Office Professional 2010 Acknowledge vs. Apologize

Acknowledge vs. Apologize
Posted by: Lindsay C on: April 22, 2010

The article “Jean expresses sorrow over Canada’s lack of action during Rwandan genocide,” was published in The Globe and Mail on April 21st, 2010. The article was written by Sarah Boesveld.
It’s been 17 years since the Rwandan genocide. Jean is the first top-level Canadian official to visit Rwanda since the 1994 brutality. She delivered the speech in front of Rwanda authorities, acknowledging Canada’s failure to act during the genocide.
“The world’s failure to respond to adequately to the genocide is a failure in which Canada – as part of the international  community – readily acknowledges  its fair share of responsibility,”
“It is with a sense of utmost humility that I express the respects of Canada to all Rwandans who perished, suffered and who continue to suffer measurable loss in the Rwandan genocide,” she read.
The purpose of the visit was to strengthen the ties between Rwanda and Canada. The Governor-General is on a tour through the Republic of Rwanda, she started her tour through the Gisozi Genocide Memorial Center in Kigali, which is the capital of Rwanda. The Memorial Center is built over a grave where more than 250,Office 2010 Product Key,000 bodies were buried from the genocide. Her trip will continue Thursday, visiting Butare, Nyamagabe, and Kibirizi, and then she will be returning to the capital. She is expected to return to Canada on Friday.
Oh right Canada is strengthening the ties with the Republic of Rwanda, so in order to do so the Governor-General will acknowledge what Canada did wrong. Why didn’t they do it 10 years ago? Or after it happened?
In the article it also states that,Windows 7 Home Premium Product Key, in 2004 and 2008 in Ottawa there were motions passed unanimously, which regretted the lack of action which occurred internationally during Rwanda’s time of need. This was also mentioned during the Governor-General’s statement.
Shocked would be the word to describe the feeling while reading this article. It’s been a long 17 years for the people in Rwanda, who have suffered deeply due to the genocide in 1994.
Over the course of 100 days Tutsis and some Hutus were in hell. Acts of genocide were spread throughout Rwanda; over 800,Office Professional 2010,000 people lost their lives. Hundreds of people lost family and friends. While the people of Rwanda suffered,Office 2007 Download, countries like the United States and Canada did nothing. Ignorance is bliss, to some. It must be nice to be able to acknowledge what Canada didn’t do, now after 17 years, but really isn’t it too late? Governments still ignored their pleas and the acts of genocide still happened.
As much as one can be angry about such treacherous times and the fact the people who could’ve done something chose to ignore it you have to be able to look at the bright side. There is awareness. It’s acknowledging that someone was at fault, or someone should have done more.
This story was first reported as an apology, but was quickly clarified stating by the Prime Minister’s office that it was just an acknowledgment.  Well her words sounded like an apology but she certainly never used the word apology.
But according to The New Times – Rwanda’s First Daily/ækˈnɒlɪdʒmənt/ , in the article “Canada apologizes over Genocide,Office Ultimate 2007 Key,” which was published today. The Governor-General apologized on behalf of Canada’s government.
Also yesterday, when the story came out the article was originally posted as;” Canada apologizes for role in Rwandan genocide.” The article was written by Alexander Panetta. Confusing, people don’t know whether or not the Governor-General was apologizing or acknowledging. Isn’t it a slap in the face for the Canadian government to say ‘oh no that wasn’t an apology; we were acknowledging what we did wrong’. But if the Rwandans feel as if it was an apology, why take that away?  Why is it so important to make the differentiation between an apology and acknowledgement?
Is it about blame?
Well if Canada was to apologize, it would be admitting guilt, that something wasn’t done (in this case). Of course, our lovely government officials hate taking blame or admitting guilt because it means they were wrong.
At the time Jean Chretien was Prime Minister of Canada, so that would mean he would be at fault for not doing anything.
So this issue brings up the discussion of whether or not a government should apologize for past governments mistakes.
Yes it should. Yes, it’s been 17 years and as much as it sounds ridiculous now to be acknowledging/apologizing. People are still affected by those words. If someone or something has the ability to impact people’s lives like that then why not? What has Canada got to lose? Nothing.
Nothing can be done to reverse what happened; but to always remember and learn from each other’s mistakes. As well as honour those who lost their lives.