Slashdot Mirror
Alan Turing Apology Campaign Grows
chrb writes "Several British news sources have recently reported on the growing campaign that calls for an apology to Alan Turing for his persecution by the British government. The petition to the Prime Minister was started by John Graham-Cumming, who has also written to the Queen requesting a Knighthood for Turing, but admits that a pardon is 'unlikely,' saying, 'The most important thing to me is that people hear about Alan Turing and realize his incredible impact on the modern world, and how terrible the impact of prejudice was on him.'"
Try picking the next 20 people you see on the street and asking them who Alan Turing was. Then ask those same people who George Patton was. Then realize that Turing had about as much to do with winning WWII as Patton did.
I am officially gone from
It's true that it's just a symbolic act at this point. But symbolism does matter sometimes. Such apologies are a reminder of how we can lose our way, particularly in paranoid times. That's a not-unimportant lesson for our post-9/11 era.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
You also have to realize there is a fairly sizable percentage of our population who don't know even the basics about science history or history itself. Look at the Jaywalking segments on Jay Leno (a biased sample of course) and poll the people around you. There are plenty of people who don't know what major historical figures like Eisenhower, Truman, the Roosevelts, or even Lincoln really did. I bet not one person that I work with has even heard of Alan Turing or the ENIGMA machine.
It's not a literal apology to Turing. This wouldn't make sense, he's dead. This is an acknowledgment of wrongdoing. It goes toward making sure it never happens again. This apology is for living people. It's the UK government saying "Don't persecute gays, because they might be awesome and invent computers."
Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
How was that prosecution wrong?
No, seriously, this is not a troll. Far from it. Laws, at any point in time, are a reflection of society's values. So we think gay people are okay and should not be prosecuted. Are you truly willing to retroactively put a country through a guilt trip for having had a different opinion, what, almost a hundred years ago?
If so, will you be willing to pay the price should we ever come to the conclusion that paedophiles are just another natural part of human sexuality? Because that, my friend, is the very possible danger you are facing with that opinion.
Seeing as nobody responsible for those laws back then is still in power, how does it make sense to demand an apology of today's government and thus of today's society?
No, if you perceive your ancestors behaviour as wrong, you should honour their victims by making sure it DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN!
Just about every muslim country practiced slavery until 1960. The vast majority to 1970. And between 3 and 5 still practice it today. And everybody considers it laughable to demand an apology. ALL of them still consider any sexual deviance (and tons of quite normal acts) criminal offences, and the large majority applies the death penalty, and regularly execute homosexuals.
It goes further than that. Slavery was imposed on large parts of Africa by "the caliphate", the center of the muslim religion, and it's highest moral authority. Really the apology should come from islam itself, or it's politcal representation, and since the last caliph apostated, not from the caliphate, but from muslim religious institutions. Talk about a laughable suggestion.
Of course these people use violence against anyone who complains to loudly ... and guess what ... all "moral fighters" of the left shut up. They actually defend the people persecuting their compatriots. Being a liberal in Iran or any muslim country is of course not a job with the most huge of life expectancies.
One can only conclude that this is an issue pushed by cowards, and for the sole purpose of acquiring power.
Yeah, the hereditary guilt doesn't really make sense... on a personal level. But isn't there a legal principle of "continuity of the state" for which the (government of) England that harassed and prosecuted Alan Turing is the very same that still exists today?
I don't have a sig.
Turing was gay? Wow, surprised I haven't heard of that yet. Though, now when someone is homophobic, I can ask them if they like using computers and if so, tell them they have a gay man to thank for a lot of the theory behind them as well as the allies winning WWII. That should shut them the hell up.
-SaNo
What happened to Turing is abhorrent, but is there a single person *currently* working in the government or the judiciary that forced him to undergo persecution and treatment? The only people who should apologise are those who had direct decision-making power about his particular case, or the people who created the laws used against Turing.
People are not guilty for the sins of their fathers.
Or, maybe, we could get over this notion that guilt is hereditary and stop asking people to apologise for things that were done by others often before they were born. If you want someone to apologise to Turing (or, rather, to you about Turing, because he's dead and therefore doesn't care) then why not go after the people who still persecute homosexuals. Better yet, get them to apologise to people who are still alive for things that they've actually done.
You filthy islamophobe !
(note, this is sarcastic, just intended to underscore the hypocrisy of people who demand apologies from those who saw their mistake and fixed it, like for example the English and Americans, and not demand anything from the people, like muslims for example, who still have not seen how despicable their behavior is, and still en-masse attack homosexuals, practice slavery, ... the works. The problem is, just about any religion except Christianity has always, for the whole of their history, practiced slavery, execution of homosexuals (note that christianity is the only religion where homosexuality is not punishable by death in it's law*, whereas both sharia** and hindu law*** prescribe stoning), or ... and that sort of stuff gets in the way of proclaiming how eeeeeeeeeeevil christianity is)
* the punishment for homosexuality in canon law is a mild form of banishment. You don't have to leave the country, but you can't be seen in normal society. Not abiding by the punishment rules, needless to say, does carry heavier punishment (though still not execution).
** yes technically there are differences about how homosexuals should be executed. 50% of muslim scholars (2 schools) believe in stoning, and the other muslims are split 50-50 between throwing homosexuals of tall buildings and letting walls collapse on top of them
*** again there is no uniform agreement on how homosexuals should be executed, and there is little agreement on who should do it. There is no doubt, however that it should be done (versus sharia, where killing homosexuals is a duty of every individual muslim****)
**** only the western concept of law has the idea of the government-violence monopoly, neither sharia, nor hindu law have such a thing. Hindu law, however does prescribe who are "police" and a "normal" hindu should not try, according to his religion, to execute homosexuals, his duty limited to aiding in their capture. By contrast it is a muslim's "sacred duty" to not only capture, but execute any homosexuals they find, everywhere, anywhere, even in foreign countries for example. Muslim states attempt to execute this demand of islam by letting normal people participate in islamic executions. In Iran, you can literally go and participate in the execution of a woman or a homosexual, which occur on regular basis. Or, these provisions of islam are used to justify mob-executions of homosexuals within western states, and are translated in a duty of muslim to protect gay-killers from any western police force.
...but still the same head of state.
Or, maybe, we could get over this notion that guilt is hereditary
It's much easier for Americans to do that than Europeans and Asians. The western hemisphere countries are far less in touch with their cultural histories and derive much less of a sense of identity from the acts of their ancestors.
The US in particular loves to reinvent itself every generation and refuses to apologize or take responsibility for the actions of previous generations, and as a country, it is one of our greatest strengths. Germany still has a massive national complex about the Third Reich, and France shares in that embarassment over Vichy. The guilt is so extreme that these countries are still willing to impinge core principles like freedom of speech regarding Nazi paraphernalia and literature. Japan has a similar complex over the Sino-Japanese wars and the Rape of Nanking. The Brits and the Russians both engage in doublethink over mourning the loss of their empires while believing that they are better off without them.
In contrast, the US has nearly zero national guilt for Hiroshima and Nagasaki...and are probably the only country that could manage to do that and stay guilt free. When we are whipped up in a nationalistic fervor, we consider ourselves infalliable. We don't live in the past.
The drawback to all of this is that the US, along with many of the Western Hemisphere countries, keep making the same damn mistakes every single generation. Iraq? Afghanistan? Yeah, we belong there as much as we did in the Philippines or Vietnam. Our "glorious little wars" never turn out so well. Gay marriage? Yeah, we're having the same fucking arguments verbatim that our grandparents had over interracial marriage. Banking deregulation? Yeah, that worked out well in the late 1920s. Socialized healthcare? What, we've argued about that before? Nyah, Nyah, I can't hear you!
It comes down to a choice between studying history, feeling guilty for the awful things of the past, and violating your core principles to apologize for them or ignoring history, staying true to your principles, and doing the same awful things your parents did. For whatever reason, countries seem forced to pick from those two paths.
Why, yes I would.
Yet after millions of years, it didn't. Go figure.
The last theory on it I heard is that homosexuality frees up a lot of time that would otherwise be spent on breeding and caring for their own children. That means they have time to support their tribe/relatives, improving the group's chances of survival. And their genes still get passed on by their straight relatives.
Not all traits have to be always beneficial in all times and places. Sickle cell anemia is a well known example.
Actually, the evidence currently suggests that there is probably some neurological basis towards a predisposition to believe in religion. There is some evidence that tending towards belief in the divine would have benefited early groups of humans, thus creating an evolutionary drive towards belief. Studies of separated twins show that belief or not belief in the pair is not just random, inferring a genetic basis of belief. See for example Why do we believe in God? by Robert Winston, or Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests. There are many other papers in a similar vein.
So, maybe people don't choose to be feel religious after all, in much the same way as people don't choose to feel homosexual.
>whereas both sharia** and hindu law*** prescribe stoning
Would you care to quote any references where "Hindu Law"* prescribes stoning as a penalty for homosexuality?
I am sure you are unaware of explicit depictions of homosexuality in stone sculptures in Hindu temples** in India.
Here is one:
http://www.kamat.com/database/cd-roms/erotic_arts/3670.htm
*There is no such a thing as "Hindu Law". There is no single religious text in Hinduism like the Koran or Bible. There is no religious law book that a majority of the Hindus follow.
**Yes, temples.
Would you argue that from a scientific, logic point of view, homosexuality is not a flaw? I mean, if ever I saw a trait that evolution would suppress, this would be it.
Yes, I would argue that it's not a flaw. If it were a flaw evolution would suppress it, as you say, but obviously it doesn't. So there must be some advantage to it.
From memory: Homosexual behaviour has been observed in over 400 species of vertebrae. Gay geese couples steal eggs from neigbouring nests and succesfully raise the young. Male giraffes have group sex. There are monkeys who live in all-female groups where more than 90% of the sex is between females, they even chase away males who want some sex. They still manage to reproduce.
Sex isn't just for reproduction, it has an important social function too. Only a fraction of human sex actually results in children, for the most part we just do it to enjoy ourselves. It helps to bond, to release tensions, and so on.
This is how I like to think it works. In human societies men have to be able to get along with other men, and women have to be able to get along with other women. We have to be able to feel affection for others of our own sex, they're not just competition. Affection is related to love. There is variation between individuals in every aspect of our physical and mental make-up. Our ability for love and affection for the same and for the opposite sex varies too. In some people the same-sex tendency is stronger. Even if that reduces their individual chances for reproduction, that may well be compensated by a disadvantage for individuals who are less succesful because they can't cooperate with others of the same sex, but only see them as competition. This would be enough for humanity to keep producing homosexual men and women.
I think you mistake organizations for the people who make them up.
Let us say a corporation takes an illegal action. Everyone within it who was responsible for that resigns and is subsequently replaced. That corporation is still on the hook as an organization, even though none of the individuals within it was responsible.
An apology to Alan Turing would be, in effect, an official statement that "We realize we were wrong to persecute someone because he was gay. We have learned that lesson and will not do it again." It's perfectly appropriate for the British government to make that statement, because the British government did the persecuting in the first place. It doesn't matter if its members have changed.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Well, that comparison is slightly unfair. Gallileo, Mozart and Aristotele are infamous for their works which can be (and are) reproduced again and again in modern times. Gallileo's achivements are inventions which are infamous and some of them are still in use. Mozart created works of music you can still play and repeat to make them come alive again. Aristotele's works of philosophy can still be read and still inspire people.
Sports achivements can't be repeated. I can't box like Muhammad Ali to make the old man famous again and honor his heritage. I can't run like Paavo Nurmi to show the world what a great Marathon runner he was (besides, his times would today only let you come in with the bulk). It's something where you have to have been there. You can't explain or show just how good and important this figure was without film material showing how he did it.
It's a bit unfair to say that we don't remember big sportsmen of the renaissance. Not to mention that sports didn't have the importance it has today.
Well... technically we do remember sports heros, considering what was sports in these days. You can still read up what knights won the important tournaments of their time and some of those names are still remembered. Unfortunately it's hard to distinguish between fact and fiction in some of those reports.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Buddhism : The Dalai Lama is the leader of the Tibetan people and is revered by millions of Buddhists worldwide. At a press conference in 1997-JUN, he commented: "From a Buddhist point of view [lesbian and gay sex]...is generally considered sexual misconduct". Additionally, historically buddhist societies have indeed executed homosexuals, and there are. Yes, today the Dalai Lama urges tolerance and compassion, even though he does keep condemning homosexuality. Historically this support for tolerance by Buddhist leaders has changed at the drop of a hat, to the point were wars were started overnight. Buddhism is what the buddha says, first and foremost, and the buddha is considered to be a live human being. Whether Buddhism tolerates homosexuality is dependant on their current leader, and historically that nearly always meant homosexuals die. Today the Buddhist leader is caught between a rock and a hard place and is in no position to enforce rules like this, chances are he would do something to stop "sexual misconduct" if he could.
Wicca is the religion of the ancient Germanic peoples in Europe. No offence, but do you honestly believe they did not execute homosexuals ? Are you delusional ? They executed people for looking at someone the wrong way, or wearing "strange" clothes (read travel stories of early roman travellers). Yes I suppose that if a Wiccan warchief with a big axe was homosexual then it would have been allowed after a few good fights and a few victims. Otherwise, not quite.
Taoism is what the religion of Imperial Japan was called, and they *did* execute homosexuals. Taoism is also a particularly ill-defined religion, even though Imperial Japan is generally considered part of it.
From wikipedia : "Shamanism comprises a range of traditional beliefs and practices concerned with communication with the spirit world. A practitioner of shamanism is known as a shaman, pronounced". You're going to have to do better than that to define a religion ...
And if you consider a religion tolerant if any part of it tolerates a specific practice, even historically, then you'll find the taliban tolerate homosexuals. After all, they have a few sufi teachers they (supposedly) follow who not only tolerated, but actually encouraged homosexuality.
(note, this is sarcastic, just intended to underscore the hypocrisy of people who demand apologies from those who saw their mistake and fixed it, like for example the English and Americans, and not demand anything from the people, like muslims for example, who still have not seen how despicable their behavior is, and still en-masse attack homosexuals, practice slavery, ... the works. The problem is, just about any religion except Christianity has always, for the whole of their history, practiced slavery, execution of homosexuals (note that christianity is the only religion where homosexuality is not punishable by death in it's law*, whereas both sharia** and hindu law*** prescribe stoning), or ... and that sort of stuff gets in the way of proclaiming how eeeeeeeeeeevil christianity is)
* the punishment for homosexuality in canon law is a mild form of banishment. You don't have to leave the country, but you can't be seen in normal society. Not abiding by the punishment rules, needless to say, does carry heavier punishment (though still not execution).
Dude, do know anything about the history of the christian church? Prostitution, slavery, persecution of all manner of individuals (include torture and murder), purchasing "indulgences" in case you, say, wanted to murder someone, the christian church had it all. There's a small and shrinking minority of christians that still believe this kind of crap. You know what? That's true of the Muslim religion also. Saudi Arabia, as a fundamentalist state, is no worse than Spain and the Spanish Inquisition which wasn't abolished until the early 19th century. Given that the muslim religion is about the same age as the christian religion during the worse of it's persecutions I would say they are on schedule. The muslim religion is shifting to a much less intrusive doctrine and if you compare the timelines at about the same time and rate as the christian religion did.
Ask yourself this: What do you think was the basis for those laws for persecuting (and including castration) people like Turing? It sure as hell wasn't science or for the overall good of society. It was christianity.
Who is John Galt?
That's a lame excuse, Japan would have shitted their pants even if the USA had thrown the bomb on a non populated target, or at least a non civilian target. I don't know what happens with slashdot today, but tagging you insightful is too much.
It's not about legality, it is about morality. As somebody stated on this thread (and was modded flamebait!) an apology from a state, church or organization for something they did in the past is a big symbolic thing. Specially if the wound is still open. This is about what the British government did to homosexuals in the not so far past (there are still people alive from that time, you know), and guess what... what they did was legal, that was the point.
An apology means "we acknowledge that the laws we enforced in the past were wrong, we are aware of that and will try to not repeat that in the present".
There have been experiments with mice in large groups with unlimited food resources but not unlimited space. As the experiment progressed, the researches found more and more of the mice were asexual or homosexual as the population began to reach that space limit where it was becoming very difficult to walk without stepping on others. Maybe evolution uses it as a tool to curb population growth.