I was reading this pit thread
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=523486&page=2
and by coincidence I had just read this article:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21676
Which argues that, in general, a “statute of limitations” on historical grievance is a good thing, in that it would lessen the possibility of further rounds of victimhood:
What are your arguments for or against such a notion? Debate away!
Would this be accompanied by the abolition of inheritance? If the spoils of oppression can be passed from generation to generation, isn’t it only fair that the claims for recompense be equally transferable?
Out of curiosity, how many people do you suppose who were rich back then have had their families manage to keep that wealth up to the present? I can’t imagine that there are too many, even leaving aside the whole lost the Civil War thingy.
My thought is that if you actually were alive and lived through the event (such as the Japanese interred during WWII), and this is determined to have been something for which the government and or the people were responsible (which it was IMHO), then you are entitled to whatever you can squeeze out of said government/people. That said, the statute of limitations runs out when you and others directly effected die off.
-XT
Should the grandchildren of Holocaust victims be entitled to return of works of art stolen from their ancestors, for example?
I really don’t know where the cut off point lies here. But it seems to me saying that the only person who can recover property is the person from whom it was stolen, while that property can be passed from the thief to the children of the thief (presumably with clean title once the victim has died or been killed) doesn’t seem particularly fair to me.
That’s a different matter. We aren’t talking about reparations in this case, but stolen property. Certainly, if said ancestors have the proper providence then they should be able too.
I didn’t think we were talking about recovering stolen property, but about reparations. To me those are different subjects.
-XT
Well in the strictest sense, the inheritance is a tangible asset wheras the “potential claim for past grievances” is not, so there’s a bit of a disconnect.
Plus, inheritances/estates (of a size that are of any practical concern to your point) are taxed, whereas claims for restitution would not be (until actually received, if at all). Unless you’d (not you, global you) support taxation of potential, intangible and difficult-to-value reparations claims I can easily comprehend why there’s a different approach to these things.
There should be a distinction between moral restitution and financial restitution.
E.g. for families that lost everything during WWII internment should be recompensed in full for the value of their homes/possessions plus interest. Descendents of slaves however should not get restitution seeing how they did not lose anything through their ancestors being slaves.
But how about the bigger questions? A group of people got together in Wheeling, Virginia and formed a new state clearly in violation of the Constitution but was upheld in the anti-Confederacy sentiment after the war.
Interesting because according to the legal principles in Texas v. White, Virginia was always a state in the US. Does this mean that any state can have a revolt to throw out its existing government - even by an isolated group of individuals? Is that really guarantying a “republican form of government”? Should (or rather could) WV be returned to Virginia?
A better argument could be made over the annexation of Hawaii. Hell, the government even apoligized for it (PL 103-150). Should Hawaii be given back its sovereignty?
So what is the limit on righting past wrongs?
I thought we were talking about “historical grievance[s].” Central to which around the world are land issues.
If it’s less than 2000 years, that would mean the end of Zionism, you surely understand.
Why?
-XT
I’m sure you do understand. :dubious:
Why don’t you explain it anyway, so we are all clear? Because, frankly, it seems a hijack to me, though perhaps if you elucidate your point you can explain how it factors into the OP…
-XT
Come on now.
How about you give us your own view on the OP, as a show of good faith?
It’s only a hijack if you insist the only relevant “historical grievance” is one that is based on a request for monetary reparations.
Both sides of the conflict around Israel claim historical rights to the land involved.
The quote in the OP *itself *refers to irredentism, along with “centuries-old resentments”.
So yes, come on now, there certainly has to be a reason you don’t want that to refer to land, despite its definition. What, pray tell, could be that reason? :dubious:
I prefer that this not become all about the Israeli situation, if at all possible.
It brings an interesting point to mind though - any statute of limitations freezes things in favor of the status quo. Which is going to benefit Europeans and those of European descent most. It is expecting decendants of slaves to give up any claims, Native Americans and aboriginial Australians to give up claims to their land, anyone who “lost” to suck it up. It’s a charter for aggression, if after a set period of time, you get to keep what you took.
Now, not trying to get involved in any of the rights or wrongs of the Israel situation, but you can see how the beneficiaries of such an outcome would be the Israelis, and Palestinians who maintain claims to land now part of Israel might feel they got the short end of the stick?
It is very easy to call for an end to historical grievances if you have the upper hand, and tell those who feel wronged to “get on with their lives.” Much harder for those who have a grievance, whether real or imagined, to just suck it up and walk away.
If you have other real-world situations you would like to discuss as well, please mention a few. If not, you need to be prepared to discuss the most prominent example in existence of the issue you yourself stated in the OP. Or is there a reason you would prefer not to?
You could help us out by stating just what number of years you think the Statute of Limitations ought to run, and what resulting effect it would have on these various real-world situations.
Thing is, few groups ever considers themselves to be “winners”. It only appears that way in relation to others.
For example, one may argue that White Americans are “winners” compared to Blacks, Aboriginal Americans, etc. But what if those White Americans happen to be Irish Catholics? They have a whole set of historical greivances of their own - against, for example, the British (think of the various disasters such as the Irish famine that drove so many Irish Catholics to America, etc.). They may well consider themselves hard done by history. Many other groups have similar claims to victimization, not based on their personal circumstances, but on history - after all, why are Blacks who never personally experienced slavery (and indeed didn’t even have parents or in most cases grandparents who experienced slavery) worse off or more victimized by history than my (White) Ukranian mother in law, who was in point of fact personally enslaved as a child and had her whole family massacred?
As for Israelis, they may be “winners” in reation to Palestinians, but they have whopping big historical grievances in many cases against the countries their ancestors came from - both European and Middle Eastern.
Point is, there are very few groups who do not consider themselves hard done by, with more or less justification, and their claims cannot all be honoured.
I strongly oppose reparations for slavery. But, I think you can make a plausible case for reparations for de jure segregation, especially as it related to education. Perhaps an education subsidy of some sort.
I’m a conservative, and not a big fan of subsidies in general. I might not support a proposal such as I suggest above. But, I think a plausible case can be made.