3 ms·

Genocide (or rather genocide guilt) isn't a problem you can just pay to shut up and go away. That's almost hilariously absurd. The difference between reparatio

Genocide (or rather genocide guilt) isn't a problem you can just pay to shut up and go away. That's almost hilariously absurd. The difference between reparations and gifts of pity/guilt is not just in the wording - if you're unwilling to call what you're doing reparations (along with all that that entails), then frankly any amount of money you're offering is an insult.

skywal_l 5y ago
So, what should be done?
- filleduchaos 5y ago
  In my opinion? Actually offer reparation, or just don't bother. Blow hot or blow cold, but lukewarmness disgusts me. As I just said elsewhere in the comments, it's similar to having a company wrong you and then offer an out-of-court settlement. Offering settlements like that is most often a way to buy silence and dodge the actual work that goes into making amends (of which money is the least part). "We know we wronged you but oh no [our PR/our stock/other possible claims/the cost of possibly having to change our processes so it doesn't happen again]" is insulting enough when it's only coming from a company that screwed you over materially; it's so much worse when it's an attempted apology for actual genocide. An example I'd consider reasonably well done (if understandably contentious then and even now) would be the reparations for the Holocaust. Note how it wasn't just throwing money at the problem to assuage guilt, but also an entire nation re-assessing itself, its past and its future (see: vergangenheitsbewältigung).
  - skywal_l 5y ago
    Regarding the vergangenheitsbewaltigung, keep in ming that it was instituted by the people who either actively committed crimes or elected the people who lead the holocaust or at least by people who stood by doing nothing. So personal guilt (sincere or insincere, mind you) was an important factor in this process. My understanding is that the genocide in Namibia was perpetrated more than a 100 years ago. None of the Germans alive today, which for a non negligible portion, do not have their ancestors from Germany nor Namibia, participated in it. Surely, this means that the same exact process cannot be replicated. For example, I don't think that the German administration is being manned by anti-herero functionaries. I don't think that we could have Nuremberg style trial of living criminals. The rest of the vergangenheitsbewaltigung: monuments, museum, emphasis on this genocide in history class, remembrance day, etc. are not really "reparations", at least in my understanding of the term. So when you talk about reparations, if it is not money, what do you have in mind precisely?
    - filleduchaos 5y ago
      To stretch the company/settlement analogy a little, I personally think it's rather clear that offering an out-of-court settlement rather than facing civil judgment is still cowardly/insulting (with an added helping of weaselling) if it comes from the successors of the company execs/staff that committed the wrong rather than the actual perpetrators. > The rest of the vergangenheitsbewaltigung: monuments, museum, emphasis on this genocide in history class, remembrance day, etc. are not really "reparations", at least in my understanding of the term. I'm not sure what understanding of "reparations" excludes those things? Both from a pure legal perspective and from a transitional justice perspective, monetary restitution is just one possible aspect of reparation. Plus it's particularly interesting in this case because addressing the Namibian genocide should have been a part of non-monetary reparation efforts. In many ways the Namib desert was the sandbox for the Holocaust.
      - skywal_l 5y ago
        > I'm not sure what understanding of "reparations" excludes those things? Both from a pure legal perspective and from a transitional justice perspective, monetary restitution is just one possible aspect of reparation. Another comment in this thread says that giving money to the Namibian government was wrong because it was not going in the hand of those who suffered the consequence of the genocide which seems to indicate that for reparations to be considered "valid" it must be addressed directly to the wronged people. I don't see how a museum in Germany is going to repair the degradation of the descendant of the Namibian people who where massacred. But anyway, let's assume that all these things could be considered reparations. > To stretch the company/settlement analogy a little, I personally think it's rather clear that offering an out-of-court settlement rather than facing civil judgment is still cowardly/insulting (with an added helping of weaselling) if it comes from the successors of the company execs/staff that committed the wrong rather than the actual perpetrators. But all the actual perpetrators (the killers or those who gave them orders) are dead. Justice in the case of dead perpetrators is moot. What remain is civil actions against the company itself. But as far as I know, there are no judicial framework to trial countries for "historical" acts. If this was the case, it would open many questions. What are the "historical" acts that can be brought to that court? Another commenter was talking about the invasion of eastern Europe by the Golden Horde ; should it be a candidate of a trial? Of course not but it means that there are some criteria that will be hard to get an agreement on. Anyway, my beef with this is that the goalpost is not defined. And probably some people have qualms taking extensive (and expansive) steps to a moving goalpost.
- Glavnokoman 5y ago
  https://images.app.goo.gl/DNxvzybgtukyPAtLA https://images.app.goo.gl/DNxvzybgtukyPAtLA

skywal_l 5y ago

So, what should be done?

filleduchaos 5y ago
In my opinion? Actually offer reparation, or just don't bother. Blow hot or blow cold, but lukewarmness disgusts me. As I just said elsewhere in the comments, it's similar to having a company wrong you and then offer an out-of-court settlement. Offering settlements like that is most often a way to buy silence and dodge the actual work that goes into making amends (of which money is the least part). "We know we wronged you but oh no [our PR/our stock/other possible claims/the cost of possibly having to change our processes so it doesn't happen again]" is insulting enough when it's only coming from a company that screwed you over materially; it's so much worse when it's an attempted apology for actual genocide. An example I'd consider reasonably well done (if understandably contentious then and even now) would be the reparations for the Holocaust. Note how it wasn't just throwing money at the problem to assuage guilt, but also an entire nation re-assessing itself, its past and its future (see: vergangenheitsbewältigung).
- skywal_l 5y ago
  Regarding the vergangenheitsbewaltigung, keep in ming that it was instituted by the people who either actively committed crimes or elected the people who lead the holocaust or at least by people who stood by doing nothing. So personal guilt (sincere or insincere, mind you) was an important factor in this process. My understanding is that the genocide in Namibia was perpetrated more than a 100 years ago. None of the Germans alive today, which for a non negligible portion, do not have their ancestors from Germany nor Namibia, participated in it. Surely, this means that the same exact process cannot be replicated. For example, I don't think that the German administration is being manned by anti-herero functionaries. I don't think that we could have Nuremberg style trial of living criminals. The rest of the vergangenheitsbewaltigung: monuments, museum, emphasis on this genocide in history class, remembrance day, etc. are not really "reparations", at least in my understanding of the term. So when you talk about reparations, if it is not money, what do you have in mind precisely?
  - filleduchaos 5y ago
    To stretch the company/settlement analogy a little, I personally think it's rather clear that offering an out-of-court settlement rather than facing civil judgment is still cowardly/insulting (with an added helping of weaselling) if it comes from the successors of the company execs/staff that committed the wrong rather than the actual perpetrators. > The rest of the vergangenheitsbewaltigung: monuments, museum, emphasis on this genocide in history class, remembrance day, etc. are not really "reparations", at least in my understanding of the term. I'm not sure what understanding of "reparations" excludes those things? Both from a pure legal perspective and from a transitional justice perspective, monetary restitution is just one possible aspect of reparation. Plus it's particularly interesting in this case because addressing the Namibian genocide should have been a part of non-monetary reparation efforts. In many ways the Namib desert was the sandbox for the Holocaust.
    - skywal_l 5y ago
      > I'm not sure what understanding of "reparations" excludes those things? Both from a pure legal perspective and from a transitional justice perspective, monetary restitution is just one possible aspect of reparation. Another comment in this thread says that giving money to the Namibian government was wrong because it was not going in the hand of those who suffered the consequence of the genocide which seems to indicate that for reparations to be considered "valid" it must be addressed directly to the wronged people. I don't see how a museum in Germany is going to repair the degradation of the descendant of the Namibian people who where massacred. But anyway, let's assume that all these things could be considered reparations. > To stretch the company/settlement analogy a little, I personally think it's rather clear that offering an out-of-court settlement rather than facing civil judgment is still cowardly/insulting (with an added helping of weaselling) if it comes from the successors of the company execs/staff that committed the wrong rather than the actual perpetrators. But all the actual perpetrators (the killers or those who gave them orders) are dead. Justice in the case of dead perpetrators is moot. What remain is civil actions against the company itself. But as far as I know, there are no judicial framework to trial countries for "historical" acts. If this was the case, it would open many questions. What are the "historical" acts that can be brought to that court? Another commenter was talking about the invasion of eastern Europe by the Golden Horde ; should it be a candidate of a trial? Of course not but it means that there are some criteria that will be hard to get an agreement on. Anyway, my beef with this is that the goalpost is not defined. And probably some people have qualms taking extensive (and expansive) steps to a moving goalpost.
Glavnokoman 5y ago
https://images.app.goo.gl/DNxvzybgtukyPAtLA https://images.app.goo.gl/DNxvzybgtukyPAtLA