4 ms·

How is that different from the Saudi Royal family or king of Swaziland? The comparison was not to looting rulers but the other royals the article strangely cit

by rustig 7y ago

How is that different from the Saudi Royal family or king of Swaziland? The comparison was not to looting rulers but the other royals the article strangely cites as examples without mentioning the UK Royal family who's source of wealth is similar. Also what do you mean by 'acquired' wealth. Arguably the despots of today are just doing the same ('acquiring' land for future descendants through warfare and despotism)

jjeaff 7y ago
You don't see a difference between inheriting ill-gotten gains from several generations back and actively looting the country yourself? If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives.
- jlv2 7y ago
  Maybe you mean "all non-Native American land-owners in America". I'm not sure why you single out white.
  - kick 7y ago
    Because African Americans didn't get the chance to get in on the thievery angle, and most other races didn't come in significant volume early enough to have the chance to in numbers significant enough to be worth mentioning?
- thephyber 7y ago
  > If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives. I'm glad you admitted that there is an argument to be made there.
- kiliantics 7y ago
  It seems you have independently discovered the reasoning behind reparations, well done.
- cylinder 7y ago
  > You don't see a difference between inheriting ill-gotten gains from several generations back and actively looting the country yourself? What's the difference? Why don't they return the stolen property? > If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives. Why shouldn't they? Have you heard of native title?
- larnmar 7y ago
  And those natives would need to return it to other natives, who would need to return it to other natives, and so on for a thousand or so generations.

by rustig 7y ago

jjeaff 7y ago

You don't see a difference between inheriting ill-gotten gains from several generations back and actively looting the country yourself? If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives.

jlv2 7y ago
Maybe you mean "all non-Native American land-owners in America". I'm not sure why you single out white.
- kick 7y ago
  Because African Americans didn't get the chance to get in on the thievery angle, and most other races didn't come in significant volume early enough to have the chance to in numbers significant enough to be worth mentioning?
thephyber 7y ago
> If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives. I'm glad you admitted that there is an argument to be made there.
kiliantics 7y ago
It seems you have independently discovered the reasoning behind reparations, well done.
cylinder 7y ago
> You don't see a difference between inheriting ill-gotten gains from several generations back and actively looting the country yourself? What's the difference? Why don't they return the stolen property? > If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives. Why shouldn't they? Have you heard of native title?
larnmar 7y ago
And those natives would need to return it to other natives, who would need to return it to other natives, and so on for a thousand or so generations.