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

[oldshadow]

It depends on the situation.

If it’s past a certain time limit then no it’s history and you should not try and cover it up but no need to apologize. Are we going to go back in history and have everyone apologize for every.

The whole apologizeing thing is stupid unless you are the one that did whatever you are apologizing for.

Having programs to help in certain ways are fine for a time but after a while that’s pointless also.
In fact throwing money at any problem for whatever injustice is not a solution.

 

[tramendous]

This is a very complicated question. Yet one thing I noticed is that people who say no for apologizing, keep saying 'it won't do anything' or 'its meaningless' but thats mostly from the perspective of the people doing the apologizing and not the country/people thats being apologized to. It means something to them. I think in general though it should be up to the nation who is being asked to apologize / the country who feels they need to apologize.

Do you think there are some ideological/nationalistic reasons why someone would not want to apologize? And do you think they would rather just say 'its meaningless/pointless' rather than state their ideological/nationalist viewpoint?

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

No and no.

 

[WarDosAnjos]

So you’re saying black people “today” are in poverty because of how things were with slavery etc in the 1700 and 1800s? There are countless black people in America that are successful, have great jobs and were able to work hard, put in effort and achieved what they wanted to.

Many black people today are in poverty because they would rather be on welfare and not be contributing members to society. Same with many white people too.

It’s evident that many on the left, large percentage of democrats want to have black people remain as “victims of society”, literally referring them in a labeled class of “second class citizens who are repressed!”.

Does that really seem like beneficial for them? Does that even make sense to you?

Black people in America have the same opportunity today as you or me, or any white person. Saying they don’t just shows that you want to have them remain as “victims” and for them to have a victim mentality. That’s the democrat way of thinking right there. That’s how they exploit them for their votes. To keep them on welfare, to keep making them think they are victims.

So the reason that so many blacks are in poverty is because.....slavery?

Not absent fathers, terrible schools, drugs, alcohol, welfare and crime?

Just Slavery?
So we’ll run with that. Ok - throw $100,000 to the 40 million or so blacks or those that so identify then you’ve got a 4 trillion dollar total payment. So after that cash has been splashed, what then? Problem solved? End of racism? Total utopia? Has the absolute gutting of the public purse been worth it?

LOL! Excellent! I knew my post advocating for human decency would trigger some Sherdog War Roomers!

I'm not saying write them all a check. And the way you twisted my comments about slavery is so typical. It's actually pretty simple: blacks have been mistreated in this country for the last two hundred years STARTING with slavery. This mistreatment continued after they were released from slavery and treated like second class citizens. Oppression lead to the forming of a permanent underclass. If you really don't think black people start on a level playing field in this country than I really don't know what to tell you. Segregation ended only 66 years ago. That's less than a single lifetime. You guys act like slavery was the only thing ever done wrong to black people. There has been systematic oppression in this country that started with slavery and has continued to evolve to this day. If you think 70 years is enough to undo 300+ of oppression... than once again, I really don't know what to tell you.

Just take a look at our broken prison system for another example of a way to cripple the lower class. The truth is that most black people are born into inherently more difficult situations than most white people in this country. Are there exceptions? Sure. There are plenty of poor whites and rich blacks. But the ghettos, and what is going on there, is a direct result of cause and effect.

When you say, "Not absent fathers, terrible schools, drugs, alcohol, welfare and crime?" how do you think things got this way? Are you insinuating this behavior is prevalent in lower class areas because black people are.... black?

Sure, you probably didn't have anything to do with the way things are today. That doesn't mean there isn't a reason for it. If you're going to sit and complain about black crime and drug abuse, which many right wingers do, than maybe look at where this all started? Why not just be good people and try to fix the root of the problem in working to fix the plague of the lower class?

So many right wingers have been brainwashed into supporting elitists and top corporations why they themselves get fucked.

 

[ferrisjso]

Same merit by which damages are paid out. Is there a remedy for what happened? Tbh all the pro slavery reperation arguments have convinced me the reperations are actually for Jim Crow cause that's the core strength of the argument IMO. The whole reparation claim is based on a broken promise to give reperations. Also people pretend after slavery there's been a slow walk to proccess and ignore that we were probably at 1970s and 1980s in terms of race relations during reconstruction and what happened next is something that's tangibly harmed African Americans. African Americans own the same share of the wealth as they did when slavery ended(yes I know that share is considerably more that's not the point it's like less than 1% when they are 13% of the population) and the reason for that is clear.

But the slavery reperation arguments based on slavery are weaker cause the industrial revolution and the destruction of the South meant that the wealth slave labor predominantly created is largely gone as is the world that slave labor tended to contribute to building. Of course that enabled rich white families to save up money they invested in industrial investment vehicles while slaves were left behind in the sharecropping system but I'm speaking in generalities of course wealth was stolen, lot of it, just find the "slave labor built this country" to be an exaggeration. Even this points to the Jim Crow era though because that's on the Johnson administration for treating the Confederates with kid gloves and for not giving the freed slaves what was promised.

Another core argument of pro reparations arguments is that the US has been willing to pay them out for other atrocities. It's pretty hard to argue with that. The feasibility of doing so is the logistical reason, it's much easier to pay the Native's reperations when there's not that many left, about 1/10th the African American population for all the countless tribes, same with the reparations the victims of our nuclear tests, easy to let the Pacific islanders come here and help them because there are barely any of them, most of the massive xenophobic community isn't aware those people are entitled to come into the country because their population is so small . Still that doesn't mean they are wrong(especially considering MMT), they are right that most groups the US has hurt got their reparations and that double standard would piss you off too in a comparable situation.

 

[Amerikuracana]

50 SOL

 

[HunterSdVa29]

No, and hell no

then and now, might makes right period (its why nobody even remotely challenges US hegemony, they can't......). If you got bodied, you got bodied. That's the breaks

 

[HunterSdVa29]

let"s have people that have never owned slaves, pay people that were never slaves. makes perfect sense


notice the people that always bring this shit up never say or do anything about places like Dubai, thats being built by slaves as we speak

who do you think is building the venues for the Qatar World Cup?

there you go haha

 

[tinker_190]

I'm pretty torn on the question.

On one hand, I see the argument of a continuity of people in place and time and being. Thus I can, for example, see the relationship between Germany in 1940 to Germans in 2019, even though very few of the people are literally the same living people over that time. So, if you see a continuity of being, you can then establish some sort of causality and thus apply the idea of guilt and thus apologize. However, this continuity of being is within the realm of being called into question in every instance in which this question would be posed. Consider this- if the USA wanted to apologize for slavery, for example, how does it do so with a substantial immigrant population coming in after the Emancipation Proclamation? These people could argue they are disconnected from the action in question, yet are also connected.

Then, how many steps do you go back? And how many degrees of causality do you want to prescribe? Going back to the Germany example, Germany could in theory argue that the rise of the Nazi party was due to the extreme conditions of the Treaty of Versaille creating economic turmoil in their country. Should France, GB and the USA apologize for creating the economic conditions that contributed to this?

Then, how far back do you go? Should Turkey apologize for the Ottoman Empire? Again, none of the people living in Turkey or running it currectly were alive during the Ottoman Empire, yet we can "see" them as the same people. Should the Mongols apologize? Should Italy apologize to France for Julius Caesar?

With the idea of going back, you also must realize this would eventually lead to a challenge to the current zeitgeist or PC paradigm you are trying to enforce with the apology/reperations rhetoric. You are going to end up with Irish people wanting Moroccans to pay reparations for the Barbary Slave Trade, but simultaneously one will argue that the Irish have priveledge of being in Western Europe during the colonization of Africa... so does that cancel out? Ultimately I feel that this could actually cause new conflicts.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Their victims are still alive and so are the Japanese from our camps

Is that your standard? That the victims should still be alive? Can't say its not fair, seems like you're basically only concerned with cases where something can actually be done for the victims.

I'm pretty torn on the question.

On one hand, I see the argument of a continuity of people in place and time and being. Thus I can, for example, see the relationship between Germany in 1940 to Germans in 2019, even though very few of the people are literally the same living people over that time. So, if you see a continuity of being, you can then establish some sort of causality and thus apply the idea of guilt and thus apologize. However, this continuity of being is within the realm of being called into question in every instance in which this question would be posed. Consider this- if the USA wanted to apologize for slavery, for example, how does it do so with a substantial immigrant population coming in after the Emancipation Proclamation? These people could argue they are disconnected from the action in question, yet are also connected.

Then, how many steps do you go back? And how many degrees of causality do you want to prescribe? Going back to the Germany example, Germany could in theory argue that the rise of the Nazi party was due to the extreme conditions of the Treaty of Versaille creating economic turmoil in their country. Should France, GB and the USA apologize for creating the economic conditions that contributed to this?

Then, how far back do you go? Should Turkey apologize for the Ottoman Empire? Again, none of the people living in Turkey or running it currectly were alive during the Ottoman Empire, yet we can "see" them as the same people. Should the Mongols apologize? Should Italy apologize to France for Julius Caesar?

With the idea of going back, you also must realize this would eventually lead to a challenge to the current zeitgeist or PC paradigm you are trying to enforce with the apology/reperations rhetoric. You are going to end up with Irish people wanting Moroccans to pay reparations for the Barbary Slave Trade, but simultaneously one will argue that the Irish have priveledge of being in Western Europe during the colonization of Africa... so does that cancel out? Ultimately I feel that this could actually cause new conflicts.

I think going back to anything over 200 years is just reaching and even that is a very generous time frame. I don't mind the "within living memory" or "victims are still alive" standard that have been offered as well.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I think the Armenian genocide is past the statute of practical reparations. It happened over one hundred years ago. It doesn't make it less heinous, but it's a matter for history's judgment, not payment at this point. I think there is a lot of value in taking a long cold hard look at history. For example, as an American it's worth considering the wreckage of previous, weaker nations on which our own strong nation is built.

But I also think that collective guilt is also often not very constructive, so balance is necessary. Is Germany in 2019 a guilty nation because they murdered 11 million people and started a war that killed tens of millions more? No. In 1945? Yes. Is the US today morally guilty because of African slavery? No. Hell, it's hard enough holding countries accountable for shit they are doing right now.

I don't think reparations for the Armenian genocide are practical at this point but an apology or at least an acknowledgement like what the Brits did for Amritsar is apt. Japan and Turkey basically pretend like ti didn't happen or that they weren't one sided slaughters. That's no bueno IMO.

 

[laz0001]

I’m still waiting for Denmark/Scandinavia to apologise for the Vikings etc

Though we did get Turisas and Amon Amarth, is partially forgiven...

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I don't think reparations for the Armenian genocide are practical at this point but an apology or at least an acknowledgement like what the Brits did for Amritsar is apt. Japan and Turkey basically pretend like ti didn't happen or that they weren't one sided slaughters. That's no bueno IMO.

Do you think it is only restricted to countries? What about ideologies like socialism, which owns the most staggering body count in human history, whose adherents sidestep responsibility with the "not real socialism" canard? How about religions? Do you owe an apology if someone with similar beliefs commits an atrocity in the name of those beliefs?

Essentially, when do you owe an apology or money for something you did not do?

 

[grimballer]

I'm Hungarian. Still waiting on reparations from the Ottoman Empire plus the Mongolians.

What about all the ppl you messed up coming over from the Urals?

 

[Sketch]

What about all the ppl you messed up coming over from the Urals?

This is exactly the sarcastic point I am trying to make. Every people on earth has pushed aside and hurt another people at some point in time. Conquest has happened through every continent and country on Earth. Figuring out who owes who is impossible and pointless.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Do you think it is only restricted to countries? What about ideologies like socialism, which owns the most staggering body count in human history, whose adherents sidestep responsibility with the "not real socialism" canard? How about religions? Do you owe an apology if someone with similar beliefs commits an atrocity in the name of those beliefs?

Essentially, when do you owe an apology or money for something you did not do?

I think the key is that I am focusing on national state apparatuses. Like I said earlier few expect an apology for the Mongol conquests and in my eyes that is because the modern Mongol government, as far as I know, has no continuity with the government of Ghengis Khan. With the Turks and Japanese the modern government may not be the same one that committed the atrocities but they are the direct successor regimes and I think there there's enough meaningful continuity there. I can understand not buying that but with the Brits the modern current day government is the same one that committed the atrocities. This is why I think its appropriate for the US government to settle with Native tribes over treaty violations that happened over a hundred years ago. The specific people involved on both sides are not around but the tribe and US government as organized entities have existed continuously since then.

Let's think about this as it relates to corporations. If a corporation were to pollute some river and this had long term consequences on the health of a nearby community, even if its 50 years later and no one who worked at the corporation at the time the polluting occurred works for it now and those responsible are dead, shouldn't that community be entitled to some compensation or at the very least an apology from said corporation? IMO corporations and states are wholes that are greater and separate from the sum of their parts. This is perhaps a cheesy analogy but think of your body and how its cells are always dying and being replaced by newer cells. Nonetheless you are still you even is most of your cells are not the same ones from 10-15 years ago.

 

[Islam Imamate]

This is exactly the sarcastic point I am trying to make. Every people on earth has pushed aside and hurt another people at some point in time. Conquest has happened through every continent and country on Earth. Figuring out who owes who is impossible and pointless.

But I am not talking about conquests. I am not saying that Turkey should apologize for taking over Armenia, I am saying they should apologize for slaughtering Armenians. Same with the Brits, they should not apologize for taking over India but for the atrocities they committed while ruling India.

I don't see, for instance, the use of the atomic bombs in the same light. I think there is a argument that they were unnecessary but its far more ambiguous and I can buy the argument that they were necessary. But I see the Armenian genocide and the Rape of Nanking as less ambiguously evil.

 

[Sketch]

But I am not talking about conquests. I am not saying that Turkey should apologize for taking over Armenia, I am saying they should apologize for slaughtering Armenians. Same with the Brits, they should not apologize for taking over India but for the atrocities they committed while ruling India.

I don't see, for instance, the use of the atomic bombs in the same light. I think there is a argument that they were unnecessary but its far more ambiguous and I can buy the argument that they were necessary. But I see the Armenian genocide and the Rape of Nanking as less ambiguously evil.

Apologies are nice and all, but where do they end? If we go back hundreds of years everyone is owed an apology.

 

[Plissken]

If there were any sort of compensation the acts in question would have to be only within the past hundred years or so, it should also not cripple the current generation who would be paying for the sins of their great or great great grandparents.

 

[Gluteus Swag]

If the countries are predominantly white then they should be forced to apologize and spend inordinate amounts of money on reparations to those who remotely look like the descendants of people they oppressed.

If the countries are predominantly non-white then no. We don't want to send the false message that people who aren't white can do something wrong