[NS]I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS
10-11-2007, 01:59
Many people argue that others should apologise, make amends or otherwise accept responsibility for what their ancestors have done (Usually this is on a national level). There are a lot of topics where this has been argued. Slavery or European colonisation are two big ones. Another is of course the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Others as well, such as aboriginal rights, the Falkland Islands, the "We saved your ass in the war" stuff, plus many many more.
So..... where to start? Well I'd say as a rule I'm against the idea of holding the current generation responsible for what went on in the past. Obviously there are selfish motives on my part, but I think it's pretty logical as well.
One question is how long does it take for you do draw a line and leave the past in the past? Let's look at whats going on between Israelis and Palestinians. Many argue that due to the relatively short time the Jews have lived there in the past few thousand years. But what happens in 50 years, or even 100 years, when all the Palestinians who lived in what is now Israel are long dead? Also, there's the settlement question. The building of settlements on Palestinian land is obviously illegal under international law but it still goes on. But what would the situation be in over 100 years time if the settlements are still there? It's hard to uproot people who've been there since before living memory, but the settlements were also built illegally so it's a difficult one.
Then there's the British Empire. Should the current British people be held responsible for what happened back then? Especially considering it was only a tiny minority of British people who were actually participating in colonisation.
Another issue is the Falklands. One time a few hundred years ago some Argentines set up a colony but they were eventually kicked off by the British. A lot of Argentines or pro-Argentines argue that this means that Argentina should get the islands. But that is well beyond living memory and the current lot who live there have been there for generations. It also ignores that Argentina is possibly the whitest country in South America, and they hardly have the best record when it comes to stealing the native peoples' lands. So that argument is only argued selectively.
You could also apply this to a situation with common crime. A wanted murderer dies while on the run from police. You can't get the guy any more, so do you go after the guy's kids? I'm sure the vast majority would say no, but I think it's an appropriate analogy.
Sorry if this post is a bit muddled, jumping from topic to topic, but I'd like to know everybody else's opinions on the issue of ancestral responsibility.
So..... where to start? Well I'd say as a rule I'm against the idea of holding the current generation responsible for what went on in the past. Obviously there are selfish motives on my part, but I think it's pretty logical as well.
One question is how long does it take for you do draw a line and leave the past in the past? Let's look at whats going on between Israelis and Palestinians. Many argue that due to the relatively short time the Jews have lived there in the past few thousand years. But what happens in 50 years, or even 100 years, when all the Palestinians who lived in what is now Israel are long dead? Also, there's the settlement question. The building of settlements on Palestinian land is obviously illegal under international law but it still goes on. But what would the situation be in over 100 years time if the settlements are still there? It's hard to uproot people who've been there since before living memory, but the settlements were also built illegally so it's a difficult one.
Then there's the British Empire. Should the current British people be held responsible for what happened back then? Especially considering it was only a tiny minority of British people who were actually participating in colonisation.
Another issue is the Falklands. One time a few hundred years ago some Argentines set up a colony but they were eventually kicked off by the British. A lot of Argentines or pro-Argentines argue that this means that Argentina should get the islands. But that is well beyond living memory and the current lot who live there have been there for generations. It also ignores that Argentina is possibly the whitest country in South America, and they hardly have the best record when it comes to stealing the native peoples' lands. So that argument is only argued selectively.
You could also apply this to a situation with common crime. A wanted murderer dies while on the run from police. You can't get the guy any more, so do you go after the guy's kids? I'm sure the vast majority would say no, but I think it's an appropriate analogy.
Sorry if this post is a bit muddled, jumping from topic to topic, but I'd like to know everybody else's opinions on the issue of ancestral responsibility.