When going over Davidson's original apology, I mentioned some issues with it, but there was one I did not address: his mortification was if people thought the outburst was intentional, rather than the problems caused by the outburst itself.
That continues with the issue of him not de-centering, but also focuses on intent, which is not particularly helpful.
If you are following "I am sorry" with "if" or "but," you are doing it wrong.
Now on to the second apology. Notice this headline:
That's a bit sensationalized, given the actual statement:
"Whilst I will never apologies for having Tourette syndrome, I will apologise for any pain, upset and misunderstanding that it may create.”
The press continues failing across multiple fronts.
We should also note that no one has asked him to apologize for having Tourette's.
One bold assertion I saw in the defense of John Davidson was that if a blind guy had spilled someone's drink in a bar, no one would have been upset.
I'm not sure that's true. Maybe it depends on whose drink it was, and how many they'd already had, but I think there could be some complaining and maybe even some fighting.
Another question asked multiple times in posts defending Davidson was whether you would expect an apology from someone in a wheelchair who ran over your foot.
Yes. Absolutely. That's the bare minimum of human decency.
These were hypotheticals posted as if the answers were obvious; people with disabilities have no responsibility for the ways in which said disability affects their interactions with others.
That is simply not true. Nor should it be.
Two examples were given (multiple times) from the film I Swear, which I have not seen.
One claim was that when Davidson was made an MBE, he said several inappropriate things on the way in and to the queen herself.
The posters using this example said that he apologized and then the queen said he didn't need to.
I have seen articles about what he said and that the queen was gracious, but none confirming that he apologized first:
https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a70693855/i-swear-true-story-john-davidson/
(Two other articles gave the exact same level of detail.)
It might be easier to be gracious when the other person makes the first step.
The other part referenced was that a young Davidson was constantly apologizing, making him depressed and suicidal. Because of that, a mentor told him to never apologize.
I know many people (and have been one) -- usually women -- who apologize for everything, taking responsibility for things that are not their fault. I think this is more of symptom of low self-esteem than a cause, but it's not helpful. It can be something to work on.
It is also important to note that you can cause harm without having bad intentions. Being able to recognize that and acknowledge it is a good thing.
It's hard to imagine that anyone other than a white man -- even one with a disability -- could think that never apologizing is a good path forward.
There is a wide range between what is within your control, and outside of it, and the differences between ignorance and flagrant disregard. It is nonetheless a good and human thing to understand when you have had a negative impact on someone and to try and rectify that.
Maybe one concern about apologizing is that it accepts responsibility. If you have caused harm but your intentions were pure, a continuation of that purity seems like it would require trying to fix the unintended harm.
Maybe you did not cause harm, but you were benefited by harm caused by others. For example, I am in a better position socially and economically because of the oppression of other groups. I should work for equality.
That gets into dangerous territory, because then there might be an acknowledgement that our lives (especially the good parts) are not simple matters of merit.
There is a humility that can come with acknowledging harm, whether it was intentional or careless or completely accidental. It allows healing and growth, but yeah, there can be discomfort with it.
That tends to be how healing and growth work.
One more little complaint about Davidson; in the second apology he mentioned reaching out to Jordan and Lindo privately... the outburst was public, and I think he could have done better publicly.
Some of his defenders mentioned that if he had tried apologizing right then there would have been more outbursts. That is probably true, but a prompt, better statement could have really been helpful. It could have been a blow against both racism and ableism.
There was a lost opportunity here, but there is always the opportunity to do better next time.
Related posts:
https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2026/03/learning-from-mistakes.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment