Opinion Should countries apologize for past atrocities? Should they pay reparations?

[Islam Imamate]

Absolutely yes.

How far back into the past is too far though? @Sketch aside, I don't think anyone expects the government of Mongolia to apologize for the Mongol conquests for instance.

 

[Fawlty]

That's fair and I agree.

How about just formally apologizing for something like the Armenian genocide or even something that was of a smaller scale like the Amritsar massacre? What should be the statute of limitations on expecting such an apology?

Always apologize, imo. Especially if it happened under the current constitutional framework, or if the atrocity was explicitly denied by the rulers under the previous constitution. That kind of national self-reflection doesn't really have an expiration date.

 

[BarryDillon]

How far back into the past is too far though? @Sketch aside, I don't think anyone expects the government of Mongolia to apologize for the Mongol conquests for instance.

150-200 years seems fine to me. Also, even if it's from very long ago, I don't see how an apology is wrong.

 

[Fawlty]

No, not unless it is done right away. Anything else and you are just attaching money to a mostly empty gesture that does nothing to really rectify what happened.

I disagree strongly here. There are still people in America who are at a huge economic disadvantage due to slavery and segregation, and it would be righteous to reimburse them to fill in some of that gap. The problem is that it's not possible to do so in any kind of fair way.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

How far back does this go? Are there any places that haven't committed atrocities, conquered or been conquered numerous times? As an example native Americans there were hundreds of rival tribes. Who was there before the Sioux, Apache, Cherokee, etc. Do those tribes owe others any apologies or is only the most recent conquerors responsible for that. While I understand some things are much worse than others I'm more just making a point.

Mexico was asking for an apology from Spain. Does Mexico owe an apology to any previous inhabitants or have they committed any atrocities to others?

The people asking for reparations, do they plan on giving to the people that their people conquered or committed atrocities against or is there a time limit? If their people completely eradicated the previous inhabitants do they deserve reparations themselves?

 

[evansusmc2]

I lived in Japan for 3 years so I know about their mindset. They have been taught in school that "Everything that happened in the past is no longer important and we will all just move on." This was instituted into the school systems by the Japanese government since the 1970s.

The 1930s atrocities in China committed by the Japanese were taken out of the history books in the mid-2000s. I guess they just felt removing it from the books will make everyone (or at least the new generations of Japanese) just forget about it.

So thats why its been so difficult for Japanese to come to terms with the past atrocities. They either don't know or taught not to care.

 

[Broke Lester]

Around 15 years or so ago, when I was working in the jewellery business, I had a customer who was an elderly Jewish lady. One day when she was at the store, somehow the topic came up, and I still remember clearly what she said, "My parents were in Auschwitz and I don't want 1 fuck'n cent of their filthy money."

As an Armenian, who's relatives were killed in the Armenian genocide, I agree with with her but a fuck'n apology and acknowledgement would be nice.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Always apologize, imo. Especially if it happened under the current constitutional framework, or if the atrocity was explicitly denied by the rulers under the previous constitution. That kind of national self-reflection doesn't really have an expiration date.

I like the distinction you make in terms of the constitutional framework. As it relates to the Turks I find it somewhat odd that they don't apologize for the Armenian genocide since it was technically the Ottoman Empire that committed it and Republican Turkey took many steps to create a substantial and clean break from them, going as far as to change the script for their language. But for some reason on the issue of the Armenian genocide they get so defensive, why not repudiate since it makes the predecessor regime look even worse?

150-200 years seems fine to me. Also, even if it's from very long ago, I don't see how an apology is wrong.

Seems like a reasonable enough time frame.

 

[evansusmc2]

How far back into the past is too far though? @Sketch aside, I don't think anyone expects the government of Mongolia to apologize for the Mongol conquests for instance.

Just for comedic purposes I hope some country does. Mongolians are the most insensitive people on the planet.

 

[Taco Loco]

It's history, get over it. you pussy fucks!

 

[Islam Imamate]

How far back does this go? Are there any places that haven't committed atrocities, conquered or been conquered numerous times? As an example native Americans there were hundreds of rival tribes. Who was there before the Sioux, Apache, Cherokee, etc. Do those tribes owe others any apologies or is only the most recent conquerors responsible for that. While I understand some things are much worse than others I'm more just making a point.

Mexico was asking for an apology from Spain. Does Mexico owe an apology to any previous inhabitants or have they committed any atrocities to others?

The people asking for reparations, do they plan on giving to the people that their people conquered or committed atrocities against or is there a time limit? If their people completely eradicated the previous inhabitants do they deserve reparations themselves?

Well I posted three examples; the Amritsar massacre, the Armenian genocide, and the Rape of Nanking. Do you think its going too far into the past to expect an apology for those atrocities? Should any or all of the relevant states apologize for them?

 

[Sketch]

When does my landlocked country of Hungary get its apology or reparations from the Ottoman Empire.

Time frame or not (hundreads of years)

Plus the Mongolians with Genghis Khan.

 

[Kaybee]

I disagree strongly here. There are still people in America who are at a huge economic disadvantage due to slavery and segregation, and it would be righteous to reimburse them to fill in some of that gap. The problem is that it's not possible to do so in any kind of fair way.

I disagree wholeheartedly that past atrocities inflicted upon their ancestors should entitle someone economic compensation.

Everyone starts off in life with a mix of advantages and disadvantages, and it is irresponsible to single out one disadvantage and try to "level the playing field" by throwing money their way. What if you have crippling anxiety? What if you suffered a burned face as a kid and walk around looking like The Hound? Should those be "treated" by getting reimbursed too? You can't just quantify people's disadvantages and apply them as a blanket solution.

You are right in saying that it is impossible to reimburse people in any kind of fair way, and I suppose where we differ is that I believe that if it cannot be done fairly it should not be done at all.

 

[MaxMMA]

Which is kind of odd, I don't think I have ever admitted I did something wrong multiple times while not apologizing for it.

That's the difference, the decendants of these people didn't actually do anything to apologize for.

If you dig deep enough through the pages of history everyone will find people who wronged their ancestors horrifically. It's history, it's the present, and it's the future unless evolution/innovation somehow takes us above it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

That's the difference, the decendants of these people didn't actually do anything to apologize for.

If you dig deep enough through the pages of history everyone will find people who wronged their ancestors horrifically. It's history, it's the present, and it's the future unless evolution/innovation somehow takes us above it.

Well I don't think Indians are expecting all British people to apologize as much as they are expecting the state to. Unlike the Armenian genocide or the Rape of Nanking or the Holocaust, the regime that carried out the Amritsar massacre persists into the present day. The people massacred were technically subjects of the British Crown and I don't think its crazy to expect the British Crown to apologize for it.

 

[LEGS MAHONEY]

No its absurd. Essentially everyone will have to apologize to each other and pay out Unless we want to have some sort of time limit on when its let bygones be bygones and when it needs to be addressed and entertaining this in a logical matter is near improbable.

Further in this matter people more often than not like to play victim but when its time to adress their own nations wrong doings all the sudden its hold up hold up theres nuances here!

The old saying that the son doesn not inherit the sins of the father applies here. We just need to not let history repeat itself and thats all.

 

[Fawlty]

I disagree wholeheartedly that past atrocities inflicted upon their ancestors should entitle someone economic compensation.

Everyone starts off in life with a mix of advantages and disadvantages, and it is irresponsible to single out one disadvantage and try to "level the playing field" by throwing money their way. What if you have crippling anxiety? What if you suffered a burned face as a kid and walk around looking like The Hound? Should those be "treated" by getting reimbursed too? You can't just quantify people's disadvantages and apply them as a blanket solution.

You are right in saying that it is impossible to reimburse people in any kind of fair way, and I suppose where we differ is that I believe that if it cannot be done fairly it should not be done at all.

You can sometimes quantify the economic disadvantages from slavery and segregation in a number of reasonably fair ways provided you do it immediately or not long after. The rumored "40 acres and a mule" after the Civil War was a reasonable idea for reparations and it resonated strongly with the public. Had we paid all former slaves or their children a large sum in 1900, that would have been both doable and righteous. In the case of Japanese internment, it's trivially easy to put a dollar sign on that with Lost property + Estimated lost income, or by some other way. In those two cases, the state itself is responsible for the damages and the victims can be identified and their damages assessed.

And yeah I agree that at this point in time, we do have a widely varying mix of advantages and disadvantages (but they're not like The Hound, unless the Hound's brother is somehow a law...), and we can't draw a sufficiently straight line from 19th century slavery to 21st century suffering.

 

[Islam Imamate]

No its absurd. Essentially everyone will have to apologize to each other and pay out Unless we want to have some sort of time limit on when its let bygones be bygones and when it needs to be addressed and entertaining this in a logical matter is near improbable.

Further in this matter people more often than not like to play victim but when its time to adress their own nations wrong doings all the sudden its hold up hold up theres nuances here!

The old saying that the son doesn not inherit the sins of the father applies here. We just need to not let history repeat itself and thats all.

What time limit would you think is appropriate? 100 years? 50 years? Would it be wrong for America to apologize for something like the use of agent Orange in the Vietnam War?

 

[Jkillah]

150-200 years seems fine to me. Also, even if it's from very long ago, I don't see how an apology is wrong.

I don't know if "wrong" is the right word, but it is silly. How do you apologize on someone else's behalf? If the previous owner of my house murdered someone, should I call up the family and apologize? I don't understand the logic in that. How do you sincerely apologize on someone else's behalf?

I think a more appropriate approach would be to try understand the historical context of what happened and then try to create a world in today where the more ugly parts of history did not happen again. Apologizing for someone else honestly seems like a lazier, easy approach that isn't sincere. If there were to be an apology, who do you have make the apology? Do we have a pandering politician do it? I don't see how a politician can do it in any kind of a sincere way. They would either be trying to score easy votes or just being doing it to avoid backlash. It would be selfserving to their political ends instead of being any kind of authentic apology to victims.

 

[Trotsky]

I think the Armenian genocide and the atrocities of the Japanese in Asia are of comparable scale and the latter happened during the same conflict.

The fact alone that Japan still doesn't officially recognize the Rape of Nanking makes this a question worth asking.

That's fair and I agree.

How about just formally apologizing for something like the Armenian genocide or even something that was of a smaller scale like the Amritsar massacre? What should be the statute of limitations on expecting such an apology?

Or the fact that random farmers in Laos are still getting blown up by US landmines despite the fact that they were a neutral country in the Vietnam War. The atrocities committed by the United States against sovereign and uninvolved countries during Vietnam deserves more than a fucking apology. They still to this day kill 400 people a year.

From 1964 to 1973 more than 580,000 bombing missions were launched over Laos by the U.S. Air Force, in a war that most of the Western world didn’t know about. As a result, more than two million tons of ordnance fell on Laos. The most widely used types of bombs were anti-personnel cluster bombs filled with 670 bomblets that were intended to explode on or shortly after impact. These bomblets, about the size of a tennis ball, are known as “bombies” in Laos. Each bombie contains around 250 steel pellets, which were meant to fire in a 2 to 4-meter radius when detonated, thus crippling but not killing enemy soldiers. The theory was that an injured soldier cost the enemy more than a dead one.

So far, the explosives have had a disastrous effect on human life, because many unexploded bombs remain in eastern and north-eastern Laos. Lots of bombs did not explode; they sank into soft mud or rice paddies, only to detonate years later when accidentally struck by farmers, playing children or buffaloes. The people most directly affected by UXO have been forced to live continuously with the problem, often with fatal consequences. Young children make up more than one quarter of the total accident victims reported since 1973. Unfortunately, the percentage of children involved in accidents is increasing. Accidents involving UXO often occur while people are weeding or plowing agricultural land, when they make fire (for cooking, for destroying rubbish, or for cleaning a field) or when they collect wood in the forest. Accidents are also caused by the attempts of villagers to open UXO for the sale or use of metal or explosives, as for many it is still more of something interesting which requires investigation, than a dangerous object.

UXO contamination has a significant effect on the development of Laos. Victims form a burden for the country’s limited medical facilities, with their need for both trauma and long-term care. Even those who recover may not always be able to do the work that is necessary in a farming village. Providing the necessary support to these people often means that the village has not enough resources for any new development work within the community. Between 1973 and 1999, 10, 649 UXO-related accidents happened in Laos. Although most of these accidents took place between 1973 and 1978, UXO accidents still continue at a rate of over 200 per year. There is still one UXO accident occurring at least every two days, and more than half of the victims die almost immediately. If victims survive, the explosion often causes severe injury, especially to the upper half of the body. UXO victims who survive face a long, difficult and painful recovery. Many survivors suffer from burns, blindness, deafness, paralysis and loss of limbs as a result of the explosion. Over half of the amputations are of the hand, lower and upper arm.​

http://lao-foundation.org/learn-about-laos/unexploded-ordnance-landmines/