6 ms·

This comment is symptomatic of a lot of modern-day problems, especially in U.S. "We" are a society, a community. "You" don't exist alone. You couldn't exist

by hsitz 11y ago

This comment is symptomatic of a lot of modern-day problems, especially in U.S. "We" are a society, a community. "You" don't exist alone. You couldn't exist without the benefits from human societies you live in. It's hypocritical and immoral to take the benefits of those societies, and then to disclaim participation in actions that society takes (or has taken), which are in part responsible for those benefits. American individualism is all well and good, but it gets carried way too far. For America is also a single society, and members of a society can't rationally accept the benefits of that society while disclaiming all participation in the actions that produced those benefits. I'm not saying "you" destroyed any wildlife. What I am saying is that (if you're American) you are reaping the benefits of a society that exists as it does because it dominated a continent, destroying much of the existing landscape and natural inhabitants. There is some level of responsibility that individuals have for prior actions taken by their society. Surely not as great a responsibility as if you'd done the actions yourself, or approved of the actions at the time they were taken. But some level of responsibility nonetheless (and when adding up the small responsibility of each current member the responsibility to do something as a group to rectify past wrongs may become quite large indeed).

Spooky23 11y ago
You are reaping the benefits of slaughtering the Neanderthals and wiping out the mammoth. Shame on you.
13thLetter 11y ago
> What I am saying is that (if you're American) you are reaping the benefits of a society that exists as it does because it dominated a continent, destroying much of the existing landscape and natural inhabitants. Every society on Earth exists as it does because it destroyed much of the previously existing landscape and natural inhabitants, most definitely including the Native American societies. If you read Over the Edge of the World, a fascinating book about Magellan's voyage around the globe, you'll find that as he traveled the straits at the southern tip of South America -- the most miserable, cold, dreary, and awful environment that could be imagined -- he met a miserable and starving aboriginal tribe: a tribe that, it turns out, had been pushed all the way to the tip of Tierra del Fuego by succeeding waves of "native" migration across the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska. The sin of the United States is not original with the United States: it is the sin of every society. > But some level of responsibility nonetheless (and when adding up the small responsibility of each current member the responsibility to do something as a group to rectify past wrongs may become quite large indeed). You could smuggle an elephant inside that parenthetical clause. For starters, how specifically is one to "rectify past wrongs" that were committed against people who have been dead for hundreds of years? And are the remnants of those societies that still exist today also obliged to "rectify past wrongs" against the people they aggressed on even farther in the past?
- simonh 11y ago
  I think you're blowing the comment put of proportion by deliberately interpreting a very qualified statement in an extreme and maximalist way. The poster dodnt say every wrong against everyone and everything ever has to be rectified. There are many concrete and affordable steps we can take to remediate much of the damage our societies have done and are doing to each other and the environment. I agree with the poster that we have an obligation to take as many of those steps as we feel we can afford.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    I'm not going to just sign on to an arbitrary promise like that, though. In the United States the people who talk about remediating what our societies have done, etc., have proposed things like massive and unending wealth transfers, unequal enforcement of the law, explicitly segregationist race-based government systems, and even secession. For that reason I am disinclined to just take someone talking about this subject at their word and say "sure, whatever you want."
    - simonh 11y ago
      Not everybody talking about remediating past wrongs are proposing or endorsing such extreme measures, or not in an extreme way. What's frustrating is that moderate or conservative (small 'c') voices have been essentially silent on the matter leaving the field disproportionately open to more extreme advocacy. Those who are in favour of more moderate steps should advocate them and not use other people's disproportionate views as an excuse for throwing their hands in the air and giving up on the whole subject completely.
- nova 11y ago
  > Every society on Earth exists as it does because it destroyed much of the previously existing landscape and natural inhabitants, THANKS. Every human culture out there is responsible for wars and horrible crimes and destruction; primitive societies were no better (Hobbes Was Right (TM)), but only a few have built advanced and prosperous civilizations, and what is more, the West is basically the only which reflects on its past. I'm over with modern western ethnomasochism.
mikeash 11y ago
What does that responsibility mean? Let's say I accept my responsibility for benefitting from killing all this wildlife and murdering the inhabitants. Now what? Does this change something? Is there some action I should take?
- simonh 11y ago
  Yes, you can support efforts to preserve remaining habitats and examples of that wildlife and conserve the cultural heritage of the victims. Or at least you could avoid actions that might hinder or prevent such efforts, such as by not voting for representatives that might de-fund them or pass laws hindering them. Nobody's suggesting you should be tried for the crimes of your ancestors, or previous members of your society. What we can do is stop doing more damage and try to rectify some of it, where it is reasonable and affordable to do so.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I'm all for that, but I don't see that being linked to taking responsibility, it's just the right thing to do. Maybe this is just a terminology thing.
  - yepguy 11y ago
    I disagree. While I think your suggested actions are reasonable, nothing distinguishes them from actions we would take if our hands were clean, and instead another group were at fault.
    - simonh 11y ago
      I think it's just a matter of degree. I feel a general responsibility towards planet earth in general to preserve its environmental and cultural heritage. But I feel a greater obligation to contribute towards mitigating some environmental and cultural harms than I do towards others due to my nation and cultures role in exacerbating them. There's no law at work here though. If there is some specific issue you are particularly concerned about that happens not to have any such historical link to you, but it bothers you so much that you take a special personal interest in it then that's fine. But even without dedicating our personal resources towards righting the worlds wrongs, as tax payers, consumers and voters we often make decisions that bear on these issues. I think it's worth bearing that in mind.

by hsitz 11y ago

Spooky23 11y ago

You are reaping the benefits of slaughtering the Neanderthals and wiping out the mammoth. Shame on you.

13thLetter 11y ago

> What I am saying is that (if you're American) you are reaping the benefits of a society that exists as it does because it dominated a continent, destroying much of the existing landscape and natural inhabitants. Every society on Earth exists as it does because it destroyed much of the previously existing landscape and natural inhabitants, most definitely including the Native American societies. If you read Over the Edge of the World, a fascinating book about Magellan's voyage around the globe, you'll find that as he traveled the straits at the southern tip of South America -- the most miserable, cold, dreary, and awful environment that could be imagined -- he met a miserable and starving aboriginal tribe: a tribe that, it turns out, had been pushed all the way to the tip of Tierra del Fuego by succeeding waves of "native" migration across the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska. The sin of the United States is not original with the United States: it is the sin of every society. > But some level of responsibility nonetheless (and when adding up the small responsibility of each current member the responsibility to do something as a group to rectify past wrongs may become quite large indeed). You could smuggle an elephant inside that parenthetical clause. For starters, how specifically is one to "rectify past wrongs" that were committed against people who have been dead for hundreds of years? And are the remnants of those societies that still exist today also obliged to "rectify past wrongs" against the people they aggressed on even farther in the past?

simonh 11y ago
I think you're blowing the comment put of proportion by deliberately interpreting a very qualified statement in an extreme and maximalist way. The poster dodnt say every wrong against everyone and everything ever has to be rectified. There are many concrete and affordable steps we can take to remediate much of the damage our societies have done and are doing to each other and the environment. I agree with the poster that we have an obligation to take as many of those steps as we feel we can afford.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  I'm not going to just sign on to an arbitrary promise like that, though. In the United States the people who talk about remediating what our societies have done, etc., have proposed things like massive and unending wealth transfers, unequal enforcement of the law, explicitly segregationist race-based government systems, and even secession. For that reason I am disinclined to just take someone talking about this subject at their word and say "sure, whatever you want."
  - simonh 11y ago
    Not everybody talking about remediating past wrongs are proposing or endorsing such extreme measures, or not in an extreme way. What's frustrating is that moderate or conservative (small 'c') voices have been essentially silent on the matter leaving the field disproportionately open to more extreme advocacy. Those who are in favour of more moderate steps should advocate them and not use other people's disproportionate views as an excuse for throwing their hands in the air and giving up on the whole subject completely.
nova 11y ago
> Every society on Earth exists as it does because it destroyed much of the previously existing landscape and natural inhabitants, THANKS. Every human culture out there is responsible for wars and horrible crimes and destruction; primitive societies were no better (Hobbes Was Right (TM)), but only a few have built advanced and prosperous civilizations, and what is more, the West is basically the only which reflects on its past. I'm over with modern western ethnomasochism.

mikeash 11y ago

What does that responsibility mean? Let's say I accept my responsibility for benefitting from killing all this wildlife and murdering the inhabitants. Now what? Does this change something? Is there some action I should take?

simonh 11y ago
Yes, you can support efforts to preserve remaining habitats and examples of that wildlife and conserve the cultural heritage of the victims. Or at least you could avoid actions that might hinder or prevent such efforts, such as by not voting for representatives that might de-fund them or pass laws hindering them. Nobody's suggesting you should be tried for the crimes of your ancestors, or previous members of your society. What we can do is stop doing more damage and try to rectify some of it, where it is reasonable and affordable to do so.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I'm all for that, but I don't see that being linked to taking responsibility, it's just the right thing to do. Maybe this is just a terminology thing.
- yepguy 11y ago
  I disagree. While I think your suggested actions are reasonable, nothing distinguishes them from actions we would take if our hands were clean, and instead another group were at fault.
  - simonh 11y ago
    I think it's just a matter of degree. I feel a general responsibility towards planet earth in general to preserve its environmental and cultural heritage. But I feel a greater obligation to contribute towards mitigating some environmental and cultural harms than I do towards others due to my nation and cultures role in exacerbating them. There's no law at work here though. If there is some specific issue you are particularly concerned about that happens not to have any such historical link to you, but it bothers you so much that you take a special personal interest in it then that's fine. But even without dedicating our personal resources towards righting the worlds wrongs, as tax payers, consumers and voters we often make decisions that bear on these issues. I think it's worth bearing that in mind.