-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Poll about theft
- Thread starter Meow Mix
- Start date
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
My line of thought went to food or redistribution of wealth (i.e. Robin Hood). There's a lot of grey area with the question at face value, and the answer can be both. It largely depends on what is being stolen.
This question is one of the biggest and long standing arguments in archeology. As much of American and European museums contain cultural artifacts stolen during colonialism and retained or bought by museums.
That is a wrinkle I hadn't considered, very good. Nice expansion on the nuances. I agree.
(Trying to look innocent)
This is an excellent point. I've heard of such disputes but hadn't been thinking about them when making this post. Thanks for bringing it up.
I think the museums should probably give them back or at least formally ask permission for them, rent/pay for them (if that is agreed upon), etc.; as long as they're not sending them to get destroyed (such as if an ISIS-like entity requested statues to probably destroy them, etc.)
The question needs more information, IMO. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I think this point was also made in the Black Panther film, when Killmonger brings up how the museum acquired the artifacts.
This is a side topic but it's interesting how they humanized Killmonger and his goals so much that it seems like they had to shoehorn in reasons for audiences not to root for him.
Yeah, a couple of people's comments have shown that. Hopefully it's still enough to spur some thought though.
I would consider it a case where statue of limitations applies in regards to treatment of native americans, historically that is.
Edit: Not an actual statute of limitations, but a practical one. A lot of terrible actions throughout history cannot be practically compensated for.
Yeah, I knew there was going to be an exception on moral grounds. I almost pussed out.
The issues with Native Americans and kidnapped people enslaved is too well ground into the American history that it's too late for any solutions. We've largely destroyed Native American culture that it's an ongoing tragedy that it still tries to survive. That they have turned to opening casinos is almost complicit with white culture to sabotage their survival as a cultural people. If I had my way I would like to see lands returned to Native people if they will honor the land as their ancestors did, and be stewards for it's protection.
As far as enslaved people, I'm not sure I like the idea of reparations because it would take a lot of money and work to find who is eligible and those who are not, tough luck. It's almost like a lottery system. I would mind seeing a payment from the US government as a token of acknowledgment that the USA supported and defended slavery, and that was immoral. I would really want to see is a significant amount of money invested in poor, black neighborhoods. Fix up houses. Buy empty commercial spaces, take applications from local people interested in opening a business, have business advisors offer advice to these folks to help them establish businesses, give them 3 years free rent, hire local kids to work fixing up houses so they are employed, and learn skills they can carry into the work force, sell fixed up homes to families with special terms that protects their investment, etc. I see many poor communities and all that is missing is money moving between the people, which is what an good economy does.
The issues with Native Americans and kidnapped people enslaved is too well ground into the American history that it's too late for any solutions. We've largely destroyed Native American culture that it's an ongoing tragedy that it still tries to survive. That they have turned to opening casinos is almost complicit with white culture to sabotage their survival as a cultural people. If I had my way I would like to see lands returned to Native people if they will honor the land as their ancestors did, and be stewards for it's protection.
As far as enslaved people, I'm not sure I like the idea of reparations because it would take a lot of money and work to find who is eligible and those who are not, tough luck. It's almost like a lottery system. I would mind seeing a payment from the US government as a token of acknowledgment that the USA supported and defended slavery, and that was immoral. I would really want to see is a significant amount of money invested in poor, black neighborhoods. Fix up houses. Buy empty commercial spaces, take applications from local people interested in opening a business, have business advisors offer advice to these folks to help them establish businesses, give them 3 years free rent, hire local kids to work fixing up houses so they are employed, and learn skills they can carry into the work force, sell fixed up homes to families with special terms that protects their investment, etc. I see many poor communities and all that is missing is money moving between the people, which is what an good economy does.
I agree that there is no perfect solution that is practical. But it is good food for thought for people that think everything is fine, that there is no moral obligation whatsoever to marginalized communities that are marginalized precisely because of history.
I agree with some in principle, some I just don't like the wording of: such as conditional return of lands (if return of lands is on the table, I do not think it should be conditional).
However I think my perspective on this is that reparations isn't so much just giving money or land to people; but healthy programs that ensure historically marginalized people get the kinds of opportunities that can lead to generational success. I consider affirmative action a form of reparations, and I think it is good (if imperfect; it is more good than not). Things like that.
If we look at wealth distribution and there are these stark differences due to historical reasons, that's a problem. Giving a few people money doesn't solve that problem; but making sure entire generations have the chance to succeed and get on even ground seems like it does.
By the time A thru W are dead, & Z has the property,
things become murky. Affecting things....
- Adverse possession law
- Aggrieved parties being dead.
- Unidentifiable descendants.
- Z's good faith ownership.
Augustus
…
With historical issues like these it is often the case that person A stole it from person Z who stole it from person Y, prior to person B stealing it again and giving it person C.
This muddies the waters somewhat.
The koh-i-noor diamond that is part of the British Crown Jewels is a good case in point as it was forcibly taken on numerous occasions by different Empires/Sultunates/etc. and is claimed by Britain, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.
Koh-i-Noor - Wikipedia
Yes, it's clearly not a simple case. Yet the OP question still seems somewhat pertinent. I gave my thoughts on what it would mean to account for this in post #16.
Quoting myself:
Meow Mix said:
The waters certainly aren't clear; but I think it still makes a good point to those that argue there is absolutely zero obligation to people marginalized for historical reasons. As I'm arguing elsewhere, "obligation to" doesn't just mean giving money or land; but doing things like helping to remove systemic barriers, ensuring access to opportunities so that for generations entire communities and cultures are on better ground, etc.