) – I will not apologise for….

Torrey Orton– January 13, 2010

"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense."

Obama inauguration speech, 21 Jan '09

'I will not apologise for….' is one of the most egregiously shifty moves in current polispeak. The way to its critique must be cleared of 2 lookalike usages, the first of which I am happy to endorse in principle, though I'd quibble on specifics, as I may about almost anything of course.


That first belongs to a movement of another order occurring in a parallel universe – see here for one example. This is the proper assertion of a wholly justifiable claim like "I will not apologise for my power". This is an important self-statement, and public one if necessary, for minorities in almost any group setting. Minorities are strongly encouraged to mind the manners of their power anywhere in the view or hearing of majorities. The successful learn to repress their power, a major tool for which is the learned denial of its reality. This is often heard as a situationally appropriate assertion of role power surrounded with apologetics and disclaimers. Used as a self-statement it is an empowering tool; as a public statement, it marks the emergence into view of a power almost wholly self-accepted. Complete acceptance by self and others arrives when nothing has to be said.


The second lookalike appears as a movement here in cyberspace, at least, for 'saying it like it is'.
This is a counter to PCness and similarly repressive pabulum. It is probably a worthy enterprise in the struggle for ordinary language about ordinary things. These 'I will nots' are explicitly challenges to an imagined accepted opinion – e.g. 'I will not apologise for smoking, driving a V8, etc.'. They invite a debate, if not a punch-up. They are aggressive initiatives unlikely to attract much interest because clearly as devoted to their contrarianism as the notional counter-truths they express.


Finally there's the political, public spun discourse version, modelled in its least offensive form by Obama above. It is these I rage against. Their Australian prototypes - Rudd and Co. nationally and their state acolytes like Brumby- are represented by statements like 'we will not apologise for defending our shores from boat peoples while honouring our international obligations to assist those lost at sea' (that's a relatively undoctored version you will never hear). The difference between the latter and the Obama quote is that Obama has a disputant in mind (the terrorist Others) who have a track record of being successfully dangerous.


Boat-people are mainly a danger to themselves of course. They are more likely to die from and for their efforts to get to Oz than to damage the  locals who await them. Their fearfulness depends wholly on an ascribed status as potential terrorist Others, which 'we will not apologise' re-endorses each time spoken to reinvigorate the scared locals' fear. Shame on the hypocrisy of all those pretentiously religious leaders of our land who speak so! Their irreligious and a-religious colleagues of the spin faiths are shameful in their own theologically ungarnished ways.