Reparations aren't even on the table for discussion in the US. As a matter of fact, there isn't even a table to put them on. Or a house to put the table in. Or a city to build the house in. That's how far we are from having an even semi-serious discussion about reparations in this country. If you think right-wing, white victimhood is a thing now, just imagine what it would be like if there was even an inkling of a chance this could happen. They'd lose their goddamn minds.
So since the Celts where either killed, and therefore have no decendents to present a claim, I have no responibility?
The Celts where also illiterate, so there is no way they could prove anything anyway, I have no responsibility?
Lack of proof/lack of decendents = no responibility?
The thing is the solution is EVERYONE responsible, not no one. Somewhere in the past some of my ancestors killed some of yours, and some of yours killed some of mine. No need for proof, it happened. Everyone responsible to everyone else.
Invoking the dead language of an imperialist power does not give an argument any more validity.
At this point I seriously can't tell if you are pulling my leg or not. I don't think Rome was just "imperialist power". I believe it is a model of Western cilivization.
As for dead language: "onus probandi" means that the one that claims some fact that entails some legal consequences must prove that fact, and "in dubio pro reo" means that any doubts we can't dispell during trial must be decided in favor of accused. So you don't have to worry about Celts taking your home, because they have to prove that it was stolen from them, and that it was your ancestors who did that. And if there are any doubts we can do nothing about, they'll play for you.
I tend to refrain from explaining terms I used because I was told that it seems like I'm patronising people I'm talking to. I didn't mean to seem arrogant, I just wanted to avoid that. I apologize if it did not look so.
How would one even go about reparations? Are all white people assumed slavers? I can trace my lineage back far enough to prove my family never owned black slaves. What about people who can't afford a geneologist? What if records of any kind are lost? This is a veritable pandora's box of racism and ill-will. All to punish people who committed no crime.
Invoking the dead language of an imperialist power does not give an argument any more validity.
At this point I seriously can't tell if you are pulling my leg or not.
Because I point out the ridiculous implications of what you are saying?
I don't think Rome was just "imperialist power". I believe it is a model of Western cilivization.
You believing something doesn't make it true.
As for dead language: "onus probandi" means that the one that claims some fact that entails some legal consequences must prove that fact, and "in dubio pro reo" means that any doubts we can't dispell during trial must be decided in favor of accused. So you don't have to worry about Celts taking your home, because they have to prove that it was stolen from them, and that it was your ancestors who did that. And if there are any doubts we can do nothing about, they'll play for you.
And what has that to do with morallity? Right and wrong? Nothing. You are saying that if you carry out a massacre be sure to leave no survivors.
It sounds to me that you are more interested in helping lawyers earn lots of money than anything to do with morality.
I tend to refrain from explaining terms I used because I was told that it seems like I'm patronising people I'm talking to. I didn't mean to seem arrogant, I just wanted to avoid that. I apologize if it did not look so.
No, you thought that by arguing in a language few people understand that no one would be able to challenge you. Pretty much the same reason lawyers still use Latin.
Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn. - I think that pretty much proves my point.
if you benefit directly from wrongdoings of your ancestors, it's your personal responsibility
This is 100% incorrect. The actions of your ancestors, no matter how recent, have absolutely nothing to do with you and you bear zero guilt or culpability for their actions. One example cited earlier was "what if your father robbed a bank then later gave some of the money to you?". Clearly, if you know the money came from the robbery you should return it but if you were completely unaware of it--your father robbed the bank while you were an infant then buried the money for 10 years before giving some of it to you--then you may keep that money unless you discover its source. Following that logic, that you bear some of the culpability of your father, should you also be put in jail if you *don't* return the money, even if you have absolutely no idea of how it came to be in his possession? How far back in the family history does this inherited culpability go? Your grandfather? Your great-grandfather? Your great-great-grandfather even though you probably never met him?
I am actually an example of just such a person. I have stated before that my grandfather owned a construction business in Texas during the late 70s to mid 80s, so it is highly likely that he hired illegal immigrant workers for some of his crews. Given that I was a child/young teenager at the time, do I bear responsibility for his actions? Of course not--I didn't hire them, I didn't pay them in cash under the table, etc. If I didn't do it then I am not guilty of it.
The same logic applies to both slave owners and slaves from the past. Can you *prove* that a random white person had ancestors who owned slaves? Can you *prove* that a random black person had ancestors who were slaves? In some cases this is possible but it depends entirely upon extant records; however, in general the answer is "no".
In the broader context, seeking to assign blame to things our ancestors did winds up assigning blame to everyone in the world. Pick any nation at random. At some point in that nation's past they committed atrocities and/or owned slaves. It doesn't matter whether that happened 200 years ago or 2,000 years ago--everyone would wind up being guilty. If we then have to start paying reparations then who pays whom first? Which atrocities were worse and thus get assigned more penalty to pay?
People who are concerned about slavery in the past need to stop worrying about the past and worry about now, because slavery still exists and is going on in various parts of the world even as I type this. What happened in the past is tragic, yes, but it is more tragic to be concerned about events which happened back then when things just as bad are happening right now and we can put a stop to them. You cannot change the past--time travel is not possible--and you cannot change the future--those events have not happened yet--but you can change the present.
@Mathsorcerer - I already covered doubts and criticisms you raise in my previous comments. EDIT: I'll try to write some more elaborate - and hopefully coherent - answer tomorrow (or rather today - it's after midnight in Poland).
if you benefit directly from wrongdoings of your ancestors, it's your personal responsibility
This is 100% incorrect. The actions of your ancestors, no matter how recent, have absolutely nothing to do with you and you bear zero guilt or culpability for their actions. One example cited earlier was "what if your father robbed a bank then later gave some of the money to you?". Clearly, if you know the money came from the robbery you should return it but if you were completely unaware of it--your father robbed the bank while you were an infant then buried the money for 10 years before giving some of it to you--then you may keep that money unless you discover its source. Following that logic, that you bear some of the culpability of your father, should you also be put in jail if you *don't* return the money, even if you have absolutely no idea of how it came to be in his possession? How far back in the family history does this inherited culpability go? Your grandfather? Your great-grandfather? Your great-great-grandfather even though you probably never met him?
The key words are, "any reasonable person would know." Money and it is earned is traceable. If it happened recently enough, (father/grandfather) the court maybe able to make a case out of it, for you, the holder, to at least return the money.
I am actually an example of just such a person. I have stated before that my grandfather owned a construction business in Texas during the late 70s to mid 80s, so it is highly likely that he hired illegal immigrant workers for some of his crews. Given that I was a child/young teenager at the time, do I bear responsibility for his actions? Of course not--I didn't hire them, I didn't pay them in cash under the table, etc. If I didn't do it then I am not guilty of it.
This is a completely different example. If it can be proven that the owner of the businesses hired illegal immigrants in the past and the business benefited from it, than the current business owner can be held responsible for it. The business (which still exists) is being charged, not the owner.
And that what it comes down to, traceability, accountability, and past reparation.
Canada's residential schools are a good example of this. The government apologized, the churches involved apologized a reparation package was given to those directly effected by the schools were given, however communities and families are still suffering from what the Canadian government and are understandably still angered about it.
This leads to protests, like the one held on parliament hill (or Turtle Island) during Canada's 150. How these activist handled the situation might have been wrong (however it gave them the coverage that they needed to get their message out) but many of the points they raised are still viable and true such as The Canadian/British government never buying, or acquiring the land where Parliament stands from the Algonquin Tribes.
No one is saying, even the Algonquins, the Canadian government should pay for the land now, in full, at its current retail price, but something should be done to offer an olive branch for the slight. It shouldn't just be pushed down further into history where people can shrug and say, that happened a 1000 years ago. The "players" involved (Algonquin Tribe, Canadian Government, British Monarchy) are still in existence today. It is just finding what that "something" should be.
The same can be said about businesses that benefited from the slave trade (such as @Fardragon's example of the museum). Reparation can be just an acknowledgement that slaves were part of its creation and a plaque with all the known names of the slaves that helped build the place. Having a section of the museum dedicated to the slave trade and it's history and the British involvement in it (all the way up to its abolishment), showing visitors the truth about maybe reparation enough.
Hi, sorry to interrupt this discussion about reparations and such. I thought some reparations had been made in the past. A quick search shows that a formal apology for slavery and Jim Crow was issued by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008 when Democrats had the majority. Democratic President Bill Clinton officially apologized for the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiments in 1997.
Today's leaders probably would not apologize for slavery so that was just a moment in time unfortunately. They're all about taking America back to a time when it was great you know before things like apologies were made etc. So progress had been made in the past but today's leaders gloss over those times. There are still problems for today and were even back then but progress was made but we're now backsliding.
Anyway, wanted to bring this up about the Trump because he still is still president and the GOP majority tolerates his corruption and bad behavior.
Remember this tweet that seems to have no basis in fact, no "wiretapping" exists:
I wonder if he feels the same indignation about Donald Trump Jr. meddling in the very sacred election process by meeting a Kremlin connected Lawyer with the intent to get damaging information on Clinton. During the very extremely sacred election process that Donald Trump took as a very sacred process.
Apologies don't quite amount to reparations, but they are a symbolic show of goodwill. For most crimes, there is never an apology.
Fun fact: Japan has issued roughly one official apology from a high-ranking government official every year for 70 years for the Empire of Japan's war crimes. Not that the Chinese ever notice, much less care.
Japan also recently issued reparations to Korean "comfort women," receiving in exchange a promise from South Korea that those reparations would settle the issue after so many years of controversy. I hope the agreement lasts; South Korea and Japan have too much in common for South Korea to feel like it has to sleep with one eye open.
More fun facts: Germany payed reparations to Israel in the 1950s, and, in 2010, finally finished paying off the WWI reparations that were imposed on it (rather unfairly, to be honest) at Versailles in 1918.
Donald Trump Jr. now seems to have put evidence of what could be a treasonous conspiracy in, what else....an email. Whatever I guess, I'm not even gonna elaborate on it much further, because I'm frankly sick of being laughed at for being perpetually right in regards to this story. Another incident of changing narratives and total lies apparently being told to cover-up nothing I guess. Though if you are still on the no collusion train, you might want to give some thought as to WHY the right-wing media in this country over the last month has morphed from "there was no collusion" to "collusion isn't a big deal anyway". By Labor Day collusion will be as American as apple-pie and baseball.
Donald Trump Jr. now seems to have put evidence of what could be a treasonous conspiracy in, what else....an email. Whatever I guess, I'm not even gonna elaborate on it much further, because I'm frankly sick of being laughed at for being perpetually right in regards to this story. Another incident of changing narratives and total lies apparently being told to cover-up nothing I guess. Though if you are still on the no collusion train, you might want to give some thought as to WHY the right-wing media in this country over the last month has morphed from "there was no collusion" to "collusion isn't a big deal anyway". By Labor Day collusion will be as American as apple-pie and baseball.
You may not realize it, but the BIG news in the world these days is not the collusion between Donald Trump senior campaign advisors that somehow Trump himself didn't know about. His sons, campaign and Russia not the top story on right wing media.
The big story is actually the FBI investigation into Jane Sanders trying to get a loan or something for a college she used to work at when at the time maybe she wasn't allowed to do that or something because timing. I don't really know but it's the BIG news. I mean sure it's not like she was personally profiting. And it's not like people were staying at her hotels or she was holding campaign fundraisers for herself at her own hotels where he could charge people for stuff and make a profit and take in campaign donations at the same time. But yeah that Jane Sanders - that's the big news.
@Mathsorcerer - I already covered doubts and criticisms you raise in my previous comments. EDIT: I'll try to write some more elaborate - and hopefully coherent - answer tomorrow (or rather today - it's after midnight in Poland).
No pressure--you don't *have* to respond to me unless you feel like it. I never *demand* that anyone respond to anything I say.
Which is why I included the caveat "until you discover its source". How far back in time does "possession" go, anyway? If my grandfather stole something (he didn't, but let's just follow the example), its original owners never manage to find the thief, and the story gets passed down from grandfather to father to son (me) that this object (whatever it is) was purchased was back in such-and-such year then what do we do? It was still technically stolen but those of us who inherit it have no reason to suspect that it was stolen and thus we never try to uncover its past and see whether it was legitimately purchased...unless we are supposed to begin treating all family heirlooms as potentially stolen property, a idea which is ludicrous.
Of course, moving forward in the future it is always easier--and better for everyone involved--for people not to engage in activities which will require reparations or apologies at some point.
*************
All I can say about the e-mail in question is that it looks bad for Junior, as well as possibly Kushner and Manafort.
Apologies don't quite amount to reparations, but they are a symbolic show of goodwill. For most crimes, there is never an apology.
Fun fact: Japan has issued roughly one official apology from a high-ranking government official every year for 70 years for the Empire of Japan's war crimes. Not that the Chinese ever notice, much less care.
Japan also recently issued reparations to Korean "comfort women," receiving in exchange a promise from South Korea that those reparations would settle the issue after so many years of controversy. I hope the agreement lasts; South Korea and Japan have too much in common for South Korea to feel like it has to sleep with one eye open.
More fun facts: Germany payed reparations to Israel in the 1950s, and, in 2010, finally finished paying off the WWI reparations that were imposed on it (rather unfairly, to be honest) at Versailles in 1918.
Japan's apologies have often been scrutinised according to the precise wording, but more problematic has been the country-internal narrative which has often contradicted those apologies. How the issues were covered in textbooks has been controversial for example. (Conversely China & SK have used the issue for internal political purposes as well of course...) Associations for the bereaved families of the Japanese war dead exerted a powerful influence in postwar Japanese politics which to some extent 'froze' the debate, along with other factors such as Emperor Hirohito's continuing reign.
On the issue of reparations & responsibility, when I was younger I did some volunteer work in Asia, partly out of a sense of responsibility for my own Imperial forebears. This was an overwhelmingly positive experience, changed my life in many ways, and made me feel that I'd mostly dealt with my feelings in a positive way, making great friends & learning much in the process. So issues like these don't have to be an entirely zero sum issue if we treat them in the right way. Post WWI the issue of reparations was rather less productively dealt with than post WW2, when Japan & Germany eventually became strong export economies. If we approach issues of historical injustice with the aim of building a better future together then we all gain.
Here in NC, monetary reparations are being paid to those in the forced sterilization programs we had going a while back. Not that it amounts to a hill-o-beans but I reckon it is an attempt, as what was taken cannot be returned.
Invoking the dead language of an imperialist power does not give an argument any more validity.
At this point I seriously can't tell if you are pulling my leg or not.
Because I point out the ridiculous implications of what you are saying?
I don't think Rome was just "imperialist power". I believe it is a model of Western cilivization.
You believing something doesn't make it true.
As for dead language: "onus probandi" means that the one that claims some fact that entails some legal consequences must prove that fact, and "in dubio pro reo" means that any doubts we can't dispell during trial must be decided in favor of accused. So you don't have to worry about Celts taking your home, because they have to prove that it was stolen from them, and that it was your ancestors who did that. And if there are any doubts we can do nothing about, they'll play for you.
And what has that to do with morallity? Right and wrong? Nothing. You are saying that if you carry out a massacre be sure to leave no survivors.
It sounds to me that you are more interested in helping lawyers earn lots of money than anything to do with morality.
I tend to refrain from explaining terms I used because I was told that it seems like I'm patronising people I'm talking to. I didn't mean to seem arrogant, I just wanted to avoid that. I apologize if it did not look so.
No, you thought that by arguing in a language few people understand that no one would be able to challenge you. Pretty much the same reason lawyers still use Latin.
Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn. - I think that pretty much proves my point.
Well, maybe he shall awaken, but he would not care about reparations, responsibility, and for the caring of others. An interesting choice for a quote given previous statements. But as far as lesser known languages go, I suppose so.
You may not get the reference as I'm not sure how familiar H.P. Lovecraft is in Poland, but that was an interesting riposte to your Latin quotes. Not sure if it's totally relevant since there are likely valid reasons for using Latin in law, but it was kind of funny...
Does meeting a foreign power to get damaging information on a campaign opponent constitute treason? Here's a link to a video from TyT that discusses that. Do you guys think Trump Jr. is guilty of treason?
Does meeting a foreign power to get damaging information on a campaign opponent constitute treason? Here's a link to a video from TyT that discusses that. Do you guys think Trump Jr. is guilty of treason?
I have seen half a dozen campaign vets from both the Clinton and Bush teams discuss this, as well as W. Bush's ethics lawyer. And they all said the same thing: If you are given oppo reasearch, or offered oppo reasearch by a foreign adversary, you do not take the meeting, you go to the FBI. As a matter of fact, the Gore team received Bush debate prep in 2000. They were suspicious and turned it in.
And the reasons aren't evn high-minded. The simple fact is that the risk of getting caught (before this point in history) working hand in hand with Russia to win an election would have been too great. Because any other single politician in history would have been destroyed by it. But nothing matters anymore.
Does meeting a foreign power to get damaging information on a campaign opponent constitute treason? Here's a link to a video from TyT that discusses that. Do you guys think Trump Jr. is guilty of treason?
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
I suppose it depends upon whether meeting someone who may (or may not) have connections to the Kremlin to receive potentially damaging information about a political opponent constitutes "adhering to an enemy of the United States" (the other clauses/conditions don't apply). The real problem with treason is that if the acts under consideration are not "levying war" then "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" is really subjective. Is an enemy any government outside the United States and, by extension, any person in a position to represent that nation in some official capacity? What about cases of duress--"give me the secret documents or I will kill your child in front of you"?. Does "giving aid and comfort" mean under all circumstances, so that if I meet a diplomat from a country with whom we are at war and she is starving that I cannot give her a hot meal?
Anyway...it would take a Federal prosecutor to charge someone with treason. Just for the sake of argument, let us presume that just such a prosecutor files those charges against Junior today. How long will it be before Senior issues a pardon?
The actions of your ancestors, no matter how recent, have absolutely nothing to do with you and you bear zero guilt or culpability for their actions. One example cited earlier was "what if your father robbed a bank then later gave some of the money to you?". Clearly, if you know the money came from the robbery you should return it but if you were completely unaware of it--your father robbed the bank while you were an infant then buried the money for 10 years before giving some of it to you--then you may keep that money unless you discover its source.
No one is this thread I am aware of demands any kind of culpability for actions of somebody else. That would be (let's use that example) to demand to jail me for bank robbery. There is no argument about no guilt if you are unaware of the source of the money, as obviously it's a job of someone claiming that your wealth comes from robbery to prove it and until that point you are clean.
Following that logic, that you bear some of the culpability of your father, should you also be put in jail if you *don't* return the money, even if you have absolutely no idea of how it came to be in his possession? How far back in the family history does this inherited culpability go?
That problem is result of misunderstanding, because as I stated above, there is no argument about that kind of culpability. Culpability is in taking benefit from crime, not a crime itself.
In the broader context, seeking to assign blame to things our ancestors did winds up assigning blame to everyone in the world.
Not a crime, taking benefit from it. And once again - why would we apply that to some kind of machine, that points out random citizens and scrutinizes them? I do not think anyone in this thread wants that kind of solution. Crime always has a victim and causer, who are specific people.
People who are concerned about slavery in the past need to stop worrying about the past and worry about now, because slavery still exists and is going on in various parts of the world even as I type this. What happened in the past is tragic, yes, but it is more tragic to be concerned about events which happened back then when things just as bad are happening right now and we can put a stop to them.
But those two things do not exclude each other, do they? And as I said - I see that kind of argument often used as a way to avoid responsibility of white Westerners. Today is shaped by past, we can't ignore it, can't just "move on" as it never existed. And it affects people. There are people living *right now*, whose families had land in Poland, and who did nothing wrong and were unjustly robbed of that land. And are we going just to shrug and say "tough luck, eh?", while living on that land?
And as I said - I see that kind of argument often used as a way to avoid responsibility of white Westerners. Today is shaped by past, we can't ignore it, can't just "move on" as it never existed. And it affects people. There are people living *right now*, whose families had land in Poland, and who did nothing wrong and were unjustly robbed of that land. And are we going just to shrug and say "tough luck, eh?", while living on that land?
The question of time frame is definitely valid--the situation you describe in Poland is different specifically because there are people who are alive right now who had land/valuables taken from them at that time. All reasonable efforts should be made to return that land/those goods to those family members because those events are "recent" (relatively speaking). A similar situation exists in Florida where many people were upset when Obama started to normalize relations with Cuba--there are people in Miami who had their family belongings stolen either by Bautista or Castro and who managed to make it to Florida with their lives and nothing else.
When I say "move on" or "get over the past" I mean things in more distant time frames. Your ancestors did something to my ancestors 200 years ago? *shrug* I don't care--at that point the oldest living relative of mine I ever knew (specifically great-grandparents) probably didn't know any old relatives from when they were young who were alive at that time, so worrying about it or being upset about it is a waste of energy.
On a completely unrelated topic, I never got to visit Poland as much as I would have liked.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
This is curious. The language is both rather broad and rather narrow. You could sabotage an election, infect the U.S. military networks and infrastructure with a crippling virus, or do all manner of awful things to the country and the government, and yet, if you weren't working with an "enemy" of the U.S., it wouldn't constitute treason (though it might be any number of other crimes). Yet, if you gave CPR to a dying terrorist in Afghanistan, or let a spy into your home, it would constitute treason.
It sounds like you could disprove the charge of treason simply by showing in court that you were either (1) working alone or (2) working with people who weren't actually enemies of the United States.
@Artona "And as I said - I see that kind of argument often used as a way to avoid responsibility of white Westerners."
But why is it okay to expect someone to be responsible for something that someone else did before they were ever alive? You're trading the exploitation of one person for another.
The key word is "aid." It is broad and covers almost any act that benefits a third party.
The other key word is "enemy." If by chance you save the life of a foriegn diplomat from Russia, it can be passed as they are not an Enemy. Cold relationship, hostile at the most. The only country I think would be considered enemy st this time frame is North Korea since America is technically still at war. But if you save a diplomat's life from North Korea, it could be spun that that particular diplomat was in talks to end hostilities and not an enemy of the state.
Comments
The Celts where also illiterate, so there is no way they could prove anything anyway, I have no responsibility?
Lack of proof/lack of decendents = no responibility?
The thing is the solution is EVERYONE responsible, not no one. Somewhere in the past some of my ancestors killed some of yours, and some of yours killed some of mine. No need for proof, it happened. Everyone responsible to everyone else.
At this point I seriously can't tell if you are pulling my leg or not.
I don't think Rome was just "imperialist power". I believe it is a model of Western cilivization.
As for dead language: "onus probandi" means that the one that claims some fact that entails some legal consequences must prove that fact, and "in dubio pro reo" means that any doubts we can't dispell during trial must be decided in favor of accused.
So you don't have to worry about Celts taking your home, because they have to prove that it was stolen from them, and that it was your ancestors who did that. And if there are any doubts we can do nothing about, they'll play for you.
I tend to refrain from explaining terms I used because I was told that it seems like I'm patronising people I'm talking to. I didn't mean to seem arrogant, I just wanted to avoid that. I apologize if it did not look so.
It sounds to me that you are more interested in helping lawyers earn lots of money than anything to do with morality. No, you thought that by arguing in a language few people understand that no one would be able to challenge you. Pretty much the same reason lawyers still use Latin.
Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn. - I think that pretty much proves my point.
Let this end.
I am actually an example of just such a person. I have stated before that my grandfather owned a construction business in Texas during the late 70s to mid 80s, so it is highly likely that he hired illegal immigrant workers for some of his crews. Given that I was a child/young teenager at the time, do I bear responsibility for his actions? Of course not--I didn't hire them, I didn't pay them in cash under the table, etc. If I didn't do it then I am not guilty of it.
The same logic applies to both slave owners and slaves from the past. Can you *prove* that a random white person had ancestors who owned slaves? Can you *prove* that a random black person had ancestors who were slaves? In some cases this is possible but it depends entirely upon extant records; however, in general the answer is "no".
In the broader context, seeking to assign blame to things our ancestors did winds up assigning blame to everyone in the world. Pick any nation at random. At some point in that nation's past they committed atrocities and/or owned slaves. It doesn't matter whether that happened 200 years ago or 2,000 years ago--everyone would wind up being guilty. If we then have to start paying reparations then who pays whom first? Which atrocities were worse and thus get assigned more penalty to pay?
People who are concerned about slavery in the past need to stop worrying about the past and worry about now, because slavery still exists and is going on in various parts of the world even as I type this. What happened in the past is tragic, yes, but it is more tragic to be concerned about events which happened back then when things just as bad are happening right now and we can put a stop to them. You cannot change the past--time travel is not possible--and you cannot change the future--those events have not happened yet--but you can change the present.
EDIT: I'll try to write some more elaborate - and hopefully coherent - answer tomorrow (or rather today - it's after midnight in Poland).
The key words are, "any reasonable person would know." Money and it is earned is traceable. If it happened recently enough, (father/grandfather) the court maybe able to make a case out of it, for you, the holder, to at least return the money.
This is a completely different example. If it can be proven that the owner of the businesses hired illegal immigrants in the past and the business benefited from it, than the current business owner can be held responsible for it. The business (which still exists) is being charged, not the owner.
And that what it comes down to, traceability, accountability, and past reparation.
Canada's residential schools are a good example of this. The government apologized, the churches involved apologized a reparation package was given to those directly effected by the schools were given, however communities and families are still suffering from what the Canadian government and are understandably still angered about it.
This leads to protests, like the one held on parliament hill (or Turtle Island) during Canada's 150. How these activist handled the situation might have been wrong (however it gave them the coverage that they needed to get their message out) but many of the points they raised are still viable and true such as The Canadian/British government never buying, or acquiring the land where Parliament stands from the Algonquin Tribes.
No one is saying, even the Algonquins, the Canadian government should pay for the land now, in full, at its current retail price, but something should be done to offer an olive branch for the slight. It shouldn't just be pushed down further into history where people can shrug and say, that happened a 1000 years ago. The "players" involved (Algonquin Tribe, Canadian Government, British Monarchy) are still in existence today. It is just finding what that "something" should be.
The same can be said about businesses that benefited from the slave trade (such as @Fardragon's example of the museum). Reparation can be just an acknowledgement that slaves were part of its creation and a plaque with all the known names of the slaves that helped build the place. Having a section of the museum dedicated to the slave trade and it's history and the British involvement in it (all the way up to its abolishment), showing visitors the truth about maybe reparation enough.
Today's leaders probably would not apologize for slavery so that was just a moment in time unfortunately. They're all about taking America back to a time when it was great you know before things like apologies were made etc. So progress had been made in the past but today's leaders gloss over those times. There are still problems for today and were even back then but progress was made but we're now backsliding.
Anyway, wanted to bring this up about the Trump because he still is still president and the GOP majority tolerates his corruption and bad behavior.
Remember this tweet that seems to have no basis in fact, no "wiretapping" exists:
I wonder if he feels the same indignation about Donald Trump Jr. meddling in the very sacred election process by meeting a Kremlin connected Lawyer with the intent to get damaging information on Clinton. During the very extremely sacred election process that Donald Trump took as a very sacred process.
Fun fact: Japan has issued roughly one official apology from a high-ranking government official every year for 70 years for the Empire of Japan's war crimes. Not that the Chinese ever notice, much less care.
Japan also recently issued reparations to Korean "comfort women," receiving in exchange a promise from South Korea that those reparations would settle the issue after so many years of controversy. I hope the agreement lasts; South Korea and Japan have too much in common for South Korea to feel like it has to sleep with one eye open.
More fun facts: Germany payed reparations to Israel in the 1950s, and, in 2010, finally finished paying off the WWI reparations that were imposed on it (rather unfairly, to be honest) at Versailles in 1918.
The big story is actually the FBI investigation into Jane Sanders trying to get a loan or something for a college she used to work at when at the time maybe she wasn't allowed to do that or something because timing. I don't really know but it's the BIG news. I mean sure it's not like she was personally profiting. And it's not like people were staying at her hotels or she was holding campaign fundraisers for herself at her own hotels where he could charge people for stuff and make a profit and take in campaign donations at the same time. But yeah that Jane Sanders - that's the big news.
Of course, moving forward in the future it is always easier--and better for everyone involved--for people not to engage in activities which will require reparations or apologies at some point.
*************
All I can say about the e-mail in question is that it looks bad for Junior, as well as possibly Kushner and Manafort.
On the issue of reparations & responsibility, when I was younger I did some volunteer work in Asia, partly out of a sense of responsibility for my own Imperial forebears. This was an overwhelmingly positive experience, changed my life in many ways, and made me feel that I'd mostly dealt with my feelings in a positive way, making great friends & learning much in the process. So issues like these don't have to be an entirely zero sum issue if we treat them in the right way. Post WWI the issue of reparations was rather less productively dealt with than post WW2, when Japan & Germany eventually became strong export economies. If we approach issues of historical injustice with the aim of building a better future together then we all gain.
It sounds to me that you are more interested in helping lawyers earn lots of money than anything to do with morality. No, you thought that by arguing in a language few people understand that no one would be able to challenge you. Pretty much the same reason lawyers still use Latin.
Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn. - I think that pretty much proves my point.
Well, maybe he shall awaken, but he would not care about reparations, responsibility, and for the caring of others. An interesting choice for a quote given previous statements.
That's got to be the first quote I've ever heard from the Cthlthu mythos in a debate. Awesome!
@Artona:
You may not get the reference as I'm not sure how familiar H.P. Lovecraft is in Poland, but that was an interesting riposte to your Latin quotes. Not sure if it's totally relevant since there are likely valid reasons for using Latin in law, but it was kind of funny...
And I'm pretty sure saying "Hastur" three times beats every Latin quote out there.
Just saw this wow what a take down
Does meeting a foreign power to get damaging information on a campaign opponent constitute treason? Here's a link to a video from TyT that discusses that. Do you guys think Trump Jr. is guilty of treason?
And the reasons aren't evn high-minded. The simple fact is that the risk of getting caught (before this point in history) working hand in hand with Russia to win an election would have been too great. Because any other single politician in history would have been destroyed by it. But nothing matters anymore.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
I suppose it depends upon whether meeting someone who may (or may not) have connections to the Kremlin to receive potentially damaging information about a political opponent constitutes "adhering to an enemy of the United States" (the other clauses/conditions don't apply). The real problem with treason is that if the acts under consideration are not "levying war" then "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" is really subjective. Is an enemy any government outside the United States and, by extension, any person in a position to represent that nation in some official capacity? What about cases of duress--"give me the secret documents or I will kill your child in front of you"?. Does "giving aid and comfort" mean under all circumstances, so that if I meet a diplomat from a country with whom we are at war and she is starving that I cannot give her a hot meal?
Anyway...it would take a Federal prosecutor to charge someone with treason. Just for the sake of argument, let us presume that just such a prosecutor files those charges against Junior today. How long will it be before Senior issues a pardon?
No one is this thread I am aware of demands any kind of culpability for actions of somebody else. That would be (let's use that example) to demand to jail me for bank robbery.
There is no argument about no guilt if you are unaware of the source of the money, as obviously it's a job of someone claiming that your wealth comes from robbery to prove it and until that point you are clean.
That problem is result of misunderstanding, because as I stated above, there is no argument about that kind of culpability. Culpability is in taking benefit from crime, not a crime itself.
Not a crime, taking benefit from it. And once again - why would we apply that to some kind of machine, that points out random citizens and scrutinizes them? I do not think anyone in this thread wants that kind of solution. Crime always has a victim and causer, who are specific people.
But those two things do not exclude each other, do they?
And as I said - I see that kind of argument often used as a way to avoid responsibility of white Westerners. Today is shaped by past, we can't ignore it, can't just "move on" as it never existed. And it affects people. There are people living *right now*, whose families had land in Poland, and who did nothing wrong and were unjustly robbed of that land. And are we going just to shrug and say "tough luck, eh?", while living on that land?
When I say "move on" or "get over the past" I mean things in more distant time frames. Your ancestors did something to my ancestors 200 years ago? *shrug* I don't care--at that point the oldest living relative of mine I ever knew (specifically great-grandparents) probably didn't know any old relatives from when they were young who were alive at that time, so worrying about it or being upset about it is a waste of energy.
On a completely unrelated topic, I never got to visit Poland as much as I would have liked.
It sounds like you could disprove the charge of treason simply by showing in court that you were either (1) working alone or (2) working with people who weren't actually enemies of the United States.
"And as I said - I see that kind of argument often used as a way to avoid responsibility of white Westerners."
But why is it okay to expect someone to be responsible for something that someone else did before they were ever alive? You're trading the exploitation of one person for another.
The other key word is "enemy." If by chance you save the life of a foriegn diplomat from Russia, it can be passed as they are not an Enemy. Cold relationship, hostile at the most. The only country I think would be considered enemy st this time frame is North Korea since America is technically still at war. But if you save a diplomat's life from North Korea, it could be spun that that particular diplomat was in talks to end hostilities and not an enemy of the state.