Scotland Apologizes for Executing Witches

[Archivist]

At long last, Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has formally apologized for women who were convicted and killed for "witchcraft" between the 16th and 18th centuries. Approximately 84% of the more than 2500 people who were charged with witchcraft and killed were women.

Confessions of practicing witchcraft were extracted under torture. Most of those killed were strangled and then their bodies were burned. Few if any of the victims actually practiced witchcraft. Most were herbalists or midwives.

Other places have issued similar apologies, but such apologies need to be issued everyplace where people were wrongly executed for being witches.

Scotland in formal apology over killing of thousands of women for 'witchcraft' | Euronews

 

[zippy2006]

I think it would be a better use of our time to scrutinize our current scapegoating practices rather than to apologize to people who have been dead for 500 years, who were harmed on the basis of a now-outdated form of scapegoating.

 

[Hazelelponi]

At long last, Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has formally apologized for women who were convicted and killed for "witchcraft" between the 16th and 18th centuries. Approximately 84% of the more than 2500 people who were charged with witchcraft and killed were women.

Confessions of practicing witchcraft were extracted under torture. Most of those killed were strangled and then their bodies were burned. Few if any of the victims actually practiced witchcraft. Most were herbalists or midwives.

Other places have issued similar apologies, but such apologies need to be issued everyplace where people were wrongly executed for being witches.

Scotland in formal apology over killing of thousands of women for 'witchcraft' | Euronews

Why apologize for something you neither took part in nor support?

Honestly I don't understand it. People were killed, it was bad, it's all behind us in the distant past, move on.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think it would be a better use of our time to scrutinize our current scapegoating practices rather than to apologize to people who have been dead for 500 years, who were harmed on the basis of a now-outdated form of scapegoating.

I agree. Andit would be good to stop and think about who our current scapegoats are.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Oh thank God. I was up all night in tears because of the poor treatment of 16th century witches just last night. Truly Scotland, doing the Lord's work.

 

[bèlla]

A willingness to address failings is good. You don’t have to participate to recognize it was wrong.

 

[Archivist]

A willingness to address failings is good. You don’t have to participate to recognize it was wrong.

I agree. I don't understand why some posters wouldn't want to apologize for past wrongs.

 

[bekkilyn]

I agree. I don't understand why some posters wouldn't want to apologize for past wrongs.

Was Scotland able to bring all the people who needed to apologize back from the dead then?

 

[Archivist]

Was Scotland able to bring all the people who needed to apologize back from the dead then?

No, of course not. But what is the problem with apologizing for past wrongs?

 

[trophy33]

No, of course not. But what is the problem with apologizing for past wrongs?

It seems kind of artificial and useless, because it has no relevance for today's Scotland or world.

 

[bèlla]

I agree. I don't understand why some posters wouldn't want to apologize for past wrongs.

I recognize wrongs have occurred that haven’t been addressed. But that doesn’t set aside the acknowledgment. I don’t need the first to accept the latter.

 

[Archivist]

Maybe the simple fact that it was not you, back then.

Also, apologize to whom? To the dead? It somehow seems weird and artificial.

But we are talking about an apology from the successors of those who wrongly ordered the executions. His Holiness John Paul II issued apologies ranging from the sack of Constantinople in 1204 to the slave trade to the wars that followed the Protestant Reformation, and leaders of many Protestant bodies have issued similar apologies. Why is that a problem for some?

 

[trophy33]

Why is that a problem for some?

Because its like me apologizing for some medieval guy doing something to some medieval woman.

It has nothing to do with me. We live in a culture of empty apologies, artificial gestures and being guilty of everything.

 

[bèlla]

Why is that a problem for some?

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man…

I wasn’t in the garden. I didn’t nail Him to the cross or support His crucifixion. Nevertheless.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

 

[zippy2006]

A willingness to address failings is good. You don’t have to participate to recognize it was wrong.

There is a big difference between recognizing a wrong and apologizing for a wrong.

That said, it is good for institutions to recognize and correct past errors, even if they are not culpable. It's not an apology, but it can be good, and it helps assure others that the injustices will not recur.

 

[bekkilyn]

No, of course not. But what is the problem with apologizing for past wrongs?

Nothing, if you are the one who wronged someone. Nobody currently living in Scotland did anything wrong so why would they need to apologize?

 

[bèlla]

There is a big difference between recognizing a wrong and apologizing for a wrong.

I’ve apologized to the Lord for lots of things I had no part in. The concept isn’t bothersome. Maybe that’s me. Who knows.

 

[zippy2006]

I’ve apologized to the Lord for lots of things I had no part in. The concept isn’t bothersome. Maybe that’s me. Who knows.

Apologizing for something you didn't do doesn't make sense to me. That said, I did add an edit to my last post regarding recognizing and correcting past errors.

(Granted, I think institutional identity does exist, and so one can apologize on behalf of an institution that they represent, but it is obviously a watered down form of apology.)

 

[bèlla]

Apologizing for something you didn't do doesn't make sense to me.

The remorse is genuine. The prophets did the same. They weren’t guilty of the crimes that angered the Lord. But they had His ear. There’s a spiritual principle involved but its off-topic.

The edit is correct.

 

[Archivist]

Apologizing for something you didn't do doesn't make sense to me. That said, I did add an edit to my last post regarding recognizing and correcting past errors.

(Granted, I think institutional identity does exist, and so one can apologize on behalf of an institution that they represent, but it is obviously a watered down form of apology.)

And we are talking about an institutional apology here. The Minister is not personally apologizing for actions by him or by his ancestors.