3 ms·

Read up on the 'home children'. Hundreds of thousands of orphaned children were contracted(sold), indentured, to the colonies. Some faced harrowing, near star

by b112 1y ago

Read up on the 'home children'. Hundreds of thousands of orphaned children were contracted(sold), indentured, to the colonies. Some faced harrowing, near starvation conditions and were beaten, tortured, and so on. On top of that, to reduce resistance, families were broken up. One brother would be sent to Canada, another Australia, never to meet again. This is, of course, not as severe as slavery. Once adults, after a decade or more of hard labour, their contract was often satisfied. Yet my point is that the past was a more brutal time. This is how white, British children were treated by the British. And not one descendant of home children (such as my grandfather was) has ever been compensated. There is no effort to help track down families broken apart. And look at what happened to orphans in Catholic care? Priest raping children, and it being kept quiet for decades by the police and Catholic church. If reparations aren't being given to cases like these, then why would they be given to other cases a centuries old? NOTE, I'm not saying "fair or not". I'm saying that is that the past is a different world. And expecting today's people to pay for what their great-great grandfather's did, isn't a thing that's often entertained. If we start getting into reparations, I feel I should also have my property returned from when the British took it from my Scottish ancestors. Or maybe Italy should be paying, for the time the Romans invaded and they took some land back then? When does it end? Where does it end? This comment may not be liked by many, but what I'm trying to point out is that the past was not today, mores were different, and it wasn't just one race that was treated poorly. Everyone treated everyone poorly compared to today.

ZeroGravitas 1y ago
FYI various Catholic organisations are paying reparations to their victims (some for slavery, some for abuse of children). Probably too little and too late but still a strange example to give if your point is that reparations are unthinkable.
Defletter 1y ago
> And expecting today's people to pay for what their great-great grandfather's did, isn't a thing that's often entertained. From what I can tell, the argument is that: if your great-great grandfather became extremely wealthy off of slavery, and was then paid by the government to free their slaves, and then eventually you inherit that wealth... well... if the wealth from crimes against humanity can be inherited, why isn't the responsibility to undo the harm not also inherited?
- flask_manager 1y ago
  Because selectively applying this line of reasoning to one moral injustice is making someone a victim by unfairly applying a standard to them alone. Is your plan to analyze all current wealth for morality based redistribution?
  - g-b-r 1y ago
    > Because selectively applying this line of reasoning to one moral injustice is making someone a victim by unfairly applying a standard to them alone. Who argued to apply it selectively? > Is your plan to analyze all current wealth for morality based redistribution? It's not about morality, it's seeing what part or your current wealth is due to obscene and unjustifiable (often even for the time) acts. No one argues to have you do time for your ancestors, but if part of your wealth is due to those acts, what would be wrong about giving it back?
    - danaris 1y ago
      ...what is "obscene" and what is "justifiable" are about morality. I mean, I agree with your conclusion, but I don't think trying to paint this as some kind of purely rational act is either necessary or helpful. It is moral to try to redress past wrongs—especially when those past wrongs have created massive current wrongs and inequities. It is moral to take from those who have built their wealth on the backs of the suffering of the many, and to give to those who suffered to make it possible. Morality doesn't need to be a dirty word, nor does it need to be something we're not allowed to look to to guide our collective actions.
  - Defletter 1y ago
    > Is your plan to analyze all current wealth for morality based redistribution? Don't threaten me with a good time! Jokes aside, I'm generally pro-redistribution to begin with (I'm somewhat of a dirty communist) and I think trying to finagle exactly how much someone's wealth should be redistributed based on the weaving and waning of economic activity over two centuries to be rather a waste of time. Better to just redistribute based on wealth. But if this were something that happened only thirty years ago, I'd absolutely be calling for "morality based redistribution", as you put it, because it is then something that can actually be achieved.

by b112 1y ago

ZeroGravitas 1y ago

FYI various Catholic organisations are paying reparations to their victims (some for slavery, some for abuse of children). Probably too little and too late but still a strange example to give if your point is that reparations are unthinkable.

Defletter 1y ago

> And expecting today's people to pay for what their great-great grandfather's did, isn't a thing that's often entertained. From what I can tell, the argument is that: if your great-great grandfather became extremely wealthy off of slavery, and was then paid by the government to free their slaves, and then eventually you inherit that wealth... well... if the wealth from crimes against humanity can be inherited, why isn't the responsibility to undo the harm not also inherited?

flask_manager 1y ago
Because selectively applying this line of reasoning to one moral injustice is making someone a victim by unfairly applying a standard to them alone. Is your plan to analyze all current wealth for morality based redistribution?
- g-b-r 1y ago
  > Because selectively applying this line of reasoning to one moral injustice is making someone a victim by unfairly applying a standard to them alone. Who argued to apply it selectively? > Is your plan to analyze all current wealth for morality based redistribution? It's not about morality, it's seeing what part or your current wealth is due to obscene and unjustifiable (often even for the time) acts. No one argues to have you do time for your ancestors, but if part of your wealth is due to those acts, what would be wrong about giving it back?
  - danaris 1y ago
    ...what is "obscene" and what is "justifiable" are about morality. I mean, I agree with your conclusion, but I don't think trying to paint this as some kind of purely rational act is either necessary or helpful. It is moral to try to redress past wrongs—especially when those past wrongs have created massive current wrongs and inequities. It is moral to take from those who have built their wealth on the backs of the suffering of the many, and to give to those who suffered to make it possible. Morality doesn't need to be a dirty word, nor does it need to be something we're not allowed to look to to guide our collective actions.
- Defletter 1y ago
  > Is your plan to analyze all current wealth for morality based redistribution? Don't threaten me with a good time! Jokes aside, I'm generally pro-redistribution to begin with (I'm somewhat of a dirty communist) and I think trying to finagle exactly how much someone's wealth should be redistributed based on the weaving and waning of economic activity over two centuries to be rather a waste of time. Better to just redistribute based on wealth. But if this were something that happened only thirty years ago, I'd absolutely be calling for "morality based redistribution", as you put it, because it is then something that can actually be achieved.