It absolutely can change or affect the present if you do not honor the past...

Demigrog, I seem to have a better concept of honor than you do, not to say I'm perfect in practicing it... But at least I understand the significance of it.

A person IS responsible for what others do- When Honor Dictates that they are.

If your son breaks a window- YOU pay for the window don't you?
You may THEN approach your son with chores for his debt- however the person whose window was broken may not- on his end, the debt has already been paid.

This board has RULES. The reason it does is because of bad behavior that may cause 'damage' to readers. Whether it be insults or vulgar language- the rules are there to prevent these things.
Sometimes after an infraction- new rules are put into place.

The Conspiracy Section now has Space And Astronomy CT's only- whereas before- it was ALL CT's allowed.

This is another example of others being held accountable by the actions of another.

Even a nation must be held accountable for its history - Lest we do not learn from that history. Means is trying to hold this nation accountable- For too long- the US was too powerful to go up against.

In this nation- we once had slavery. I have never owned a slave. Nor do I condone slavery in any form. Yet at one time the people who did not own slaves were not always opposed to it either. The nation had to learn first. By being held accountable.
Throughout the decades- we had to atone for this action and be held accountable for it.
Martin Luther King Jr. was one notable person who spoke out against the continuing oppression that our nation handed to its former slaves.

And things began to change- the reminders of our debt finally began to sink in- and we began paying our debt- the Sins of the Father had left behind... In these times- a black man may work, go to school- drink from a water fountain or sit anywhere on a bus... -have the same rights as the white- and it is with pride that I say we are paying that debt - By learning- not forgetting or dismissing- and holding our behavior accountable now and in the future. I find it unlikely that slavery will again exist- in the United States of America.

That is the answer to your last question: When does it stop? How far back do you go? You go back to whatever point at which the debt is unsettled.

We have settled (are settling?) our debt to the blacks whose ancestors were slaves. Even though we did not enslave them (Africans did- we bought 'em), we used them as slaves.

But the Native American debt is not settled. Attitudes like yours and Besslers demonstrate that this is not settled and that the attitudes against the natives have changed little- that we have yet to learn, that our debt is unpaid.

I'm sure MLK Jr. wasn't popular in his time. I'm sure he had faults.

I don't know what kind of man Means is. I cannot- like Bessler tried to do- judge him by a photograph. However, I do agree with what he is doing- Speaking out. Like so many that came before him- like myself- that just can't keep our mouths shut.

I say Stand And Deliver.

Not really. Only actions can affect the present, and actions should be taken based on what is the right thing to do now. History is a great guide for understanding the consequences of actions, but has no relevance to whether or not something is the right thing to do, right now.

I doubt you can judge me accurately based only on what I write here. I never seem to explain myself adequately. *sigh*

Kindof a straw man—obviously people are responsible for their children until they are adults (with the nebulous issue of what defines an adult).

I really don’t see that one. Everyone here is responsible for their own behavior.

And there I simply disagree. There is just too much history, and holding present people accountable for it is like fining somebody for the horse their great-great-grandfather may have stolen a century ago. That doesn’t mean we should not correct current inequalities and problems.

Key word there is continuing. Obviously a continuing problem must be addressed.

In the Lakota case, a life expectancy in the 40s shows a clearly continuing problem that needs to be corrected. All I’m saying is that oppression in the past does not entitle the Lakota to in turn seize lands in the present, whether by force or by litigation. It would be creating a present injustice to seize the personal property of innocent people.

Well, that is exactly what I’m afraid of. That kind of balancing of the scales is impossible; there is always an older unsettled “debt”.

Plenty of people support reparations—IMO another misguided attempt to fix the past that creates a present injustice. Way off topic here though.

Hm, I really don’t think you know what my “attitude” is based on your mischaracterizations of it. I fault my lack of writing skills.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Define, "what is right"
To me- a mans right to fight for freedom will ALWAYS be the right thing to do and have. (ETA: Within reason of course- this doesn't mean terrorists and such... So please refrain from assuming that I am saying anyone can fight anyone for ANY reason- and claim it's for freedom...)
No worries I have that problem too
But my statement was based on these particular posts- not the whole in general.

Not a Straw Man. I was providing examples of accountability for anothers actions.
It is the honorable thing to do- but that does not mean that you are always accountable for EVERYONES actions- except for actions within society as a whole.

If you are against something- like a war or slavery- but society casts a vote and proceeds with it- You Are Still Accountable for it- even though you voted against it

On a personal level- yes. But that is why I'm clarifying (trying to anyway) the line between where personal accountability stops- and civil accountability starts.
In the case of Rules and Laws- New laws and rules are foften made- that WILL affect your life (Or posting here) not based on something You have done- but what others have done. It still affects you- you remain accountable for it.
And this is a good example
We are talking about Civil accountability- not personal in this case.
So yeah if your grandfather stole my grandfathers horse- I would not Personally hold you accountable- HOWEVER, that is my choice- on our own agreement of terms as we discuss them now... But- should I take you to court- it IS possible that the judge will agree that although you did not steal the horse- you remain accountable for its theft. Such restitutions are not unheard of.

I already stated my personal belief that the Native Americans are suffering a continuing problem. That is why I support their actions- when I do NOT support the ridiculous restitution litigations presented by the long descendants of African Slaves here in the US.

They are seizing land that was already seized. They are its heirs- we are the squatters.

Not necessarily- just because someone claims a debt is unsettled- doesn't make it so.
That is where the concepts of honor come in.
To borrow an example from a book: (Changed words in the quotes for simplicity)

A wise old magician charges for any question he answers. He charges One Years Service for any answer.
He was approached by a querrant who offered him an alternative service- rather than one year- In the form of information that would be a great benefit to the magician. The magician agreed.
After the information was exchanged- the querrant asked a question to clarify the first answer he received.. and the magician asked- would you like to serve the year for the answer?
The querrant exclaimed, "I just gave you information that will solve one of your biggest problems!"
The magician said, "Yes- but what have you done for me lately?"

Do not try to claim additional payment for a debt already paid.
It takes a bit of wisdom to know the difference, though... it is something we all must LEARN.

This is one reason why I do not hold much sway to public or popular 'opinions' as these opinions are formed by a lot of people that yet have a lot of learning to do (As does myself).

I agree- that debt is paid- time to move on.

Apologies for you then I was wrong to attack your attitude. I fault the heat of the moment.
It was more of several comments made in this thread that were almost bigoted toward Native Americans that had my blood hotter than usual- and in retrospect- I really have absolutely no idea WHY I attributed some of that toward you- when you made no such comments...I'm embarrassed...

Though, that doesn't mean that I'm apologizing to Bessler just yet...

They should be. (I'd also kind of like an example of an instance wherein someone was held accountable in a court of law for what their grandfather or great-grandfather did.) I would want any judge who gave an order like that removed from office; the very idea of holding someone 100 years later responsible for a crime they didn't commit (it is at least theoretically possible for someone to be held responsible 100 years later for a crime they themselves committed, but it's awfully unlikely) is morally repugnant. Odds are really good, for example, that the descendant of the horse thief derives no benefit from that stolen horse. Certainly the person didn't have anything to do with the crime itself and therefore should not be punished for it.

I have ancestors who held slaves. However, my nearest ancestor of that branch of the family was disowned; since I accrue no benefit from her family, why should I bear its responsibilities? Further, my best friend is descended from both Pocahontas and those who took her tribe's land. Should she then pay reparations to herself?

We should remember past injustices, and I'm certainly not arguing against that. We should work hard to correct current injustices, and I'm not arguing against that, either. But just as I bear no responsibility for crimes committed before my birth, I should accrue no benefit from injustices done to my ancestors before my birth.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I understand where Neverfly is coming from, but I think he gave a rhetorical misstep when he framed this issue in terms of the sons paying for the sins of their fathers. Few people actually accept such a principle nowadays, family debts notwithstanding.

So allow me to reframe the issue. It's not that white people should be considered guilty of the crimes of their long dead ancestors. It's that white people today, even though they no longer exploit minorities actively -- even though they may be fiercely opposed to such things by principle -- nevertheless, often without realising it, are still reaping the material benefits of that ancient exploitation.

Do you own some land? A farm, or an old house? Where did it come from? Maybe you inherited it from one of your parents, who inherited it from one of his, and so on. If you go back far enough in that line of transmission, it's likely that you'll find some European who took land away from Native Americans.

You didn't inherit any land from your ancestors?... Oh, but you inherited some money, probably. And an education paid with money, surely (and I don't just mean schools!) They would have found it more difficult to support you when you needed to be supported, had they had less support from their own ancestors. But realise that somewhere down the line of those ancestors it's very likely that you would find people as unsavory as the ugliest conquistador you've ever heard about.

Anyway, this is just to attempt to clarify what I believe is Neverfly's main point, and hopefully steer the conversation towards a more fruitful path. Please carry on.

You should* pay reparations to whoever is still being harmed today for being Native American.

*Or "could"; it's a delicate problem.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Thank You disinfo agent

Of course! With lawyers on both sides to take 90% as their "cut"!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

The only real conclusion anyone could arrive at looking at Russell pic is he doesn't appear to be poverty stricken nor starving. The only sensible judgment that could come from seeing his physical condition would be to look at his fiscal condition to determine if he actually is part of this problem he's speaking about. I doubt it but without looking at the books it's hard to say.

If any meaningful conclusions can be drawn in any situation it is best to stick with the known facts and not leap to unfounded conclusions about people that are also irrelevant and serve no purpose but to change the subject.

There could be other facts but so far this is what I see as relevant. By Russell's own admission he doesn't represent the Lakota.

Russel has a very low opinion of those leaders the Lakota have chosen. He's not one of them. His opinion probably hasn't changed much when this authority tried to hold him accountable for some past domestic violence charges. As an American citizen he appealed to the authority of the supreme court. Certainly within his rights but the court sided with the Lakota.

Russel tried to work within the constitutional framework of America to be president. He couldn't garner enough support to pull that off. I'm sure he has tried to get support among the Lakota and failed at that. Since no one will give him power he seems to be trying to take it.

The nation of Russel wants to negotiate treaties with the nation of the United States. A nation of one and no one following. No matter to Russel.

He denies all authority (since no one will agree with him) and becomes his own authority. That is anarchy. He'll fail with this absurd plan.

How do you define 'harmed today'?

Here is an extreme case:
I steal the assets from father A through questionable (but technically legal) means. He has children Aa Ab and Ac. All grow up poor due to my deeds. Aa feels sorry for himself and becomes a drunk. Ab tries hard, but due to limited assets still has a hard life and is lower class. Ac manages to get in on the ground floor of the company that invents hyperdrives, and ends up a multi-millionare.

In this case, Aa never tries and follows self-destructive paths. Is that my 'harming' him, or is that his choice. Ab is the mostly clear cut case where the lack of assets caused 'harm'. In Ac's case, it may be that the 'harm' I did caused him to have the motivation to succeed. Made Ac a very rich man. Actually improved his outcome over the likely result if I had never harmed A.

So, should I have to pay for Aa's bad choices?
Should I have to pay for Ab's lack of opportunity?
Should I have to pay for Ac's success? or should he pay me?

With this simple 1 generation case things arent clear. With the multi-generation cases with more possiblilities, I dont think it is possible to make any sort of real judgment.

Not quite. Again, the example made is one of individuals. Regardless of the misdeeds previous- these individuals still retain personal responsibility.

This subject is not about an individual. It is about the larger whole.

It is NOT like aircraft design and Modal aircraft design- where the mathematical principles are the same.

It is different.

If a society harms another- and continues to do so- That society must be held accountable- regardless of the individuals.

The various Lakota chiefs were to assemble at the Comfort Inn at 300 East Interstate Ave, Bismarck, North Dakota in early December to try to resolve this issue, but the meeting was called off since they didn't have a reservation.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

If you really want to make a distinction between individuals and societies, then simply change any reference to 'me' to 'my society', A to society A, Aa to decendent group Aa, Ab to decendent group Ab, Ac to decendent group Ac, and generalize the outcomes to the proper group analouges.

It dosent change what I was saying. To hold a person/society completely responsable for the sins of their father/fathers cannot work.

You are not going to be able to properly define 'harm' in a logical and consistant manner. You cannot do it for individuals and you cannot do it for groups.

You really should be hurt for jokes like that

[silliness] Your great,great,great,great,great grandchildren should pay for the telling of that joke! [/silliness]

When government is forced to pay for the mistakes it makes we, the people, are the ones paying. If the system (or we the people) can't be sufficiently bankrupted by forcing them to pay reparations for past wrongs then social security should do the trick.

No joke.

I said: