Apologies are meaningless unless they actually come from the people involved in carrying out the Act.
Guilt is not inherited. It makes apologies for the 18th century slave trade, or pardons for soldiers shot for cowerdice in 1914-18 pointless gestures (Bunnahabhain)

I tend to disagree. People argue about these things and ask for apologies quite often with a mind set on today and on more than an apology. The noble thinking mentioned in Azizi's mentioned is rare and only found on a personal level like in the case of Mr. Hawkins that is when it is a mere gesture with no costs except the apology itaself.

A pardon for a soldier shot for cowardice in 1939-1945 is relevant for their widows' pension (that's why Germany retrospectively declared those sentences injustice only quite recently when most widows were dead and the apology was cheap, says the cynic in me). When and why did Germany apologise for the Nazi crimes? When the preparatory talks about compensation were over at an acceptable price. Why do Poland and Chechia not apologise for the ethnic cleaning of Germans after 1945? Because those Germans (and their heirs) still insist upon ownership of their houses and lands.

Ifor has said clearly what this demand for an apology for slavery is about. As a compensation for the slave trade all the African debts should be cancelled. That's in the backs of the minds and not much else. Bobert has also implicitely posted what he thinks the implications of such an apology should be in the USA.

Descendants of the Moors have asked for an apology from Spain for the expulsion of the Moors from the Iberian peninsula some 500 years ago. At the first glance that looks like a decent demand and everybody asks why the Spanish King apologised in Israel for the expulsion of the Jews (also in 1492) but not in Morocco for the expulsion of the Moors. Well, if you read on what the descendants of the Moors want after the apology you understand. They want preferential treatment for immigration to Spain, that's why. The Jews did get the apology for they had no demand beyond that.

Apologies by countries are about present financial or other advantages. That's why they are so hard to get if the business deal behind it (how much costs us the apology and will you keep your mouths shut after that?) is agreed upon.

Apologies are much easier if there are only relatively few people to benefit from the consequences of an apolgy (if the conquerors of a country are now an overwhelming majority and the descendants of the former owners are few) or if all parties know that after the apology there will be no further costly demands (as in the Britain-Ireland case or in Azizi's story of the Bishop).

In all other cases apologies will only be given at either no costs or relatively low costs. I'm cynical but I fear I'm right here.

Wolfgang