Would be interested in your justification for holding citizens of today's US responsible for an event that happened more than 100 years ago, before they lived or breathed.
Yes, the whole point of being citizens is taking responsibility collectively as a populace for the actions of the state.
We collectively owe interest on the national debt. We still must abide by international treaties signed and ratified by long-dead representatives. We follow a constitution written long ago, and if we want to change it we follow its prescribed process. We pay taxes. We serve on juries. Those of us eligible agree we can be drafted into military service if necessary. And so on.
Absolutely, we have the process to modify laws or treaties we find no longer to suit the modern country. We try to move forward with better laws or fairer treaties, everyday. We as living citizens have the responsibility to improve today's laws. (As I hope we do regarding police conduct, to be topical.)
If I take your statement "...Citizens is taking responsibility collectively as a populace for the actions of the state." I would have to accept that my ancestors escaping persecution in another country and coming to this one, that I am morally bound to take on the social dogmas of the United States for crimes I did not commit or do not endorse today. I don't believe this to be correct or fair, but this is my opinion.
It seems like the historical weight of this country (or maybe any country) will crush it under past social deeds that are irremediable. Unfortunately, we can not correct the past, but we should heed it, to not make similar mistakes. If there is no way to not be guilty for the crimes of the state then perhaps we should abandon the state.
If we accept that the entity of the United States is responsible for these crimes and owes reparations...is it fair to use fungible tax dollars paid partially by immigrants to pay those reparations?
I don't know. Interesting puzzle to think about though.
The rule of law means that the entity states that it will comply with everything that is legally binding. As such it is responsible for paying those reparations. The way that entity raises funds is by taxation or borrowing, using itself as the collateral for the debt.
Do they owe reparations to each other, too? And what about the ones that are completely gone?
All of the discussion of reparations and making good on centuries-past injustices always leaves out how it all gets swept under the rug if there are no decendents around to make claims.
On the other hand I am a citizen of the USG and believe it should be held to its promises.
> The ones that are completely gone have no way to make a claim.
I could have been more clear, but I was trying to imply that we should remember that it's the lesser injustices that have claimants. The greater injustices would have none.
In fact, it raises an interesting question. Suppose that early American settlers genuinely just conquered the whole land, provided no reservations, made no special deals, and expected / enforced all remaining Native Americans to submit to the laws of the land. You know, like virtually every other conquering of a territory throughout history.
Would we look on those actions less favorably than the actions that were actually taken? Or would we just write it off morally as "every place was ultimately taken by force by someone at some point" and it be a non-issue, despite it being a much greater injustice?
I didn't own slaves, I didn't commit genocide, and neither did my ancestors. But I benefit from slavery that did exist, and my ancestors benefited from a genocide. Do I owe anything to the victim? No, because the victims have been dead for decades if not a century. But a failure to recognize ones obligation or duty to the rest of their community to bring an equity about such that their children or grandchildren don't even consider such questions - that's not nearly at the scale of destruction as our history has wrought but it does continue the cycle. If you want future generations to break from it, it starts by reconciling that your status is derived from the status of those who came before you, and that's not necessarily a good thing.
I don't think this is the best way to say it, because "I benefit from slavery" sounds kind of abstract at this point. In fact, white people benefited from all kinds of 100% real and explicit racism right up to and beyond Civil Rights.
You don't have to uncover anything hidden because you can just go look up e.g. zoning laws in Berkeley and they will just say in the meeting minutes that they'd invented them to keep out the blacks and Chinese. The reason highways go through US cities instead of around them is because they wanted to knock down the black neighborhoods. They really put a lot of effort into it.
One reason to fix it is that it'll improve life for you too - undoing zoning will make your commute shorter and housing cheaper. But of course, people tend to not care about their absolute quality of life as long as it's better than someone else's.
But you can't say "we collectively should decide we don't owe because we individually don't have choice". Either you are forced or you have choices.
That has stuck with me and I've been thinking. But I think I got an idea.
Maybe we should educate our young about the past, where we came from (fled state sponsored religious persecution to a land that was free). We could also teach about the mistakes that were made, you know, like how we purchased conquered and displaced refugees from muslim warlords and then tried to treat these people as some kind of property. Maybe even go over the past processes and laws that were used to free these people and become an even better society. Maybe even go further, like make/erect some statues of some of the past heroes that actually purchased some of these conquered people but then saw the light and worked towards freedom for all using the Bible as proof that God made only one kind of "mankind" and no one set is superior to another. Maybe even erect some statues of some of these conquered people to show that we are not ashamed of seeing them as people and not property.
Basically just kind of educate people so they don't grow up questioning the most basic tenets of their own nation and history?
Oh wait...
Nonetheless, the bible has been used to promote many ideas through the ages. Regardless of what Obama said years ago ("we are not a Christian nation, but a nation of citizens"), America was/is a Christian nation. The Bible and Christian faith were used in many areas to form the constitution, laws, and even our republic (based on the original notion of "judges" set before Israel in the old testament). Of course none of this is taught in schools anymore (at least I had never heard of it until researching in my adulthood), which is the problem I make a point of.
Edit: I see you don't consider the Native American genocide to be actual genocide, so I am going to conclude you're just ignorant of Native American history. It seems you have a very coddled view of American history.
Oh wait...
"Genocide: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group."
But I don't think that the giving of land (no matter how terrible the land is) for a group to live on truly counts as "attempted extermination".
As a European (Scot) who lived in Canada with my partner (Ojibwe) it became obvious how ignorant I was of the past wrt all Native American tribes and the indoctrination they were subjected to.
I'd mentioned to her that during this BLM movement that the African-American story is seemingly world-known but the Native American story less so. I believe their time will come when there is a greater understanding. Not an expert but my time living on the reserve but it seemed apparent that their society was still experiencing culture shock.
There is a big debate here in Canada about Canada's founding father John A MacDonald because he approved residential schools. It would be like a debate over George Washington in the US should he be on money, statues erected and so on.
Another topic is missing women in indigenous communities. Often murdered by a partner or stranger or simply gone missing without any known reason.
It's interesting to see how little talk there is in the US over rights of First Nations (or "Native American") people. It's a daily discussion here in Canada going on for years.
Easy to see how that kind of trauma in a family could affect the next generations, particularly so if their was abuse - which apparently was rife in the schools they were sent to.
Of course they are responsible, who else should be if not the one who are getting the historical benefits?
Do you use "we" in your country only to refer to the good parts of your history, or up to the day you set foot on it?
Do you think countries' debt should be cancelled every 50 year or so?
This idea of generational responsibility, taken to its full extent, might have some unintended consequences. For example, aren't there historical records that indicate that the at least some Native American tribes themselves fought over territory? How should those claims be adjudicated?
How does this logic work for Dreamers(DACA beneficiaries)? Should a child who benefits from their parent's illegal activities be punished years later? Should the grand-children be punished? great-grandchildren? The Supreme Court even ruled recently that DACA was illegally established. BTW, this is another good example where Congress should have passed legislation rather then letting the situation live in legal limbo.
As complicated as these considerations are, I still wonder about the unintended side effects if there were indeed some sort of substantial transfer of wealth from some subset of Americans to descendants of slaves. Wouldn't that create a terribly animosity between those groups and what if that transfer of wealth didn't actually resolve the disparities? What if 10 years later the metrics used to measure those disparities indicated that they still existed? More reparations? It isn't clear to me that wealth transfer can actually remedy many of the disparities that are observed. I think it is quite a bit more complex than that.