France Upholds Law That Smooths History

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Blaming Germany and Japan for the actions of people (of whom most is dead) because you're a nationalist is ridiculous. It would be the same as blaming Danes, Swedes and Norwegians for their viking raids and pillaging, or how about the many Scandinavian wars. Even better, how about Spain and the murderings in South America?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey a Viking plundered my great great great grandfathrs (couple of greats for good measure) sheep and by current rates of inflation I figure you owe me

[Craigboy2]

"cough" Propaganda "cough"

[Azarkon]

Blaming Germany and Japan for the actions of people (of whom most is dead) because you're a nationalist is ridiculous. It would be the same as blaming Danes, Swedes and Norwegians for their viking raids and pillaging, or how about the many Scandinavian wars. Even better, how about Spain and the murderings in South America?

 

If their society has not changed since those days, then yeah, those societies must still be blamed for their past actions. But they've changed, haven't they?

 

You're trying to paint an unrealistic image of nations with violent pasts (of which there are plenty), and Germany in particular. Claiming that their culture is somehow more aggressive and it leading up to Nazi Germany. (I guess you think they started WW1 too all by themselves).

 

It's not at all an unrealistic image. A narrow caricature, yes (for there are many other attributes of German society outside of aggression), but not unrealistic. Many analysts of German culture agree with me that up to the end of WW2 German philosophy priviledges strength of arms and conquest. That Japan has a militaristic culture is also blatantly obvious. I fail to see your attempt here to disseminate some sort of equivalence between all cultures with regards to social outlook, which is absolutely not the case: American culture differs from European culture differs from Asian cultures.

 

It's amusing, however, that you leave out that very important factor in the rise of the Third Reich that is the Treaty of Versailles. Perhaps I should blame you, then, as well for the pressure your ancestors (assuming that you're english, american or french) put on Germany with this outrageously unfair treaty after WW1 which essentially pushed the German people into the arms of Hitler.

 

I do not dismiss it. But it's not the only factor, either. The Treaty of Versailles destabilized German society to the point where the Weimar Republic could not have survived. But it did not force the Germans to follow Hitler once the Treaty of Versailles was overturned. That they followed him through thick and thin, knowing that he's waging a war of aggression against Europe, is the problem with German society at the time. Let's not forget that Germany imposed a far worse treaty to Russia, btw.

 

Edit: I see now that I was right, "Wilhelm II and his glorious war of conquest", give me a break. You seem to hate Germany.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do hate the Germany (the entire damn state, not merely Hitler and his cronies) that slaughtered 6+ million people in its ethnocentric blindness, as well as the Germany that repeatedly began wars of aggression towards other countries. I do not hate modern Germany, because it appears that modern Germany has learned from its mistakes. There's a huge difference between the two.

 

Btw, you need to brush up on your history if you think Germany was not the aggressor in WW1, though here Russia might have to hold equal responsibility.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Now to me it just looks like your are looking for an excuse for your hatred. Which lets be honest is totally irrational.

[Azarkon]

Ridiculous. Btw, ad hominem attacks don't help your case.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Ridiculous.  Btw, ad hominem attacks don't help your case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would call it ridiculous. You hate X because X did something 50 years ago. No one who was responsible is still around but you hate them anyway. Yep that sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

[Azarkon]

Where did I say I hated modern Germany/Japan? Point it out to me.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Where did I say I hated modern Germany/Japan? Point it out to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So what do you hate then ? Why should modern Germany and Japan appologise or feel guilty for what even you consider to be a non modern Germany or Japan might have done ?

[SteveThaiBinh]

In the late fifties/early sixties Fidel Castro nationalised land and industries in Cuba, effectively stealing them from their US parent companies, the legal owners. The US maintains its embargo against Cuba to this day for that reason, and says it will continue to do so until Cuba repays the US companies who lost out. When does Cuba's obligation to make these repayments expire?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

In the late fifties/early sixties Fidel Castro nationalised land and industries in Cuba, effectively stealing them from their US parent companies, the legal owners.  The US maintains its embargo against Cuba to this day for that reason, and says it will continue to do so until Cuba repays the US companies who lost out.  When does Cuba's obligation to make these repayments expire?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you asking for an opinion or a definitive answer ?

 

Zimbabwe has been doing a similiar thing btw.

Edited December 2, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[SteveThaiBinh]

Are you asking for an opinion or a definitive answer ?

An opinion of when it should expire, if ever. It seems unjust that British taxpayers should now pay reparations to Australian aboriginees, for example, for the crimes of several generations ago, but it also seems wrong that the Cuban government can confiscate assets of foreign firms and get away with it. Can we find a single law or principle that delivers justice in both cases?

Edited December 2, 2005 by SteveThaiBinh

[Azarkon]

I hate, and with good reason, Germany and Japan as they were back during WW2. I hate the system that drove these two nations to launch ethocentric wars of aggression and massacre against the world. I hate the system that blinded the public to the actions of ruthless, cruel dictators. I hate the fact that these ruthless, cruel dictators were representative of ideologies that were actually popular during the times.

 

But pertinent to this thread, there is only one "hatred" that is relevant, and that's the continuation of the problems I outlined above in modern society. I hate racism and xenophobia, both of which are on the rise in Japan. I hate militarism and ultranationalism, both of which are again resurfacing. And most of all, I hate the patriotic blindness that has come over the world, once again.

 

A country's apologies are meaningless. Sincerity in correcting a societal failure demonstrates true repentence and signals a country's real ascendancy beyond its past. I do not hate modern Germany/Japan. I hate the elements in those countries that refuse to acknowledge that they were ever wrong, that refuse to demonstrate that they are willing to change their society in response to those failures. That a xenophobic, racist extremism is on the rise in Japan has many contributing factors, but not the least is the fact that many people in Japan refuse to acknowledge the fact that their society, and not merely the military regime, might have been partially responsible for WW2. This is what I recognize as a justified criticism, and what I believe is required for the progress of human civilization.

 

Scapegoating leaders without looking at the society that brought them to power is like missing the forest for the trees.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

An opinion of when it should expire, if ever.  It seems unjust that British taxpayers should now pay reparations to Australian aboriginees, for example, for the crimes of several generations ago, but it also seems wrong that the Cuban government can confiscate assets of foreign firms and get away with it.  Can we find a single law or principle that delivers justice in both cases?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When those who instituted the policy die.

 

How many generations are we talking ? I tend to put the whole thing down to political bull**** since it's not likely that your going to Tony arrested for the Dresdan bombings.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I hate, and with good reason, Germany and Japan as they were back during WW2.  I hate the system that drove these two nations to launch ethocentric wars of aggression and massacre against the world.  I hate the system that blinded the public to the actions of ruthless, cruel dictators.  I hate the fact that these ruthless, cruel dictators were representative of ideologies that were actually popular during the times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well thats nice and all but your 50 years too late. Carrying around all that hate will give you an ulcer.

[Azarkon]

Read the rest of the post before you comment. Seriously.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Hatred leads to the dark side. :ph34r: It's not unreasonable to hate racists, violent extremists or terrorists. However, racism, xenophobia, militarism and ultranationalism are on the rise in a number of countries, and persist in countries where they are in decline. Would it not be irrational to single out Japanese racists for greater hatred, on the grounds of their parents' wartime record, than racists in other countries?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Read the rest of the post before you comment.  Seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I did your again saying that just because person A did this then person B 50 years on just because they happen to be nationality X will do the same.

[SteveThaiBinh]

When those who instituted the policy die.

All debts will be forgiven when Fidel dies? It provides a strong incentive to Cubans to kill their beloved leader. You should suggest this to George Bush - he might take it up.

 

There has certainly been a lot of pressure from NGOs that African nations which have become democracies should be forgiven the massive (though legal) debts of the former dictators, only a decade or two after they were incurred. So far, the principle has not gained any acceptance in international law, but I think it should.

How many generations are we talking ? I tend to put the whole thing down to political bull**** since it's not likely that your going to Tony arrested for the Dresdan bombings.

Whether it's right and whether it's likely are two separate issues. I don't think it's either, but then arresting Tony would be punishing an individual. That's not the same as saying the country should pay reparations. Besides, Tony has to stand trial for the invasion of Iraq first. The Germans can get in line.

Edited December 2, 2005 by SteveThaiBinh

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

All debts will be forgiven when Fidel dies?  It provides a strong incentive to Cubans to kill their beloved leader.  You should suggest this to George Bush - he might take it up.

 

Whether it's right and whether it's likely are two separate issues.  I don't think it's either, but then arresting Tony would be punishing an individual.  That's not the same as saying the country should pay reparations.  Besides, Tony has to stand trial for the invasion of Iraq first.  The Germans can get in line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's not like the Americans havnt tried several times I think. You should look on the deaths of those concerned as a fresh start. See no reason to lumber the new administration with Fidels baggage (that of course assumes that non of those who came up with the policy are still in power too).

 

Well I dont know the details of the case so I couldnt really say one way or the other. I don't like the bloke , but I still wouldnt put him on trial at least on what evidence has come to light thus far.

[Azarkon]

Read the rest of the post before you comment.  Seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I did your again saying that just because person A did this then person B 50 years on just because they happen to be nationality X will do the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, I said that if they refuse to acknowledge that they were even wrong in the past, then they're bound to do the same thing. Huge difference: if you learn from your mistakes, you will not repeat them. If you don't, you will. I criticize the latter, not the former.

 

Would it not be irrational to single out Japanese racists for greater hatred, on the grounds of their parents' wartime record, than racists in other countries?

 

Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me. It's far worse to commit the same mistake twice than it is to do so once, and if Japan does, eventually, revert, then the responsibility would not only lie with Japan but with the world for being blind a second time.

 

Like I said, society is responsible for the conduct of its constituents. If a society commits a crime, then it must be held responsible and subsequently correct such a mistake. Herein lies progress. If we don't even hold to this, then we're never going to create a better world, only a technologically superior one that is more capable of inflicting mass destruction.

[Blank]

As far as modern Christians go, I don't hold them responsible for the Crusades because Christianity's de facto view of the world had changed dramatically in its principles since then.  However, I do hold Christian fundamentalists responsible, because they refuse to change.  Consequently, many people do still hold Christianity as a religion responsible for its crimes - and rightfully so, because there are certain tenets of Christianity that simply are not conducive to a peaceful, tolerant world.  Fortunately, a good majority of modern Christians no longer believe in these tenets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol, snap. you just picked a fight with me. Do you know what is in the Bible (the basis of Christian religion)? because if you did, then you would see that anyone commiting a crime is not adhering to the laws and precepts established therein, and therefore how can one blame the Bible for telling people to do crimes if it doesn't tell them to do crimes? This is where i agree with Shadow Paladin. The nation ideally is never wrong, unless their own laws are immoral. but if their laws are not immoral, then ideally they are never wrong. However, we are talking not just about ideality, but also reality. In reality, Azarkon has a point, that the nation doing evil is responsible, but by commiting the acts they did, they are going against their own laws, so is it the ideal nation's fault anymore? no, but it is the real nation's fault. i can't generalise everyone in that nation like Azarkon can, because everyone has their own opinion and to just label everyone guilty as a whole during their criminal acts, is just stupid and illogical. So i won't say it is the nation's fault, but it is the fault of a select conglomeration of people who had enough power to influence others for bad.

 

Lol, fundamentalist christians. fundamentally adhering to the Bible, they are not wrong, so why would you hold them responsible if they didn't do anything that was truly based on the Bible? if it is a crime, then it is not based on the Bible, because God doesn't want us to sin. So then one who commits a sin is no longer under the label of being truly fundamental to the Bible.

[Azarkon]

Well, the Crusades were waged for economical reasons, but through religious justification. The point of contention in this case would be that Christianity is blamed because it provided a convenient ideology that could be easily exploited. A continuation of that blame would implicate that even today, Christianity is used as a convenient ideology, and as such its adherents are to blame for such stupidity as, say, the advent of intelligent design and Bush's "I am on a mission from God." Still, since *most* Christians regard these adherents as extremists who are no longer operating within modern Christian sensibilities, there's a clear reason to believe that modern Christianity is no longer to blame for these problems.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Trick me once, shame on you.  Trick me twice, shame on me.  It's far worse to commit the same mistake twice than it is to do so once, and if Japan does, eventually, revert, then the responsibility would not only lie with Japan but with the world for being blind a second time.

It's one thing to say that Japanese racists should be subjected to greater scrutiny because of the country's history. It's another to say they deserve greater hatred.

 

Racism, xenophobia, militarism and ultranationalism can spring up in the most unexpected of places.

If a society commits a crime, then it must be held responsible and subsequently correct such a mistake.  Herein lies progress.  If we don't even hold to this, then we're never going to create a better world, only a technologically superior one that is more capable of inflicting mass destruction.

I don't think I necessarily disagree with what you've written, but I'm uneasy about some of the implications. There's the problem of victor's justice. The same standards must apply to everyone. Also, I've never heard of a nation itself being found guilty of a crime, other than in the court of public opinion, a notoriously unreliable one.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I don't think I necessarily disagree with what you've written, but I'm uneasy about some of the implications.  There's the problem of victor's justice.  The same standards must apply to everyone.  Also, I've never heard of a nation itself being found guilty of a crime, other than in the court of public opinion, a notoriously unreliable one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But we are not talking about a current "crime" anyway. We are talking about something that most of the people involved are either dead or extremely old.

[Azarkon]

I don't know. Repeat offenders are charged more heavily than one time offenders, are they not? Still, I see your point, and my contention would be that my beef is not so much that Japanese racists should be treated with greater hatred, but that a society should not be allowed to forget the past, which is the whole point of this thread, I suppose. I go further than that, though, to say that it's justified that a society should feel guilty about its past so long as remnants of the past's failures remain within that society. A nation may be exonerated (though it should never forget) from its horrendous past the moment all vestiges of the factors that contributed to that past are corrected; but before such a moment, it is prudent to remind every society the evils of their past (though not in a vengenful manner). Only so, only *with the burden of our guilt*, can we progress beyond the past.

 

We're all human and we all make mistakes. That is acceptable. What's unacceptable is not learning from your mistakes. What's abominable is not even admitting to them.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Azarkon