Obama Administration And the Falkland Islands Dispute

[Simon_Jester]

In case of Spain, it has definetely changed a lot from the times of the Conquista (Francoist Spain itself delegitimized the prior legitimate government, a clear break of continuity), but just throwing out Franco? In a way, the PSOE presided over a quiet revolution and there was a coup attempt by the military which failed (23F), indicating change. On the other hand, who are the victims of Francoist opression to go to? They can only claim compensation from the current government.

True. In this case the situation is complicated- the current government can reasonably be said to have a duty to compensate Spanish citizens abused by Franco (since they are responsible for all Spanish citizens). But on the other hand, I wouldn't say that their own human rights record is sullied by Franco's actions- it is not hypocritical for the present Spanish government to condemn human rights abuses in light of Franco's abuses, as it would be hypocritical for the US to condemn torture in secret prisons in light of recent US abuses.

Indeed, in many cases one of the best ways to establish that a government has broken with its atrocious past is that it is willing to pay out reparations to its victims. Modern Germany is not responsible for Nazi Germany... and yet modern Germany paid out quite a bit of compensation to victims of Nazi Germany, as a sign of good faith among other things.

So do we try to apply this rule to cases where what originally happened really is ancient history in the eyes of all parties involved?

No, why? I already agreed that at some point the argument of time will prevail.

I'm sorry, I missed that part, you see. The real question is where you draw the dividing line, and whether the line moves as a function of time- is Britain still responsible for everything Englishmen and Britons did in India, and will they remain so indefinitely? In the year 2500, will Britain still bear responsibility for the actions of Clive three quarters of a millenium earlier, or for the brutal suppression of the "Indian Mutiny" a hundred years after that?

There's a very difficult contradiction here between the desire to keep imperialism from being legitimized by the passage of time, and the desire to ultimately be able to "bury the hatchet." Sooner or later you have to bury the hatchet (I know you know this), because otherwise longstanding grievances that date back hundreds of years become commonplace, even though they are no longer particularly relevant to the common person. And those grievances can become pretexts for aggressive warmaking by nations that were once weak and now believe themselves to be strong.

Imagine you go to an uninhabited place and put your colonists there. In a while you see this territory is a part of someone else's land (e.g. Native Americans). You put them into human zoos and make them die out, migrate, in essence, do anything to cleanse the bloody hell out of them. Then you develop the land for centuries (the prior owner couldn't even multiply enough to control this land - he was annihilated before he became populous to control some spots). Yeah, it's not the case with Falklands. But your idea that "people of X live here = this is property of X" is just crap.

It's crap if we apply it to the general case, but utilitarian arguments play a big role.

What would happen if we tried to give back the Americas to the descendants of people who owned it in 1491? If we discount the claims of the many people of all races in the Americas who can claim to a very small percentage of native ancestry, that doesn't leave us with very many people to own the continents. You can say "that doesn't make it right," and that's true. But the point remains that you would, in this hypothetical case, be dispossessing eight or nine hundred millions of people. Obviously there is a serious problem with that under the practical utilitarian arguments you apply.

Moreover, and this is important, we must recognize that many of the people who live in the Americas lived out their lives (and their parents lived out their lives, and their parents live out their lives) "in good faith." That is, they attempted to engage in entirely normal human life, with no intended prejudice towards the well-being of the (handful of surviving) natives. How hard do you punish someone for a crime which they benefited from only because they happened to be born in the territory where the crime was committed? Who had no physical involvement in the crime, knows no one who was physically involved in the crime, and wasn't given any opportunity to decide whether the crime would be committed or not?

I know you're not going to be totally dogmatic and foolish about this, but it's an issue that worries me, because if we want an internally consistent policy of anti-imperialism that continuously attacks the beneficiaries of past imperialism, we need to come up with some way to deal with this that doesn't force us to call for things that would be a utilitarian-net-negative.

*laughs* Yeah, well, if Europeans weren't so adept at killing natives all over the world, who knows how the native sovereign states would've developed? Warred among themselves, built up cities and possibly navies, discover the islands and settle them? History does not know alternatives; and yet, it is blindly obvious that the history of India, Asia, Latin America is shaped as it is now by European colonialism and no one knows how it would look without this phenomenon.

Argentina was populated by Stone Age tribes at the time; it is unlikely they would have developed a major maritime presence in the next five hundred years. The argument fits better for the budding civilizations of Mesoamerica, the Mississippi Valley, and perhaps the Iroquois and the Amazon delta. Also, as others note, when we ask what they might have done with European technology had it not so quickly been used to overpower them, and had not their civilizations been effectively destroyed by massive plagues that the Europeans often didn't even know they were spreading until they'd already killed huge chunks of the population.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas, your position on denying self-determination is that you wish to avoid setting a precedent that encourages such behavior, correct? I ask - under what set of circumstance will a nation consult legal precedent on the matter of ethnic cleansing? By definition, a nation wishing to undertake such actions is voluntarily isolating itself in the international community. It does not wish to be bound by international law, which I'm pretty sure is going to forbid ethnic cleansing in any modern incarnation. Why, therefore, would it care about the legality of it's ownership of territories in the eyes of said law? What behavior do you think such a precedent would avoid?

Well, Nuremberg was a pretty strong indication that if you violate sovereignity of others and combine this with ethnic cleansing, a bit later the guys you tried to wipe out will come with sticks and stones and crush you. Yes, it was not completely clear-cut, because Germany attacked, in the end, a nation-state capable enough to return the blow (I mean the Soviet Union), otherwise I think Germans would have succeeded in their ethnic cleansing goals in Poland, Yugoslavia, etc. However, there are examples - like Britain - where the nation not only never isolated itself from the "international community", but remained there despite pursuing policies of cleansing. Modernity does not spare from ethnic cleansing. Kosovo ethnically cleansed Serbs after Serbia's defeat, and yet they are not a pariah at all.

But on the other hand, I wouldn't say that their own human rights record is sullied by Franco's actions- it is not hypocritical for the present Spanish government to condemn human rights abuses in light of Franco's abuses

Due to Franco's human rights record, in 2007, the Spanish government banned all public references to the Franco regime and removed any statues, street names, memorials and symbols associated with the regime.

Pretty much something like de-Stalinization in the USSR, as I see it. Yes, it is not hypocritical for Spain, I agree. Also, PSOE was forbidden during Francoist rule and only legalized in 1977. Clearly it could not have continuity from Franco's government.

The real question is where you draw the dividing line, and whether the line moves as a function of time- is Britain still responsible for everything Englishmen and Britons did in India, and will they remain so indefinitely?

I think it depends on how grave were the crimes and how far-reaching the consequences, I think. I wouldn't set a concrete date - 100 years? 200 years? It also matters if the nation-state accepted responsibility for the crime and tried to amend the situation or remains in denial and rejects responsibility. In the latter case I think there shouldn't be a "period of expiry" at all.

How hard do you punish someone for a crime which they benefited from only because they happened to be born in the territory where the crime was committed? Who had no physical involvement in the crime, knows no one who was physically involved in the crime, and wasn't given any opportunity to decide whether the crime would be committed or not?

I think I wouldn't punish that person with much more than intergenerational reparations. Beneficiary must be rich - it is almost universally a rule that beneficiaries of imperialism are rich.

[Simon_Jester]

The real question is where you draw the dividing line, and whether the line moves as a function of time- is Britain still responsible for everything Englishmen and Britons did in India, and will they remain so indefinitely?

I think it depends on how grave were the crimes and how far-reaching the consequences, I think. I wouldn't set a concrete date - 100 years? 200 years? It also matters if the nation-state accepted responsibility for the crime and tried to amend the situation or remains in denial and rejects responsibility. In the latter case I think there shouldn't be a "period of expiry" at all.

Hmm.

So, and this is only half-facetious, should we be taking the Italians to task for abuses committed by the Roman Empire?

[K. A. Pital]

Hmm. So, and this is only half-facetious, should we be taking the Italians to task for abuses committed by the Roman Empire?

Hahah. Not if you know what happened after Mussolini. They deposed monarchy (which claimed succession from the Roman Empire) and had a Republican constitution created which explicitly repudiated the Mussolini regime and its imperialism - about the last Italian government that openly and proudly claimed succession from Rome. The Republican Italy also paid reparations to Italy and Ethiopia, I recall.

[Simon_Jester]

But did they ever disavow Rome?

I mean, the present government is manifestly not the Roman Empire, but by the same token a lot of imperialist countries governments today would never consider the sort of thing that was done in their ancestor's name.

It is most unlikely that any British officer today would order the Amritsar massacre... and yet you would hold modern Britain responsible for the fact that Dyer did.

Could you go into more detail on the difference? Why is structural discontinuity and formal denunciation important, when actual policy changes are not?


EDIT: Also, would it have made sense to prosecute Mussolini for crimes committed by Rome? I would argue "obviously not, that would be stupid." Do you agree?

[K. A. Pital]

But did they ever disavow Rome?

I think they did.

Rome itself remained for a decade under the Papacy, and became part of the Kingdom of Italy only on September 20, 1870, the final date of Italian unification. The Vatican City is now, since the Lateran Treaty of 1929, an independent enclave surrounded by Italy, as is San Marino.

Basically, the Vatican could claim the legacy of the Holy Roman Empire, but Italy repeatedly disawoved it.

It is most unlikely that any British officer today would order the Amritsar massacre... and yet you would hold modern Britain responsible for the fact that Dyer did.

Considering the British officers continued to order massacres well into the 1930s (Qissa Khwani), tortures well into the 1960s and 1970s (RUC and "five techniques", torture in Kenya), and quite possibly would be implicated in massacres if it was them, and not the Americans, who bear the brunt of Iraq and Afghanistan occupation... No, it is not unlikely that British would massacre, torture and otherwise opress and denigrate people. At least, as far as I'm concerned. Just like French generals who used torture in Algeria NEVER recanted and defended it even in 2002.

Could you go into more detail on the difference? Why is structural discontinuity and formal denunciation important, when actual policy changes are not?

A policy change may simply reflect the desire to avoid negative publicity. Not a fundamental change in attitude. That was clearly the case with the British massacres and tortures, as well as with the French. They stopped doing it when cases became public, but in a while they started doing it again. Suffice to say that a healthy dose of skepticism should always follow reformist claims. A revolutionary government on the other hand explicitly denies responsibility for the precursor and often rejects his legitimacy in entirety (most post-WWII republics formed over fascist nations rejected their prior governments legitimacy at all, just like Turkey rejected the legitimacy of the Ottoman Empire and Russia in 1917 that of the Russian Empire - even calling it "prison of nations").

Therefore, a revolutionary or post-war government usually starts with a clean record and can be held accountable for its own failings, crimes and wars of agression, but not those of the preceding government.

EDIT: Also, would it have made sense to prosecute Mussolini for crimes committed by Rome? I would argue "obviously not, that would be stupid." Do you agree?

Mussolinist Italy tried to assume itself as the legitimate successor of Rome. How would it be stupid to raise claims to a Roman Empire which explicitly said it was the legal heir? If today someone will say he's reforming Russia into a monarchy with legacy from Tsar Nicholas, that guy can get sued by those who suffered at the hands of the Russian monarchy. I bet the Chinese could sue for the occupation of Manchuria. Heh.

[Sea Skimmer]

Italy did pay reparations to Ethiopia, but only because the peace treaty imposed by the allies forced them to put up a pittance. Now in Libya, in which about 50% of the population was exterminated in concentration camps under several different government, I do believe they agreed to reparations in the late 2000s as part of restoring relations with Qaddafi but I’m pretty sure nothing was actually paid. It may never be paid now with the war on, or else the money may come in a different form. Time will tell.

[K. A. Pital]

The less you're willing to pay for what your precursor did, the more obvious it is that you never recanted his actions. If Italy thinks it can avoid paying reparations to Libya where they killed 50% of the population, that does not speak highly of Italy. But damn I didn't know they were so damn genocidal to the Libyans.

[Alyeska]

The less you're willing to pay for what your precursor did, the more obvious it is that you never recanted his actions.

What a useless statement. I am not guilty of the crimes of my ancestors.

[K. A. Pital]

The less you're willing to pay for what your precursor did, the more obvious it is that you never recanted his actions.

What a useless statement. I am not guilty of the crimes of my ancestors.

What a nice hijack. We've been debating intergenerational reparations for a few pages now. You come in and say "Nyah-uh, I'm not guilty". Well wow, nobody accused you personally. However, one can legitimately sue your government for reparations and in the end it will make you pay. You disagree? Too bad. Governments and nation-states are intergenerational entities. You seem to be under the impression I was talking about people. I was talking about nations and governments. Sod off.

Your little bravade only shows that you're not even willing to accept that you may have benefitted unfairly from your ancestor's crime and this fact requires rectification.

[Alyeska]

What a nice hijack. We've been debating intergenerational reparations for a few pages now. You come in and say "Nyah-uh, I'm not guilty". Well wow, nobody accused you personally. However, one can legitimately sue your government for reparations and in the end it will make you pay. You disagree? Too bad. Governments and nation-states are intergenerational entities. You seem to be under the impression I was talking about people. I was talking about nations and governments. Sod off.

Your little bravade only shows that you're not even willing to accept that you may have benefitted unfairly from your ancestor's crime and this fact requires rectification.

Its the same argument. Either on a government level, or a smaller level. But when you ask a government pay reparations, you are also asking the people to pay it. Because the government exists from the people. So you are still asking for people to pay for the crimes of their ancestors.

How far back do you go? Thats been asked, repeatedly. Every nation was built on the conquest of another or exists on lands that were taken through force at some point.

Benefiting from someone elses crime means I must pay? So people who benefit from the crimes of another must pay? Someone steals thousands of dollars and this allows his family to live better. Should his grand children pay restitution because they benefited from the crimes of their grand father?

[Akhlut]

What a nice hijack. We've been debating intergenerational reparations for a few pages now. You come in and say "Nyah-uh, I'm not guilty". Well wow, nobody accused you personally. However, one can legitimately sue your government for reparations and in the end it will make you pay. You disagree? Too bad. Governments and nation-states are intergenerational entities. You seem to be under the impression I was talking about people. I was talking about nations and governments. Sod off.

Your little bravade only shows that you're not even willing to accept that you may have benefitted unfairly from your ancestor's crime and this fact requires rectification.

Its the same argument. Either on a government level, or a smaller level. But when you ask a government pay reparations, you are also asking the people to pay it. Because the government exists from the people. So you are still asking for people to pay for the crimes of their ancestors.

Crimes which are still having terrible repercussions today. Alcoholism among American Indians, for instance, is a real and huge problem, as is the fact that Indian Reservations tend to be among the poorest regions in the US with some of the poorest police protection.

How far back do you go? Thats been asked, repeatedly. Every nation was built on the conquest of another or exists on lands that were taken through force at some point.

I'd say that it ends when no one is hampered by the historical loss (native Britons having their land taken by Saxons, for instance). Now, does that mean a lot of people in Canada and the US would have to pay restitution? Yes, but most American Indians are much worse-off than the average American/Canadian citizen and it take relatively little money from each American/Canadian citizen to improve their quality of life that was objectively made worse by the actions of the US and Canadian governments.

Benefiting from someone elses crime means I must pay?

Even if you purchase stolen goods unwittingly, they'll be confiscated back from you. So, reparations are actually going to work to your benefit because you're not having anything confiscated aside from a relatively marginal amount of money (a percentage of your taxes, likely a very small percent), as opposed to having land, cars, or capital confiscated.

So people who benefit from the crimes of another must pay? Someone steals thousands of dollars and this allows his family to live better. Should his grand children pay restitution because they benefited from the crimes of their grand father?

If your father stole a bike then died the day after and you inherited it and then the cops found it and confiscated it, would you be pissed?

[CJvR]

Sigh!

Idiots waving flags and old maps of how the world should look should be shot on sight.

Why is the Falklands still and issue? Because Argentina have deliberatly made it one by teaching generations of children how the British stole their beloved islands. The fact that the islands suck so badly that they had to ship in convicts in their effort to populate them (resulting in a muteny - among the guards forced to go along) is probably not mentioned. The Falklands is the imperial conquest Argentina failed to capture and that annoys them.

ps: The Argentinian military capability is mostly just leftovers from the war:

NAVY
4 DD (MEKO 360 delivered after the war 83-84 to replace WWII ex-US ships)
6 FF (MEKO 140 built after the war, the last ship to 20+ years to complete!)
3 FF (A69)
1 SSK (type 209)
2 SSK (TR1700)
1 DD (type 42 converted to fast transport)
14 landing crafts.
2000 marines
11 Super Etandard

AIRFORCE
33 A-4
9 M5 FINGER (An Israeli Mirage III upgrade)
21 Mirage of various types.

The MEKOs are the only major postwar addition but even they are from the 80'ies.
The airforce was apparently never rebuilt and is at about half of it's pre-war strength.

[Alyeska]

Crimes which are still having terrible repercussions today. Alcoholism among American Indians, for instance, is a real and huge problem, as is the fact that Indian Reservations tend to be among the poorest regions in the US with some of the poorest police protection.

I'd say that it ends when no one is hampered by the historical loss (native Britons having their land taken by Saxons, for instance). Now, does that mean a lot of people in Canada and the US would have to pay restitution? Yes, but most American Indians are much worse-off than the average American/Canadian citizen and it take relatively little money from each American/Canadian citizen to improve their quality of life that was objectively made worse by the actions of the US and Canadian governments.

What if they are still having trouble 300 years later? 500? What if they are having trouble because they have a culture that works against them?

Even if you purchase stolen goods unwittingly, they'll be confiscated back from you. So, reparations are actually going to work to your benefit because you're not having anything confiscated aside from a relatively marginal amount of money (a percentage of your taxes, likely a very small percent), as opposed to having land, cars, or capital confiscated.

We aren't talking near term here. We are talking about passing on debt to the children of generations past. A long dead great grand fathers crimes being passed on 150 years later.

If your father stole a bike then died the day after and you inherited it and then the cops found it and confiscated it, would you be pissed?

What if my Great Great Great grand father was a wild west outlaw who robbed trains of their money shipments. He then used this money to build a new life and his future generations benefited from a better life allowing them an education, better slot in society, maybe even being in the upper class.

What he did was a crime. According to Stas, I have to pay for his crime simply because I benefited from it, 150 years later.

[Guardsman Bass]

What a nice hijack. We've been debating intergenerational reparations for a few pages now. You come in and say "Nyah-uh, I'm not guilty". Well wow, nobody accused you personally. However, one can legitimately sue your government for reparations and in the end it will make you pay. You disagree? Too bad. Governments and nation-states are intergenerational entities. You seem to be under the impression I was talking about people. I was talking about nations and governments. Sod off.

You can't really separate the actions of a government from the population that constitutes it at the time. In the case of the Falklands, the British government of 2011 is not the same government as Great Britain in 1833, even if both had a Parliament and Monarchy. That's even more clear in the case of Argentina, where not only the populace and culture making up the government are different, but the government itself has gone through at least nine different regime changes.

Your little bravade only shows that you're not even willing to accept that you may have benefitted unfairly from your ancestor's crime and this fact requires rectification.

I don't consider it a matter that requires rectification, because I believe that responsibility for a crime and restitution end when both the direct criminal and direct victim are dead. If my father steals a bike from another man, then gives it to me before dying, the victim deserves to get his bike back (or some form of restitution). On the other hand, said victim's son does not deserve to get a bike back that he never owned, just because his dead father owned it at one point.

That's part and parcel of most developed nations' justice systems, and rightfully so. If a man kills my father, then dies, I don't get to demand that the murderer's son stand for trial and execution in his stead. He didn't commit the crime, and he wasn't the one that hurt me - it was his dead father.

EDIT: I don't consider "rectification" and "recognition" to be the same thing, before that gets brought up. I fully acknowledge that I live in a country that grew powerful through the use of slavery and conquest for hundreds of years, even if my ancestors were not directly involved in it (they immigrated in the mid-20th century).

[Akhlut]

What if they are still having trouble 300 years later? 500? What if they are having trouble because they have a culture that works against them?

I've met many Indians who have experienced direct discrimination within living memory; how much of it is modern culture and the modern government still fucking them over?

We aren't talking near term here. We are talking about passing on debt to the children of generations past. A long dead great grand fathers crimes being passed on 150 years later.

What if my Great Great Great grand father was a wild west outlaw who robbed trains of their money shipments. He then used this money to build a new life and his future generations benefited from a better life allowing them an education, better slot in society, maybe even being in the upper class.

If we're comparing this to most acts of colonialism, it's more like your great-great-great grandfather through your grandfather committed rape, murder, and widescale theft all the time against a certain family and you're still benefiting from those crimes while the family is still dealing with the repercussions of 130 years worth of crimes against them. It's not some morally black and white deal where you can cleanly say "I've never done anything against them!" when a lot of modern government are still dealing rather harshly with people who were traditionally on the wrong end of colonial exploits. Even in the US, the Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to have a spotty record of dealing with American Indians. So, don't make the mistake of thinking that all these awful crimes happened hundreds of years ago and have long since stopped; no, at best, the direct criminal actions stopped only decades ago under what is, more or less, the current government.

[K. A. Pital]

What if they are still having trouble 300 years later? 500? What if they are having trouble because they have a culture that works against them?

Denial of responsibility is a good old colonialist and imperialist trick. The White Man's burden was it called in the old days - those uncivilized barbarians had a "culture" working against them and needed "help of the white man" to progress. It does not matter that many of them died in horrible ways because of the White Man - their culture was "working against them".

We aren't talking near term here. We are talking about passing on debt to the children of generations past. A long dead great grand fathers crimes being passed on 150 years later.

Because a genocide becomes less of a genocide 150 years later. Ethnic cleansing effects evaporate 150 years later. Widespread robbery doesn't make one poor 150 years later. Are you sure you want to argue the "150 years" mark? Incidentally, Ireland never recovered from what Britain did to it. Britain took over the land, caused a famine which halved Ireland's population, a massive brain drain from the nation, engaged in cleansing in Northern Ireland and chopped off that huge part of Ireland which it still controls as part of itself. You are saying that this doesn't matter after 150 years have passed. Why exactly?

What if my Great Great Great grand father was a wild west outlaw who robbed trains of their money shipments. He then used this money to build a new life and his future generations benefited from a better life allowing them an education, better slot in society, maybe even being in the upper class. What he did was a crime. According to Stas, I have to pay for his crime simply because I benefited from it, 150 years later.

More like your father had slaves which he worked to death, because it was acceptable. He then used the money gained from slave labour to build a business empire and become an oligarch. You inherit his empire, but one day a crowd of black men gather at your door, 150 years after the events, after they finally gained the rights to sue you. And they say: "You, heir of the slaver's empire! Perhaps you should compensate us for what your great great not-so-great grandfater did to our forefathers! He made them into slaves who laboured for him while he got rich on their blood; and until now you reap this blood money. We were born to the families of slaves, dispossessed and naked we were thrown into this world, while your family basked in riches for generations! Will you compensate us?"

And then you come out and say: "Nay! For my great great great grandfather died so long ago. Yes, I live on the riches his blood money created, yes, the sweat of his slaves has created my wealth. But he, not I, did this, and I will not compensate you for his crimes. I commited no crime. Go find your own slaves to exploit - maybe that way you'll match my position!"

Of course, I could understand how these people in front of your windows might be a bit... upset, you know.

You can't really separate the actions of a government from the population that constitutes it at the time. In the case of the Falklands, the British government of 2011 is not the same government as Great Britain in 1833, even if both had a Parliament and Monarchy. That's even more clear in the case of Argentina, where not only the populace and culture making up the government are different, but the government itself has gone through at least nine different regime changes.

The British government of 2011 is not the same and neither is that of Argentina, but so what? I've already said - yes, in this case Britain is right. However, that does not make intergenerational reparations or territorial reclamation impossible in other cases.

I believe that responsibility for a crime and restitution end when both the direct criminal and direct victim are dead. If my father steals a bike from another man, then gives it to me before dying, the victim deserves to get his bike back (or some form of restitution). On the other hand, said victim's son does not deserve to get a bike back that he never owned, just because his dead father owned it at one point.

This is why many imperialist governments choose to ignore the subject of reparations until the direct victims died. Britain must ignore Africa and India only for a while longer, and there'd be nobody left alive who was a direct victim of their heinous acts.

But the grandson of the slaver is rich, and the grandson of the slave is poor - a natural correlation, of course, because the slaver got rich while the slave had nothing and himself was but property; and when released, how could he match up with the slaver's money?

And now you say - the descendants owe nothing, even if they have it because their forefathers enslaved and opressed people for generations. What a clever position! Too bad I could never support this in good faith, and until I die I will do my best to fight against that type of thinking wherever and whenever I see it.

[Alyeska]

There is no arguing with you. You have established arbitrary rules and that there is no cut off date. I might as well demand reparations from France for their having kicked my ancestors out of the country.

Ever hear of the Statute of Limitations? I would argue that it should also apply on an international level.

[Bakustra]

There is no arguing with you. You have established arbitrary rules and that there is no cut off date. I might as well demand reparations from France for their having kicked my ancestors out of the country.

Ever hear of the Statute of Limitations? I would argue that it should also apply on an international level.

Is there a current injustice resulting from your ancestor's expulsion from France that reparations might redress, as applies to cases like Native and African American populations in the US, or African nations? Because that is key to what Stas is saying. Furthermore, statutes of limitation do not apply universally. Murder is not covered under such. But you would have exploitation, genocide and slavery be covered under such? What is the equivalent of murder on an international level, then?

[K. A. Pital]

There is no arguing with you. You have established arbitrary rules and that there is no cut off date. I might as well demand reparations from France for their having kicked my ancestors out of the country.

Ever hear of the Statute of Limitations? I would argue that it should also apply on an international level.

Whoa. "Arbitrary rules", you say. At least my "arbitrary rules" are better than absolutist "I'm not responsible, SCREW YOU!" rule that you're in favor of. You think that there is a cutoff date and you tried to set it at 150 years. When I confronted you with the example of Ireland which was so extremely fucked over by Britain that even in 150 years the effects are still there - territorial disposession, relative poverty and a demographic maw from which it is impossible to climb out - you said "blah".

Yeah, maybe you could try to demand reparations from France, if there was enough of people like you, who are poor and opressed now because of the French sending your ancestors to some god-forsaken place a century or two ago. The case would be complex, but you could do it - nothing prevents you from that. You don't like it? Bakustra already said - if there was a terrible mass injustice, you could press for genocide, exploitation, slavery, ethnic cleansing. These mass crimes have no term of expiry, and neither should they ever have!

Maybe you should dislike the fact that opression, conquest and mass murder followed Europeans for centuries upon centuries as they opressed, conquered, destroyed other nations. Not the fact that someone on a web forum now legitimately raises issues because of possible centuries of slavery and opression creating problems with intergenerational reparations.

Maybe you should direct your anger at your ancestors, the slavers and opressors as you freely admitted, instead of directing it at me, a lone voice in the desert who tries to do his best to remind people that imperialism's consequences don't evaporate on the day when Lord Lytton or Winston Churchill dies.

[Guardsman Bass]

The British government of 2011 is not the same and neither is that of Argentina, but so what? I've already said - yes, in this case Britain is right. However, that does not make intergenerational reparations or territorial reclamation impossible in other cases.

Then provide an example where it is justified. And why is the British example right, and not a different one? Is 180 years enough time?

This is why many imperialist governments choose to ignore the subject of reparations until the direct victims died. Britain must ignore Africa and India only for a while longer, and there'd be nobody left alive who was a direct victim of their heinous acts.

If the British perpetrators and population are also all dead, then yes, direct responsibility is over.

But the grandson of the slaver is rich, and the grandson of the slave is poor - a natural correlation, of course, because the slaver got rich while the slave had nothing and himself was but property; and when released, how could he match up with the slaver's money?

So what? If I'm the grand-son of the slaver, I'm under no obligation to the slave's grand-son. I never held him imprisoned, nor stole his labor, nor oppressed him. Nor did he suffer directly at my hands.

Whoa. "Arbitrary rules", you say. At least my "arbitrary rules" are better than absolutist "I'm not responsible, SCREW YOU!" rule that you're in favor of. You think that there is a cutoff date and you tried to set it at 150 years. When I confronted you with the example of Ireland which was so extremely fucked over by Britain that even in 150 years the effects are still there - territorial disposession, relative poverty and a demographic maw from which it is impossible to climb out - you said "blah".

Yeah, maybe you could try to demand reparations from France, if there was enough of people like you, who are poor and opressed now because of the French sending your ancestors to some god-forsaken place a century or two ago. The case would be complex, but you could do it - nothing prevents you from that. You don't like it? Bakustra already said - if there was a terrible mass injustice, you could press for genocide, exploitation, slavery, ethnic cleansing. These mass crimes have no term of expiry, and neither should they ever have!

Maybe you should dislike the fact that opression, conquest and mass murder followed Europeans for centuries upon centuries as they opressed, conquered, destroyed other nations. Not the fact that someone on a web forum now legitimately raises issues because of possible centuries of slavery and opression creating problems with intergenerational reparations.

Maybe you should direct your anger at your ancestors, the slavers and opressors as you freely admitted, instead of directing it at me, a lone voice in the desert who tries to do his best to remind people that imperialism's consequences don't evaporate on the day when Lord Lytton or Winston Churchill dies.

I've acknowledged it before, both here in my first post, and in prior threads.

As for my ancestors, they're dead. The people they may or may not have victimized are also dead. If there is suffering, I'll help to alleviate it - but it won't be because I'm responsible for a crime I never committed, due to ancestors I never chose.

[Simon_Jester]

There is no arguing with you. You have established arbitrary rules and that there is no cut off date. I might as well demand reparations from France for their having kicked my ancestors out of the country.

Ever hear of the Statute of Limitations? I would argue that it should also apply on an international level.

Whoa. "Arbitrary rules", you say. At least my "arbitrary rules" are better than absolutist "I'm not responsible, SCREW YOU!" rule that you're in favor of. You think that there is a cutoff date and you tried to set it at 150 years. When I confronted you with the example of Ireland which was so extremely fucked over by Britain that even in 150 years the effects are still there - territorial disposession, relative poverty and a demographic maw from which it is impossible to climb out - you said "blah".

Try a worse one- Central Asia was never the same after the Mongols rolled through, and that was what, 800 years ago? Of course, no one could collect reparations from Mongolia, granted.

As a suggestion, Stas, how about you lay out some guidelines about when you would consider a request for reparations to not be reasonable, and the scale on which reparations would make sense on occasions when they are reasonable.

[K. A. Pital]

Then provide an example where it is justified. And why is the British example right, and not a different one? Is 180 years enough time?

Ireland was a bad example for you? India? Kenya? Egypt? Um... Algeria, Iran, Pakistan, China have a right to demand reparations from the respective empires which opressed them. Whether they'll be satisfied is another question, but undeniably these nations have been collectively harmed on a very large scale. You may disagree with the principle of collective harm. You may think that my examples are bad or not justified. For examples of territorial reclamation, Ireland would've been justified to press the issue and oppose partition at the hands of the British - they invaded the place and done horrible things to it. They shouldn't have partitioned Ireland and took a chunk of it for themselves. 180 years may or may not be enough time. It depends on the effects of colonialism. Is 180 years enough that Hong Kong shouldn't demand reparations from the British? Maybe yes - Hong Kong is well-off, and consequences of British colonialism have not been devastating and persevering over the ages and centuries, as opposed to Ireland. In case of someone as victimized as Ireland and India, no, neither 180 nor 200 nor 300 years would be "enough" if the effects still impact their position now. The scale of impact determines the viability and volume of possible reparations and reclamations demands. If you killed dozens of millions of people in captured territory, they have a right to reclamations and reparations in a great many years. The position of the criminal and benefactor is also important. Did he benefit from his crimes? And if yes, do the benefits continue until this day? Is he rich and well-off enough so that reparations and reclamations would not harm his citizens? If yes, nothing stands in the way of reparations and reclamations, other than racism, denial and imperialist greed.

If the British perpetrators and population are also all dead, then yes, direct responsibility is over.

The British perpetrators might be dead, but not the population. Clearly the population continues to benefit from their nation's past crimes and even often holds a stance on denial, rejection and utter ignorance of them and the victims of these crimes.

So what? If I'm the grand-son of the slaver, I'm under no obligation to the slave's grand-son. I never held him imprisoned, nor stole his labor, nor oppressed him. Nor did he suffer directly at my hands.

So there's no indirect damage and no indirect benefit? What about command responsibility, then? The commander may not benefit directly if he orders looting, and he never personally executes or robs anybody. However, we still hold him responsible by proxy. The degree of generational responsibility is much, much smaller than that of contemporary citizens, but to declare it nonexistent would mean that the victimized have no chance for reparations and compensation of damage. That's bullshit.

I've acknowledged it before, both here in my first post, and in prior threads. As for my ancestors, they're dead. The people they may or may not have victimized are also dead. If there is suffering, I'll help to alleviate it - but it won't be because I'm responsible for a crime I never committed, due to ancestors I never chose.

I was speaking to Alyeska because he was going around with "my ancestors were slavers, SO WHUT". So you don't feel resposible for your ancestor, but you'll help to alleviate suffering. Now why would you do that, at all? You can hold all you have to yourself, why not? There is no responsibility for you to help anybody. Unless you do understand that on the level of nationstates and corporations, harm outlasts generations and therefore so must the responsibility and capability of compensation likewise outlast generation.

If you can deal intergenerational harm to someone but absolve responsibility the moment you die, that's a good recipe for imperialist lootery and ethnic cleansing. After all, once you're dead, nobody will come to your son and take his blood diamonds from him. Not even a small percent of them may they demand, for the right to demand reparations from organizations suddenly expires NOT at the moment when the government is destroyed and continuity broken - but at the moment the government leaders die. Never in my life have I heard so much bullshit.

Try a worse one- Central Asia was never the same after the Mongols rolled through, and that was what, 800 years ago? Of course, no one could collect reparations from Mongolia, granted. As a suggestion, Stas, how about you lay out some guidelines about when you would consider a request for reparations to not be reasonable, and the scale on which reparations would make sense on occasions when they are reasonable.

It's not merely a matter of time. Mongol Empire is gone. The current Mongolia is a revolutionary government which came to power after the early XX century revolutions. It is also very poor and cannot in any meaningful sense compensate Central Asia for the misdeeds of the Golden Horde. Indeed, the Horde as a culprit state ceased existing for a very long time, and current Mongolia does not claim heritage (as far as I know). So two factors - the clear breach of contunuity not observed in the British Empire (which China can still sue for Opium Wars, for example), and a complete and utter lack of ability to compensate (by being poor) tells us that no way Mongolia could compensate Central Asia.

On the other hand, if Mongolia would hold a position similar to the USA or Britain today, and the Golden Horde, instead of collapsing, transitioned to modernity and "de-colonized" somewhere about... now, undoubtedly impoverished Central Asians would be right to demand reparations. Or no? Heh.

[Akhlut]

Try a worse one- Central Asia was never the same after the Mongols rolled through, and that was what, 800 years ago? Of course, no one could collect reparations from Mongolia, granted.

The Central Asian "stans" are all directly descended from Mongol tribesmen, essentially, while Iran was later ruled by a a Mongolian warlord (Tamerlane) and benefited from Mongol rule. Even most of the Middle East was eventually ruled by Mongol or Mongol-descended peoples (the Mamluks of Egypt, possibly the Seljuk Turks and their successor empire, the Osmanli Turks) and benefited from their rulership. At best, one can say that the Ilkhanate's destruction of Baghdad was the worst, but the links that Mongolia and Iraq can trace back to each are flimsy at best, unlike the Imperial powers of Europe and the United States.

As a suggestion, Stas, how about you lay out some guidelines about when you would consider a request for reparations to not be reasonable, and the scale on which reparations would make sense on occasions when they are reasonable.

I'm not Stas, but I think that my suggestion from upthread works rather well: I'd say that it ends when no one is hampered by the historical loss (native Britons having their land taken by Saxons, for instance; the Hyksos invasion of Egypt; the invasion of the Huns into Rome). Essentially, when one can't say clearly "this loss has had a terrible effect, and this entity is clearly derived from the one responsible." Modern France, for instance, is clearly tied to the horrors being faced in Algeria today due to horrible actions in the 1960s. Belgium has clear ties to what happened in the Congo for the past century. Modern Spain's relationship with her former colonies is a bit harder to divine; all of them split off between 100 and 200 years ago and Spain has undergone several government changes in that time, so the aspect of governmental responsibility is murkier, though I'd argue still somewhat present. Unfortunately, Spain's colonial empire was so huge and current Spain does not have nearly enough money to properly restitute anyone. Modern Italy owes nothing to Tunisia for the actions of Rome against Carthage, as each has had dozens, if not hundreds, of goverment changes in the intervening period and it is much harder for the people of Tunisia to say "the fall of Carthage has done damage to us!"

[Chirios]

Argentine leader says UK 'arrogant' over Falklands

The president of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, has called Britain "arrogant" for refusing to negotiate on the Falklands.

She was speaking a day after UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the issue of sovereignty was non-negotiable.

President Fernandez called his refusal to hold talks on the sovereignty of the Falklands, or Malvinas, arrogant and bordering on stupidity.

Britain defeated an Argentine invasion of the islands in 1982.

The Falklands are at the centre of a territorial dispute dating back to the 19th Century.

Argentina has repeatedly requested talks on the islands' future sovereignty.

But most Falkland islanders wish to retain British sovereignty and 14 June is marked as Liberation Day in the capital, Port Stanley.

Last week Washington called on Britain and Argentina to negotiate over the Falklands' sovereignty.

But during Wednesday's Prime Minister's Questions Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell urged Mr Cameron to remind President Barack Obama that "the British government will never accept any kind of negotiations over the South Atlantic archipelago".

Mr Cameron responded that "as long as the Falkland Islands want to be sovereign British territory, they should remain sovereign British territory - full stop, end of story."

'Crude colonial power'

President Fernandez described his comments as an "expression of mediocrity, and almost of stupidity".

She said the British "continue to be a crude colonial power in decline".

On Friday, a spokeswoman for Downing Street said the prime minister maintained his position. She said the government had made it clear to Argentina that it was prepared to hold talks but would not negotiate on sovereignty.

"We're not prepared to discuss the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands against the wishes of the Falkland people."

Earlier this week a British man became the first Falkland islander to choose Argentine citizenship.

James Peck was handed his national identity card by President Fernandez, during a ceremony to mark the 29th anniversary of the end of the Falklands War.

Mr Peck's father Terry, who died in 2006, had been a member of the Falkland Islands Defence Force.

Sir Sandy Woodward, the retired admiral who led the British taskforce which set sail for the Falklands in 1982, told a newspaper earlier this week he feared the islands were "now perilously close to being indefensible".

He told the Daily Mail: "Twenty-nine years ago today, we re-claimed the Falklands for Britain in one of the most remarkable campaigns since the Second World War.

"The simple truth is without aircraft carriers and without the Americans, we would not have any hope of doing the same again today."

Adm Woodward questioned whether the US would continue to support Britain's sovereignty over the islands, pointing to Washington's call last week for negotiations.

The Americans' reference to the islands by their Argentinian name - the Malvinas - didn't "leave too much doubt about which way the wind may be blowing", he said.