8 ms·

Seems like a fair play given the history...

by cjonas 2y ago

bigstrat2003 2y ago
Yes and no. The history is pretty fucked, but on the other hand nobody currently alive screwed them over. In a lot of cases, people's ancestors weren't even living here back then. I think that it's not as fair in light of the lack of culpability.
- babyent 2y ago
  Sure but people around today benefited tremendously from the horrific acts of their ancestors. It’s uncomfortable if you’re on the benefactor side but it is the truth. There are levels to it and some oppressive acts of the past were magnitudes worse than others. I mean literal genocide.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > Sure but people around today benefited tremendously from the horrific acts of their ancestors. Including the Shawnee people. So it makes this stance just a tad hypocritical.
    - babyent 2y ago
      Not really. One group was literally wiped out. And Shawnee were just one group. My people lived under imperial colonial rule. Cool we got railroads but trillions looted and millions killed in famines. Just because some people sold out their own doesn’t forgive the sin of the atrocities brought forth that set generations back.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - cyberax 2y ago
        > Not really. One group was literally wiped out. And Shawnee were just one group. Does that make them any different? My ancestors were nearly wiped out several times before, although much earlier in the history. The same applies pretty much to any group of humans. > My people lived under imperial colonial rule. Cool we got railroads but trillions looted and millions killed in famines. "Trillions looted" is another example of hypocrisy. > Just because some people sold out their own doesn’t forgive the sin of the atrocities brought forth that set generations back. And the notion of "generational sin" is another example of hypocrisy.
      - LAC-Tech 2y ago
        Why is it that some former colonies of this power have done exceptionally well for themselves, and others, nearly a century on, still think about it every day and use it as an excuse for their lack of development?
        Cthulhu_ 2y ago
        > Why is it that some former colonies of this power have done exceptionally well for themselves Like which ones? Sure, the US (being former colonies) is doing exceptionally well, but off the backs of others.
        carlosjobim 2y ago
        There's always an excuse. Many countries around the world and throughout history have been completely destroyed and then re-built by their people. They would also have a lot of excuses to remain in misery, but they decided to strive forward. The principal thing I wonder is doesn't get boring to not move forward? If you live in squalor, what does it matter if you blame yourself or blame somebody else? You're still stuck there in the dirt.
        LAC-Tech 2y ago
        Like which ones? Barbados, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Brunei, Botswana... the US (being former colonies) is doing exceptionally well, but off the backs of others. Ah so the poorer ex-colonies are simply too moral to develop. How noble of them.
        cyberax 2y ago
        Last year's Nobel Prize on economics was given for this very research! The TLDR; is that the countries where colonizers moved in to settle are doing better than the countries where colonizers moved in to exploit the natural resources.
- prododev 2y ago
  This assumes the genocide has ended, which it very much has not. In what year did Native American parents receive the right to choose not to send their kids to a boarding school? 1978. Until 1978, Native American families were being separated against their will. To say that no one currently alive screwed then over is absurd. This month, the President made motions to try and remove birthright citizenship for indigenous people. No, there are absolutely people still alive who screwed them over.
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    This was a counterfactual in a court argument. I am no Trump fan but this wasn’t that.
- defrost 2y ago
  There are still many current issues; eg: the Dakota Access Pipeline was routed to pose a threat to native water supplies and avoid being a threat to non native water. There are still native women alive who were given "free sterilisation" (ie unrequired, undeclared and unasked for sterilisation procedures) while having appendixes removed, kidney operations, and straight out made up procedures as an excuse to carry out eugenics ideals of breeding out Indians. IIRC some of those "doctors" are still alive.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    > There are still native women alive who were given "free sterilisation" (ie unrequired, undeclared and unasked for sterilisation procedures) I tried to search about this on Google. No recent reputable sources found. Can you share your source?
    - clarionbell 2y ago
      You know how in the first half of 20th century there was this big scare about overpopulation? There were books, films, studies, and lot of that leaked into the medical profession, often with a eugenics involved. Lot of experts, and highly educated people, believed that it is necessary to stem the number of births, in interest of the ignorant masses. This included Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood in US.[1] To make things worse. Supreme court legalized forced sterilization with Buck v. Bell in 1927.[2] All in line with consensus of medical professionals. It didn't really get overturned by the way, just sort of overridden by later laws. Add some racism into this mix, and guess who will get hurt the hardest? This didn't just happen in America. Entire world embraced this, because it was seen as modern and progressive.[3] And medical professionals, trained to believe it, performed procedures for decades, even after the mores have changed, basically out of habit. And it's still happening today, in UK for example, it's still perfectly legal for state to enforce sterilization.[4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics [2] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep274/usrep274200/usrep274200.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep... [3] https://www.ochrance.cz/uploads-import/ENGLISH/Sterilisation.pdf https://www.ochrance.cz/uploads-import/ENGLISH/Sterilisation... [4] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31128969 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31128969 Edit: I forgot to add article specifically about native americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_Americ...
- nkrisc 2y ago
  You are of course not personally culpable for what was done to them (and many other tribes), but you still indirectly benefit from it and they still suffer from it. You can’t disentangle history from the present.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    This makes a nice sound byte. How do I benefit? How far back in history are you willing to go, to make everyone feel guilty? I'm adopted. I've had people ask me if I have native blood just from features. Not since I moved east of Texas, but all the time on the west coast. I could be part native. Tell me how I benefit and why I should feel bad forever? Just being part white and alive today means your ancestors won lots of fights over thousands of years. White people! Feel bad forever because your ancestors fought, killed, warred! note: I'm a white person that tans very dark. I'm not gunna demand anyone else feel bad. Oh, i take back my "east of texas" people think i am a Mexican-American sometimes in Louisiana.
    - nkrisc 2y ago
      You benefit by living in a prosperous country that was in part built on the backs of people who were enslaved or egregiously mistreated. Personally I have no direct connection to much of that because all my ancestors arrived in the US around 1900. My point is you can't extricate what the US is today from what was done to people in order to make it what it is today. I still indirectly benefit. I think my ancestors benefited from having white skin in the US as opposed to dark skin, when they arrived. > Just being part white and alive today means your ancestors won lots of fights over thousands of years. Being white has nothing to do with it. Everyone's ancestors probably did terrible things if you go back far enough. That's not the point. You're not guilty and you don't need to feel guilty. But you should at least be aware of how the modern context in which you live was derived. It was derived from the suffering of others. How far back do we need to go? I don't think it matters, really, but just as far as is substantially relevant to the present. So for the US today, I'd say it's worth considering at least as far back as the founding of the country because we can still draw direct lines from the way things are today to events that happened from then until now. I mean, it was only in 1967 that many people realistically gained the right to vote, unfettered from schemes like poll taxes and more which were used to disenfranchise them. > How far back in history are you willing to go, to make everyone feel guilty? The goal is not to make anyone feel guilty. And there's no benefit in delving through ancient history. Because many of the problems that still exist in this country today are persistent effects of what happening in what is really only very recent history. Do Italians need to feel bad about the Romans keeping slaves? I don't think so, I think it would be a stretch to say that modern Italian society was built by the slaves of Romans, let alone the Romans themselves. But if you look around the US today you can easily find buildings that are still in use, sometimes in their original capacity, that were built by enslaved people. So I think it's still relevant. Likewise you can find the direct ancestors of native people who were forcibly displaced and mistreated, and by direct ancestors I mean really only a handful of generations, still very much recent, by historical standards.
- drysine 2y ago
  Except you live on the lands of native tribes that were taken from them by force or in unfair deals.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    what's your solution?
    - drysine 2y ago
      Decolonization.
- perrygeo 2y ago
  This is some bizzaro world logic, as if causality stops when a new generation is born. Europeans waged total war and stole resources for themselves, directly benefiting their ancestors. So the rule is - theft is ok if you wait long enough and give it to your children? White Americans want it both ways: keep the stolen treasure but take no responsibility for it. If I stole your car, then gave it to my son when he turned 16, would you just sit back and say "Oh well, his son didn't do the stealing so I guess it's his now"? No, you'd demand the car back. That's exactly what's happening here. The privileged ancestors of thieves may not be thieves directly, but they don't get to claim ownership either. You don't get to nullify a crime with the "I didn't personally do it" defense, knowing full well it was stolen while refusing to give it back. Insisting on hoarding the stolen treasure is indistinguishable from theft.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Eh. We've accepted adverse possession of real estate since the Code of Hammurabi. Continuous possession in good faith eventually conveys ownership. If you steal my car, kill me, forge the title transfer, give it to your kid who believes they got it in good faith and century goes by, then their descendants get to keep it and mine are out of luck.

Seems like a fair play given the history...

by cjonas 2y ago

Seems like a fair play given the history...

bigstrat2003 2y ago

Yes and no. The history is pretty fucked, but on the other hand nobody currently alive screwed them over. In a lot of cases, people's ancestors weren't even living here back then. I think that it's not as fair in light of the lack of culpability.

babyent 2y ago
Sure but people around today benefited tremendously from the horrific acts of their ancestors. It’s uncomfortable if you’re on the benefactor side but it is the truth. There are levels to it and some oppressive acts of the past were magnitudes worse than others. I mean literal genocide.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > Sure but people around today benefited tremendously from the horrific acts of their ancestors. Including the Shawnee people. So it makes this stance just a tad hypocritical.
  - babyent 2y ago
    Not really. One group was literally wiped out. And Shawnee were just one group. My people lived under imperial colonial rule. Cool we got railroads but trillions looted and millions killed in famines. Just because some people sold out their own doesn’t forgive the sin of the atrocities brought forth that set generations back.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > Not really. One group was literally wiped out. And Shawnee were just one group. Does that make them any different? My ancestors were nearly wiped out several times before, although much earlier in the history. The same applies pretty much to any group of humans. > My people lived under imperial colonial rule. Cool we got railroads but trillions looted and millions killed in famines. "Trillions looted" is another example of hypocrisy. > Just because some people sold out their own doesn’t forgive the sin of the atrocities brought forth that set generations back. And the notion of "generational sin" is another example of hypocrisy.
    - LAC-Tech 2y ago
      Why is it that some former colonies of this power have done exceptionally well for themselves, and others, nearly a century on, still think about it every day and use it as an excuse for their lack of development?
      - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
        > Why is it that some former colonies of this power have done exceptionally well for themselves Like which ones? Sure, the US (being former colonies) is doing exceptionally well, but off the backs of others.
        carlosjobim 2y ago
        There's always an excuse. Many countries around the world and throughout history have been completely destroyed and then re-built by their people. They would also have a lot of excuses to remain in misery, but they decided to strive forward. The principal thing I wonder is doesn't get boring to not move forward? If you live in squalor, what does it matter if you blame yourself or blame somebody else? You're still stuck there in the dirt.
        LAC-Tech 2y ago
        Like which ones? Barbados, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Brunei, Botswana... the US (being former colonies) is doing exceptionally well, but off the backs of others. Ah so the poorer ex-colonies are simply too moral to develop. How noble of them.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        Last year's Nobel Prize on economics was given for this very research! The TLDR; is that the countries where colonizers moved in to settle are doing better than the countries where colonizers moved in to exploit the natural resources.
prododev 2y ago
This assumes the genocide has ended, which it very much has not. In what year did Native American parents receive the right to choose not to send their kids to a boarding school? 1978. Until 1978, Native American families were being separated against their will. To say that no one currently alive screwed then over is absurd. This month, the President made motions to try and remove birthright citizenship for indigenous people. No, there are absolutely people still alive who screwed them over.
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  This was a counterfactual in a court argument. I am no Trump fan but this wasn’t that.
defrost 2y ago
There are still many current issues; eg: the Dakota Access Pipeline was routed to pose a threat to native water supplies and avoid being a threat to non native water. There are still native women alive who were given "free sterilisation" (ie unrequired, undeclared and unasked for sterilisation procedures) while having appendixes removed, kidney operations, and straight out made up procedures as an excuse to carry out eugenics ideals of breeding out Indians. IIRC some of those "doctors" are still alive.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > There are still native women alive who were given "free sterilisation" (ie unrequired, undeclared and unasked for sterilisation procedures) I tried to search about this on Google. No recent reputable sources found. Can you share your source?
  - clarionbell 2y ago
    You know how in the first half of 20th century there was this big scare about overpopulation? There were books, films, studies, and lot of that leaked into the medical profession, often with a eugenics involved. Lot of experts, and highly educated people, believed that it is necessary to stem the number of births, in interest of the ignorant masses. This included Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood in US.[1] To make things worse. Supreme court legalized forced sterilization with Buck v. Bell in 1927.[2] All in line with consensus of medical professionals. It didn't really get overturned by the way, just sort of overridden by later laws. Add some racism into this mix, and guess who will get hurt the hardest? This didn't just happen in America. Entire world embraced this, because it was seen as modern and progressive.[3] And medical professionals, trained to believe it, performed procedures for decades, even after the mores have changed, basically out of habit. And it's still happening today, in UK for example, it's still perfectly legal for state to enforce sterilization.[4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics [2] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep274/usrep274200/usrep274200.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep... [3] https://www.ochrance.cz/uploads-import/ENGLISH/Sterilisation.pdf https://www.ochrance.cz/uploads-import/ENGLISH/Sterilisation... [4] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31128969 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31128969 Edit: I forgot to add article specifically about native americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_Americ...
nkrisc 2y ago
You are of course not personally culpable for what was done to them (and many other tribes), but you still indirectly benefit from it and they still suffer from it. You can’t disentangle history from the present.
- genewitch 2y ago
  This makes a nice sound byte. How do I benefit? How far back in history are you willing to go, to make everyone feel guilty? I'm adopted. I've had people ask me if I have native blood just from features. Not since I moved east of Texas, but all the time on the west coast. I could be part native. Tell me how I benefit and why I should feel bad forever? Just being part white and alive today means your ancestors won lots of fights over thousands of years. White people! Feel bad forever because your ancestors fought, killed, warred! note: I'm a white person that tans very dark. I'm not gunna demand anyone else feel bad. Oh, i take back my "east of texas" people think i am a Mexican-American sometimes in Louisiana.
  - nkrisc 2y ago
    You benefit by living in a prosperous country that was in part built on the backs of people who were enslaved or egregiously mistreated. Personally I have no direct connection to much of that because all my ancestors arrived in the US around 1900. My point is you can't extricate what the US is today from what was done to people in order to make it what it is today. I still indirectly benefit. I think my ancestors benefited from having white skin in the US as opposed to dark skin, when they arrived. > Just being part white and alive today means your ancestors won lots of fights over thousands of years. Being white has nothing to do with it. Everyone's ancestors probably did terrible things if you go back far enough. That's not the point. You're not guilty and you don't need to feel guilty. But you should at least be aware of how the modern context in which you live was derived. It was derived from the suffering of others. How far back do we need to go? I don't think it matters, really, but just as far as is substantially relevant to the present. So for the US today, I'd say it's worth considering at least as far back as the founding of the country because we can still draw direct lines from the way things are today to events that happened from then until now. I mean, it was only in 1967 that many people realistically gained the right to vote, unfettered from schemes like poll taxes and more which were used to disenfranchise them. > How far back in history are you willing to go, to make everyone feel guilty? The goal is not to make anyone feel guilty. And there's no benefit in delving through ancient history. Because many of the problems that still exist in this country today are persistent effects of what happening in what is really only very recent history. Do Italians need to feel bad about the Romans keeping slaves? I don't think so, I think it would be a stretch to say that modern Italian society was built by the slaves of Romans, let alone the Romans themselves. But if you look around the US today you can easily find buildings that are still in use, sometimes in their original capacity, that were built by enslaved people. So I think it's still relevant. Likewise you can find the direct ancestors of native people who were forcibly displaced and mistreated, and by direct ancestors I mean really only a handful of generations, still very much recent, by historical standards.
drysine 2y ago
Except you live on the lands of native tribes that were taken from them by force or in unfair deals.
- genewitch 2y ago
  what's your solution?
  - drysine 2y ago
    Decolonization.
perrygeo 2y ago
This is some bizzaro world logic, as if causality stops when a new generation is born. Europeans waged total war and stole resources for themselves, directly benefiting their ancestors. So the rule is - theft is ok if you wait long enough and give it to your children? White Americans want it both ways: keep the stolen treasure but take no responsibility for it. If I stole your car, then gave it to my son when he turned 16, would you just sit back and say "Oh well, his son didn't do the stealing so I guess it's his now"? No, you'd demand the car back. That's exactly what's happening here. The privileged ancestors of thieves may not be thieves directly, but they don't get to claim ownership either. You don't get to nullify a crime with the "I didn't personally do it" defense, knowing full well it was stolen while refusing to give it back. Insisting on hoarding the stolen treasure is indistinguishable from theft.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  Eh. We've accepted adverse possession of real estate since the Code of Hammurabi. Continuous possession in good faith eventually conveys ownership. If you steal my car, kill me, forge the title transfer, give it to your kid who believes they got it in good faith and century goes by, then their descendants get to keep it and mine are out of luck.