Let me offer a more extreme scenario to illustrate the point:

Say that two men are working on an invention...

One comes up with a final product and the other kills the first, takes the prototype and patents it.

The one who stole the invention becomes rich and goes on to educate his children and grandchildren, while the children of the man that was killed become destitute and are unable to pay to educate their children.

Now...

Do the grandchildren of the thief have any LEGAL obligation to the other man's grandchildren? No.

Do the grandchildren of the thief have any MORAL obligation to the other man's grandchildren? I would have to say that they answer is YES on that one. They are benefitting from something that they were never entitled to in the first place.



That's basically how I view this whole apology issue. The fact is that it IS a hollow act to some degree but how is it a problem for the State to officially say "It was wrong to treat you ancestors in the manner they were treated and the State apologizes for its part."

Many things in this country were built by slaves, and the decendants of the slaves had to put up with mistreatment for many generations after abolition. The problem is not gone today.

Sometimes a symbolic act can become a useful starting point. I'm still trying to understand what it would hurt?