When and how do you draw the time line to forgive crimes committed by a nation?

[MadSquabbles500]

During the Crusades, there are no good guys and bad guys. During the Injun war White man invaded, and no contact prior, so is hard to not blame on the white man.

Jews, and Euros have had a long history with each other. It was not always amicable. It is impossible to point the fingers at the Euros every single time. The Shoah just the latest time their relationship became very sour.

As for what the Japanese did in China during the war years, well, the Chinese have their own history of massacre-ing other peoples too.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I'm talking from the crusades to the Indians massacre, slavery. Or last century holocaust. Some of you seem to have a pretty small memory when it comes to crimes your country have committed, and very hypocritical when discussing current themes. You got a lot of blood in your hands, since this is most yanks. I ask this question.

It's interesting that you list the Crusades along with 3 things that happened in the US. I don't want to deny the horrible things that my country has done, but the US wasn't a country when the Crusades happened and lets be honest - the Egyptians, Israelite, Huns, Romans, Turks, Japanese, Chinese, Cambodians, Zulus, pick nearly any European country, Hutus and Tutsis, etc. etc. etc.
You can hardly name a country that wasn't involved in massacres, slavery, and genocide.

 

[Johnny Alpha]

Defeat an enemy, commit many atrocities war crimes yourselves hide those crime.
Demonise the enemy you defeated

Yeah that's what the Allies especially Soviets did to Germany but people will call you a Nazi sympathiser for saying it.



Every event in history should be up for historical scholarly review without fear of repercussions.

West lacks this freedom.

 

[Seano]

Thank goodness someone found a way to work a term into any conversation whether it's relevant or not, baseball

What term did I use that isn't relevant?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

For me there's a distinction between such crimes that were committed within living memory and the ones that are long gone from it. Virtually all of the atrocities committed against the Indians in the territory of the United States are not within living memory but stuff like Japanese internment and the Mexican Repatriation are and should be addressed.

Not saying we shouldn't acknowledge atrocities outside living memory necessarily but in my mind the opportunity to satisfactorily address them has passed once all the victims and perpetrators involved have died.

Fair point, but I'd venture that you're only experience with life on an Indian reservation is at the casino. There's a ton victims left after the initial survivors die.

 

[JadeOwl]

For me there's a distinction between such crimes that were committed within living memory and the ones that are long gone from it. Virtually all of the atrocities committed against the Indians in the territory of the United States are not within living memory but stuff like Japanese internment and the Mexican Repatriation are and should be addressed.

Not saying we shouldn't acknowledge atrocities outside living memory necessarily but in my mind the opportunity to satisfactorily address them has passed once all the victims and perpetrators involved have died.

When the generation responsible for those crimes has passed away.

That would only be appropriate in the cases where there are not lasting consequences or repercussions to said crimes.

But if the present day people are still living with the consequences of the original crime, they would be entirely justified in nursing a grievance.

Let me give you a hypothetical non-real world example of what I mean.

Let's say that the ACME Corporation dumps chemical waste in the countryside of Ruritania for decades and then stops. Let's say that 70 years pass during which the pollution poisons generations of Ruritanians, stunts it's agricultural production and would take billions to clean up in the present day.
It's been 70 years. None of the board members from the time when the chemicals were dumped is alive now. None of the employees working for the ACME now worked for the company then, and most weren't even alive. None of the current shareholders are the same as the ones who owned the company back then.
Do you think that the Ruritanian people shouldn't hold a grudge against ACME?
Do you think that ACME doesn't have a responsibility to make amends to the Ruritanians?
Do you think that ACME shouldn't pay for the cleanup?​

 

[slivercord]

I say living memory is a good standard as @Kafir-kun said. Unless a pattern is shown.

Just for shits and giggles, and so this isn't a one way shit slinging thread, where do you call home TS? I mean, you seem to be calling out Americans from behind a veil of anonymity which seems more accusatory and less an attempt at having a discussion in good faith.

I'm from Portugal let's get that clear, I'm not hiding. In school we go into detail about colonization and the slave trade. And it was centuries ago, I just want the same standard in other countries.

 

[Phr3121]

Let me give you a hypothetical non-real world example of what I mean.

Let's say that the ACME Corporation dumps chemical waste in the countryside of Ruritania for decades and then stops. Let's say that 70 years pass during which the pollution poisons generations of Ruritanians, stunts it's agricultural production and would take billions to clean up in the present day.
It's been 70 years. None of the board members from the time when the chemicals were dumped is alive now. None of the employees working for the ACME now worked for the company then, and most weren't even alive. None of the current shareholders are the same as the ones who owned the company back then.
Do you think that the Ruritanian people shouldn't hold a grudge against ACME?
Do you think that ACME doesn't have a responsibility to make amends to the Ruritanians?
Do you think that ACME shouldn't pay for the cleanup?

Sounds exactly like the 1964, Texaco oil dump in Ecuador. No to your 3 questions above -- (the people should hold a grudge, the company has responsibility and should pay for the cleanup). Texaco did attempt a cleanup of the site, but also held the government of Ecuador partially responsible for the damage after it took over the oil production.

The question was: "When and how do you draw the time line to forgive crimes committed by a nation?" Define 'crimes'.

Was the bombing of Dresden in Germany at the end of WWII by the British and Americans not a war crime? The city had no military value. How about dropping a nuke in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? Was that not a war crime? Both cities had no military value, Americans killed thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Answer: I think if the guilty nation recognizes that what it did was wrong and apologizes for it, that is enough for me. Massacres, genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, etc.

More Americans died killing each other during the American Civil War than all American casualties during WWII. Twice the number to be exact.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Fair point, but I'd venture that you're only experience with life on an Indian reservation is at the casino. There's a ton victims left after the initial survivors die.

That would only be appropriate in the cases where there are not lasting consequences or repercussions to said crimes.

But if the present day people are still living with the consequences of the original crime, they would be entirely justified in nursing a grievance.

Let me give you a hypothetical non-real world example of what I mean.

Let's say that the ACME Corporation dumps chemical waste in the countryside of Ruritania for decades and then stops. Let's say that 70 years pass during which the pollution poisons generations of Ruritanians, stunts it's agricultural production and would take billions to clean up in the present day.
It's been 70 years. None of the board members from the time when the chemicals were dumped is alive now. None of the employees working for the ACME now worked for the company then, and most weren't even alive. None of the current shareholders are the same as the ones who owned the company back then.
Do you think that the Ruritanian people shouldn't hold a grudge against ACME?
Do you think that ACME doesn't have a responsibility to make amends to the Ruritanians?
Do you think that ACME shouldn't pay for the cleanup?​

I'll concede that these are excellent objections to what I said. In fact in regards to PainIsLife's point I do remember a case where an Indian tribe sued the American government for having broke the terms of some treaty or something even though it happened like 120 years ago and they won a fat settlement from it.

That said, when the perpetrators are long dead I do think you have to approach things differently. In the case of your Ruritania and ACME example I would think it appropriate to jail the individuals who originally polluted Ruritania(and indeed also the individuals who committed atrocities against the Natives). But once they are dead that's not necessarily appropriate though I would agree that some form of amends is nonetheless called for.