Do I owe you an apology?
 

Some quick background, I go to possibly the whitest college on the planet. This college in an attempt to recruit more domestic minority students often over-represents these students in publication. As such recently during a college function, the point of which is making fun of the things the college does, made fun of this practice, by proposing instant diversity and students donning facepaint. Now this was related by some people, who were deeply offended, to blackface. The situation has been at length discussed and it was agreed the mimicry of blackface was not at all the intent of their skit, but some people still are offended and feel they are owed an apology.

I use this story as a background to come by this question, which is not specifically related to this incident. I have my own thoughts, but I don't want to skew the thread in any one direction, so they will wait till later. So my question is simply this:

If someone is offended by something you do, but their offense is at the result of thier misunderstanding, do you still owe this person an apology?

No you owe them nothing....but an apology will not hurt you....and will benefit them.....where is the harm in that.

i agree with the wise sage who posted above me :)

Since your question is not related to the incident described then I would say that you do not owe anyone an apology. Some people get offended by almost everything and if you apologize everytime they do it is kind of like admitting that they are right to do so. My wife would probably disagree with me. :)

It all depends on how easily they can beat your ass or otherwise fuck up your world.

"I'm sorry you're so easily offended. I'm sorry you imagine problems for yourself. Your life must suck. Idiot."

I simply mean to keep them separate because I can't adequately describe the situation well enough for you all to comment on it. That is why I tried to keep it short, trust me when I tell you there is far more to tell, I could quite literally spend weeks going into all the details for the incident but I don't have that kind of time to devote to it.

/return to topic

If you cannot understand why you would owe them an aplogy, then it would do no good to do so. It would be more beneficial to make an effort to understand why "blackface" would be offensive to someone. Ridiculing or accusing them of being overly sensitive is evidence that we have not come a long way and need to work on racism.

Don't apologize if you don't feel like it. However, it would appear that there is a deeper more critical problem: your lack of understanding why someone would be offended by blackface.

In the example you provided, I don't see where the "misunderstanding" occurred. Blackface is pretty starightforward. If it was unintentional, then an apology would still be in order because "you were sincerely sorry that you offended them but it was unintentional. In theory a lesson is learned and communication made.

If it was intentional, then an apology would be still in order because if it was intentional, then the offending party wouldn't be "sorry" at all cause of their intent.

I don't know man, but I would appeal to people to stop and put yourself in another's shoes first before we dismiss them as whiner's or idiots or overly sensitive. It's not our place to tell someone else that they can oo cannot be offended. I think at the end of the day, we all just need to mutually respect each other. The golden rule is always good too. Treat others how you would like to be treated.

You know, this kind of reminds me of the time Ted Danson and Whoopi Goldberg did a number at theTasty Pudding Theater at Harvard. Ted Danson hot in some hot water for his blackface routine. He insisted it wasn't meant to offend and apologized for his poor judgement as did Whoopi. They explained as a comedy routine etc but conceded it was in poor taste and offensive. Good example. I would have thought we had made some progree since then.

Or when Sinead O'Commor got a lot of flack for saying stuff about the Pope on SNL. Or even in the Pope thread, people got their panties in a wad because they had a "misunderstanding" and misperceived people's casual speech as disrespectful to the Pope. MOst people acquiesced to the complainants and did not make a fuss. That's a good compromise you know. Sort of respecting others, giving a little etc. There's nothing wrong with a bit of conceding and courtesy.

My two cents.

You know this is really interesting: the concept of "owing an apology".

If an apology is something to be "given, recieved, traded and/or owed" -

What is the value of an apology? Is it in the giver or the receiver?

What if the apology is "insincere"? How could you tell?

What about regret? Remorse?

If a man is truly sorry for something he did, or something that caused another man pain, would that not be incentive enough to cause that man to go and apologize to the other?

Before this happens again...

I am not asking my question in relation to this particual incident. I kindly request comments not to be made on this because of my very limited explanation of the events. I am perfectly aware of the history of blackface and why it is offensive. If you have any questions about my story specifically feel free to PM me but I don't want this thread to be the place to discuss it. I simply used this anecdote to explain how I came by the thought of the question.

I don't apologize for anything I'm not sorry for unless it will get me ahead.

Of course, of course. I got that. I just wanted to use it as a base for my answer. I thought it would be easier to illustrate the concept of apology. There is more to my post than the little line you quoted.

That is why I addressed that part of your "example" to answer your question. In other words, if one cannot understand why they would need to apologize what they do not perceive to be offensive to someone, then the deeper problem lays there. Because if the person fails to understand why his actions were hurtful, then what good is the apology if they are not truly sorry? That to me is the essence of apology.

I understand what you are saying, but my post still stands: If it is a literal example, then my post still applies. If it is theoretical, then I would contend it still applies - Change "you" for "one", that is, subsititute the subjects otherwise, take the allegorical "you" as a narrative device in positing a point, not the literal "you".
Otherwise, maybe you shouldn't have included that example or it's a poor example. Why include the example if you don't want it to be part of the discussion? Hope that clears things up a bit.

Funny, it reminds me of the Simpson's epsiode where Bart doesn't want to apologize to Lisa at first because he isn't sorry, it's her problem not his. After Lisa and Bart discuss it, she explains why his actions were hurtful, Bart does become remorseful and delivers a rather heartfelt apology to her. Good epsiode.

I'd say if a large amount of people were offended, then yes, apologise, (and try to think about your actions/words the next time.) But if it's only a minority, then they're probably over sensitive.

If it wasn't intended to be offensive in the least, yet some people took offense for whatever reasons, then there is no need to apologize. What should be looked at is the agenda of those so offended. According to the original poster, it was facepaint, not blatant blackface, I think.

I remember that. The irony was that Danson was at some comedy thing doing blackface and the origins of blackface began as comedy skits in minstrel and vaudeville shows.

I could argue that blackface in the 1800's was about as offensive as Saturday Night Live is today. And also, blacks back then painted their faces white and did the same type skits as blackface performers but for white audiences who thought it was a hoot, little realizing the blacks were making fun of them. Funny how political correctness really fucks up history sometimes.

That's the inherent problem with sociology (is that what this is called?). It is difficult to quantify or analyze because of the intangibles and variables (so I believe).

OFKU0, what's the difference between black face and painting one's face black (facepaint)? I actually think we're getting off topic as we don't know the details with the original post nor was intended to be discussed here so PM me the answer. Thanks.

I think the original question revolved around the circumstance of apology NOT the context of his preceding example (of blackface).

So the discussion then becomes philosophical: Intent, motive, interpretation are the elements we're debating instead of the actual blackface example.

If it's a misunderstanding, then a clarification would be the first step I would think. Then, perhaps the would-be offended may no longer be offended at which point an apology is not even necessary. Which brings up an interesting point. Oftentimes, conflicts are blown up or borne out of misunderstandings. So then it becomes critical to communicate effectively and clear up any misunderstandings.

"If someone is offended by something you do, but their offense is at the result of thier misunderstanding, do you still owe this person an apology?"

/not trying to sound like a total dick, but.....

Personally, I don't think so, unless they are actually "hurt" and not just looking for something to protest about.
I think that it is literally impossible to say or do anything that will not offend someone out there, especially in a university setting. In the situation you described I can understand how someone might get offended, regardless of the message that the performers were attempting to convey.

That being said, this sort of a situation at a university can turn very nasty, very quickly. Sometimes it's just best to offer an apology, whether you mean it or not, whether you think someone deserves it or not, if nothing more than to appease them so everyone can get on with their lives.

An apology is supposed to be about remorse and regret, right? If you don't feel it, why on Earth would you lie about it? What's the point of apology if it is insincere?

Being disingenuous to others about your feelings is, in my opinion, just horrible, horrible, horrible. You're not only being dishonest with others, but you're being dishonest with yourself, which is much, much worse, and there's really no reason for it.

Don't base an apology on numbers of those offended, don't do it just for the sake of smoothing things over, and, above all, don't do it if you're not sorry. To apologize for any reason other than remorse is insulting....for all involved parties.

Edit: I got off on a tangent there and realized I forgot to answer the question. If it's a misunderstanding than probably not. I would try to clarify and fix the misunderstanding. After that, if they're still offended (and you're not sorry ;) ), then well...that's their problem and not yours.

[QUOTE=jorgelito]

I think the original question revolved around the circumstance of apology NOT the context of his preceding example (of blackface).

So the discussion then becomes philosophical: Intent, motive, interpretation are the elements we're debating instead of the actual blackface example.

QUOTE]

Thanks for that. But if people didn't paint their faces, this discussion would be moot. And you did bring in other examples of blackface, out of context to what you've stated the context of this threat is.

[QUOTE=OFKU0]Absolutely. I got what you were saying, I was just trying to lead it back on course a bit :) .

So it appears that the problem is in the misunderstanding. The central axis to where the question "to apologize or not to apologize" lays. Excepting the random troublemaker, an explanation to clear up the misunderstanding should (in theory) suffice and not require an apology beyond a "I'm sorry you felt that way, it was not my intent" etc, etc. As a matter of courtesy or common etiquette of course.

It's like this...you say something with one meaning, the person you're communicating with interprets it. The final result is going to be the one that counts. So regardless of you having nothing to apologize about (because how they interpreted it was not what you meant at all), they got the wrong message from your actions/ words, so I think maybe an apology for the misunderstanding might be the right thing to do. Doesn't mean you did anything wrong. Just means you understand their point of view. It's a diplomatic stance. I think that in this case people are being overly sensitive, and to some degree, falsely PC.

I would go with "I'm sorry that you've misunderstood me"... or "I'm sorry you've taken it the wrong way"...

By me saying sorry I've accepted that what I have said or done may not have been communicated clearly or I may have said it with a presumption of a particular point of reference... leaving room for any possible point of view that is different from mine.

I could also just be sorry that they are limited in thier scope too ;)

I don't think one should apologize because of other people's misunderstanding or ignorance. An example of one such incident which you may remember is listed below. The head of the District's Office of Public Advocate, David Howard was pretty much forced to resign because of people's ignorance of the English language:

Yes, I believe an apology is warranted. It does not matter your intentions. What matters is how the other person feels even once your intentions have been made clear. Apologizing does not mean admitting that you were in the "wrong", but simply that you did not intend to affect the person in such a way.

No, an explanation may be in order; but not an apology. There seems to be a victim mentality that insists that you have a right to never be offended. We seem to be insisting that people need to be catagorized into oppressors and victims. There is no victim here, you have no personal responsibility for the entire history of mistreatment for any group.

Yes. Also of note for some who may know or not. Depending on the context which is assumed and may be agreed upon by others, any apology opens the door to legal suits since many times an apology is a reference to wrong doing assuming guilt.

I'm not saying that would occur in this instance, but any institution, be it government, big business or the education system is always looking to assume changes be made if a problem arises rather than outright apologizing for the reasons given.

In some instances, apologizing is worse than actually admitting wrongdoing since wrongdoing can be floated as ignorance while apologizing takes on the affect of knowing something was wrong and permitting it to continue.

Ok, now for what I think...

To me an apology carries weight because it is an admission to both remorse and fault, and therefore you should only apologize when you believe that you have both: done something wrong and feel bad about it. So, with the case of misunderstanding you should not apologize because you are not at fault(or at least do not believe you are). While I think both a statement of intent and empathy would go a long way, an apology is not in order.

I suggest appologizing for offending the person (group?) then clarifying that your actions were not intended to be taken in the manner which they had been. That way, you can clarify your intentions and ease the mind of the other party.

If you don't wish to appologize at all, I think it would be curteous to at least explain your intention and their misunderstanding.

Ah! This is a great point. It's really interesting how a simple word "sorry" can affect events, especially at the government level, corporate etc. In a way, it kind of sucks if you really are sorry but are "prevented" from expressing your remorse due to legal issues. Tlak about a wrench in the works.

"Sorry seems to be the hardest word...."

"It's hard for me to say I'm sorry...."

Like someone wise said, it is the privilege of the offended to decide when something is offensive. I've been on both sides, and the sensible thing to do as an offender is to say "It was not my intention to offend, I'm sorry for offending you." and not do the offensive thing again ever. And that should be it. Not that it has ever played out as nicely as that, but it has been close a few times.

Yes, in this case it is not a result of their misunderstanding, but a case of your misunderstand. I accept you did not mean any harm, but clearly you have caused offense and of course you should apologise for this.

I agree with the above statement. Now okay I'm a bit confused here, the link would not load for me it took forever..it was just the definition of "blackface" right? I'm familiar. Now was there or was there not a blackface skit? Because if there was and you thought no one would be offended by it then that is pure ignorance. No offense but people of color just do not find that to be humorous at all. It's offensive to them. This has been proven true in the past. Some of them have a sense of humor about it but some will always be offended. You should take that into consideration next time and exercise a little tact.

Good luck with this whole thing. It really sucks when you don't mean to offend someone but you do. It's confusing.

Asta!!

To answer your question: no. Does the offended person consider it rude? Yes, but I still believe that the intention is what matters in most cases. I can't stand it when people think I owe them an apology for me NOT saying something they heard, even if they accept that I didn't say it. The same thing goes with misunderstandings.

-Lasereth

You can be sorry you offended them but not actually sorry for what you did. Whether that is acceptable to the person your apologizing to is another issue.