Better genuine question: how much in reparations do you think the dutch government is responsible for?
Just the $value of the goods and labour they stole through killing and violence? Extra to account for the wealth that could've been created by everything the dutch stole? Should they have to pay damages for the sheer brutality - the cutting off hands, the concentration camps, etc?
Better genuine question: how much in reparations do you think the dutch government is responsible for?
How could I answer that without knowing how far back their guilt is supposed to go?
You answer my question, and I'll have the tools to answer your's.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but maybe as far back as we have receipts?
In this case, there's no mystery about who did what to whom and what they took. The Dutch and English kept very good records. In fact, the whole colonial project was very well accounted for.
I’m not the person you’re replying to, but maybe as far back as we have receipts?
Is there any limit to this principle?
Apparently, otherwise we would have begun the work of dismantling Western imperialism.
Do you think there should be a limit?
I personally think we should work to redress the wrongs we can, and in this case, the West could be doing a lot more to fix their crimes and being a lot less uppity about it.
Apparently, otherwise we would have begun the work of dismantling Western imperialism.
Do you think there should be a limit?
Seemingly controversially, I don't believe in ancestral guilt. As a mixed-race individual, I'm not half-oppressor and half-oppressed. Reparations should be to the extent of bringing others in-line with an equal and whole share of the polity - or the international community, as the case may be.
As such, I would not regard there as being a set number for reparations - however many trillions it takes, it is the responsibility of those who have the necessary resources to assist those who lack the same access to resources. This is not a matter of debts to be 'repaid', it is a matter of recognizing the equal worth and humanity of others, regardless of nation. It is not a matter of guilt when the grandchildren of the grandchildren of the people who did these crimes are, themselves, long dead. These problems arose from division - they must end in unity and brotherhood.
Obviously, there are also more recent crimes to be answered for - these are a debt in a much more real sense, and it necessary for governments to both acknowledge wrongdoing and make compensation to survivors or immediate family under civil law. Though obviously nothing can undo a crime once committed, that is the process that is generally agreed upon.
I don't really know what ancestral guilt is or what it has to do with anything people are asking for. It sounds very... Christian? Not that that's a bad thing, it's just not really the paradigm.
People from former colonies don't necessarily want anyone to feel guilty, they just want to get paid back. Like you've said, everyone who was part of the original colonial thrust has died. Now it's just a matter of paying it back + interest and a fine, and we're on the way to being even Steve.
Sure, there'll be some bad feelings, but that's because the wound is still open.
I don’t really know what ancestral guilt is or what it has to do with anything people are asking for. It sounds very… Christian? Not that that’s a bad thing, it’s just not really the paradigm.
People from former colonies don’t necessarily want anyone to feel guilty, they just want to get paid back. Like you’ve said, everyone who was part of the original colonial thrust has died. Now it’s just a matter of paying it back + interest and a fine, and we’re on the way to being even Steve.
This is directly contradictory to my reading, I think this is what this whole dialogue hinges on.
My argument is that holding the people of modern countries responsible for the actions of their ancestors, by imposing a debt (and 'interest and a fine'), that is ancestral guilt, and it is a fundamentally absurd concept.
Wait so guilt is only inherited if it is documented well?
I don't think anyone seriously thinks guilt can be inherited... "Ancestral guilt" is a totally stupid concept, and framing colonial reparations that way is arguing in bad faith.
I thought it would be funny to point out we literally have the receipts of colonialism, but that turned out to be arguing with pigeons.
I am glad the nicer version of the argument you have created for yourself matches up with the argument that you wish they had made.
Is that what I'm doing, what Pug is doing or what you are doing? (downvote if it's you so I can know)
Better genuine question: how much in reparations do you think the dutch government is responsible for?
Just the $value of the goods and labour they stole through killing and violence? Extra to account for the wealth that could've been created by everything the dutch stole? Should they have to pay damages for the sheer brutality - the cutting off hands, the concentration camps, etc?
How could I answer that without knowing how far back their guilt is supposed to go?
You answer my question, and I'll have the tools to answer your's.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but maybe as far back as we have receipts?
In this case, there's no mystery about who did what to whom and what they took. The Dutch and English kept very good records. In fact, the whole colonial project was very well accounted for.
Is there any limit to this principle?
Apparently, otherwise we would have begun the work of dismantling Western imperialism.
Do you think there should be a limit?
I personally think we should work to redress the wrongs we can, and in this case, the West could be doing a lot more to fix their crimes and being a lot less uppity about it.
Seemingly controversially, I don't believe in ancestral guilt. As a mixed-race individual, I'm not half-oppressor and half-oppressed. Reparations should be to the extent of bringing others in-line with an equal and whole share of the polity - or the international community, as the case may be.
As such, I would not regard there as being a set number for reparations - however many trillions it takes, it is the responsibility of those who have the necessary resources to assist those who lack the same access to resources. This is not a matter of debts to be 'repaid', it is a matter of recognizing the equal worth and humanity of others, regardless of nation. It is not a matter of guilt when the grandchildren of the grandchildren of the people who did these crimes are, themselves, long dead. These problems arose from division - they must end in unity and brotherhood.
Obviously, there are also more recent crimes to be answered for - these are a debt in a much more real sense, and it necessary for governments to both acknowledge wrongdoing and make compensation to survivors or immediate family under civil law. Though obviously nothing can undo a crime once committed, that is the process that is generally agreed upon.
I don't really know what ancestral guilt is or what it has to do with anything people are asking for. It sounds very... Christian? Not that that's a bad thing, it's just not really the paradigm.
People from former colonies don't necessarily want anyone to feel guilty, they just want to get paid back. Like you've said, everyone who was part of the original colonial thrust has died. Now it's just a matter of paying it back + interest and a fine, and we're on the way to being even Steve.
Sure, there'll be some bad feelings, but that's because the wound is still open.
This is directly contradictory to my reading, I think this is what this whole dialogue hinges on.
My argument is that holding the people of modern countries responsible for the actions of their ancestors, by imposing a debt (and 'interest and a fine'), that is ancestral guilt, and it is a fundamentally absurd concept.
Wait so guilt is only inherited if it is documented well?
I don't think anyone seriously thinks guilt can be inherited... "Ancestral guilt" is a totally stupid concept, and framing colonial reparations that way is arguing in bad faith.
I thought it would be funny to point out we literally have the receipts of colonialism, but that turned out to be arguing with pigeons.
I am glad the nicer version of the argument you have created for yourself matches up with the argument that you wish they had made.
Is that what I'm doing, what Pug is doing or what you are doing? (downvote if it's you so I can know)