Ancestoral blame and moral judgements
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23248
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 14:09
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Ancestoral blame and moral judgements
Posted By: Panther
Subject: Ancestoral blame and moral judgements
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 21:51
|
Inspired from this thread:
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=23024&PN=4 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=23024&PN=4
So what do others believe? Should the current modern day generations be held just as equally accountable and responsible for the actions of their ancestors from the past? Should we judge those from the past, according to our definition and standards of modern day morality? If so, what effects, if any... has this had on your understanding of history as you know it?
Discuss...
|
Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 22:28
|
I don't believe individuals have responsability. However, states do. Also, private enterprises that still exist, that were involved in the crimes of the past. A throublesome topic is the property of the land. In many places around the world, lands were grabs from natives without compensation to give it to foreign settlers. Those lands are today patrimony of theirs descendents. However, the legitimacy of that ownership is still in doubt.
------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 22:40
|
I agree with Pinguin, the Italian government should pay compensation to all the countries the Romans invaded. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jan-2008 at 23:02
Perhaps they should start from Mussolini  ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2008 at 01:53
|
A tricky subject, I think its fine to pass moral judgement on past states and to an extent peoples: romans were brutal at times, mongols were destructive, etc. But I think it should stay in the academic arena, moving beyond that just would not work in my opinion. The idea of giving america's black citizens monetary stipends because of their ancestors being slaves for example; an admirable sentiment, but, that is an endless headache of problems for numerous reasons. I know I say this often and don't ever follow up on it but; hopefully more to come later. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2008 at 01:58
  -Akolouthos
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2008 at 03:42
Yes, people should be held to a moral standard. We should give some kind of flexibility, of course. And then we must evaluate our own behavior. 
So, we can start by judging how, for example, the Aztecs were wrong by committing human sacrifice for religious purposes. But then the Spaniards also killed people for religious purposes as well, and the act is not different. So the Aztecs wanted to keep the universe running, and the Spaniards wanted to keep society intact without the evil influence of other religions. And now we can compare it with our modern practices. The death penalty is really a human sacrifice. Most of its rational defenses centered around on the idea that we must kill people to keep our society intact. And we all know that it doesn't work, so killing people for crimes works just as well as killing heretics or killing warriors to keep the sun running.
The other way that we can judge people is by trying to be empathetic. An example would be for a Mexican to understand that the English-Speaking Texans had pretty good reasons to want to leave Mexico if one takes into consideration the political nonsense that was going on in Mexico during the time. And the Alamo was pretty horrible. If that happened today to us, we could react the same way. Modern day people cannot be accountable for what they didn't do. It doesn't make any sense.
At the same time, modern day people can do a lot to heal open wounds, especially if the descendants of the people who got hurt are still living the consequences. In many cases, just acknowledging the wrong of the ancestors is all what is needed. In some specific cases there needs to be more done, but that varies from case to case. ------------- |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2008 at 09:09
|
People make decisions, take actions. States are made up of people.
Moral values differ over the centuries.
Applying one set of moral values to an era where different ones apply is rather useless.
Expecting people to be reponsible for the actions of their ancestors is frankly ridiculous.
However, that doesn't mean we can't learn from history!!
|
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2008 at 12:43
No one should be held responsible for the actions of their fathers or of their cultures. Because if you really look at it, put into the same situations and circumstances any other peoples would do the same thing. In other words if the oppressed could be the oppressors they would do it, it isn't a question of different moral codes, all you can do is ensure that everyone is treated fairly and that current social morality is upheld because realistically that's all you can do. Also I dislike the fact that in our modern mindset everyone is always trying to play the role of victim instead of hero, because in order to be a victim all you have to do is nothing, whereas to be a hero you must put forth so much more effort than those you aid. The fact that victims get so much more media coverage than heroes is also sickening when you really think about it. It's also very difficult to quantify suffering. For instance is the pain the Cherokee felt during the trail of tears more or less than the suffering of Africans traveling across the Atlantic. Can the Irish potato famine even be allowed into such a conversation? Or does a decade of genocide of millions of people in the Holocaust weigh up to three hundred years of slavery in America? Also how can Europeans take the blame for the destruction of up to 95% of American Aboriginols when they themselves knew nothing about the germs they were carrying and in the vast majority of cases the diseases themselves reached the natives decades before the survivors saw their first white man. Individuals are responsible for actions, not cultures, not governments, not religions, people need to realize that and start being heroes and stop being victims. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2008 at 14:25
|
Assigning blame is one thing Assigning consequences is quite another. Why should modern geo-political entities, few of which existed 150 years let alone 500 years ago be blamed for there forbearers faults, and more importantly why should they be made to pay. ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 18-Jan-2008 at 16:31
But what defines native? How long ago did a people have to arrive to be legitimate, and where do we draw the line? Who are the native inhabitants of Europe for example? The Germanic peoples? But they drove out the Celts. The Celts? But they drove out some other peoples. Are the Slavs entitled to live in Eastern Europe? Are the Turks entitled to Anatolia? Are the Italians natives? After all, the Etrusks were there first, were they not?
You yourself have discussed the attitude of people in South America towards the Spanish, but can you really say that the people living in Spain today have anything to do with these? After so many generations, immigrations, wars and politics, can we call them the same people at all? And if so, is there any proof to supoort that outside of location? ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 02:13
I second what JanusRook said!  |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 04:11
Difficult question, and doesn't have an easy answer. However, it is false to say that the term "native" lacks ground. From the legal point of view, fixed by the United Nations protocol, the term aboriginal is preffered to "native". And in practical terms, aboriginal peoples where those that lived in the Americans, Australia, Africa, Siberia and the Pacific BEFORE the European colonization. That covers most of the cases, but still situations like the one of the Ainus of Japan and the Sami people of Scandinavia are not very well defined.
Nearthentals? Pushed to extinction by modern Europeans?
Seriously, in Europe there are curious situations. For instance, in Spain is quite clear that the Basque people is more native than the rest
 .
In the case of Spain we know the it very well. After all we still call Spain our "mother land" in Hispanic America. She is our mother, no matter her behavoir was not very educated in the past
. For us, the people of Spain is most of the population born of Spaniards and not recent immigrants, though. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 04:23
I am afraid you are absolutely wrong, excusing Europeans of that time in this topic.
First, if you believe 95% of the American Aboriginals died of infectious deseases (in other terms you think that the best way to kill Indians was caughing) then I am afraid you also could believe in flying saucers, the monster of lake ness or the chupacabras
(1) First, the population of the American Indians of the United States, and the Americas in general, was low.
(2) Killings of Indigenous people was high. An authentic genocide that has no excuse.
(3) Spaniards vaccinated Native American populations since the 18th century! A long time before European settlers in North America gave blankets with smallpox to Native Americans. So, there isn't inocence involved in there.
Better hurry up and rewrite your history with facts. The crimes of the past can be forgiven but never forgotten.
In any case, what the Americans don't realize about theirs history is the assimilation of Amerindians to the mainstream. A topic that is usually downplayed. And finally, the scale of genocide seem to have been smaller than the people believe, simply because historians inflates demographics and forget intermarriage. No matter that, genocide and ethnocide (destruction of culture) are things people of all over the Americas should know and accept, not denying.
------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 05:20
|
Words are cheap, it's actions that count.
Perhaps Pinguin should start by setting an example, giving his home to a native american and fly to Madrid airport claiming refugee status.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 07:28
Hello pinguin. Welcome back!
For starter's... have you not heard of the "Columbian exchange"? Even N. American natives from that time period had acknowledged it as some sort of divine punishment or supernational punishment upon them. Besides, i think you are taking his comments way out of context?
The 18th century is not in the earlier part of the 17th century, when vaccinations would've probably better helped protect the native populations from the ravages of epidemics. Just over a century too late! Your last sentence, i believe, is of course up for debate.
Call me dumb if you will... but what are you trying too say here? Did i miss something? You start out in your post by blasting our past for causing a massive genocide, and now, several paragraphs later... you're saying it wasn't as big or massive as we have been led too believe?
I agree, genocides are a bad thing. But can we reach a consensus first of what we are supposed to be remembering in the first place?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 11:27
Sorry Paul, wrong target. I have Spanish, French, Italian but also Amerindian ancestry. So part of my ancestors have lived here since at least 12.000 years ago. I have nothing to do in Madrid, although I don't discard to visit it some day.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 11:43
No matter what the legends say, do you believe the story of punishment? It sounds very much like an addaptation of the myth of the manifest destiny: "The Indian is condemned to the extinction to be replaced by the "progressive" white man".
Fellow. Amerindian populations were hit by the ephidemics, but they weren't exterminated by them at all. It is simply absurd to blame bacterias for the crimes the alliens did. That's the point. And I repeat once again that the demographics at the time of contact has been exagerated too much because political reasons.
What I am trying to say is simply the following: politics has prevented to see the past as it was. On one hand you have people that claim there were never killings of Amerindians and that settlers and Indians got along very well, like the Lone Rider and Tonto, and the guest of the Thanksgiving day. On the other hand there are people that claim there were 50 million people in the United States before contact!
All those are weird. Natives americans in most of the continent had to be counted in thousands and not in millions! It is very likely the total number for this huge hemisphere is close to 12 to 20 millions, rather than the 300 that some have claimed.
Now, when we consider genocide we are talking about the violent extermination of certain tribes (and not others), for example. And sometimes we are talking of one hundred to a thousand people for each encounter! The scale is not large but the numbers add up. In the case of Chile, for instance, the largest genocide involved circa 3.000 people in southern Patagonia. If we think about it is not the large act of violent of my country. Pinochet and many wars have had more victims. Even a earthquake killed once 30.000 at once. No matter that, the genocide shouldn't be forgotten.
In short, we should know in detail what happens: the real number of people at contact, the rate of intermarriage, the demographic growth at contact. Only clarifying that you would get the picture.
History is analysed in different perspective as time pass. I bet a century from now the details of what happened will be cristal clear. Genetics and archaelogy could help on it.
------------- |
Posted By: cola
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 12:41
|
This doesent make any sense. How can the state of Spain be held accountable for the conquest of south america if most of the spaniards' , living in Spain, ancestors in fact stayed in Spain. Shouldnt the people who are decendants of the settlers who left to south america be held accountable what happened there. So it would be states like say Chile who should be held accountable what happened there. ------------- Keep it real |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 15:59
Hypocrite!
And a fraction of a percent doesn't really count. Otherwise half the population of Spain can go to Chille tomorrow to evict Chileans from their lands.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 18:13
Actually, It makes sense that Bolivia demands Spain because of the robbery of Silver. They took literalily a mountain of silver in Potosi to fuel Spain and European economy. A money that also served the church to build theirs barroque arquitecture. We demand Europeans blew up those churches and ruturn the silver to Bolivia! Or just send them the value in cash that is circa 200 billion dollars of today's money
Now, in the case of Chile, the state is accountable for everything that happened after 1810. Before that, the responsability belongs to Spain.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 18:23
Mari Mari Peńi Lonko
(hello brother moderator):Hey Paul, why do you react that way insulting me? I bet If I did that to you I would be suspended or expelled of this forum. Please, preach with the example.
Now on topic.
Most of the people of Chile are mestizo. "European" descendents have Indian blood and Indian people have European blood. South America is not like the U.S., where in the past "apparheid" polices prevented people to mix. In here, if the girl is pretty, the fellows won't ask them about theirs ancestry or ask her to take a DNA analysis to trace her genetical originis
. And Indian girls are pretty, I tell you Now, I live in a part of the country that was under foreign dominion (Inca) when the Spanish arrived. In here there was a massive mix of Europeans with Picunches (Northern Mapuces), Quechuas, Diaguitas and other groups. Everybody mixed, so much that the 80% of the mtDNA is Amerindian! So, don't come here to tell me my people (these mestizos with a large European component), don't belong to here, because WE DO.
------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 19:13
My personnal opinion on this is no, we shouldn't be held responcible. I didn't pull the trigger so to speak, and I had no part in it. In fact, I think it's racism to ask for something from another state since it's about benefitting one people of a race. Right now the US has laws where Native Americans don't have to pay taxes and get free schooling and college. But how many generations does it take before this responcibility is lifted. We can not change the past, we weren't apart of it, so why does it have to fall on us?
I'd rather put money towards the good of the nation then towards the good of a certain people who didn't expierence the past like the rest of us. Their mentallity is just as different as ours from our ancestors, we aren't the same people.
Times change, the longer you let a problem linger, the worse it gets. And if you give alittle, more will be wanted. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 19:43
Ah now we see Pinguin's logic. Everyone in Chile takes a DNA test. The ones that don't fit the bill? Well we can deny them thier property, tell them they're not Chilean enough..... make em were yellow stars to single them out!
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2008 at 23:07
It is not Pinguin's logic but Hispanic American logic. In our culture we don't like racial minorities, particularly from immigrants. In our mentality, people has the "duty" to mix or go. With respect to culture, those people has to addopt ours or leave. So it is very hard to find second or third generations of foreigners in here without mixing.
Simple.
With respect to Amerindians, besides having some of theirs ancestral genetics, we addopted in part theirs culture as well. That's not a mistery. And that's why many Chileans of "European" stock knows Mapuche language. Got it?
In short: those attitude come from nationalism. For us, our land and our people is the most important of all. We don't want collections of minorities but people that contribute to make our countries better
------------- |
Posted By: Tyranos
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 01:29
|
No body should be paying reparations, least of all White people born today.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 02:59
1. There have been two other Hispanic Americans on this forum. Jalisco Lancer and Hugo, neither have shown any prejudice towards racial minorities or dumb arse nationalism, it's only you who trying to justify it. You seem to be trying to tar others with your brush to excuse your personal bigotry.
2. So the redistribution of the wealth in Chile, who gets it? And who loses it?
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 03:32
You know there is a well founded theory based on dna markers in some Algonquin peoples and based on common design in Solutrean and Clovis point spearheads that Europeans may have colonized America before the Asians did, traveling much as the Inuit in kayaks across the atlantic ice shelf.
Yes they were, at least in North America, there were stories DeSoto's men brought back of thriving villages in the Mississippi River Valleys numbering hundreds of people. When LaSalle returned a hundred years later, all of these major villages had been abandoned. How could this have been a genocide when there was a hundred years distance between the next white traveler, the answer is diseases wiped out the natives in the region not invaders.
In the US there are 4.1 million people listed as being Native American and at least another 4 million claim to have Indian ancestry, so it's not like there wasn't mixing in North America, in fact if you consider Latin American immigrants that number rises even higher, also Indian marriages were high in the Colonial Northeast as well as the Midwest. Also the Indian population concentrations in America were far less than much of Latin America so since they had less indians to begin with of course there is going to be less intermarriage. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 03:40
I'm going to start by saying I'm speaking as a moderator here. First off pinguin this is not a warning towards you, this is more of a general to the assembled masses post. Please everyone refrain from acting as if you know the rules of the forum, because in reality unless you are listed as a moderator you don't. The rules we give are listed as guidelines and we are pretty sure of how we like to apply the rules, not unfairly biased against any poster because believe it or not not all of the mods agree on any one action, however as a community we act unilaterally. Also listed in our guidelines is that we do not solicit opinions as to how this board should be run and what actions should be taken against the actions of other posters. This is handled under private messaging, even if given as a jest us moderators do not find it funny and we would prefer you either direct it to our attention in a private message. And Pinguin Paul would not get in trouble for calling you a hypocrite because that isn't a derogatory term in itself. You are not being belittled by being called a hypocrite, you are being challenged. Challenged to express your opinion in a way that does not make you come across as a hypocrite. And it is up to you to prove that without belittling Paul or anyone else. Again your posts are fine at this point you just need to be willing to allow a bit more criticism on your posts. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 04:23
As a said before, in the case of Native American Nations, theirs business is with the National states and not with the rest of the civilians.
In the case of the descendents of slaves, that's another matter I am not authorized to talk because -unlike the native issues- that is a problem I just see in the movies. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 04:29
Nor Jalisco or Hugo are Chileans, fellow
 The attitude I tried to describe is quite common in here, in South America. Racial minorities comming from immigrants doesn't make sense if you have a policy that allows free admixture. In other words, the daughter of those Chinese immigrants that just arrived yesterday to open a China food restaurant, will marry almost certainly (95% of the cases) with a local guy-
Redistribution of wealth in Chile? There is a problem there, of course, just like in the United States.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 04:39
I doubt about that theory. However, if true theirs descendents also are Native Americans. The point is not if Amerindians came from Asia, Europe or Australia. What really matters is that they were in the Western Hemisphere before everybody else.
That's the recording of a very specific event that doesn't say much about the whole picture. How many people lived in those villages? There were 4 villages with 300 people each? They moved away? Nobody knows. In shorts it doesn't prove anything about demography.
If you want to study the impact of disseases you should read the records in Mexico and Peru, where native populations were heavely hitten. In none population dissapeared, and the events were as much destructive as the Black Death in Europe. As you also know, the Black Death in Europe killed 1/3 of that population and took a century for them to recover theirs numbers. Something similar happened to the Amerindians. As you know, Mexico and Peru are countries are majoritary Amerindian even today.
Yes, your numbers are correct and that is what I know as well about the topic.
My critic with U.S. history, though, is that they are usually pushed at the corner as a minority more, when the study of them and the history of intermarriage should be central to the history of the United States.
I just complain that Americans are not as proud as we are about the Amerindian past.
That's the feeling I have from the distance, of course.
------------- |
Posted By: cola
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 14:30
You master the way of witty humooor. You really didnt make any more sense. You just gave one single event and didnt eaven try to question the logic of the post. So I will ask again. On what groundsis the modern state of Spain held accountable for what the monarchs of the Spanish empire decided. Eaven if you appeal to the ancestorial blame you have to recoqnize that in fact they were the ancestors of modern day south americans who were doing the "wrong doings". ------------- Keep it real |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 14:35
|
I answer you very clearly. Don't you know the King of Spain was invited by Evo Morales when he took power?
Spain is very beloved by Hispanic peoples, and the King, particularly, is involved in many humanitarian causes with the Amerindians.
No matter that, Spain is responsable for what it did in the Americas. Who else can be blamed for?
Hispanics are in peace with Spain simply because we have a war of Independence with Spain and we get them out of here. We won, they lost, and afterwars both parties reconciliated. Period. Spain was forgiven but the events weren't forgotten.
------------- |
Posted By: cola
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 15:59
The population of Bolivia is over 8 000 000 and the population density is 8 per square kilometer. Spain on the other hand is known for its sunny beaches and its capitol Madrid is located in: 40° 24' N, 3° 41' W
The relevant part of your post to this discussion is mostly consisted of a blatant question "Who else can be blamed" which can be seen as some form of backing up of your argument. Do you think this backing up is adequate to rightly judge a whole nation? You dont seem to accept the fact that the people who wronged Amerindians are in fact the ancestors of modern day south americans. So you try to roll the blame on modern day state of Spain because it is the successor to the spanish empire. Do you know what populism means? So according to this kind of hereditary guilt it should first and foremost fall on south americans them selves not the modern day spaniards wouldnt you agree? Just for the sake of argument I my self cannot beging to understand how some one thinks that this kind of ancestorial blame should exist. ------------- Keep it real |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 16:26
|
Nope. I don't agree at all because a difference in historical events with other societies (like British or Portuguese colonies, for example) that you don't get. For instance, most of Hispanic America was at theirs actual limits at those times, unlike the British colonies or in Brazil, for example, where the expansion to the west was the responsability of Americans and Brazilians respectively. At the time of Independence, the people of Hispanic America was already mixed. And it was that mixed people who got rid of Spaniards for Good. Spain is accountable for the crimes of the conquest and the robbery of silver and gold in the Americas, not us.
In fact, in Hispanic America everybody blame Spaniards for what they did, although they are already forgiven. That's part of our more basic axioms to understand our reality.
------------- |
Posted By: cola
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 17:00
|
Does it eaven bother you to see how inconsistent and full of double standards your posts have been on this topic? Let me get this clear. According to you the modern day south americans are not to be held accountable though some of their ancestors treated the natives injustly. The people who are to be held accountable for the injustices are of course none other than the modern day spaniards, whose ancestors did not migrate to south america and did not treat the native americans injustly or rather treat them at all. And nowadays this lack of injust treatment towards the native americans is forgiven but not forgotten? ------------- Keep it real |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 18:40
|
It is very sad what happened but the Indians were not the first to be conquered or lose their lands. I know tribes pushed out tribes in North America. For Spain to have to pay back reparations is silly. I do not expect the Ottoman Turks to give my family reparations for the land they lost in the 1920's and that was much more recent. I really doubt if Spain would do it since it could bankrupt them.
I do have Iriquois ancestry on my father's side but not enough to count. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι Ďυμπολίτες και οι ĎĎ„Ďατιώτες, να θυμάĎτε αυτό ĎŽĎτε μνημόĎυνο Ďας, φήμη και ελευθεĎία Ďας θα ε |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 18:57
Doubt all you want it is http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/28/archaeology.uknews - taking hold .
No the point is who occupied which land first, if that's the case then I'm making a claim on portions of the Indo-European Homeland, and perhaps East Africa, the point is who occupies the land currently is the one with the most legitimate claim, no matter the results of your predecessors actions it is how you conduct yourself that determines the morality of such a claim.
These were villages that numbered in the thousands, I don't have my source currently (it is on loan) but once I get it back I'll post more exact numbers. And why would a people just "move away" from some of the richest land in all of North America, if they weren't decimated by disease, also the fact is not all "moved away" but the surviving villages were drastically reduced.
Yes but it wasn't like one black death spread across America, it was a neverending cascade of disease in sequence. Okay so smallpox destroys half the population, five years later measles destroys the remaining half, five years later the flu destroys another half. After running the gamut of Europe's most prolific diseases certainly a lot more Americans died than is normally attested.
No it shouldn't thanks to disease and English colonial practices indians were always seen as the "others" and "those that stand in the way of progress". Important events between indians and Americans are well documented in US history such as the French and Indian Wars and the Trail of Tears, but other than that indians really take a back seat role in American history, there are just many many more Americans of Old World descent that played a larger role in the US's history than indians who did.
Every person I've met with "indian blood" is very proud of their native heritage, it's just common sense your proud of the actions of your ancestors as you should be, indians have just been squeezed out by migratory europeans that's all. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 18:58
Doesn't explain how you want to do it in Chile. You keep bringing this up post after post. The second someone asks you to elaborate you run and hide.
How will the redistribution of the wealth work in Chile?
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 20:23
Inconsistent? Never.
One of the reason our ancestors married Amerindians was to have the right to be here. So we do have it and period.
The spanish crown is guilty of the conquist was done. How you can blame the descendents of the conquestadors these days, five centuries later, when we know they are at once descendents of the victims and the victimaries... Got it?
It is different in North America or Australia where the invaders and the invaded are from different stock, even today.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 20:28
Pretty well, thanks. Since the addoption of the Milton Freeman's Free Market theories by the military gorillas in the 80s, the country started to develop fast. Today people live quite a lot better and the last shanty town is going to dissapear during this decade.
Chile is doing quite well, actually, particularly when we compare with the leftist oriented countries we have around.
------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 20:33
|
So the way you would redress what you call "land grabs" earlier, is by applying Milton Freemean's theory to the market place.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 20:40
If you are talking about the Indigenous conflicts for lands, the solution is simple. The state has to bought the lands from colones and wood logging companies and gave it back to the legitimate owners. That's exactly what is happening in the Mapuche territories that were invaded by the Chilean army during the 19th century. ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 21:37
|
Who counts as a Mauche Indian? ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 21:48
Mapuche Indians are technically and legally the Natives that live in the region called of "the Araucania", 800 kms south of Santiago. They speak Mapudungun and kept most of theirs culture intact. Now, most Chileans do have certain degree of Mapuche ancestry but not necesarily from that region where Mapuches live today. In the past, most Mapuche people assimilated to the Hispanic "tribe" and they lost theirs culture. That's the case of the Picunches (or Northern Mapuches) of the place where I live, that are "extinguished" in theory but are our ancestors in practise.
In short, Average Chileans are circa 25% Amerindians, so Mapuches have not the monopoly to "Indianness". Theirs rights are real in theirs southern territories of course, but in here, in the Aconcagua valley were I live, local people is more entitled to the land than them.
Got it?
------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 21:55
|
Nope?
If a person was half Mapuche and half Spanish. Do they count as a Mapuche? ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2008 at 22:03
Half Mapuches, at least, have admixture with Europeans. They are Mapuches because they preserve language, culture, and family relations, otherwise would be considered average "Hispanics" (average Chileans). As the matter of fact, some (not all) Mapuches look pretty European looking because some have German and Brit blood, because historical circumstances that are long to explain here..
------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 06:03
|
You touched upon something earlier that caught my eye. So let's see if i am understanding you correctly, in what you had mentioned earleir? (Alert: Hypothetical scenario is being launched)
If i were to move to Chile, and let's say, an American or European woman were to move there at the same time as i do. Let's also say, fate were to bring us together at the airport and we quickly developed a deep relationship for one another and eventually end up wanting too get married a year or two later, and eventually settling down in Chile. (An additional side fact, is that race had absolutely nothing to do with our decision, we just happened too have clicked extremely well!) Now here is the main question to the scenario, if i am understanding you: Would we eventually end up being completely ostracized from everything in Chilean society simply because we didn't choose any of the local variety, because of something as innocent as love at first sight, you know... that being the work of fate itself? (End of Scenario)
Does that question make any sense to you?
|
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 06:06
I sincerely doubt that that thought ever entered the mind of an early Spanish colonial. This is probably more accurate.... "Well glad we beat those savages in the hills today, I'm glad my father managed to drive away those bandits now we can finally farm our land in peace. I'm also glad Isabella agreed to marry me, I think she is pretty. I'm really glad she became a good Christian instead of staying with her bandit cousins in the hills." Again I sincerely doubt they had to justify themselves being there because back in their time there was no political correctness, so just by being there they had their justification.
So could an Italian go and live with the Mapuche, speak Mapudungun, wear Mapuche dress and be friendly with his Mapuche neighbors and claim to be Mapuche himself, since by your criteria all that is required is language, culture, and relations. Which honestly I would agree with, and was the case with many Northeastern tribes of the US such as the Iroquois who would regularly adopt into the tribes people with no Iroquois blood whatsoever. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 13:12
Nope. You are projecting British and Dutch colonial mentality. In fact, the only problem with Indians many settlers that marry Indian women had is that relatives were fooling around all the day long
To get the idea, Spaniards classified the Indians in good and bad people. They were in good relations with the first and in pretty ugly terms with the second.
Yes, some people did. Mapuches were fierce, though, and you have to be really crazy to go alone to symphatize with them. Some did, anyways. By the way, one of the specialities of Mapuches was to capture European women, which the usually picked from the attacks to the missions which happened regularly. They captured the nuns and make them full functional women ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 13:45
On the contrary. In our culture, integrating foreigners is seen as good manners. You will be expose to local culture and traditions and will have the chance to be one more between all the rest. Only those groups of people that ostracized by themselves -I mean, that don't want to become mainstream- will have problems in the hispanic culture.
------------- |
Posted By: cola
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 14:07
I am not blaming anyone. What I am intrested is how you can blame present day Spaniards if their ancestors, let alone them selves, had nothing to do with the conquest of south america. ------------- Keep it real |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 14:37
|
Of course, today Spaniards are innocent. However, from the historical point of view, Spain will have forever the responsability for all the bad and all the good that did in the Americas. Call it Karma if you wish, but it will remain there, in our history books at least. ------------- |
Posted By: cola
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 20:26
|
What you are saying that present day Spain is guilty but not its people? Does that eaven make sense if we are talking about inherited guilt to the present day generation? Even if you ignore the fact that the south americans are decendants of the people who committed the injustices against the natives. ------------- Keep it real |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 20:48
Let's try one more time, something that I have already said:
(1) Spain is a country and a people. As you can see, I blame that country decisions of the past, not the people or government of today.
(2) Is impossible to blame South Americans for crimes made by our Spanish ancestors on our Native Ancestors. You cannot punish the left hand for what it did on your right hand. We are both the Spanish and the Indians simultaneously. Don't you get it?
(3) You can blame each nationality of South America on the crimes of Indian minorities, and we do blame them. For instance, Mapuches in Chile has people support on theirs cause against the state and the powerful wood companies. ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 21:04
So a half Mapuche is a still a Mapuche. This thn raises the question, when does someone stop being Mapuche. 25%? 10%? 1%? or are they all Mapuche too?
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 22:40
So what you are basically saying is, if a person, couple or group chooses too isolate themseleves from any society they are in, then there might be trouble? I can understand that.
But, what if they accept most of the culture and traditions, meanwhile rejecting the rest? Or they reject all of the culture and traditions, wanting too keep their own; "BUT"... they remain law abiding citizens and remain very friendly and respectful to the culture of the locals as well as their traditions. Not wishing too change anything about the country, but to simply live their lives as peacefully as they can, as was well as wishing no harm upon anyone surrounding them in Chile?
Would any of that be a problem in Chile? Or would any of that be frowned upon by your society?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 23:26
A person stops to be Mapuche when he denies its roots. If a person of Mapuche ancestry hide its roots and is ashamed of it (sometimes changing the last names) then they aren't Mapuches anymore.
The same counts for Chileans (and Hispanics in general) when they migrate to the U.S., Europe or Australia). If their parents are Chileans but the kids don't speak the language and don't care about own "sacred" land
, in that case they are not one of us anymore.They are just another foreigner more.
The 1/4, 1/8, 1/2048 stuff is culturally American. In here in the south, for both Mapuches and Hispanics, what counts is what you have in your heart.
In Chile is impossible to live isolated from the rest. No matter how immigrants try the society force them to assimilate. In some critical cases they can't stand it and leave.
No problem with Chile, except that we believe if someone comes here to live is because want to become one of us. Otherwise, why should come in the first place, anyways?
In other words: In Rome do as Romans do, and in Chile as Chileans do
------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 00:22
I'd don't recall making either of these two comments
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 00:34
| You didn't. He was trying to respond to both our post, in one single post of his and got a little mixed up in the process. Been there and done that. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 00:46
So being a Mapuche is about culture, speaking the language believing in the beliefs, living the life, not actually being related?
So Grey Owl would be a genuine Indian in your view.
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cool/002027-2108-e.html - http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cool/002027-2108-e.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Owl - ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 01:07
I know the history of Grey Owl and is very moving. Some outsiders have really loved Indian people so much that deserved to go in, and they did.
I was talking about another disgusting thing that happens quite often in South America because of westernization of people. Young people goes to the cities, have families there and many times they intermarry. The second generation is grown speaking Spanish and many times parents don't teach kids the language or customs to "protect" them from humilliations and discrimination. They finally cut the ties with the traditional peoples of the countryside.
That happened in all countries including Chile. The effect was so marked in Brazil, for instance, that private institutions developed shaman programs to preserve herbs knowledgte and teach new generations, otherwise everything would be gone in decades.
In many places in South America we are fighting to preserve languages and cultures from extinction, and convincing everybody, average people and native included, that Native culture is worth to preserve.
------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 01:24
|
So if ancestorial land was handed to Indians by the Canadian government in the 1930's. Grey Owl would be entitled to an equal share?
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 01:42
Tricky question
I am afraid governments in the Americas are not as open minded as Native themselves.
In fact, the business of the governments in the Americas is to keep Indian demographics as small as possible by putting a lot of restrictions to memberships. That's why you have so few "real" natives in Canada, Brazil, the U.S. or Chile. Even in Peru or Mexico, where most people are racially indigenous, the numbers of Indians is bellow the 5% of the population!
Weird.
I remember when the Chilean government ask a question about Amerindian ancestry to Chileans in the 1992 census, and millions of people answered positively.... The government never asked the question again ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 01:43
Only problem, Pinguin, is that paul didn't make these statements. The person that you happen to be quoting here is Panther. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 01:47
Yes, I made a mistake. Sorry to Paul and Panther. ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 01:54
1. Actually it's a difinitive question. If someone agrees he has the same rights as a full blood Indian. The claim to ancestoral lands is a claim for a preservation of a culture. In similar ways to creating nature preserves.
If someone disagrees he has the same rights. Someone is creating a distinction based not on culture but genetics. They are in fact in every sense a nazi.
I know what my personal views are, I would be happy for him to have equal inheritance and even grant native people lands not as a racial heritage but as a preservation of a culture project similar to a nature reserve. But anyone would be able to participate, even if they had no Indian blood.
The question is now, what are your personal beliefs, Pinguin?
2. From what I understand about the US since the casinos opened it's not the government that is closed and wants to keep Indians to a minimum, it's the indians thwemselves. There is no shortage of wannabe Indians it's the Indians themselves that are rejecting applications.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 06:07
So if say, a person who had ancestors who committed genocide against indigenous peoples, denies his ancestry from that person and instead commits himself to a culture based on a melting pot society, then they should feel no blame towards the actions of the disowned ancestor since their new "culture" committed no genocide? ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 12:17
|
It seems that the Mapuche are very happy in Chile indeed: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080122/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/chile_fasting_mapuche;_ylt=ApHv8bsaf8RHpKP5m9C1XH.3IxIF - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080122/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/chile_fasting_mapuche;_ylt=ApHv8bsaf8RHpKP5m9C1XH.3IxIF http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/americas/south-america/chile - http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/americas/south-america/chile ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 12:39
Your irony is originated in the ignorance on the topic. Mapuches are fighting to recover theirs lands occupied by powerful logging companies and german settlers. They have all our support.
Better study the issue and then come back making jokes, please.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 12:44
Natives defines who is Indian or not according to theirs blood lines. Palefaces shouldn't interfiere on that.
I agree that Native culture should be teach to everybody. Natives rights shouldn't.
It makes sense. After centuries of fighting, poverty and allienation, when Indians finally have some money in theirs pockets everybody suddenly wants to be Indian... That's disgusting. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 15:28
In the US they are considered their own soveriegn nations to an extent I believe. But they also get more benefits such as not having to pay taxes even if they live outside their reservations and they get free college.
And no, many Americans are NOT attracted to the idea of money in proving they are native american. I knew alot of people with native blood and none looked to get any benefits. My cousins great-grandmother was a native american which means they would definitly get the benefits had they filed for it. But not even their grandfather went for it and they haven't either, yet while they don't look native at all, they still have some pride in their ancestry. And like I said, I've seen this numerous times. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 15:50
The homeland of the Mapuche was stolen by the state of Chile. --- So in summary your view upon the matter is the following: 1) The state of USA stole the land of the natives. Therefore, they should get all the blame for the theft. 2) Chile, and other SA countries, stole the land from the native. They however, should not get the blame for stealing the land from the natives. The reason for this is that the predominantly male conquistadors and settlers took native women as wives, slaves or mistresses and their offspring make up a large part of the current population pool. Instead we blame Spain, whose population's ancestors did not go to South America to steal land, since the people who actually stole the land (ie the ancestors of the modern Chileans etc) happened to be born there. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 16:07
So what makes an Indian bloodline. 100%? 50%? 25%? 10%? 1%?
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 16:26
It's Chilean territory. If the Chilean government sympathizes with the plight of the Mapuche why don't they kick out the logging companies and relocate the Germans instead of maltreating protesters? Besides, the reason immigration of Germans and other Europeans was promoted in the 19th century was precisely because the government believed 'cultured' Europeans would be able to develop the country, believing Indians were incapable of doing that.
Funny, most Native Americans considered tribe membership to be something of culture, not 'blood'. 'Blood' (or genetics) is typically European way of defining ethnicity, not Amerindian. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 16:27
Absolutely. That's why Mapuches call the rest of Chileans "huincas", which mean thieves.
Of course.
Depends on the territories you are talking about. The Chilean state was formed on a Spanish colony that was 300 years old when got independent. Those territories were already part of the mixed Chilean people at that time and all the people of that part of the country fought the independence wars, indians, whites, mixes, without distinction. So, those lands are without doubt Chileans.
A different situation was the "Pacifying of Araucania" war, which was actually an invasion of the Chilean state on Mapuche territory. Our version of the expansion to the west (to the south in this case), and our own variety of the "manifest destiny"
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 16:31
I wouldn't say the Chilean state sympathizes with the Mapuches, although there are several programs to buying back land going on. I would say Chilean people is the one that symphatizes and not the state.
Yes, bringing German immigrants to settled in the South was an official policy of the Chilean state.
------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 16:44
|
What did Chile say to the bean? Move on over buddy and make room for the Gazpacho! Such is the fate of those who do not understand the laws of the kitchen jungle. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 17:34
Chile invaded Mapuche territory simply because Mapuches had proclaimed a French adventurer as theirs King, some years before. The loonie was put a price on his head and finally captured and recluded in a mad's house, before being deported
...However, the final drop was an Argentinean uprising promoted by the Mapuches of that country that had followers in Chile.
It was after the War of the Pacific when Chile has already invaded Peru. The state had resting soldiers in the country so they were sent to "pacify" that territory and bringing "progress" (Germans they mean) to those territories.
Doesn't it sound pretty much what the Americans did? In a smaller scale, of course. ------------- |
Posted By: cola
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 18:10
So now you are blaming Imperial Spain's decisions and its settlers...
Oh I get it alright. So you must get it that as you are blaming the "Spain of the past" you are actually blaming your ancestors. Not the constitutional monarchy of Spain. ------------- Keep it real |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 18:49
|
There are some situations where it is impossible to address past injustices beyond acknowledging past errors, such like the many cases that people opposed to this idea have brought up. So it is pretty hard to get the Roman Empire to indemize the Gauls in France.
However, there are cases where crimes that modern countries that still exist to this day still affect people who live to this day. Moreover, in some cases the countries are still benefiting from past crimes. Then some kind of redress should be considered. Such as with the situation of Chile and its Native Americans. I will respectfully disagree with Pinguin. In Latin America, your geneological tree is not the most important aspect that determines ethnicity. To put it more bluntly, Mestizos, or mixed Indian and Spaniards, are not the same as Native Americans. The modern mestizos or criollos that run Latin America happen to be the group that commits crimes againsts Native Americans and benefit from them. The modern Latin American states, like Chile or Mexico, should redress the constant crimes that they commit against Native Americans. They should not be put in a cultural reserve since they are not a dying species. These are cultures that have survived 500 years of colonization. They don't need any help to survive. What they do need is justice in a dignified manner. That means that in Mexico existing groups should be granted legal autonomy. In Chile, the Chilean government should give back the stolen land given to Germans. ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 19:10
Not without irony, but way to be an 'indian giver'. Those german settlers legitamately have claim to the lands they occupy. Certainly the Chilean government stole the land from the Mapuche but they gave that land to the Germans. It would be like someone stealing a car and giving it to you, and then you find out 5 years later it's stolen and you have to give it back. Meanwhile all this time you've worked and repaired the car, put in a new radio, etc. and now their telling you it's not your car, when you've obviously put more effort into improving it. That doesn't seem very fair either.
This reminds me of the story of Liberia, where former US black slaves went to Monrovia and proceeded to oppress the local African minorities forming a caste system of American blacks on the top and African blacks on the bottom. This goes to show what may be moral in one persons eyes is immoral in anothers. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 19:16
That's true. But single out the rich criollos, who are the people that own the land and logging companies, and also SOME German descendents (in the case of Mapuches).
Absolutely. Include Latin America and Canada in the pack as well, and I will absolutely agree
I agree with the second part. I dissagree that the Indian culture isn't dying. It is. At least the states do something with streght, it is very likely languages and cultures will finally dissapear in some decades. We should do something to stop extreme assimilation. I propose to teach an elective Indian language to every single Chilean kid, so in that way we ensure to preserve at least those tongues.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 19:19
Yes. It is a difficult issue indeed. That's why It hasn't been fully solved after decades of effort. The Chilean state has invested quite a lot in buying lands back and in developing small business for Mapuches, but there is a lot more to do. Besides, certainly violent groups exists that complicate matters even more. There are a couple of German settlers in Mapuche territories that have suffered arson and shootings several times.
The problem goes on.
------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2008 at 19:55
Hi, Janus, You know what? If I buy a stolen good, unknown to me, the government may just take it away from me and give it to the legitimate owner. It sucks, but that is right. Moreover, if I squat on land in the U.S., I can improve it all what I want, and it is still not mine. It may not be fair, but it wasn't fair of me to settle in the land in the first place. Also, my understanding was that it was given to Geman companies, not German immigrants. In that situation it is like the U.S. leasing land to a corporation to exploit the land. Those leases expire or can be revoked. If necessary, the lands can be bought back to be given to the legitimate owners. Your second point is strange, since my point is that opression is opression, no mater who is doing it. That applies to all people. ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 05:19
Not so fast "right" is a moral judgment which is subjective. Personally I don't think that is right. It is legal however, and not everything that's legal is right.
Oh, okay that changes everything then, see in my head I imagined old wild west style ranchers and homesteaders settling land that the Chilean sold to individuals.
I'm sorry my point was making that "giving back" land to "oppressed peoples" can lead to the opposite of what a "moral authority" set out to do. Thus by giving the Mapuches back the former lands you could yield a worse result. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 21:03
Well, in these times, ranchers practically don't exist in Chile. There are small farmers, yes, but also larger farm lands which very are mechanized and all is oriented to the agroindustry. Remember that Chile produce lots of fruits, vegetables and derivates to export worldwide. The Mapuche territories are not really farming lands but wood lands where large pulp manufacturing companies plant threes. There are small propietaries but few. The main problem is then between Mapuches and the paper manufacturing companies who got a lot of money and are chilean owned. Some few small German landowners are cought in between.
In this case in particular, the state acknowledge lands have to be given back to Mapuche comunities, and there are resources address to do exactly that. However, the problem is there is never enough money and land to do so. It is a problem that will take decades to solve even with good will. But Mapuches are fighting for rights they have.
------------- |
Posted By: Serge L
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2008 at 20:07
Actually, some countries where the law derives from Roman Codes (mine, for instance), makes provision of "usucaption", according to which after a certain (usually long) time, the guy who invalidly bought the stolen car becomes the legal car owner. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 12:21
Unfortunately, despite my very convincing letter I wrote , Kevin Rudd just recently apologised for the Australian nation to the Aboriginal people. While I agree wrongs were committed in the past, I believe the concept of ancestral blame is nonsense. An apology made by anyone other than the person responsible is meaningless. Not only this, but by apologising he just made modern Australia 'accountable' in the eyes of the public.
 ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2008 at 01:01
On the contrary. Australia was already and for a long time 'accountable' in the eyes of the public worlwide, because the tragic past of the colonization and contact with the Aboriguines.
What your PM Kevin Rudd did it was very noble, and make people think he is a great man, and that Australia it is a mature and responsable country that acknowledge the mistakes of the past.
------------- |
Posted By: Odin
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 16:06
|
I reject the whole concept of collective guilt, period. A German born in 1945 cannot be held responsible for the Holocaust. Living Euro-Americans are not responsible for the atrocities our ancestors inflicted on the Native Americans and Africans. What is past is past, we should not be pointing fingers and blaming modern people for the sins of their ancestors. Instead we should be asking "where do we go from here?"
------------- "Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now." -Arnold J. Toynbee |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 16:21
Individuals may be innocent of the crimes of the past, but societies aren't.
The government that exterminated American indians is the same that exist today. In the case of the holocaust, the society is still the same that existed 60 years ago. ------------- |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 16:25
No it isn't the same. The particular ruler, who maybe gave orders, maybe not is looong dead. And Spain is a constitutional monarchy today, so the government is different. In fact, it changes every few years. And I've got a question if you don't mind: which native American tribe do you come from? |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 16:26
No it isn't. Do you have even a slightest idea how ashamed those people feel?? I know a few Germans myself and speak their language. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 16:30
|
And one more question. If you say that individuals are innocent but societies aren't, then who's gonna pay it?...The individuals are innocent so their taxes are to remain untouched.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 17:06
Why to blame Germans only for a crime that was the product of European mentality as a whole? Racism and racial supremacy wasn't invented in germany but it was the result of the colonialist mentality. After all, pogroms and genocides of Jews and other minorities were a tradition in Europe since the Middle Age. Besides many other crimes Europeans practised during centuries.
In my oppinion the "shame" must be shared by all Europeans. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 17:13
As all Chileans of the central valley of the Aconcagua, I have Picunche ancestry, but not exclusively. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 17:19
|
Pay for what? Of course certain reparations can be made with surviving people in marginal conditions. But how you pay for those millions of people Europeans killed and that left no descendents? Of course, Europeans have not been the single genocidal people in the planet. Perhaps mongolians have the record.
------------- |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2008 at 19:31
Then, what do you want those countries to do?? |