Poll about theft

[Meow Mix]

I can not tell what others should do, but others killing to save me? That i can not accept.

In the case of the Borg, they would make you a Borg, and then you would be killing other people as a Borg if no one stopped them. (I hope you know this is just for fun, not poking at pacifism).

 

[Spirit of Light]

In the case of the Borg, they would make you a Borg, and then you would be killing other people as a Borg if no one stopped them. (I hope you know this is just for fun, not poking at pacifism).

I made a new OP to discuss about this did not want to derail this thread

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It was a primary issue of Robert Nozick's principle of just acquisition. And it does get really tricky after a point. Ideally the answer is yes, and things like cars, money, and other goods can be returned and replaced.
But when you add centuries and generations and a new world then it's just messy. Like, how far do we have to go back? Do we send people of European, Asian, African, or whatever ancestry back to whatever country their most recent ancestors came from?

 

[Meow Mix]

It was a primary issue of Robert Nozick's principle of just acquisition. And it does get really tricky after a point. Ideally the answer is yes, and things like cars, money, and other goods can be returned and replaced.
But when you add centuries and generations and a new world then it's just messy. Like, how far do we have to go back? Do we send people of European, Asian, African, or whatever ancestry back to whatever country their most recent ancestors came from?

I tried to give some semblance of an answer to the trickiness question in post #16 or something like that. In brief, I argued that reparations probably aren't in the form of just giving people money or land; but in removing systemic barriers to success that are borne of longstanding poverty and systemic biases and things like that. Things that might let us look at the demographics of wealth distribution in the future and see longer term trends moving away from huge disparity.

 

[Augustus]

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.

Your points are fair although, for me at least, the obligation is not based on historical injustice, but on an obligation to help improve society in the present. A historic obligation seems to me to suggest this exists independently of current need.

In England, people with Norman family names are wealthier than people with 'Anglo-Saxon' family names. This is the legacy of conquest and historical injustice, but few people think there is any obligation or need to redress this group inequality. It also shows the longevity of historical disadvantage that can't be easily remedied even once there are no systemic barriers left.

Most disadvantaged communities can point to some historical injustices that can partially explain present disadvantage so we end up judging certain people as being less deserving of assistance than others for fairly arbitrary reasons which leads to bitterness and hostility.

Also, when the aim is to redress group inequality, it tends to benefit the already privileged members of the group rather than those who most need it. Trying to remove vague, systemic barriers with crude bureaucratic methods is not always particularly effective as principle is easier than effective policy.

imo at least, if the obligation thus stems from present need rather than historical injustice, then better to focus on the present need. This doesn't necessitate a one size fits all approach of course, and attempts to improve Native American communities may differ from those to improve rural Appalachian ones.

 

[sayak83]

Take the poll first, then read the spoiler. Then comment.

Spoiler: Look after poll choice

Do you see any implications with respect to Native Americans, or perhaps to descendants of slaves?

Spoiler: Read this after the first spoiler

I am not saying things are that simple, but it is food for thought, n'est-ce pas vrai?

Was it considered stealing at the time? There was a time when the concepts of rights was non-existant, a time when nations (including Native American nations) considered conquest through wars and raids a legitimate and laudable activity. A time when slavery was widely practiced in most cultures. I do not think retro-active imposition of moral norms make sense.

 

[Meow Mix]

Your points are fair although, for me at least, the obligation is not based on historical injustice, but on an obligation to help improve society in the present. A historic obligation seems to me to suggest this exists independently of current need.

In England, people with Norman family names are wealthier than people with 'Anglo-Saxon' family names. This is the legacy of conquest and historical injustice, but few people think there is any obligation or need to redress this group inequality. It also shows the longevity of historical disadvantage that can't be easily remedied even once there are no systemic barriers left.

Most disadvantaged communities can point to some historical injustices that can partially explain present disadvantage so we end up judging certain people as being less deserving of assistance than others for fairly arbitrary reasons which leads to bitterness and hostility.

Also, when the aim is to redress group inequality, it tends to benefit the already privileged members of the group rather than those who most need it. Trying to remove vague, systemic barriers with crude bureaucratic methods is not always particularly effective as principle is easier than effective policy.

imo at least, if the obligation thus stems from present need rather than historical injustice, then better to focus on the present need. This doesn't necessitate a one size fits all approach of course, and attempts to improve Native American communities may differ from those to improve rural Appalachian ones.

This was very well reasoned. On a practical level I'm with you on all of this. Part of me thinks the historicity of privation is hanging out like a loose thread if it's not addressed at all, however. I don't know if that's irrational of me. I might need to think about it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Was it considered stealing at the time? There was a time when the concepts of rights was non-existant, a time when nations (including Native American nations) considered conquest through wars and raids a legitimate and laudable activity. A time when slavery was widely practiced in most cultures. I do not think retro-active imposition of moral norms make sense.

I think it makes sense if there are current, longstanding, systemic wealth gaps that hold people at much lower standards of living and wealth than peers for historical colonial reasons.

 

[sayak83]

I think it makes sense if there are current, longstanding, systemic wealth gaps that hold people at much lower standards of living and wealth than peers for historical colonial reasons.

Then the wealth and opportunity inequality that is there today should be the thing that prompts corrective action.

 

[Meow Mix]

Then the wealth and opportunity inequality that is there today should be the thing that prompts corrective action.

Can we correct for something without making a correct and thorough analysis of why the problem exists? For instance, wouldn't the cause of a problem need to be known in order to know the best ways to address it, what pitfalls to potentially avoid, what nuances need to be taken into consideration?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can we correct for something without making a correct and thorough analysis of why the problem exists? For instance, wouldn't the cause of a problem need to be known in order to know the best ways to address it, what pitfalls to potentially avoid, what nuances need to be taken into consideration?

You are good at it in that you get it in its fundamental level with pitfalls and nuances. I am just a grumpy man getting older and closing in on old. My advidence over all is not to try to be too revolutionary and take it as an evolutionary approach and recognize that part of the problem is as much social in how people feel about it as it is access to resources. So it is a problem of education/social engineering in part but even that has its limits.

Regards

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Was it considered stealing at the time?

For some things, it should not matter.

Say your family was driven from your home, and you had to leave everything behind. Including an urn with your grandparent's ashes. Decades later some archeologist comes across your urn, cleans it up inside and out, and displays it for all the world to see (for a modest donation to their foundation). It's there that you see this urn, a deeply personal and sentimental object that you saw almost every day of your life. You go to the board of the museum, and provide irrefutable evidence that the urn belongs to your family. It is unique, and there's no possibility it can be another. They refuse to release it to you.

Now, was it stealing when it was found? Not by conventional standards, no. Yet their refusal to return it to it's owners certainly throws shade on the whole affair. How many graves have been methodically and professionally robbed? We dig up these final resting sites and marvel at the corpses laid out with their possessions, yet balk and shudder at disrespect of the dead in more immediate instances. It is no different than going to Arlington Cemetery with a shovel and a sack to hunt for Purple Hearts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

In the Canadian case, it's often that land was acquired from First Nations with legitimate treaties; we just often ignored our obligations under those treaties.

But it's important to remember that First Nations aren't just marginalized because of history and land grabs that happened more than a century ago.

Here in Canada, the last Indian Residential School closed in 1996. I'm sure there's similar recent oppression that happened in the US.

Infringing on the rights of First Nations people is something that still goes on. Consider Standing Rock as a recent example.

 

[sayak83]

For some things, it should not matter.

Say your family was driven from your home, and you had to leave everything behind. Including an urn with your grandparent's ashes. Decades later some archeologist comes across your urn, cleans it up inside and out, and displays it for all the world to see (for a modest donation to their foundation). It's there that you see this urn, a deeply personal and sentimental object that you saw almost every day of your life. You go to the board of the museum, and provide irrefutable evidence that the urn belongs to your family. It is unique, and there's no possibility it can be another. They refuse to release it to you.

Now, was it stealing when it was found? Not by conventional standards, no. Yet their refusal to return it to it's owners certainly throws shade on the whole affair. How many graves have been methodically and professionally robbed? We dig up these final resting sites and marvel at the corpses laid out with their possessions, yet balk and shudder at disrespect of the dead in more immediate instances. It is no different than going to Arlington Cemetery with a shovel and a sack to hunt for Purple Hearts.

That is a clear cut case. I agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

A relevant new podcast I've started listening to:

Stuff The British Stole

 

[sayak83]

In the Canadian case, it's often that land was acquired from First Nations with legitimate treaties; we just often ignored our obligations under those treaties.

But it's important to remember that First Nations aren't just marginalized because of history and land grabs that happened more than a century ago.

Here in Canada, the last Indian Residential School closed in 1996. I'm sure there's similar recent oppression that happened in the US.

Infringing on the rights of First Nations people is something that still goes on. Consider Standing Rock as a recent example.

Here also I agree.
But I do not think Mexico and Peru cannot ask reparations for the Spanish Conquests.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Personally, at this stage in history I've always viewed reparations as paying off the victims without ever fixing the problems created. Here in America we talk about reparations for slavery, but turn both eyes blind to Flint, MI and CRT. We politicize them. "Now hold on one minute; I'll cut ya a check that ain't even a drop in my bucket, but changing my system just 'cause it oppresses you? Are you outta yer damn mind?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here also I agree.
But I do not think Mexico and Peru cannot ask reparations for the Spanish Conquests.

I'm trying to parse your last sentence. Do you mean they can or can't ask for reparations?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not believe in fighting and war.

Oppressors everywhere give you their thanks.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Oppressors everywhere give you their thanks.

To me, fighting someone with love and kindness is better