NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I want to stir things up a bit, and I thought, hey, what pisses people off more than the concept that we should make reparations for wrongs done?

So let's discuss it. Whether it be suggested reparations to the descendants of slaves, to Japanese people interned in concentration camps in Canada, to natives, to whomever...what is your knowledge on the various subjects, and what is your general, and specific opinion?

In short:
When wrong has been done against a particular group, how should we go about dealing with that wrong?

Well, start by ameliorating whatever is upsetting them. In the case of slaves -emancipation! If it is the distant relatives of someone, by that time any harm (except general societal harm) will have been nullified. If you punch someone in the face you apologise to them, not to their kids.

Liasia']Well, start by ameliorating whatever is upsetting them. In the case of slaves -emancipation! If it is the distant relatives of someone, by that time any harm (except general societal harm) will have been nullified. If you punch someone in the face you apologise to them, not to their kids.

What if punching someone in the face actually affects their children? Like...they see the violence and are traumatised by it? Certain things that have been done to people have had a sort of ripple effect on their offspring...consider torture victims who are so traumatised that they are no longer capable of being good parents...if nothing had been done in that person's lifetime to help deal with the impact of the torture, should not some help at least go to the children who suffered as a result?

Another problem is that many things that are done are felt to be justified at the time they are acted out...it is often much later that society sees these things as wrong. If a wrong is not recognised in time, does that absolve everyone of having to deal with it? Is there a statute of limitations on dealing with past injustice?

In general, once the wrong has been righted, we should have no obligation whatsoever

What if punching someone in the face actually affects their children? Like...they see the violence and are traumatised by it? Certain things that have been done to people have had a sort of ripple effect on their offspring...consider torture victims who are so traumatised that they are no longer capable of being good parents...if nothing had been done in that person's lifetime to help deal with the impact of the torture, should not some help at least go to the children who suffered as a result?

Yes, but the childrens children? Sure give help to people directly affected but not to the distant relatives. When you hear people citing events that happened 100s or thousands of years ago as a reason to hate a certain group, it seems a bit, well.... stupid.

The way I approach repairing mistakes on a personal level is to ask the other person how the debt can be repaid. Within reason and without me doing anything immoral/illegal, I tend to do what they ask. Perhaps something similar can be done on the grand scale?

Well, I want to stir things up a bit, and I thought, hey, what pisses people off more than the concept that we should make reparations for wrongs done?

So let's discuss it. Whether it be suggested reparations to the descendants of slaves, to Japanese people interned in concentration camps in Canada, to natives, to whomever...what is your knowledge on the various subjects, and what is your general, and specific opinion?

In short:
When wrong has been done against a particular group, how should we go about dealing with that wrong?

my ancestors could have been slaves at some point, depending on how far back we'll do this. And one of my relatives was killed at Pearl Harbor. Another relative was among the first US soldiers to encounter and liberate a concentration camp- just witnessing that is a horror.

I want whats coming to me. :p

In general, once the wrong has been righted, we should have no obligation whatsoever
But you are talking about the primary wrong. What about the secondary or tertiary wrongs that are a result of the primary wrong?

As an example:

A man is beaten by a group of government thugs. They are sent to jail. He can no longer work, and lives in constant pain. As a result, his wife leaves him, and he also loses custody of his children as he can not care for them. You could say that the wrong was righted...those responsible for the wrong were punished. However, the repercussions of the original act have also caused harm. Do we ignore those repercussions? Does jailing the thugs (and perhaps even the person in power that gave the order) actual right this wrong?

The way I approach repairing mistakes on a personal level is to ask the other person how the debt can be repaid. Within reason and without me doing anything immoral/illegal, I tend to do what they ask. Perhaps something similar can be done on the grand scale?
That is called restitution. I would indeed like to see something like this system be used on a bigger scale, but it can be a lot more problematic than just throwing money at a problem, then closing the case.

When wrong has been done against a particular group, how should we go about dealing with that wrong?
Interesting topic. There is a point in time when people need to call it even.

Example: in the recent Canadian election campaign, Paul Martin (as prime minister) made an official apology to the chinese immigrants who had to pay the head tax when they arrived in Canada until the 1920s. That's fine - as the leader of the Canadian government, he should be responsible for that type of statement. What amazed me was that after the apology, he was critisized by much of the chinese community for not doing it well enough, not being "truly" sorry, and not taking the issue seriously. The topic of repayment to the families came up, and people declared that they would not vote liberal over the issue.

Paul Martin apologized for something he had nothing to do with, and people to whom for the most part, it was not adressed (having arrived in canada after the 1920s), got into a huge tizy over it, and made something that isn't relevant for present-day canadians into a hot ticket election "issue". Talk of reparations and history, particularly if the generation that experienced the event are basically dead, is simply and excercise in inflamation.

Liasia']Yes, but the childrens children?
My answer to this is a question...if a wrong is not recognised, and not dealt with in a timely fashion, is it okay to consider the issue closed? If governments wait long enough, will they never have to apologise or deal with any of the decisions that were made in the past?

Liasia'] Sure give help to people directly affected but not to the distant relatives. When you hear people citing events that happened 100s or thousands of years ago as a reason to hate a certain group, it seems a bit, well.... stupid.
Generally, the events of hundreds or thousands of years ago are simply the background to current, or recent problems...not the sole reason for animosity.

but it can be a lot more problematic than just throwing money at a problem, then closing the case.

Yes, but it couldn't hurt. It seems people's outrage at historical offences against them always gets less if they get some money out of it.

I want whats coming to me. :p
*licks her lips and prepares to comply*

I don't know what the 'cut off' should be. I think that has to be situation-specific.

My answer to this is a question...if a wrong is not recognised, and not dealt with in a timely fashion, is it okay to consider the issue closed? If governments wait long enough, will they never have to apologise or deal with any of the decisions that were made in the past?


Like the Japanese have done with ww2, and the massacre of Chinese civilians. By repressing the question of reperations to victims until most were dead, they have basically avoided the issue.

*licks her lips and prepares to comply*

I don't know what the 'cut off' should be. I think that has to be situation-specific.


you always manage to thrill, you naughty girl.

But you are talking about the primary wrong. What about the secondary or tertiary wrongs that are a result of the primary wrong?

As an example:

A man is beaten by a group of government thugs. They are sent to jail. He can no longer work, and lives in constant pain. As a result, his wife leaves him, and he also loses custody of his children as he can not care for them. You could say that the wrong was righted...those responsible for the wrong were punished. However, the repercussions of the original act have also caused harm. Do we ignore those repercussions? Does jailing the thugs (and perhaps even the person in power that gave the order) actual right this wrong?

In that case, the beating is part of the problem. I would say the government should give him compensation according to whatever he would have been getting payed at his job. One of the main problems with your question is that for me, I would have to judge each case on an individual basis.

In that case, the beating is part of the problem. I would say the government should give him compensation according to whatever he would have been getting payed at his job.

Throwing money at the problem, as someone on the thread already suggested.

Interesting topic. There is a point in time when people need to call it even.

Example: in the recent Canadian election campaign, Paul Martin (as prime minister) made an official apology to the chinese immigrants who had to pay the head tax when they arrived in Canada until the 1920s. That's fine - as the leader of the Canadian government, he should be responsible for that type of statement. What amazed me was that after the apology, he was critisized by much of the chinese community for not doing it well enough, not being "truly" sorry, and not taking the issue seriously. The topic of repayment to the families came up, and people declared that they would not vote liberal over the issue. Take this in the wider context. Chinese immigrants were absolutely key in building the Canadian Pacific Railway and 'opening up the West'. As soon as they were done, the head tax was put into effect in order to restrict Chinese immigration. So we needed them when we didn't want to risk our own hides, but once the hard work was done, we didn't want them filling up our country.

The head tax of $50, back in 1885, was a huge sum of money, and made it nearly impossible for Chinese to immigrate. It was about two years worth of wages...so you consider what two years wage is, and compare that to current immigration fees. As well, Chinese who did manage to pay the fee were denied citizenship. What this meant was, you had a bunch of family guys who came to Canada to work on the railroads, who were unable to bring their families over. Families were split up, children left without fathers, and wives without husbands.

This wasn't enough...in 1923, a Chinese Immigration Act was passed which so severely restricted immigration that only 50 or so managed to get in between 1923 and 1947.

So when Paul Martin apologised for the head tax alone, he in effect, was keeping silent on the racist policies that specifically targeted Chinese people into the 1950s. When people complain that this isn't enough, they have a point. Not everyone is asking for compensation...just a little more truth.

Liasia']Throwing money at the problem, as someone on the thread already suggested.
In that particular case, yes. After arresting the perpetrators, there is not much else left to do.

Another problem is that many things that are done are felt to be justified at the time they are acted out...it is often much later that society sees these things as wrong. If a wrong is not recognised in time, does that absolve everyone of having to deal with it? Is there a statute of limitations on dealing with past injustice?

My problem with stuff like this is as follows:

*I* did not do anything to harm anyone.
My ancestors were not involved in harming anyone.
My ancestors immigrated 97 years ago, and were themselves abused and treated badly when they reached the country I reside in now.
Therefore: why should I be made to feel as if I owe anyone reparations for the wrongdoing of others?

My ancestors' attitude to their own problems was to suck it up, move on, and work their asses off for everything they have. Why then does it seem like folks who've been around a lot longer don't seem willing to do the same?

There are programs in place now to help even out the social and financial inequities -- I am, for one, tired of the idea that Everyone Must Constantly Apologize and Everyone Must Pay for all eternity.

Liasia']Like the Japanese have done with ww2, and the massacre of Chinese civilians. By repressing the question of reperations to victims until most were dead, they have basically avoided the issue.
This is a common tactic.

My answer to this is a question...if a wrong is not recognised, and not dealt with in a timely fashion, is it okay to consider the issue closed? If governments wait long enough, will they never have to apologise or deal with any of the decisions that were made in the past?
It is an acknowledged part of US law at least (and I think in most of the West) that a certain time after the event one is no longer responsible for their actions. The cut off point varies, but by now I'm pretty sure it has expired for just about all issues rearding repiritions.
Beyond that, there is the issue of who pays. None of the original doers are alive, and no matter how many ways you try and find around it, you'll be penalizing innocents. Attack the government, then taxes taken in the present pay for it. Attack a company, and the shareholders and employees are paying for it. Attack an estate (assuming you can finger a wealthy descendent), and you're attacking the generations that came after the wrong-doer.

In that case, the beating is part of the problem. I would say the government should give him compensation according to whatever he would have been getting payed at his job. One of the main problems with your question is that for me, I would have to judge each case on an individual basis.
I believe they would have to be judged on an individual basis. We can come up with some guidelines of course, but each case is different. Usually the ones who have rigid concepts of reparation are those who believe reparation should never be given. I'm interested in those opinions as well.

Back to that particular example...if the children and the wife suffered as a result of the husband being beaten...should they receive some sort of compensation as well?

I believe they would have to be judged on an individual basis. We can come up with some guidelines of course, but each case is different. Usually the ones who have rigid concepts of reparation are those who believe reparation should never be given. I'm interested in those opinions as well.

Back to that particular example...if the children and the wife suffered as a result of the husband being beaten...should they receive some sort of compensation as well?
Considering the wife left him, no. It may not be fair to the children, but they can blame that on their mother.

Well, I want to stir things up a bit, and I thought, hey, what pisses people off more than the concept that we should make reparations for wrongs done?

So let's discuss it. Whether it be suggested reparations to the descendants of slaves, to Japanese people interned in concentration camps in Canada, to natives, to whomever...what is your knowledge on the various subjects, and what is your general, and specific opinion?My opinion is that we absolutely should have reparations for slavery, for the treatment of Native Americans, for the Japanese internment camps, etc. It really isn't relevant, in my mind, that that isn't going on today, and that we wouldn't do anything like that anymore. It's only too convenient for those people who benefitted from theft to say that theft is bad.

In short:
When wrong has been done against a particular group, how should we go about dealing with that wrong?That, to me, is the real question. I lean, for various reasons, but this is a big one, towards voluntary land redistribution.

My problem with stuff like this is as follows:

*I* did not do anything to harm anyone.
My ancestors were not involved in harming anyone.
My ancestors immigrated 97 years ago, and were themselves abused and treated badly when they reached the country I reside in now.
Therefore: why should I be made to feel as if I owe anyone reparations for the wrongdoing of others?

My ancestors' attitude to their own problems was to suck it up, move on, and work their asses off for everything they have. Why then does it seem like folks who've been around a lot longer don't seem willing to do the same?

There are programs in place now to help even out the social and financial inequities -- I am, for one, tired of the idea that Everyone Must Constantly Apologize and Everyone Must Pay for all eternity.
This is a common sentiment, but you're being awfully vague here, Kat. What wrong specifically do you feel you are being made to apologise for? For example, any time I start to talk about native rights, someone says something similar to what you've just said. What they fail to realise is that I'm not complaining about colonisation and forced settlement. There is nothing that can be done about that now. What I want dealt with is things like residential schools, involuntary enfranchisement (which saw natives give up their status if they earned a university degree, joined the army, or became a priest) and the continued lack of control over native territory etc. The argument is not that you should be held personally accountable for massacres, or the deliberate spreading of smallpox...but rather that society as a whole (in this case, Canadian society) should be held accountable for recent, and current wrongs, taken in the larger context of historical discrimination.

It is an acknowledged part of US law at least (and I think in most of the West) that a certain time after the event one is no longer responsible for their actions. The cut off point varies, but by now I'm pretty sure it has expired for just about all issues rearding repiritions.
Beyond that, there is the issue of who pays. None of the original doers are alive, and no matter how many ways you try and find around it, you'll be penalizing innocents. Attack the government, then taxes taken in the present pay for it. Attack a company, and the shareholders and employees are paying for it. Attack an estate (assuming you can finger a wealthy descendent), and you're attacking the generations that came after the wrong-doer.

Again, be clear what issue you are referring to. Slavery? Or the beating of Rodney King? The slaughter of native americans? Or the illegal seizures of reservation lands by energy companies in the 70s? Some issues are too old to try to 'fix' now...just being open and honest and educating people about them might be enough. But other injustices are more current. Some have been dealt with, others have not. For those that have not been dealt with...should ignoring them until it's 'too late' be allowed?

. So when Paul Martin apologised for the head tax alone, he in effect, was keeping silent on the racist policies that specifically targeted Chinese people into the 1950s. When people complain that this isn't enough, they have a point. Not everyone is asking for compensation...just a little more truth.
Maybe, but the accusations of insincerity and criticism were way over the top. My boyfriend had heard a clip of the apology on the radio without hearing the context or topic, and from the tone of Paul Martin's words, he thought that Martin was apologizing for something terrible he himself had done. It's a bit ridiculous. I don't think Canadian society is in denial about the racism and horrors involved in canada's former immigration policies and the building of the CPR. I know I learned about these things in detail in school.

Considering the wife left him, no. It may not be fair to the children, but they can blame that on their mother.
You're assuming that the decision to leave him with based on something superficial. What if he became emotionally and verbally abusive because of the pain? Or began to hate her because she was still okay, and didn't suffer from his nightmares and disability?

Reparations for Slavery?

History never really goes away. Practices of the past continue to impact the present. When a third of the population of a country do not feel accepted by the other two-thirds, something is amiss.

Prior to the American Civil War, tens of thousands of human beings were bought and sold, much the same as cattle. Despite the Emancipation Proclamation, and despite the passage of time, many American citizens of African descent still feel the lingering effects of their ancestors having been considered as less than human.

What, If Anything, Should Be Done?

Reparations are payments made in recognition that some wrong has been committed, usually by a government or other organization. There are numerous precedents for reparations, although there is some question as to their applicability in this instance.

Arguments In Favor Of Reaparations:

Perhaps the most telling argument in favor of some form of reparations for slavery in America, is the continuing feeling among African Americans that their country has never apologized for having enslaved their ancestors. This is a continuing source of the anger which poisons race relations in America.

The reparations paid to other groups, such as the descendants of the Japanese Americans interned during World War Two, provide legal precedent for such payments.

Steps must be taken to help allieviate the continuing effects of slavery, such as the economic disparity between African Americans as a group, and other racial and ethnic groups in America.

Paying reparations for slavery would help race relations over the long run by encouraging forgiveness and healing.

Arguments Against Reparations:

Reparations would work an economic hardship on the organizations having to make such payments.

Although there are legal precedents for the payment of reparations, all of these payments were made to living victims, not their descendants.

There is no way to assure that such payments would not simply become a windfall for certain groups or special interests.

Paying reparations to one racial group would create resentment among others and harm race relations in the United States.

Paying reparations to one racial group would encourage other racial or ethnic groups to seek reparations as well.

The Authors:

John Woodley is Moderator of the RTD2 Discussion Group on Yahoo.com, and lives in New York City, New York.

Forrest Horn is Senior Associate with Paradigm Associates.org, and lives in Kernersville, North Carolina.

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations by the Authors:

"We find ample legal precedent for reparations. We conclude that reparations for slavery and the lingering effects of slavery are justified, and should be paid by successor organizations to those which profited from slavery. We also conclude that the long-term effect of paying reparations will be to heal divisions between the races in America. We recommend that reparations take the form of a scholarship fund for descendants of former slaves, research into the causes of and solutions for racism, and research into ways and means of correcting the disparity between races and ethnic groups in America, including economic, social, cultural, educational and others. We also recommend that a non-profit organization be formed for the implementation of these recommendations, and that this organization be open to every citizen of the United States, regardless of race, color, ethnic group, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or political affiliation. We further recommend that the operations and finances of this organization be overseen by appropriate governmental agencies, such as the General Accounting Office."

Well, I want to stir things up a bit, and I thought, hey, what pisses people off more than the concept that we should make reparations for wrongs done?

So let's discuss it. Whether it be suggested reparations to the descendants of slaves, to Japanese people interned in concentration camps in Canada, to natives, to whomever...what is your knowledge on the various subjects, and what is your general, and specific opinion?

In short:
When wrong has been done against a particular group, how should we go about dealing with that wrong?
The descendants of oppressors shouldn't have to pay reparations to the descendants of the oppressed. It is pointless and divisive. What should be done is to make sure that everyone has an equal chance in society, no matter what their race or the history of their people.

Also, the concept reminds me of the idea of passing down punishment through generations for something that grandparents did. I abhor that idea.

The descendants of oppressors shouldn't have to pay reparations to the descendants of the oppressed. It is pointless and divisive. What should be done is to make sure that everyone has an equal chance in society, no matter what their race or the history of their people.

Also, the concept reminds me of the idea of passing down punishment through generations for something that grandparents did. I abhor that idea.

I find it very interesting, that most posters are thinking only of things done hundreds of years ago...

As for the concept of passing down punishment, your definition only looks at it from one angle. So, we shouldn't punish the descendants of those who commited the crimes...but what about the descendants of those who were themselves enslaved, or resettled, or whatever...if the wrong was never righted, then aren't they paying for what what was done to their forebearers? (assuming the impact is still felt)

You're assuming that the decision to leave him with based on something superficial. What if he became emotionally and verbally abusive because of the pain? Or began to hate her because she was still okay, and didn't suffer from his nightmares and disability?
It doesn't matter. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I say the line should be drawn at immediate family. It may not always be fair, but it keeps the situation simple and would usually serve to help those directly affected by the situation, and not those who are merely trying to extort the government.

Again, be clear what issue you are referring to.
I was refering to the "big things", slavery, colonization of America, colonization of the Pacific Islands, the Civil War (after Sherman was let loose on them, I'm pretty sure the South could make a good case), etc.
Rodney King was overcompensated and overplayed. In incidences where specific people are to blame, then those people should be brought to justice, however the government isn't directly responsible beacause a few cops are out of their heads.

Lets discuss it with an example that is less 'personal'. Think of the Japanese treatment of the Chinese, the rape of Nanking and so on. What should be done in order to right that wrong?

I was refering to the "big things", slavery, colonization of America, colonization of the Pacific Islands, the Civil War (after Sherman was let loose on them, I'm pretty sure the South could make a good case), etc.
Rodney King was overcompensated and overplayed. In incidences where specific people are to blame, then those people should be brought to justice, however the government isn't directly responsible beacause a few cops are out of their heads.
At what point then is the governenment's responsibility for its policies expired? The 'big things' you mentioned all happened hundreds of years ago. What about the issues that are more recent? For example, consider the US's foreign policy during the 70s and 80s. Right now, people are sharply divided as to the legality and justification of these policies, so what was done to overthrow governments and put dictators in power is not yet uniformly considered to be wrong. Slavery wasn't considered very wrong (not widely) while it was being practised...it was a societal norm. Those US interventions are seen as justified by some, and so are also not considered aboslutely wrong. One day, they may be...at that point, will the argument be, "It's too late now? We know it was wrong, but we won't do anything about it, because it wasn't us?"

This is a common sentiment, but you're being awfully vague here, Kat. What wrong specifically do you feel you are being made to apologise for? For example, any time I start to talk about native rights, someone says something similar to what you've just said. What they fail to realise is that I'm not complaining about colonisation and forced settlement. There is nothing that can be done about that now. What I want dealt with is things like residential schools, involuntary enfranchisement (which saw natives give up their status if they earned a university degree, joined the army, or became a priest) and the continued lack of control over native territory etc. The argument is not that you should be held personally accountable for massacres, or the deliberate spreading of smallpox...but rather that society as a whole (in this case, Canadian society) should be held accountable for recent, and current wrongs, taken in the larger context of historical discrimination.

Again: there is social inequity, I will give you that, but there are also things that have been put into effect to help even them out: scholarships, affirmative action programs, charities, social action groups -- all of which provide benefits to groups which see themselves as disadvantaged because of wrongs done to them generations ago.

I'm not specifically speaking of native groups -- I'm speaking collectively of groups who have been wronged.

Should I be able to sue because of the signs on apartments which said "No Puerto Ricans or Dogs" that were prevalent in my mother's childhood? They hurt her. It affected the jobs she was able to get when people saw her ethnicity. I'm certain that affected the way she parented me.

Because people make remarks about the Mafia to me when they find out I'm part Sicilian, should I be able to sue? Or because of the jobs my ancestors could not get because they were Dagos and Guineas?

Perhaps the Irish, too, should be able to sue for all the abuse they took when they immigrated too -- job listings and signs which said, "Irish need not apply."

Maybe I should sue because in the Spanish influenza pandemic at the beginning of this century, my great-grandfather died, leaving my grandmother a widow and great aunts and uncle fatherless, and because my great-grandmother had to put the girls in an Irish-Catholic orphanage because she couldn't afford to raise them herself. I know for sure that experience tainted everything in my grandmother's life and made her a bitter and devisive mother. My dad and uncles and aunt all suffered because of that, and that affected the way all we cousins were parented, too.

Surely all these examples are worthy of reparations too?

I think the best way to right past wrongs is to make sure that:

a) We learn from them and

b) Try our best to make sure that they don't happen agtain, that they become so stigmatized that people wouldn't dare act that way again.


It's a forward-looking solution, not one based in bitterness and mired in "eye for an eye" rhetoric. One wrong is bad enough; two wrongs (or continuing to use wrongs to "correct" past wrongs) do not make anything right.

I think the best way to right past wrongs is to make sure that:

a) We learn from them and

b) Try our best to make sure that they don't happen agtain, that they become so stigmatized that people wouldn't dare act that way again.


It's a forward-looking solution, not one based in bitterness and mired in "eye for an eye" rhetoric. One wrong is bad enough; two wrongs (or continuing to use wrongs to "correct" past wrongs) do not make anything right.

Amen.

*snip*
Which of your examples were the result of government policies? That's kind of my acid test for reparations. If a wrong was a mandated, approved government program...then there should be something done. If reparations aren't appropriate, then something else should be done to address the issue. Sometimes all that can be done is to apologise.

I think the best way to right past wrongs is to make sure that:

a) We learn from them and
Which only works if the mistake is ever actually acknowledged. Sometimes, all people are waiting for is an apology and an admission of wrongdoing. Many of those people will never, ever hear it. (thinks of the Armenian holocaust, the rape of Nanking, the many tortured and disappeared Latin Americans...)

Which only works if the mistake is ever actually acknowledged. Sometimes, all people are waiting for is an apology and an admission of wrongdoing. Many of those people will never, ever hear it. (thinks of the Armenian holocaust, the rape of Nanking, the many tortured and disappeared Latin Americans...)

yah, i hear you, but you know which past wrongs i was thinking about.

Lets discuss it with an example that is less 'personal'. Think of the Japanese treatment of the Chinese, the rape of Nanking and so on. What should be done in order to right that wrong?
I consider that to be a part of WW2. In my opinion, Japan has already suffered enough from the A-bombs that got loosed on them to be held further accountable for anything they did in that period.

Which of your examples were the result of government policies? That's kind of my acid test for reparations. If a wrong was a mandated, approved government program...then there should be something done. If reparations aren't appropriate, then something else should be done to address the issue. Sometimes all that can be done is to apologise.

They very certainly were because of immigration policies, and they very certainly were supported by the police force and governmental agencies at the time.

So where's my check? :D

They very certainly were because of immigration policies, and they very certainly were supported by the police force and governmental agencies at the time.

So where's my check? :D
You need to go through the effort of getting the government to admit it was wrong first. I wouldn't hold my breath for the cheque. Things move slowly.

Maybe your great, great-grandkids will get the payment:)

I consider that to be a part of WW2. In my opinion, Japan has already suffered enough from the A-bombs that got loosed on them to be held further accountable for anything they did in that period.
I don't think anything could possibly absolve them from what they did (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm) in that period.

I don't think anything could possibly absolve them from what they did (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm) in that period.
Just as nothing could absolve the owners of slaves or those who participated in the Holcaust. again, you have to draw a line somewhere. Especially for events that happened that long ago.

Just as nothing could absolve the owners of slaves or those who participated in the Holcaust. again, you have to draw a line somewhere. Especially for events that happened that long ago.
We don't draw the line at the Holocaust. Reparations are still being made.

As for the concept of passing down punishment, your definition only looks at it from one angle. So, we shouldn't punish the descendants of those who commited the crimes...but what about the descendants of those who were themselves enslaved, or resettled, or whatever...if the wrong was never righted, then aren't they paying for what what was done to their forebearers? (assuming the impact is still felt)
Yeah I covered that angle by saying "What should be done is to make sure that everyone has an equal chance in society, no matter what their race."

My opinion is that we absolutely should have reparations for slavery, for the treatment of Native Americans, for the Japanese internment camps, etc. It really isn't relevant, in my mind, that that isn't going on today, and that we wouldn't do anything like that anymore. It's only too convenient for those people who benefitted from theft to say that theft is bad.
-snip-

Reparations should be paid only to the party directly affected. So reparations for any living slaves, formerly interned Japanese, poorly treated Native Americans, etc.

Nothing for descendants, including me. Equal opportunity and equal protection under the law is all I ask for, and that is all I need. Just treat me as badly as you treat everyone else.:p

We don't draw the line at the Holocaust. Reparations are still being made.
I would hope so. For every incident that occurs, there is a different line so to speak.

Yeah I covered that angle by saying "What should be done is to make sure that everyone has an equal chance in society, no matter what their race."
Okay, okay...I'll accept that and not ask for a detailed action plan:)

I would hope so. For every incident that occurs, there is a different line so to speak.

The difference is that the Japanese have never been FORCED to make reparations to the survivors of Nanking. Had those in charge of the Holocaust had their way, they never would have dealt with it either.

The difference is that the Japanese have never been FORCED to make reparations to the survivors of Nanking. Had those in charge of the Holocaust had their way, they never would have dealt with it either.
There is also a large difference between the six million killed in the Holcaust and the 300,000 slaughtered at Nanking. I am not one to count human beings as number, but surely that should be a factor. Also, as I said prieviously, the nukes dropped on Japan not only killed 120,000 people initially (most of whom were innocent civilians) , the lingering effects killed twice that many from radiation sickness and cancer. I think we should give them somewhat of a break after that.

Here's my two cents:

Around a year ago the Governor of Illinois apologised to the LDS Church (Mormon) for chasing them out of the state a few hundred years ago. LDS people here in Utah didn't care about it, because it didn't mean anything. The people apologising did not comit the crime, therefor they are not resonsible.

Lets say that "John" and "Kim" have a daughter "Kyli". Then "Bob" (who has a son named "Billy") comes and murders John and Kim. Kyli deserves compensation from Bob. But if Bob kills himself after killing the parents, his son, Billy, is not responsible to compensate Kyli.

Just because 50 years ago Americans of Japanise desent were locked up, dosen't mean their desendents should get compensation. But if those children are subject poverty because of that crime, it wasn't the fault of those people that locked the parents up, it's our fault for creating a society were those people could not easily recover money wise. We then should fix society so it does not continue to happen.

There is also a large difference between the six million killed in the Holcaust and the 300,000 slaughtered at Nanking. I am not one to count human beings as number, but surely that should be a factor. Also, as I said prieviously, the nukes dropped on Japan not only killed 120,000 people initially (most of whom were innocent civilians) , the lingering effects killed twice that many from radiation sickness and cancer. I think we should give them somewhat of a break after that.
So if a group of people suffers a terrible atrocity, it should be able to inflict an atrocity on another group of people and not be held responsible? And by the way, the bombings happened AFTER the rape of Nanking.

So if a group of people suffers a terrible atrocity, it should be able to inflict an atrocity on another group of people and not be held responsible? And by the way, the bombings happened AFTER the rape of Nanking.
:confused: You should really work on your reading comprehension skills

Reparations should be paid only to the party directly affected. I disagree, I don't think biding your time until the party directly affected gets you out of paying reparations.

So reparations for any living slaves, formerly interned Japanese, poorly treated Native Americans, etc.

Nothing for descendants, including me. Equal opportunity and equal protection under the law is all I ask for, and that is all I need. Just treat me as badly as you treat everyone else.:pI also disagree with some of the other things. For instance, each and every one of us who lives in the U.S. has benefitted from the systematic murder and removal of the Native Americans. I don't think that it's acceptable to benefit from a wrong, even if you aren't the one who commits it.

I disagree, I don't think biding your time until the party directly affected gets you out of paying reparations.

I also disagree with some of the other things. For instance, each and every one of us who lives in the U.S. has benefitted from the systematic murder and removal of the Native Americans. I don't think that it's acceptable to benefit from a wrong, even if you aren't the one who commits it.


Those who benefit from the wrong can do nothing about it. Should they have to pay for it?

I did not help steal the land of the native americans. I did not enslave any africans. Indeed, my ancestors fought in the union army to free the slaves. I'd say the ex-slaves owe me money for my ancestor's sacrifices. ;)

Forcing someone to make reperations for a crime they did not commit is patently wrong.

For once, I think the bible got this one right:

(Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

Those who benefit from the wrong can do nothing about it. Should they have to pay for it?They can make it so they don't benefit from the wrong.

Forcing someone to make reperations for a crime they did not commit is patently wrong.To directly benefit from a crime is patently wrong.

Liasia']Well, start by ameliorating whatever is upsetting them. In the case of slaves -emancipation! If it is the distant relatives of someone, by that time any harm (except general societal harm) will have been nullified.
Well, "general societal harm" counts. The root of "reparations" is "to repair," and when a class of people still suffers from the legacy of past wrongs, the situation has yet to be repaired.
If you punch someone in the face you apologise to them, not to their kids.
No, but if you knock a pregnant woman down the stairs and cause her child to have birth defects, you do. That would be a somewhat closer analogy to the problem of historical wrongs.

I dont think there is any sweeping 'rule of thumb' that would justly address all of the kinds of issues being discussed in this thread. In some cases apology on behalf of the body responsible ought to suffice. Consider the head tax on Chinese immigrants for instance. People really dont have a right to immigrate to a particular nation so at the end of the day although racist head taxes were not 'ethical' they didnt actually deprive someone of an expected 'right'.

Voluntariness ought also be considered. It is one thing to bring oneself to a nation and not be treated fairly, it is an entirely different situation to have one's nation taken out from under one and then to be treated unfairly in what is one's ancestral land and only home.

I'm not convinced that pleas of 'why should I pay for it' are consistent with normative attitudes towards justice. Usually benefiting from a crime is in itself a crime, not an excuse for retaining one's gains. Given that reparation in so many cases wouldnt constitute an absolute loss of all those gains, and given that those gains were in essence 'proceeds of a crime' and given that the cost would only be born indirectly anyway, I dont find the 'why should I pay back some of what I gained from my ancestors crimes' a convincing line of reasoning.

What kind of dollar amount can you put on a holocaust survivor?

How much money is it worth, to have had an ancestor killed by U.S calvary soldiers, two hundred years ago?

How much money can make up for nearly wiping out an entire race?

When white men came to America there were approximately 10 million aboriginal natives, now about 600,000.

How do you put a price on any of that kind of tragedy?

Sure, they deserve clean water, and basic things, and on American Indian reservations without casinos, you often find third world conditions.
Its only fair and right that the government give them money to get these things, and everyone else who needs them.

Problem is, how do you decide who was wronged, by whom, and when?
Practically every culture in modern society, has gleefully shit all over another
at one time or the other.
The Romans and the Egyptians crapped all over the Jews, the Jews are crapping all over the Palestinians today...so forth and so on...

Where do you begin, and how do you assign dollar amounts to past done tragedies, by long dead people, against long dead people?
Its far too slippery a slope, and should best be steered away from.