Should the United States Emulate the Soviets

Michael Everett wrote:When trying to make up for the past, where do you stop? Do you assess the situation by today's societal norms or by the culture that was in existence at the time of the events in question?

How far back will you go to avoid accusations of hypocrisy?

Where do you draw the lines?

Exactly the point, Michael. The "repentance for the long gone past" make literally no sence. There are always would be someone whose claims to be offended precede.

Michael Everett wrote:

Dilandu wrote:If you start to babble about the "symbolic", then I repeat: are you ready to return all the USA lands & property to the indians? Because it would be "right"; your ancestors counquered their lands, your ancestors exterminated their people, your ancestors build all their prosperity on the resources and lands that was taken from indians. So, are you ready to dissolve the USA and gave all the american's property to indians just to remedy the long-past wrongdoing?

This cartoon seems appropriate...

When trying to make up for the past, where do you stop? Do you assess the situation by today's societal norms or by the culture that was in existence at the time of the events in question?

How far back will you go to avoid accusations of hypocrisy?

Where do you draw the lines?

While we're at it let's send the Anglo-Saxons back to Germany and the Normans back to France.

biochem wrote:While we're at it let's send the Anglo-Saxons back to Germany and the Normans back to France.

Doesn't that train of thought end up with everyone in Africa?

Michael Everett wrote:

Dilandu wrote:If you start to babble about the "symbolic", then I repeat: are you ready to return all the USA lands & property to the indians? Because it would be "right"; your ancestors counquered their lands, your ancestors exterminated their people, your ancestors build all their prosperity on the resources and lands that was taken from indians. So, are you ready to dissolve the USA and gave all the american's property to indians just to remedy the long-past wrongdoing?

This cartoon seems appropriate...

When trying to make up for the past, where do you stop? Do you assess the situation by today's societal norms or by the culture that was in existence at the time of the events in question?

How far back will you go to avoid accusations of hypocrisy?

Where do you draw the lines?

SIGH. I suppose we're the wrong people to ask. Except for dscott8 who seems to be the one (here anyway) pushing the agenda. If people are really depressed over the thought that thei 5thgreat ancestor may have been a slave, perhaps psychotherapy is more appropriate than lashing out against bronze castings on public display.

Somehow, I think something else is going on with this revanchistic playacting. Not the one on this topic, the one in the national shouting match.

Michael Everett wrote:

biochem wrote:While we're at it let's send the Anglo-Saxons back to Germany and the Normans back to France.

Doesn't that train of thought end up with everyone in Africa?

biochem wrote:

Michael Everett wrote:Doesn't that train of thought end up with everyone in Africa?

All the Homo Sapiens. The Neanderthals would still be hanging around Europe ...maybe.

To address the overly simplistic objections to "doing the right thing" much later:

It's true that indigenous North Americans got invaded and massacred. No argument. However, to reverse that would require the dislocation of 300 million plus people, just in the US. People who did not commit those acts. The idea that the guilt of the fathers should be visited on the sons is nonsense.

We should, however, be doing more than we have to make up for it. I've been to an "Indian" reservation in New Mexico, and the dead-end poverty is appalling. The whole reservation system needs to be revisited.

On the other hand, taking down Confederate statues does no harm to anyone, and does some good in affirming that the just cause of ending slavery was victorious. It tells the American descendants of slaves that we're willing to put that atrocity behind us, a sentiment we should follow up with positive actions like proper funding for minority school districts, equal protection under the law (which today is no more than a paper tiger), and inclusiveness in public life from politics to entertainment.

dscott8 wrote:
On the other hand, taking down Confederate statues does no harm to anyone, and does some good in affirming that the just cause of ending slavery was victorious. It tells the American descendants of slaves that we're willing to put that atrocity behind us, a sentiment we should follow up with positive actions like proper funding for minority school districts, equal protection under the law (which today is no more than a paper tiger), and inclusiveness in public life from politics to entertainment.

No.



Here - you REALLY tells the American descendants of slaves that you are willing to put that atrocity behind you. In Little Rock of 1950s and other such places.

Toppling the statues - which never harmed anyone - is not a useful actions to make things better. It's a pseudo-action, which make you believe that you are doing something good without bothering to actually improve the situation. Instead of trying to change the social and economical situation that led to inequality, you are fighting the statues - cheap and safe action, yeah, because statues never strike back, you know.

Michael Everett wrote:When trying to make up for the past, where do you stop? Do you assess the situation by today's societal norms or by the culture that was in existence at the time of the events in question?

How far back will you go to avoid accusations of hypocrisy?

Where do you draw the lines?

I don't have to make up for the past. I wasn't there. I didn't do it. I'm not even related to the people that did it. My ancestors had nothing to do with the people that did it.

Some of my ancestors fought in the Union Army.

pappilon wrote:SIGH. I suppose we're the wrong people to ask. Except for dscott8 who seems to be the one (here anyway) pushing the agenda. If people are really depressed over the thought that their 5thgreat ancestor may have been a slave, perhaps psychotherapy is more appropriate than lashing out against bronze castings on public display.

Somehow, I think something else is going on with this revanchistic playacting. Not the one on this topic, the one in the national shouting match.

Well of course they're just looking for something to scream "I'M OFFENDED!!!" about and get attention. That's so obvious it's hardly worth mentioning! Their only 'cause' is their own inflated egos.
———————————
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do remember history are doomed to watch everybody else repeat it.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Well of course they're just looking for something to scream "I'M OFFENDED!!!" about and get attention. That's so obvious it's hardly worth mentioning! Their only 'cause' is their own inflated egos.
———————————
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do remember history are doomed to watch everybody else repeat it.

Those who managed to get offended by the statue of long-dead general - yes, for them the cause is exactly their own inflated egos, not the real discrimination.