5 ms·
It's interesting because because former colonial powers argue that they acted by the moral standards of that time - and thus can't be judged today for that. And
by frozenlettuce 4y ago
It's interesting because because former colonial powers argue that they acted by the moral standards of that time - and thus can't be judged today for that. And on the first opportunity they demonstrate that we didn't improved much as a species.
- adastra22 4y agoThat is absolutely standard legal practice though. Laws generally aren’t retroactive for good reason.
- FpUser 4y agoI understand non retroactive part. But claiming stolen gold now - I do not think it should ever be legal. On top of that it is simple disgusting. Really shows what their values are. Enlightened society my ass. They should be shown middle finger.
- seoaeu 4y agoI think the claim is that back then the law was “finders keepers” so it shouldn’t retroactively be called theft. Personally I don’t find that argument very compelling.
- adastra22 4y agoIt was never stolen though. Wars of conquest and slavery were perfectly legal under international law at the time. I agree it’s a dick move by Spain and really tarnishes their reputation today. But that’s not a legal argument.
- happy_path 4y agoAnother example: Is UK going to pay reparations to its old colonies? Don't think so.
- ajmurmann 4y agoWhose moral standards at the time? Seems like there was no agreement between indigenous South Americans' government and Spanish invaders at the time either.