What should be given because of ancestral claims?

[jamesrage]

What should be given because of ancestral claims?

Countries/plots of land should be given to those who claim their ancestors once lived there but land was taken.

Money should be given to those who claim their ancestors were enslaved,killed, robbed and etc.

Apologies from the government IE the tax payers to the descendants whose ancestors were wronged.

Ancestral claims have no bearing on today.

other/I do not know





I picked "Ancestral claims have no bearing on today." This is basically the principal that you yourself were not wronged so you do not get anything from me or anyone else since we did not wrong you. No reparations, no giving land and no apologies for things that happened a century or two ago.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

What should be given because of ancestral claims?

Countries/plots of land should be given to those who claim their ancestors once lived there but land was taken.

Money should be given to those who claim their ancestors were enslaved,killed, robbed and etc.

Apologies from the government IE the tax payers to the descendants whose ancestors were wronged.

Ancestral claims have no bearing on today.

other/I do not know





I picked "Ancestral claims have no bearing on today." This is basically the principal that you yourself were not wronged so you do not get anything from me or anyone else since we did not wrong you. No reparations, no giving land and no apologies for things that happened a century or two ago.

If we gave out land based on ancestral claim, we'd soon run out of land.

 

[American]

I tend to agree with you james, but I hate to close the door completely because I don't know if there might not be any circumstance to the contrary. Nevertheless, in general I don't believe in reparations and the giving of stuff to people that are only ancestors of people who were wronged.

 

[Redress]

I think reparations for things done by far past generations are stupid. I don't think there is any harm in admitting we made mistakes(ie slavery) and maybe apologizing that this country made such a mistake, though even that is not needed or really should be a priority. I would not be upset such an apology was made, but I would not push for it. All in all, any such apology would be valueless. Based on that, I voted other in your poll.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I think reparations for things done by far past generations are stupid. I don't think there is any harm in admitting we made mistakes(ie slavery) and maybe apologizing that this country made such a mistake, though even that is not needed or really should be a priority. I would not be upset such an apology was made, but I would not push for it. All in all, any such apology would be valueless. Based on that, I voted other in your poll.

You have to remember that apologies are an aknowledgement of guilt, which is were a claim of liability can be laid.
Have to be careful with those things.

 

[Kandahar]

What should be given because of ancestral claims?

Countries/plots of land should be given to those who claim their ancestors once lived there but land was taken.

Money should be given to those who claim their ancestors were enslaved,killed, robbed and etc.

Apologies from the government IE the tax payers to the descendants whose ancestors were wronged.

Ancestral claims have no bearing on today.

other/I do not know





I picked "Ancestral claims have no bearing on today." This is basically the principal that you yourself were not wronged so you do not get anything from me or anyone else since we did not wrong you. No reparations, no giving land and no apologies for things that happened a century or two ago.

Ehh...depends on what group we're talking about. If we're talking about Native Americans whose land was taken, yes, the US government should continue to uphold its agreements with those tribes which preserves their autonomy. Assuming they don't want to be a part of our country, they should be allowed to retain most of their independence, since they were here first.

 

[The Mark]

You have to remember that apologies are an aknowledgement of guilt, which is were a claim of liability can be laid.
Have to be careful with those things.

That's just stupid.

 

[Redress]

You have to remember that apologies are an aknowledgement of guilt, which is were a claim of liability can be laid.
Have to be careful with those things.

Liable to who? There is no one alive who was a slave in the US. There is no American Indian alive whose land we took. I could maybe see in the case of those interred during WW@, but no one is around to claim any reparations.

 

[Your Star]

You have to remember that apologies are an aknowledgement of guilt, which is were a claim of liability can be laid.
Have to be careful with those things.

Not really, the gov can issue an official apology without having to give any kind of land. Because the country can't deny that we are guilty of these things, but an apology would be acknowledging the mistake and moving past it. Though I wouldn't push for an apology, I wouldn't be upset about it.

 

[samsmart]

I think Native Americans should be allowed to run their reservations as sovereign territory (most local, state-wide, and national laws do not apply) and that Native Americans and their descendants should not have to pay any federal personal income tax.

I'm only for reparations for Native Americans, as the American government has had a horrible history of making and breaking treaties with the Native Americans. While the current government hasn't done anything to the Native Americans, our government has, and has broken many treaties that Native American tribes have signed in good faith, which were broken by administrations so that European-Americans could benefit. This is wealth denied to those Native Americans families who could have invested that wealth and build it up over the generations. Thus why I feel they would be justified in getting reparations of some kind.

I think having better sovereignty over their land and no need to pay federal personal income tax would be the best way to provide reparations to them. Thus, we don't need to give them any land nor any money, but rather just allow them to keep more of the wealth they earn and to treat their lands as more independent territory so they can live as they wish.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

If we are doing reparations for what currently dead people did to other currently dead people, then I'm going to give a piece of my mind to the Ethiopian government for having their people take my distant ancestor's cave.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

I had to vote "other" because it depends on how far back you go.

The grandchildren of a Japanese person whose home was taken; there's a direct and traceable economic impact there. Had his grandparents not had to start all over again upon internment, his parents, and thus himself all would have had more of a head start. That head start was stolen.

Same with those who can directly trace their heritage to Holocaust victims.

Beyond two generations, though, you're getting really vague on traceability - but, more importantly, the impact is less direct with each generation. That's why I would go no further back than grandparents.

 

[Black Dog]

They should not be acknowledged etc. What the government or people did 100 or more years ago has no bearing at all on today.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Ancestral claims are a good reason for the descendants of people who have lost land or goods to try to take them back. They're no reason for the descendants of the people who took them to return them, because they have just as legitimate ancestral claims to what was taken-- was it not handed down to them from their grandfathers?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Liable to who? There is no one alive who was a slave in the US. There is no American Indian alive whose land we took. I could maybe see in the case of those interred during WW@, but no one is around to claim any reparations.

If there is no person, that is alive, to apologize to; why do it?
Who are you satisfying?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Not really, the gov can issue an official apology without having to give any kind of land. Because the country can't deny that we are guilty of these things, but an apology would be acknowledging the mistake and moving past it. Though I wouldn't push for an apology, I wouldn't be upset about it.

Entire countries aren't guilty of anything, individuals are.
More to the point, dead individuals.

Making an apology implies that you are the guilty party and the there is someone existing that has suffered from your actions.

 

[Redress]

If there is no person, that is alive, to apologize to; why do it?
Who are you satisfying?

I did not say I thought it was a good idea.

 

[Cochise]

What's important is the influence of past actions on current affairs, and from a libertarian view, the influence of past instances of aggression on current negative effects in the livelihoods of people, when the consequences of that aggression are perpetuated by lack of reparations. That's why DrunkenAsparagus's comment about the Ethiopian cave isn't convincing, as I've mentioned to him before. It's not a complicated principle: Smith steals valuable possessions from Jones, leaving his own grandson wealthy without personal effort and Jones's grandson poor without personal failure. Smith's grandson is not personally complicit in the theft, but he is in possession of stolen property, stolen property that should rightfully be returned to Jones's grandson if they are to both have opportunity to succeed based on their abilities and willingness to work hard, instead of predetermined conditions.

There should not be apologies, because that is an admission of personal liability, when it's been mentioned that no one alive today is responsible for initiation of the worst offenses against historically disenfranchised populations. There should be condemnations of the people responsible, but no one alive today should be made to feel personally guilty for the actions of their long-dead ancestors that they have no control over. That I believe this is why I laugh at texmaster and MrVicchio's rants about me "hating whitey" (even though I am part white myself, since I have European admixture; I have family members with green and blue eyes).

I think social conservatives have an idea that "reparations" to minority populations are subsidies of laziness and apathy, instead of encouragements of those peoples to climb back on their feet and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, instead of lying around feeling sorry for themselves and waiting for handouts. I agree with the underlying sentiment that those who should be helped are those who help themselves, but I've met many, many people who work extremely hard and get nowhere, and others who do nothing but inherit from their ancestors. To me, this is caused by the statist corporatism that our economy is, which is why I get upset when people try and defend it with free market rhetoric. It has nothing to do with free market capitalism; free market capitalism allows people to rise and fall on their own merits.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I did not say I thought it was a good idea.

My bad, I didn't read your whole comment. :3oops:

 

[Mell]

I say applogies should be given, more because they show intent by governments to uphold advances in human rights and an effort to not repeat wrongs of the past, more than anything.

 

[samsmart]

Entire countries aren't guilty of anything, individuals are.

That's not entirely true. With regards to the Native Americans, the U.S. government has signed treaties with them, but have constantly reneged on those treaties. So while countries aren't guilty of anything, governments are.

 

[Zyphlin]

I have a few different thoughts on this.

In regards to giving land “back” or them having some kind of claim to demand citizenship or other such thing? No. There is almost no civilization on earth today that I can think of off the top of my head that exists as it does today or as it did in the past that did not engage in some kind of land battles of their own. Early Europe and the Middle East was a constant turmoil and flux of people settling, attacking or being attacked, new people taking over, more attacking and being attacked, and on and on. I may be wrong on this but its my understanding many of the native American tribes warred at times with each other as well. I believe these sort of things happened in Asia as well. This is simply how the world worked through the earlier days of man and while under the morals and scope of what we view as acceptable and moral today it may be deplorable that notion doesn’t magically change history and what was common practice at those times. It is extremely important for human’s as a species to learn from past mistakes, to attempt to improve on them, and to move forward. However it is not beneficial to spend all the time in the future trying to “fix” the past when doing such will truly “fix” nothing but simply present change for the sake of change where the status quo shifts, leaving no more or less in a better position, but adds a large amount of time in between of needless and likely difficult and damaging flux. Ultimately we must deal with what is the case of the now and present and find ways to move forward from there rather than attempting to rectify the past by completely up heaving the past.

In regards to land already bestowed upon Native Americans, I have no issue with these lands and they should remain free unto themselves to govern as they like without the federal government infringing on it or further taking that land. This is an agreement entered into by our government and I believe it should be maintained and kept as the government should be true to its word (one of those “learning from mistakes” moments). That said I do not think additional land should be annexed to be given back to them per the statements above. I would be open to an idea I believe I saw at some point on the web suggesting taking a very, very large portion of land (I believe in the Dakotas) and giving it over to a unified Native American confederation in trade for their current reservations. Essentially trading the numerous smaller plots of land scattered throughout the U.S. for a far larger singular and continuous plot of land that could potential function as its own state (in the universal sense not the U.S. sense of the word). However my understanding that this is undesirable to many as it would cause them to relinquish land that’s is on or near ancestral land and relocate.

In regards to payments made to the descendents of horrible events such as children of slaves, native Americans, Japanese/Italians/German, etc I’m rather iffy. I understand the issue with them being at a “disadvantage”. At the same time, I believe we’re at enough generations in between now that it becomes far more difficult to singularly point to slavery or the taking of lands as the solitary or even major reason why an individual is at the point in his life that he is. We have people that could be 4 or 5 generations removed, with splits off from their family tree that were potentially not just decently well off but potentially extremely successful, making it more and more difficult to legitimately point back to those things 200/300 years ago and say “oh, that’s why I’m where I am at in my life now”. So in general I am not in favor of cash payouts to such individuals. While I do not push for apologizes to be made or acknowledgement of wrong doing in our past in an official way I generally do not get upset about it when it’s for things decades and decades if not centuries into our past and able to be fully viewed through the scope of history. I do have an issue when it becomes a repetitive thing where each couple years it seems a new effort to “apologize” occurs.

So I guess I’d be an Other/no barring, as the one thing I agree with isn’t actually because of ancestral claims but due to more modern agreements.

 

[jamesrage]

I say applogies should be given, more because they show intent by governments to uphold advances in human rights and an effort to not repeat wrongs of the past, more than anything.

You do realize that elected officials are servants of the people and represent the people,so what ever they do they do in our name, more specifically the people their district represents name. So senator Douche-bag from Maine apologizing for slavery is not senator Douche-bag apologizing on his own behalf or that of the government. It is the residents of Maine in Senator Douche-bag's district that are apologizing for slavery when Senator Douche-bag is apologizing for slavery.

 

[American]

I think Native Americans should be allowed to run their reservations as sovereign territory (most local, state-wide, and national laws do not apply) and that Native Americans and their descendants should not have to pay any federal personal income tax.

I'm only for reparations for Native Americans, as the American government has had a horrible history of making and breaking treaties with the Native Americans. While the current government hasn't done anything to the Native Americans, our government has, and has broken many treaties that Native American tribes have signed in good faith, which were broken by administrations so that European-Americans could benefit. This is wealth denied to those Native Americans families who could have invested that wealth and build it up over the generations. Thus why I feel they would be justified in getting reparations of some kind.

I think having better sovereignty over their land and no need to pay federal personal income tax would be the best way to provide reparations to them. Thus, we don't need to give them any land nor any money, but rather just allow them to keep more of the wealth they earn and to treat their lands as more independent territory so they can live as they wish.

The Indians broke many of those treaties as well. Try not to paint this a one-sided, because it isn't by a long shot.

 

[MikeVFF]

nothing, its just more entitlement crap. I know too many native american families that live off the government and do NOTHING because they just get their meager amount of govt. money and have no desire to better themselves.