HorrorMovieFans.com

Hard topic, and perhaps not one that everyone (or anyone) would engage in. But I heard an interesting discussion/argument on Swedish radio. They run a philosophical hour-long debate show once a week that I listen to regularly. The basic topic was historic guilt and the need to "make right" historic injustices.

The classic examples they cited, for context, was the apologies by Angela Merkel and the current German government for the Nazi atrocities as an acknowledgement of wrongdoing in the past, and the topic of Afro-Caribbean slavery in the 18th century and the recent push by the Caribbean nations seeking an apology from the EU for the treatment of their peoples.

Now the question they asked, which I find interesting, is whether there is effectively any obligation for new generations to revisit the sins of their fathers and to have any degree of ownership. And if there is ownership of those sins, is there in fact a need to either apologise, or in more concrete cases to make financial reparations payable to those affected. Should Germany have to pay money to the descendants of the exterminated Jews? Should white people be paying money to descendants of slaves? If you subscribe to that, how far back does it go and how do you value it.

My personal feeling is that you cannot ignore historic injustices, and the act of contrition and admittance of guilt for the sins of the father is critical to ensuring that the lessons of the wrongdoings are applied, and to acknowledge the inevitable injustice that these situations have placed on our society. So I am on board with apologising for wrong-doings for things that are discernable. Where I am less confident is whether it is acceptable to extend this beyond the generation which is still alive as sufferers. Nazism, or treatment of indigenous populations who have recently faced persecution in various states, including the Sami in Sweden, do bear apologising and ensuring there's an element of equalization. But I wouldn't subscribe to the idea that we can still discern what harm was done to people several centuries removed.

An interesting counterpoint to this, at least on the show, was that any apologising tends to oversimplify information. As an excellent example, which I did not know much about, was that whilst there was slavery in the Caribbean islands, there was actual genocide by those who became slaves, perpetrated against a smaller island nation. So victim and oppressor lines can be highly blurry. Similarly, with war there tends to be an assumption of single-sided accounts which is heightened by apologist narratives. It would be better to document it as factually as possible and teach on that basis, but to abstract entirely from the next generations.

What do others think? Is there any guilt a generation on? And should people apologize, or even pay damages, for the past? Is Faulkner right that "The past is never dead. It's not even past"

i can't really agree in holding people responsible for the deeds of others, because they happen to have lived in the same area, or have some other similarity to you. if there is a decision made by a group to apologize or to pay reparation for harm done in the past, then that's cool. but i don't think expecting it or demanding it is fair. i didn't kill any indians. i didn't use anyone as slaves. don't put that guilt on to me, is my mindset.

that is not to say that we should ignore what was done in the past. it is important to learn and grow as a society / culture. don't repeat harm done in the past, but also don't force the blame onto people who are not responsible for it.

How much money can we squeeze out of J-Mac because the Jews murdered Jesus?

Its a topic to absurb to even take serious mostly spouted by racist left wing radicals. Lets hunt down the decendents of the African tribal leaders who sold their captives into slavery and see if we can pump some cash from them. We can call it the slavery money circle of life and have Elton John sing a song about it.

Foo wrote:How much money can we squeeze out of J-Mac because the Jews murdered Jesus?

Man, that shit is wack!

Tiggnutz wrote:Its a topic to absurb to even take serious mostly spouted by racist left wing radicals. Lets hunt down the decendents of the African tribal leaders who sold their captives into slavery and see if we can pump some cash from them. We can call it the slavery money circle of life and have Elton John sing a song about it.

It's not that absurd... It was pretty commonplace up until the 19th century for reparations to be a common feature of politics. It gets heated these days because it is more of a humanist approach, but its certainly not some kind of left-wing theory, in my opinion.

It fits directly into the leftist desire to make losers into winners, without regard to whether or not they earned it, and cut down the winners, because of jealousy.

Foo wrote:It fits directly into the leftist desire to make losers into winners, without regard to whether or not they earned it, and cut down the winners, because of jealousy.

Not sure your winner/loser life philosophy is morally applicable here...

Foo wrote:It fits directly into the leftist desire to make losers into winners, without regard to whether or not they earned it, and cut down the winners, because of jealousy.

so, if you force people into slavery or commit genocide, it's because you earned that? being opposed to reparation is one thing, but i think you need to re-evaluate your argument.

Not often you get to see people make the argument that slaves and jews are losers and slave-owners and Nazis are winners who earned their superiority...

Losers and also super jelly tbh.

Headhunter wrote:Losers and also super jelly tbh.

Total losers. Sad.

showa58taro wrote:Not often you get to see people make the argument that slaves and jews are losers and slave-owners and Nazis are winners who earned their superiority...

How many Nazis are out there winning at life?

do you consider some bum begging on a street corner to be winning at life? Because he is a notch above the folks wanting to take what others have earned via taxation. At least giving to him is voluntary.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:It fits directly into the leftist desire to make losers into winners, without regard to whether or not they earned it, and cut down the winners, because of jealousy.

so, if you force people into slavery or commit genocide, it's because you earned that? being opposed to reparation is one thing, but i think you need to re-evaluate your argument.

Sure. Their actions produced a result. That is earned. Not saying it is moral.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Not often you get to see people make the argument that slaves and jews are losers and slave-owners and Nazis are winners who earned their superiority...

How many Nazis are out there winning at life?

do you consider some bum begging on a street corner to be winning at life? Because he is a notch above the folks wanting to take what others have earned via taxation. At least giving to him is voluntary.

I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing at all anymore. You seem to have literally come in to spout some kind of nonsense that is entirely unrelated to the idea of intergenerational guilt and reparation and is now about hobos and taxes. Maybe I'm too tired to follow...

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:It fits directly into the leftist desire to make losers into winners, without regard to whether or not they earned it, and cut down the winners, because of jealousy.

so, if you force people into slavery or commit genocide, it's because you earned that? being opposed to reparation is one thing, but i think you need to re-evaluate your argument.

Sure. Their actions produced a result. That is earned. Not saying it is moral.

it's not earned, it's taken. in the same way that a thief uses action to take things, or a rapist uses action. it's not earned, not in the slightest.

I'm highly amused that Foo would even give it the old college try.

Headhunter wrote:I'm highly amused that Foo would even give it the old college try.

The worst part really is that I think there are two very valid takes on the idea of reparations and guilt.

But Foo seems to have gone for neither of those takes, and just gone back to his par-for-the-course anti-liberal spiel.

showa58taro wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I'm highly amused that Foo would even give it the old college try.

The worst part really is that I think there are two very valid takes on the idea of reparations and guilt.

But Foo seems to have gone for neither of those takes, and just gone back to his par-for-the-course anti-liberal spiel.

Sure. I think there are compelling cases to be made on both sides. Honestly, the issue has really surprised me with how much it's made me think, I used to think it was ridiculous.

Foo has become our resident Archie Bunker. Every argument is a direct route to liberals being lazy moochers.

Headhunter wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Headhunter wrote:I'm highly amused that Foo would even give it the old college try.

The worst part really is that I think there are two very valid takes on the idea of reparations and guilt.

But Foo seems to have gone for neither of those takes, and just gone back to his par-for-the-course anti-liberal spiel.

Sure. I think there are compelling cases to be made on both sides. Honestly, the issue has really surprised me with how much it's made me think, I used to think it was ridiculous.

Foo has become our resident Archie Bunker. Every argument is a direct route to liberals being lazy moochers.

I think the more I read about politics and history, the more I find that I have views on things I used to consider as irrelevant. Plus, I used to think I understood the world and how things work, but I'm forever realizing that I've got loads to pick up.