Acountability for the Sins of the (Fore)Fathers

[Corwin]

In another thread, ThatGuy made this statement:

"On the topic of slavery; I guess I think about it like this: How long do you keep paying back an entire race for something as horrible as slavery? Am I really accountable for the horrors my ancestors and fore fathers carried out?"

This seemed like a good topic for discussion, since it's a major point of political contention here in Australia as well over our treatment of the Aborigines many years ago and how much we owe then now for what our forefathers did to them!!

[dteowner]

I can think of several groups looking for reparations of some form or another:
Aborigines
American Indians
American Blacks
German Jews (well, "German" might be too restrictive, but y'all know what I mean)

It's an arbitrary limit, but I would say once all actual aggrieved parties are dead, the clock's run out. That would work out to a 90 year limit, give or take. 3-5 generations will move thru in that time period, which is plenty of time to recover.

[Corwin]

Then why is the 'guilt trip' still being laid on us after more than a hundred years and why should I feel guilt over something done before I was born?

[Pladio]

So it never happens again. So you remember you and/or your children don't do something like it again.

[nameless hero]

I'll probably get in trouble for saying this. Actually, I really shouldn't involve myself in this conversation as some could get offended.

Corwin, I visited Australia last year. I went diving at the Great Reef. There was this awesome aboriginal tour guide. He was really cool. When I visited Townsville, an Abo spat at me. I read up on some of the history of Australia, and came to the conclusion that the native aborigines where conquered by the english. And why should Australians have to apologize for beating them? Also, why should aborigines be given special rights?

[Yates1968]

same issue is a big one in the usa.

[Corwin]

Our Aborigines are similar in many ways to the American Indians, with many of the same issues. One of the things that annoys many Australians, is that the Aborigines get special treatment, yet frequently fling it back in our face. A good friend of mine spent 5 years as a public health nurse in an isolated aboriginal community and came home frustrated and totally disillusioned. The gov't built them houses- they chopped them up for firewood; the gov't gave them money for food etc- they chartered a plane full of beer and drank it dry. When the gov't many years ago took some aboriginal children away from drunk and abusive parents and put them with foster families who made sure they got an education and job opportunities, we're now told that these children were stolen and WE should feel guilty for it happening and apologise to them!!!!! There are many more issues, but you get the drift.

[Squeek]

The whole thing's a mess in the US. Blacks went from slavery directly into severe poverty and stayed there for a long time. That only began to change in the 1960s. Who can blame them for wanting reparation?

I think we've done about enough already, though. Laws began changing here over 40 years ago. You have to wonder why they haven't had more effect by now. Bill Cosby claims too many of today's inner-city blacks aren't doing enough to help themselves. That made a lot of blacks mad (but most folks outside of the black community think Cosby's right).

IMO, change was implemented too slowly and disparately. Among everyday people the facts are in dispute, and that's why the value of those changes is downplayed and unappreciated. As a group, blacks don't typically come out to vote, and it's been too easy for politicians to give other issues priority.

[JemyM]

How long will we blame Germany for Hitler?
How long will we blame Russia for Stalin?
How long will we blame the Jews for killing Jesus?
How about the sterilization of native americans in the US?

Can a child be blamed for the actions of their parents?

I say that once the victims have shaped up, it's time to drop the blame.

[Ionstormsucks]

Then why is the 'guilt trip' still being laid on us after more than a hundred years and why should I feel guilt over something done before I was born?
I think this has less to do with guilt than with responsibility. People tend to forget fast... too fast (I'm German, I kinda know what I'm talking about). After a couple of years slavery wasn't all that bad, imperialism wasn't that bloody, and the holocaust a mere side-scenario of WWII.
Very often we do not name the thing we're talking about. The holocaust means genocide, the colonization of America means genocide, as does the colonization of Australia. People seem to downplay all these things after a few years went by.
No matter what group we're looking at, the native Americans, Aborigines, the black society in America or the jews - their living conditions were influenced by the acts commited against them, the consequences of these acts being visible even today.

Inheritance is a tricky thing. We take it as granted that we inherit our parents possessions although we haven't earned the money, or bought the house that is handed down to us. Our right of inheritance is based solely on the fact that we were relatives. When it comes to guilt or responibility however we insist that it cannot be inherited... strange uh?

My opinion is that guilt cannot be inherited, responsibility on the other hand should. I never killed a jew, so no, I'm neither directly guilty nor responsible, but indirectly I have a moral responsibility that people will never forget what happened during WWII. And if that means paying tax money for the hundreth monument that reminds of the holocaust - so be it.

[ThatGuy]

How long will we blame Germany for Hitler?
How long will we blame Russia for Stalin?
How long will we blame the Jews for killing Jesus?
How about the sterilization of native americans in the US?

Can a child be blamed for the actions of their parents?

I say that once the victims have shaped up, it's time to drop the blame.

I know I'm playing devil's advocate saying this, but I like to look at it from each perspective (as long as it doesn't seem to silly), so here's a thought on that; How, or who decides when the victims have gotten to the point where they're shaped up or equal?

I have no answer myself for anything like that.

Inheritance... I guess it all depends on the person, guilt and responsibilites are something we might inherit, but only if we allow ourselves to. I've seen both sides, those who feel deeply responsible, and those who don't feel they owe any responsibility, it really depends on who you talk to.

[nameless hero]

How long will we blame the Jews for killing Jesus?

Quite long. Have any of you seen south park's "Passion of the Jew"???

[Corwin]

Hitler was actually Austrian, not German, but that's a minor point!! I don't hate Germans, Japanese, or anyone that 'my' side fought against in the wars. My British uncle who fought on the front lines in WW2, loved Germany and eventually married a German. Hate is destructive and should not be perpetuated. Guilt and blame are bi-products that we don't need either. I certainly would never belittle the holocaust in any way, but I don't hold German people today responsible for it. Why then do other groups hold 'us' responsible for things which happened before we were born?

[Pladio]

I think you should know that American Indians haven't received everything they used to have. So actually, you're still not letting them get their inheritance, instead you see American Indians getting less and less than thay used to.
No, YOU shouldn't feel guilty. You should give them what's rightfully theirs. That means land, land and more land.

Same with aboriginals, they used to own lots of land. Corwin, you say, your government gave them money and they drank beer. What else do you want them to do? Money is not one of their customs. You have two options. Let them live in peace with their land, customs and traditions or educate them in your (, our, Western) ways.

Jews, they never had land, except for Israel/Palestine/Judea. However, some Jews in Europe were extremely rich. Some of them got killed, others not. The fact remains that banks are not wiling to give the money back to the Jews. German banks make a majority out of these banks, along with Polish ones.

So, Jews, Indians and Aboriginals, aren't living their life to their greatest potential. Why? Because the governments or banks are withholding stuff from all these groups.


Please, don't get me wrong.
I know most banks won't ever give that money back to the Jews.
I know the governments won't give most of the land back to the Indian Americans or Aborignals.

But it does stay in the mind of those involved.

[txa1265]

The thing of persistence of memory is a whole different subject ... while it is important that we remember so that history doesn't repeat itself, at what point did punitive action become positive action?

I believe that each issue is complex - the issues of African Americans aren't so simple as 'leftovers from slavery' or 'laziness' or 'continued disenfranchisement' or 'addiction to entitlements' ... but rather a mixture of all of them.

[nameless hero]

No, YOU shouldn't feel guilty. You should give them what's rightfully theirs. That means land, land and more land.

Pladio, but they lost. When some nation loses a war, they lose land. So they can't just request it back. Or am I completely missing some point here? Isn't this the case?

[Ionstormsucks]

Why then do other groups hold 'us' responsible for things which happened before we were born?

I think much has to do with the fact that the consequences of these things are still visible. No one can hold you directly responsible for what your forefathers did - at least not from an objective point of view. But let's not forget emotions play a big role here, and these bring such conflicts to a more subjective level. I think that is partly understandable.

If you look at the facts than you have to admit that neither the Aborigines, nor the native Americans, nor the black society in America (or other ethnic minorities) have the same opportunities as the ethnic majority. Theoretically they may have, but practically...?
The white ethnic majorities that live in Australia and America today live there in relative wealth and comfort - because their forefathers did what they did. They cannot just say that they have nothing to do with the whole situation because they are still profiting from what their forefathers did.

Again, I don't think you can be held responsible for what your forefathers did. What you can be held responsible for is the situation as it is right now - or better, how you are dealing with it.

There can be no doubt that many governments today try to help their ethnic minorities - very often however they aim to assimilate these minorities. Assimilation however is a very imperialistic concept. What do you do if these people don't want to be assimilated?

[Pladio]

It wasn't a war. It was a massacre.
The Spanish came with rifle, guns, horses, armor...
For every Spaniard who died 20 or more Indians died.
They killed countless, raped countless, of men, women and children. I think that that isn't a war. That's a massacre. I believe that if Germany would have won the war against Europe (without thinking of the Holocaust) then they would have the right to keep the land. But they massacred millions of people. They raped others and they killed children.
They (the Nazis) don't deserve anything.


Now, I know the Americans aren't the Spanish, but the fact remains, the English were colonialists the same way the Spanish were. Most of the land was conquered through massacre.
Some was bought, some was surrendered. But most of it was through massacre.
I wish I had a different word for massacre, so this text wouldn't have been that repetitive, but I can't think of one right now.

[txa1265]

Specific to native people living 'separate but equal' lives, at what point do we say 'integrate or STFU'. We pay them whether they work or not, we support their infrastructure, and we pay to keep their institutions intact. The land that they have sucks. But at what point do we say - look, you need to build your own success as so many of your people have individually chosen to do?

I don't know the answer - but I do know that Bill Cosby is right, it is up to each individual to own their own life, not to play victim to some unseen force. Yes there is disparity of education, but I have known kids from those schools who have worked hard and succeeded. It takes drive, initiative and solid parenting. Too much of the rest of it is laziness and excuses on one side and guilt on the other.

[nameless hero]

It wasn't a war. It was a massacre.

Interesting. I sort of agree with you there, but still think that they (redskins) should of done a better job at defending themselves. This goes for aboriginals as well. Poland fought well against Germans (from what i've read). It too was a massacre. But they managed to fight back and regain lost land. And I don't think Poland ever requested an apology from Germany (not 100% sure though).

[Pladio]

It wasn't really a massacre against the Polish. It was a massacre against the 'inferior' races. Germany/Poland was a war. The mass executions were a massacre.

[txa1265]

It wasn't really a massacre against the Polish. It was a massacre against the 'inferior' races. Germany/Poland was a war. The mass executions were a massacre.
So what is the boundary - if the opponents are armed and fight back? And then what - does the systematic push-back and elimination and encampment of Native Americans become simply a war of domination and acceptable then? I'm getting confused ...

[Pladio]

If I understand your question correctly, then a massacre is :
-When people get killed without any way or almost any way of defending themselves.


A war is:
- when two sides fight against each other (mostly soldiers vs soldiers).

Main Entry: 1mas·sa·cre
Pronunciation: 'ma-si-k&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French
1 : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty


Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war


(Merriam Webster)


I might have not understood your question, so tell me...

[Ionstormsucks]

It wasn't a war. It was a massacre.
The Spanish came with rifle, guns, horses, armor...
For every Spaniard who died 20 or more Indians died.
They killed countless, raped countless, of men, women and children. I think that that isn't a war. That's a massacre. I believe that if Germany would have won the war against Europe (without thinking of the Holocaust) then they would have the right to keep the land. But they massacred millions of people. They raped others and they killed children.
They (the Nazis) don't deserve anything.

This is some rather strange logic. Your right to keep conquered land depends on how you conduct war? Name one war in which no innocent people were killed, in which no women were raped, or other war crimes were commited? These wars don't exist.
From a modern point of view imperialistic wars automatically break international law. Even wars that are lead to defend your own country only allow a possible occupation of a foreign country for a certain amount of time. You cannot just say I won the war, I'll keep the land.
Thus said I don't think that you can apply nowadays moral standards to wars that took place several hundred years ago. You also have to be careful not to simplify the situation too much. Lewis and Clark were not De Soto.
You also have to take into acount that the first settlers did not come to America with the intention to violently take the land from the Indians. They just saw a huge country that had more then enough space to provide for both the native Americans and the settlers. As it turned out later on the cultural differences were too big to allow a pieceful co-existence.


Interesting. I sort of agree with you there, but still think that they (redskins) should of done a better job at defending themselves. This goes for aboriginals as well. Poland fought well against Germans (from what i've read). It too was a massacre. But they managed to fight back and regain lost land. And I don't think Poland ever requested an apology from Germany (not 100% sure though).


You cannot compare the situation of Poland with that of the native Americans or Aborigines. They had to fight a war which they could not win. The diseases that the settlers brought over decimated them to a degree that there were hardly any people left who could actually fight back. I would also imagine that Polish forces during WWII did not have to fight the Nazis with tomahawks and bows.

[txa1265]

I might have not understood your question, so tell me...

I understand the definitions, but am trying to figure the context. I don't think any of this stuff is so clear cut.

[Pladio]

It's not clear at all and Ionstorm, I know you can't simplify things, I'm trying to point out that we have to remember what happened, so it won't happen again.
All those massacres have to be stopped.

[Ionstormsucks]

It's not clear at all and Ionstorm, I know you can't simplify things, I'm trying to point out that we have to remember what happened, so it won't happen again.
All those massacres have to be stopped.

I can very much agree on that one!

[Squeek]

The white ethnic majorities that live in Australia and America today live there in relative wealth and comfort - because their forefathers did what they did. They cannot just say that they have nothing to do with the whole situation because they are still profiting from what their forefathers did.Aren't you forgetting about immigration? All of my great grandparents came here from Europe. That's not that unusual in the US. That means most blacks have deeper roots here than mine. Doesn't Australia have massive immigration too? Here in California the majority will change very soon from white to hispanic due to illegal immigration, and hispanics are already influential.

It's not about reaping the benefits of our forefathers as much as its about eliminating roadblocks to equal opportunity. Then there's the hatred, but that's another story.

Oh, and get real about comparing the US and Australia today to Hitler's Germany, ISS. No way.

[Ionstormsucks]

Aren't you forgetting about immigration? All of my great grandparents came here from Europe. That's not that unusual in the US. That means most blacks have deeper roots here than mine. Doesn't Australia have massive immigration too? Here in California the majority will change very soon from white to hispanic due to illegal immigration, and hispanics are already influential.

Sorry mate, I do not see your point? What has immigration to do with it? You immigrate and afterwards you'll either belong to an ethnic majority and prfoit from it, or you'll belong to an ethnic minority yourself and might have your very own problems in a foreign country. You really might clarify the above statement - I don't see the point sorry.


Oh, and get real about comparing the US and Australia today to Hitler's Germany, ISS. No way.
I'm not comparing Hitler's Germany to Australia or the US today. That's absolute nonsense. If you can show me a paragraph where I have written something like that I will remove it at once.

[Squeek]

I'm not comparing Hitler's Germany to Australia or the US today. That's absolute nonsense. If you can show me a paragraph where I have written something like that I will remove it at once.The holocaust means genocide, the colonization of America means genocide, as does the colonization of Australia.My point about immigration is that immigrants don't just assimilate along racial lines. That's not how it works over here, anyway. The Irish faced huge discrimination, for example. Most of them came over here with just the clothes on their backs, and they didn't benefit from anyone else's forefathers.

[Ionstormsucks]

The holocaust means genocide, the colonization of America means genocide, as does the colonization of Australia.

Well, first of all - if that were a direct comparison (which it very obviously is NOT), it would mean that I compared Nazi Germany with a development that took place during 16th, 17th and 18th century in the US and in Australia. In no way would it mean that I'm comparing Hitler's Germany with the US and Australia today. Sorry mate, but that's such a nonsense.
Now, as I said this is obviously NOT a direct comparison. There are several reasons for that. As I stated in a former post, moral is a value that has changed and developed over time. The moral standards of the 16th century when De Soto paid the native Americans a visit (and butchered a few of them) were different form the moral standards of the early 20th century when Hitler decided that he had to get rid of all the Jews. I also explained in a former post that Lewis and Clark were not De Soto, although they considered the Indians to be rather primitive, they tried to stay on friendly terms with them. They even carried an antidote to the pox that killed many of the Indians. In the same post I also mentioned that the first settlers did not have the intention to violently take the land from the Indians or to kill them all...
What later on followed however was not as glorious as the Lewis and Clark expedition. So as you can see I very much differentiate between what certain people did to certain other people at certain points in time.

But no matter how I'm looking at it - in 1500 there were several millions of Indians living in North America (exact numbers can only be estimated and vary from 5 millions to 18 millions), in 1900 there were about 240.000 left. Now, there is a discourse going on if you can call the development during the time of the settlement a genocide or not (it's a technical term - and has of course an exact definition). But even those historians that say that the term genocide is not appropriate have to admit that actions took place at that time which could be considered as genocidal acts.
I think it doesn't matter if you think this was genocide or not, fact is at the beginning of the 20th century there were just not many Indians left (certain tribes did no longer exist). And fact is that it was not their own decision to reduce their numbers in such a drastic amount.

Similar things could probably be said for Australia.

Germany was a totally different situation. It was indeed genocide per definition (actually WWII lead to the definition of the term genocide). I would never compare this kind of mass murder with what was going on in other countries at other points in time. It was an ideological mass murder conducted in a very organized way. It was aiming specifically at eradicating a certain race - that is what makes it more sinister and evil.

But we cannot deny that these incidents have certain points in common. The Nazis wanted to eradicate the jews. The native Americans and the Aborigines were almost eradicated - admittedly the governments did not have the intention to do it, but it nearly happened anyway.
And this is were I'm drawing parallels: No matter if you're looking at the Jews, the native Americans, or the Aborigines (there are many more examples btw) - the lives of these ethnic groups were influenced and shaped by these incidents, and they are influenced and shaped by these incidents until today.

My point about immigration is that immigrants don't just assimilate along racial lines. That's not how it works over here, anyway. The Irish faced huge discrimination, for example. Most of them came over here with just the clothes on their backs, and they didn't benefit from anyone else's forefathers.

Ask yourself whom your forefathers asked for permission to stay in the US - the US Government or the native American tribes? I think the answer should be obvious.

Mate, believe me, I'm far from blaming anyone for anything. I think every nation in the world has blood on its hands. But this thread started out with Corwin's question why ethnic minorities (in his case it's the Aborigines) blame the descendants of white settlers (which are now the ethnic majority) for something that happened before they were born. I try to find answers to that question. I do not make accusations...

[Squeek]

OK, I understand the point you're making now. I was confused by your use of the present tense while referring to the past. That's still making comparisons to Hitler's Germany, and I still think it's a stretch.

You can expect more from humanity now then you did in the past, especially the distant past. That's called progress. Germany progressed a lot between the 16th century and the 1940's, don't you think?

What happened to native Americans isn't fair, even if you don't consider it genocide (and I don't). They probably won't be getting any land back, though. The opportunity to fix that problem properly has passed, and that's definitely too bad.

[Ionstormsucks]

OK, I understand the point you're making now. I was confused by your use of the present tense while referring to the past. That's still making comparisons to Hitler's Germany, and I still think it's a stretch.

Ahh ok, I'm sorry then. But you have to understand that English is not my first language. I think it would be clear since I was referring to events in the past. You also have to see that I am not comparing acts of violence, but the consequences that resulted from them. I think there is a big difference. You have to read posts in their context. After all we are not talking about whose crimes were worse, but why victims of crimes are reacting the way they do.


You can expect more from humanity now then you did in the past, especially the distant past. That's called progress. Germany progressed a lot between the 16th century and the 1940's, don't you think?

Exactely. That's why I said that you cannot judge 18th or 19th century imperialism according to modern standards. De Soto was certainly following a different moral compas than Lewis and Clark did, and people nowadays have even higher moral standards.
We still have to be very careful though when using such an argument. It explains certain things, but I don't think it is an excuse for what people at the time did
True, moral standards have developped over time. But basic moral standards are in place for a long time now. Take for example the Bible that says that you should not kill or steal. People at the 16th, 17th, and 18th century were not totally ignorant that what they were doing was wrong.

On the other hand you have to realize that our modern laws concerning war crimes, especially genocide, and crimes against humanity are relatively young. The term crimes against humanity was first used after WWI and was put into action at the tribunals (Nürnberg) that followed WWII. The influence that the tribunals of Nürnberg had on international law should not be underestimated.

The sad thing is that genocide still takes place, even today. Think about Yugoslavia or Africa for example.

[txa1265]

Think about Yugoslavia or Africa for example.
I try to make my kids appreciate the absolute opulence of life they live in relative to the majority of the world, the lack of fear for their lives on a daily basis and so on.

[Pladio]

And people are indifferent about it. They don't care it's happening !

[ThatGuy]

And people are indifferent about it. They don't care it's happening !

Because the average person doesn't have a whole lotta power to stop that, we don't have our own militaries to send over to make sure people aren't taken advantage of like that. Sure, we can pay the dollar a day or whatever, but I doubt that fixes the problem of leaders who have taken advantage of that country for their own good and brought it down like that. It'd be nice if a person with real power did care, and actually did do something, but other countries have enough problems of their own I'm sure.

[Corwin]

Immigration is an interesting issue that has been raised. I'm an immigrant to Australia. I arrived here with $50 and one suitcase fresh out of University and now like most middle class people, I have plenty of assets, but little cash!! I worked hard for over 30 years to arrive at this position. I didn't even live, or have parents who lived here at the time the Aborigines were being exploited, so I don't feel any sense of guilt.

This country is FULL of immigrants (it's an island :) ) many from England, though the US and Asia is rapidly overtaking them. Ethnic minorities have flourished here and all have been made welcome; this is basically, a very friendly country full of easy going, friendly people. Yes, we have our racists, bullies, etc, as do ALL societies/countries, but they are a minority. The worst we have had recently, is pockets of religious intolerance (mainly with Muslims) but those issues are based more on historical problems between immigrants from hostile European countries (eg Serbs and Croats) rather than inherent issues in our society. Still, blame is being laid at the feet of the 'normal' aussie (at least in the media, but that is a different issue)!!

[nameless hero]

Ok, after all this discussion, I have finally figured it out. What happened in the past cannot be changed. A minority of people in todays society request the majority of people to apologize. This is because they have too much time on their hands and nothing to do. The only way to solve this major issue, is for all those minorities to acquire a version of Gothic 3. They will get so "into" the game, that they will forget about the past, and focus on attaining the 5 sacred artifacts.

[Corwin]

Ah, finally the answer to World Peace!! :)

[Ionstormsucks]

I demand that Piranha Bytes apologizes for a very buggy version 1.0!!!;)