Am I a racist ?

[Productivity]

Throughout history civilizations have had to be brought into the present - sometimes kicking and screaming. If it wasnt the US government, it would have been another. At least America didnt treat them like Spain.

So that makes a wrong ok then? That someone else would have done something worse?

[Papewaio]

Does the civil rights movement in the USA count as one of these acts of dragging a country in modern life?

I do think in some cases people are confusing technology and civilisation.

Germany needed a few stiff kicks to the nuts and head after the Nazis got to power. It was technological advanced, but it was certainly a distasteful form of civilisation.

[Azi Tohak]

I do not owe anyone anything on the basis of what color they are. I do not care what happened to their ancestors a hundred and fifty years ago. Or two hundred, or a thousand. Why do I care what happened to person X ancestor, 7 times removed?

If you take something from someone else by force, one might be forgiven for thinking they have some right to restitution. You mentioned the example of Jews and Germans - most people accept that returning expropriated property or making equivalent recompense to Jews surviving Nazi Germany would be wholly legitimate whether or not those surviving Jews actually needed it.

I have never taken anything from anyone by force. Okay... so that cookie from my sister 10 years ago is an exception... But mommy! She stuck her tounge out at me!

Sure, slavery is evil, though our modern, Western eyes. But going around trying to make amends for every instance of slavery in the world (to make it fair, why should only blacks get money they didn't earn afterall?) is insane.

I am no more guilty of slavery than I am of murder, rape, pillage, carousing than any other blue-eyed, blonde person.

So no, you are not racist. Calling you a racist is an attempt to use the strongest word (how many other words can destory a man?) in the English (or American) language to smear you and get a point across.

Azi

[Productivity]

strongest word (how many other words can destory a man?)

I would say peadophile is a worse word - if it gets out that you are a suspected paedophile then you can kiss your life good by.

[Aenlic]

And just to get back on topic.. mostly... I think the Maori people deserve whatever they can get from the government. But that's only because I really know very little about the entire situation. But since Once Were Warriors is one of my top 20 favorite movies, I'm going to side with the Maori, just because.

[PanzerJaeger]

I fail to see the demise of the American natives or the natives of any other country as a bad/good thing. A culture that is several thousand years behind the civilization curve must modernize or face extinction, that’s just nature.

We see this from the animal kingdom to the Roman Empire to the British Empire. Even today there are those who say American culture is "destroying native habits". Is that bad? No. Is that good? No. Its simply the way things work on this planet.

Consider the alternatives. Europeans would still all be living in Europe and the rest of the world would be in several different stages of development. How long would that last? How long could even the most enlightened Europeans hold back the inevitable human desire for cultural advancement? How long could an ever-expanding European population be expected to live in squalor while vast lands with relatively tiny populations lay just beyond the horizon? It simply ignores basic human nature.

Dominant cultures, whether intentionally or unintentionally, will progress. It’s unstoppable. The real question, which pertains to the original post is: Is that such a bad thing? Are the natives of today who are asking for compensation for things that occurred hundreds of years ago really that worse off than their ancestors, or have they benefited from the culture that surpassed that of their ancestors?

[Productivity]

Well I get the impression that you're arguing htat it isn't such a bad thing.

What about dominant people then? If I can beat you around can I take your land? Is armed robbery at a micro level immoral, but wholesale moral?

I quite frankly like my neighbours property - can I take it by force because I am more powerful than them?

[PanzerJaeger]

Well I get the impression that you're arguing htat it isn't such a bad thing.

What about dominant people then? If I can beat you around can I take your land? Is armed robbery at a micro level immoral, but wholesale moral?

I quite frankly like my neighbours property - can I take it by force because I am more powerful than them?

Just as in economics, macro and micro are two different things. In the case of micro, both you and your neighbor are living under the same government, whereas there is no governing authority and no common laws recognized between two cultures as different as those found in the time we are talking about. Thats a major difference. In the abscense of man-made laws, natural laws come into play.

[Papewaio]

However there was a treaty signed so surely that puts them under the same law...

[Productivity]

Just as in economics, macro and micro are two different things. In the case of micro, both you and your neighbor are living under the same government, whereas there is no governing authority and no common laws recognized between two cultures as different as those found in the time we are talking about. Thats a major difference. In the abscense of man-made laws, natural laws come into play.

I am fully aware that macro and micro are different things, however you will find that most macro economic theory is derived at least in part from microeconomic theory. In fact, I have a macroeconomics test in two days, and the page I am open at now has a diagram on it, showing utility curves! Utility curves! One of the most microeconomic tools there is. They look at individual conusmers - yet here they are in a high level macroeconomics book.

So what does this say to me? It says to me that you are just chucking economics in for the sake of it. So do laws function at a macro level? Does a society have an obligation to follow it's own rules at a macro level or not? What are natural laws? Are natural laws simply might is right?

[doc_bean]

I fail to see the demise of the American natives or the natives of any other country as a bad/good thing. A culture that is several thousand years behind the civilization curve must modernize or face extinction, that’s just nature.

You're confusing things here. That the Native American culture is disappearing because of the strong influence of the USA is quite normal, and while maybe not the best thing ever, isn't something that should be compensated.

That problem however is that the US breaks its treaties with he Natives. Imaging buying a piece of land only to have it taken away a couple of years later because the government has found a better use for it. Everyone got very upset about the SC verdict in the New London case, but that is what has been happening to the Natives for generations (actually they got it even worse).

If you feel the US has the right to break the treaties just because it wants to, than there is little I can say to convince you other<wise I guess. But then I feel you reject the basic idea of law, and the very foundation of what we call civilization. For someone who doesn't like the theory of evolution much (iirc) you certainly seem to think about humans as if they were merely animals.

[English assassin]

But one thing must be recognized: Past treatment of aboriginal populations by European settlers/colonists/pillagers/murderers (call us what you will) created a situation for these people where they have a great "need" for our continued help today.

To which I would only add, yes, provided that assertion is proved rather than merely asserted. (OH, and yes to SA's point that to need we have also to add consideration of expropriation. (of personal property anyway. I don't think it is either practical or theoretically correct to try to apply the idea to whole territories) After all, many surviving jews may not "need" the return of looted property but it is clearly right that they should have it. However )

Where I think the question becomes difficult is in a third possible reason for compensation, which we might call "unjust enrichment". I will never be persuaded that there is a person alive today who has themselves suffered because of the slave trade. Nor am I at all convinced that the dreadful state of most of Africa has even the remotest connection to events some two hundred years ago. However, it seems to me there is a case that could be made that certain countries did derive economic benefits from that trade, and that they still enjoy those benefits today. (As I say, this would have to be proved, and the second limb in particular strikes me as contentious, but it can't be dismissed out of hand).

That it seems to me would form a perfectly valid argument for compensation. To be claer, it would not be compensation for any particular individual, none of whom have themseves suffered, and you may take the view that in providing overseas aid the developed countries have already in effect paid that compensation, but in principle and subject to proof I think the argument is valid.

[Brenus]

“Are the natives of today who are asking for compensation for things that occurred hundreds of years ago really that worse off than their ancestors” I have to say, I agree with that. I don’t often agree with PzJg, but my ancestors gained nothing on slavery. They were more slaves themselves than the rich merchants involved the triangular trade. So, in case of compensations who will pay? As French, I don’t see why France should pay for Lorient, St Malo and other towns involved in the trade.
Or will France be able to seek compensations to Italy for half of the Gaul population slaughtered and enslaved by Caesar? When the lines have to be drawn? Will Serbia be compensated by the modern Turkey for 500 years of occupation and the slaves sent to Istanbul?

History is history and yes, we have to be aware of what happened before, but I should prefer we concentrated on actual slavery than on the past one.
By the way, if century ago somebody paid a piece of land peanuts (or equivalent) is a society entitle for some compensations? Because I thing that the US paid a real ridiculous price for Louisiana (which was much bigger than the actual state)?

[KafirChobee]

Compensation for past wrongs to a race, indiginous populace, or religious group; by a government thats former rulers permitted, allowed or encouraged their murder, rape of their lands or subjecting them to crimes against humanity (slavery, concentration camps, theft of ancestoral lands, etc.) seems politically correct in todays social arena. Didn't we just payoff the Japanese-Americans we sent to Zanadune (ms) for the property confescated, and their loss of moneys; what was wrong with that?

To deny the wrongs, or somehow justify them by saying "leave the past die" (so we can restart the attrocities at a later date) seems callous and based on the same ignorance that permitted them to begin with. An example is the idea that slavery has been ruled illegal for 140 years in America - so what do we owe former slaves? While ignoring that slavery was practiced, defended, and honored for over 300 years in this country, and that simply tossing a people the bone of freedom doesnot give them the same opportunities as those that had once owned them - and that, continued to oppress them, deny them the same libertys, encouraged the economic seclusion of them, and continue the practice of a giving them a 3rd rate eductaion (if one is allowed at all).

Do we owe a people the same opportunity to flurish as all others, or continue a repressive policy created 400 years ago?

Sure, things have changed. But, not enough - not nearly enough. If you believe our education system is "equal"? I suggest you visit a H.S. in SouthCentral LA - Compton for example, or some black neighborhood in the South where segregation is still being practiced and honored.

Indiginous populations that could not ward off the mighty have always been suppressed to make way for "the destiny of nations". It is our history, it is also our shame and our obligation to set things right by atleast creating a more level playing field for all to participate on. Rather than saying; that was then, this is now and lets just forget we have an obligation to compensate for our thievery and the murder of millions (10 million native indians were massacred in this country alone, the number of slaves killed is unknown), lets accept responsability and do something to change these peoples lives and aid them in participating in our "free society".

Only a racist would think otherwise. imo.

[Tribesman]

Kiwitt , in your original post you say that the people who may benefit from these payments are not Maori enough, is there anything in the treaty that specifies racial purity as a neccesity for land rights ?
If not then the descendants of the Maori , no matter how much foriegn ancestry they may have , are entitled to what they are granted under the treaty .
If an Englishman were entitled to something , but when he went to claim it was told that he couldn't have it as his father was Greek and his mothers family were of German descent , yet there were no provisions which allowed for those facts to stop him claiming his entitlement then you cannot stop him claiming what was his due .
Likewise unless you want your government to renogotiate the treaty and bring in specifics on racial purity instead of descent as a provision of entitlement then you have to give what is due .
But of course , introducing a racial purity clause would make it a racist issue .