![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldNews of the apology made to Alan Turing on the grounds of the state persecution that drove him to suicide has, of course, been widely disseminated.
This, the culmination of a campaign, saw an open letter from the Prime Minister himself get published. This, surely, is a very official apology. It also seems to be widely supported: if the reactionary Daily Mail can publish an article concluding that a statue of Turing should be put up on the empty fourth plinth at Trafalgar Square, this says something.
But what? The British state of 2008 is a direct descendant of if not practically identical with the British state of 1954, but will this apology have any practical effects on what's overall a very queer-friendly set of state policies? Doubtful. Will it have any effect on Turing's reputation? Not so, since it's his reputation that made this apology inevitable. Can it do anything for Turing himself, a man whose body was so badly violated that suicide was--as he saw it--his only way out? Of course not.
The apology made by Brown to Turing is based in partisan politics, of course, the need to recognize a past wrong if somewhat uselessly coinciding with the ability to shore up some part of one's support base. "I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him"? This can have great effects, as seen by the catharsis of Canadian First Nations and Australian Aborigines upon their national governments' apologies for past mistreatment. But still, what will the practical consequences of this apology be, in terms of future policy-making? Followup's essential if words like these are to mean anything, I think
(Britons, am I missing something cultural or political here?)
UPDATE (7:06 AM) : As![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
creases suggests, my use of "catharsis" in connection to the reaction of Canadian First Nations to the recent apology is overstated. Call it instead the "appreciation."
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown apologized Friday for the "inhumane" treatment of Second World War code-breaker Alan Turing, who was convicted of gross indecency for being homosexual at a time when it was illegal in Britain.
A mathematician, Turing helped crack Nazi Germany's Enigma communications code, which was a turning point in the war.
He was later convicted of gross indecency for having sex with a man and forcibly treated with female hormones to reduce his sex drive. Turing committed suicide in 1954 at the age of 41.
Turing was also known for his pioneering work on artificial intelligence and computer science, including his development of the "Turing Test" to measure whether a machine can think. One of the most prestigious honors in computing, the $250,000 US Turing Prize, is named for him.
"The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely .… We're sorry, you deserved so much better," Brown said in his apology published Friday in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, as well as on the prime minister's office website.
This, the culmination of a campaign, saw an open letter from the Prime Minister himself get published. This, surely, is a very official apology. It also seems to be widely supported: if the reactionary Daily Mail can publish an article concluding that a statue of Turing should be put up on the empty fourth plinth at Trafalgar Square, this says something.
But what? The British state of 2008 is a direct descendant of if not practically identical with the British state of 1954, but will this apology have any practical effects on what's overall a very queer-friendly set of state policies? Doubtful. Will it have any effect on Turing's reputation? Not so, since it's his reputation that made this apology inevitable. Can it do anything for Turing himself, a man whose body was so badly violated that suicide was--as he saw it--his only way out? Of course not.
The apology made by Brown to Turing is based in partisan politics, of course, the need to recognize a past wrong if somewhat uselessly coinciding with the ability to shore up some part of one's support base. "I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him"? This can have great effects, as seen by the catharsis of Canadian First Nations and Australian Aborigines upon their national governments' apologies for past mistreatment. But still, what will the practical consequences of this apology be, in terms of future policy-making? Followup's essential if words like these are to mean anything, I think
(Britons, am I missing something cultural or political here?)
UPDATE (7:06 AM) : As
creases suggests, my use of "catharsis" in connection to the reaction of Canadian First Nations to the recent apology is overstated. Call it instead the "appreciation."
