"A tribe in Papua New Guinea has apologised for killing and eating four 19th century missionaries under the command of a doughty British clergyman."

I came across an article in the Telegraph in regards to this tribe making a formal apology for an incident that had occurred in the 19th century. It certainly was a grisly event, but I have to wonder is an apology really necessary? Here is a snippet from the article:

The four Fijian missionaries were on a proselytising mission on the island of New Britain when they were massacred by Tolai tribesmen in 1878.

They were murdered on the orders of a local warrior chief, Taleli, and were then cooked and eaten.

The Fijians - a minister and three teachers - were under the leadership of the Reverend George Brown, an adventurous Wesleyan missionary who was born in Durham but spent most of his life spreading the word of God in the South Seas.

Thousands of villagers attended a reconciliation ceremony near Rabaul, the capital of East New Britain province, once notorious for the ferocity of its cannibals.

Their leaders apologised for their forefather's taste for human flesh to Fiji's high commissioner to Papua New Guinea.

Full Article Here

The article goes on further, and details the reaction, and actions of the missionaries including the burning down of tribal villages suspected in the murders. This is why I ask, was an apology necessary? Since these islands were known in that time period as Cannibal Isles was the decision to go, and preach there not a dangerous one in the first place, and therefore what occurred an "acceptable" risk?

Image Credit: Telegraph