Abstract

After human rights violations, states frequently employ the discourse of “closure” or “drawing a line under the past” as an exculpatory device that situates the wrongdoing in an ontologically discreet and normatively inferior past, a maneuver I term “performative temporal segregation.” Recognizing the United Kingdom’s 2010 apology for Bloody Sunday as an example of temporal segregation, I draw on interviews with relatives of Bloody Sunday victims and other stakeholders to examine how the apology’s recipients have variously resisted and embraced the performative segregating of time. Although many relatives remain enthusiastic about the apology, temporal segregation is challenged by others in three ways: (1) by deriding the apology, (2) by framing it as a stepping stone toward justice rather than an endpoint, and (3) by critically reassessing it over time. I thereby demonstrate that victims and governments can have irreconcilable conceptions of the purpose of apology as a transitional justice mechanism. Nevertheless, participants almost universally embraced closure as a desirable and achievable objective, primarily through prosecutions. This, ironically, entails recognizing that the colonial state can dispense justice and arbitrate on temporality.

Highlights

  • The Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry runs to over 5,000 pages and enters into minute detail about the events of the day in 1972 when 13 innocent people on a civil rights march were massacred by the British army.1 It is paradoxical to think that a detailed public account of an event might function to marginalize, rather than evoke, the past

  • Recognizing the United Kingdom’s 2010 apology for Bloody Sunday as an example of temporal segregation, I draw on interviews with relatives of Bloody Sunday victims and other stakeholders to examine how the apology’s recipients have variously resisted and embraced the performative segregating of time

  • Many relatives remain enthusiastic about the apology, temporal segregation is challenged by others in three ways: (1) by deriding the apology, (2) by framing it as a stepping stone toward justice rather than an endpoint, and (3) by critically reassessing it over time

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry ( the Report) runs to over 5,000 pages and enters into minute detail about the events of the day in 1972 when 13 innocent people on a civil rights march were massacred by the British army.1 It is paradoxical to think that a detailed public account of an event might function to marginalize, rather than evoke, the past. Drawing on semistructured interviews I conducted with relatives of those killed and prominent members of the Bloody Sunday Justice Campaign about Cameron’s apology, this article asks: How do relatives respond to such hegemonic segregating of temporality?

Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.