Hacker News Reader

Comment by cafed00d | Hacker News Reader

Those diamonds were mined in Kollur in modern day south India. It should go back to them.

And yes, before you harp on it, the land we call America should go back to the Native Americans, the aboriginals of Australia and New Zealand should also get their lands back. Or whoever else has been the subject of conquest.

Ultimately, slavery, caste, and colonization are institutions of brutality.

Reparations are owed.

Britain can never repay the damage colonization caused to India. But it can return the diamond as an admission of guilt. And sure, it’s owed to a bunch of countries. I’m pretty sure India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka can figure out a shared ownership model for the diamond. They seem to get along fine sharing cricket trophies when there’s a draw.

View on HN

Civilizations clash. Some win, some lose. Should Gaul go back to the Romans?

You would have the Earth remain completely static, and wherever your ancestors happened to evolve into humans that’s where you and your descendants live forever until the end of time?

It’s ridiculous. Things change. Move on.

That’s a dangerous precedent to set. You’re essentially egging on today’s generation to “clash back”.

Colonialism isn’t the same as ancestral predator prey mechanics. Or, that we should reverse every unjust war waged in the world.

Some are just blatantly brutal. Simple. We owe it to our species to recognize mistake, apologize and make repairs.

Would Britain really say “it’s ridiculous. Things change. Move on” for forcefully castrating Turing simply because he was gay? Oh wait. No. They didn’t actually do that.

Some atrocities are just that bad. Things don’t change. It’s ridiculous. Grow a spine!

> Would Britain really say “it’s ridiculous. Things change. Move on” for forcefully castrating Turing simply because he was gay? Oh wait. No. They didn’t actually do that.

And what did that do for Turing? He's still castrated. He's still dead. Were the people who apologized even the ones responsible? They must be mostly dead now too. Was there any serious concern in 2009 when the apology was issued that the UK was going to continue castrating gay people?

That had far more to do with present day politics and empty gestures to appease people like yourself than with making any repairs or apologies to anyone, not that such gestures mean anything to dead people anyway.

The people who used to own the diamond and could theoretically have any rightful claim to it are likewise dead, as are the people who stole it. It is where it is now and moving it somewhere else won't change the past. India's economy just eclipsed the UK's and is on the rise, while the UK is declining, so they'll have the last laugh anyway. Maybe they can buy it back at a yard sale when King George needs to pawn it to pay the rent on Buckingham Palace.

It is literally the precedent that has already been set. Colonialism is exactly the same as ancestral predator prey dynamics (whatever you mean by that).

We do recognize, apologize and make repairs. This is why Africa, India and southeast Asia are all free, sovereign nations now. Repairs were made.

I always find it funny that Indians venerate the moghuls and vilify the British. They were both foreign invaders that conquered people. At least the British led directly to a much more unified India as it stands today, the concept of a single Indian state is a new one (that was created by the British), India is as much one people as Europe, do you think the Indian government owes reparations to the princely states for forcibly annexing them?

Oh while we’re at it, yeah, those Iranian Crown Jewels should also be returned to Kollur.

More info: I think what you’re missing is atrocities have been committed and forgotten.

Let’s stick to the topic at hand: we’ll unravel the stack reverse chronological order.

The point here is not to somehow e redistribute all the wealth all over the world. The point is to make reparations. The kingdom of Britain squatting over India for 309 years and then leaving is not morally the right thing to do.

I think leaving it was the morally right thing to do, and in light of the way the world was before and the way it changed for the better away from colonialism, it was the only right thing to do.

Bangladesh has aboriginal people too. There is zero chance in hell we ever give back the land. Why should we view the British any differently?

The problem with your line of thinking is that it’s never applied equally. It always ends up with only white people being assigned moral agency.

How do we know which Native Americans to give it back to? The land I sit on has been taken by conquest by many different tribes.

Land is land. People are people. Nation states are neither. Just because gemstones were mined in a geographic area doesn't mean that they morally belong to whoever currently resides/rules in that area.

Once the *people* involved in a specific historical event are long gone it's tenuous to imply that the descendants of those parties have a moral obligation to each other. Inheritance is going to be inequitable regardless--it's questionable to assume that anyone deserves to inherit even justly acquired property. So trying to unravel history and decide who deserves what inheritance is ridiculous, even more so when nation states are involved.

We have statutes of limitations for good reasons.

Why the downvotes, this is as equal as an argument as the others I brought up, which only shows how complex of a conundrum this is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com