France Upholds Law That Smooths History

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How could they be wrong ? They were not even born.

 

Your making a critical error. They are not learning from their mistakes. They cant learn from them since they didnt make them to start with. They can learn from the mistakes of others.

 

Great you critisise people for something they were never part of. You dont find find that kind of irrational ?

[Azarkon]

SP, we're going in circles. I answered that question a very long time ago and repeatedly since then when I say that it is *society* that is at fault, not the individuals. If you can't accept this, if you refuse to acknowledge the idea that a society can ever be at fault, then we obviously can't agree on anything. Your whole argument is based on the idea that only people can be at fault, and therefore people who were "not there" have a blank slate. I maintain that this is true only with respect to personal guilt. I identify a separate, collective guilt that I attribute to a entire society and its outlooks. If you don't accept that this exists, then we're not even past step 1 in this discussion.

 

Look, let's consider a example other than WW2. Consider slavery. Who's at fault here? The slave owners? The slave traders? The people who made the slavery laws? The South? Clearly it's not a few people that's at fault here, and I maintain that even if we took every person in that generation out of the equation slavery would remain because it is institutional, because it's a way of life. It was the way of life that had to change, it was the national ideology, the whole conception of blacks as being inferior. *THAT* there is why society can be at fault, and why I maintain that slavery is a fundamentally collective guilt on the American people, one which the government had done much to address even now. Sure, we can argue today that none of us were there back during the times of slavery and therefore we shouldn't be held responsible for the plight of the blacks. But we *bear that guilt* nevertheless as long as vestiges of that time (ie racial discrimination) remain in American society. And it is *good* that we bear that guilt as long as racism exists in society because it serves as a grim reminder of what could happen if we moved down that path again.

 

Never forget. That is what the Japanese survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki told to their generation, and what has been passed down since then to modern Japan. So it is with the world: never forget the evils of the past. If you bear its guilt, it is only because remnants of the past remain even to this day. It is not for us to determine what society we are born into, but the Christians are right in that we are born, always, with original sin: not the sin of we as individuals, but the sins of our history, our society. In Christianity, these sins can only be removed when we confess them and when we repent them sincerely. So it is with society's sins.

[SteveThaiBinh]

So the question boils down to whether a nation can commit crimes and bear responsibility itself, or only the individuals who inhabit and lead it. In one view, the nation endures, and therefore so do the guilt and the responsiblity, until later generations discharge them. In the other, the individuals who committed the crimes do not endure, so neither does the guilt. Individual responsibility vs. societal responsibility. I'm afraid I don't have any answers, not tonight at least.

 

Edit: I noticed that in the above post Azarkon says pretty much the same thing.

Edited December 2, 2005 by SteveThaiBinh

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

SP, we're going in circles.  I answered that question a very long time ago and repeatedly since then when I say that it is *society* that is at fault, not the individuals.  If you can't accept this, if you refuse to acknowledge the idea that a society can ever be at fault, then we obviously can't agree on anything.  Your whole argument is based on the idea that only people can be at fault, and therefore people who were "not there" have a blank slate.  I maintain that this is true only with respect to personal guilt.  I identify a separate, collective guilt that I attribute to a entire society and its outlooks.  If you don't accept that this exists, then we're not even past step 1 in this discussion.

 

Look, let's consider a example other than WW2.  Consider slavery.  Who's at fault here? The slave owners? The slave traders? The people who made the slavery laws? The South? Clearly it's not a few people that's at fault here, and I maintain that even if we took every person in that generation out of the equation slavery would remain because it is institutional, because it's a way of life.  It was the way of life that had to change, it was the national ideology, the whole conception of blacks as being inferior.  *THAT* there is why society can be at fault, and why I maintain that slavery is a fundamentally collective guilt on the American people, one which the government had done much to address even now.  Sure, we can argue today that none of us were there back during the times of slavery and therefore we shouldn't be held responsible for the plight of the blacks.  But we *bear that guilt* nevertheless as long as vestiges of that time (ie racial discrimination) remain in American society.  And it is *good* that we bear that guilt as long as racism exists in society because it serves as a grim reminder of what could happen if we moved down that path again. 

 

Never forget.  That is what the Japanese survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki told to their generation, and what has been passed down since then to modern Japan.  So it is with the world: never forget the evils of the past.  If you bear its guilt, it is only because remnants of the past remain even to this day.  It is not for us to determine what society we are born into, but the Christians are right in that we are born, always, with original sin: not the sin of we as individuals, but the sins of our history, our society.  In Christianity, these sins can only be removed when we confess them and when we repent them sincerely.  So it is with society's sins.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So basically because you think that society is some sort of entity and we are it's appendages we are all guilty of its crimes ?

 

Of course they do , they are no more responsible for something that happened when they were not born than they are because someone else goes and nicks a car. If your idea were actually anything more than a fantasy, you could just go lock up anyone who commited a crime because heck they are all part of society so they are all guilty. We could even go one further and lock someone up each "lifetime" for some particularly henieous crime.

 

Slavery is long gone as are the people involved (well at least in the context your using). It's certainly not something that anyone alive today needs to appoligise for or feel bad about.

 

Actually making people pay taxes to pay off this imagined debt and laying a guilt trip on them is a much better way to make people resent blacks since you are punishing them wrongly and unjustly. So your not elimiting racism , your just giving a more rational reason to exist.

 

Like I said it's lucky that your view is nothing more than fantasy because the implications are much scarier than most of the events you demand be rembered.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

So the question boils down to whether a nation can commit crimes and bear responsibility itself, or only the individuals who inhabit and lead it.  In one view, the nation endures, and therefore so do the guilt and the responsiblity, until later generations discharge them.  In the other, the individuals who committed the crimes do not endure, so neither does the guilt.  Individual responsibility vs. societal responsibility.  I'm afraid I don't have any answers, not tonight at least.

 

Edit:  I noticed that in the above post Azarkon says pretty much the same thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Have you ever seen a nation comit a crime ?

 

Was every single German a supporter of Hitler ? Nope (fact) so much for the theory of the nation of Germany commiting a crime then.

 

That isnt really the issue. The issue is why someone should be blamed for the crime of another. That violates every principle of justice.

 

Learning from history dont have a problem with that. Someone expecting that I should be responsible and sorry for those events. Big problem with that.

Edited December 2, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Azarkon]

When one man commits a crime, it is a personal crime. When tens of thousands of men commit the same crime, it is a societal crime.

 

It's okay for us to disagree on individual responsibility vs. societal responsibility, as Steve put it, but I hardly think that your assertion of societal responsibility being a cause for resentment apt. Yes, this has been argued in the past (in fact, the Treaty of Versailles is used as an example of when societal responsibility created deeper resentments), but what one observes in each circumstance where a society feels resentment at being held responsible for its past is the common thread that said society is not at all repentent.

 

That is, said society resents its guilt only because it disbelieves that such a guilt exists, only because it holds itself as to never having been wrong. If it genuinely believed in its guilt, resentment would not have arisen. Much as in the case of individuals, true guilt begets regret and then redeemption. It is the ones who are charged guilty but who do not believe that they are that resents their charges.

 

Therefore, bracketing the question of whether societal guilt truly exists or not, my insistence that its existence is a positive force is not at all preposterous. If we *truly* felt guilty about our past we would not resent those who hold us to it. Instead, we would seek to address that guilt through correcting our mistakes. This could only lead to a better world.

 

It is only when a society consisting of people who think very much like you (ie no societal responsibility possible) are charged with societal guilt that the opposite happens, that resentment begins to stir against both the judges and the victims. This is self-righteousness: the declaration that "I was never wrong!" It is a fine declaration, but it does not lead itself to building a better world. Instead, it is doomed to repeat the mistakes of its past because it refuses to acknowledge them. Yeah, your claim does not preclude the possibility of learning from "other people's" mistakes, but it is common sense that no one learns as much from other people's mistaks as they do from their own.

 

Instead, we opt for the opinion that we'll never become like them: "surely, we'll never be like the Nazis. Surely, we can never commit such acts." And in doing so we forfeit all the lessons we have learned because as many historians have observed, it is NORMAL people who commit these crimes, it is people who never believed that they were capable of such horrors. And so it is that modern American society is faced with dealing with torture in prisons and CIA cover-ups: we thought that we were righteous enough; we thought we were immune to corruption. We are wrong, and we are wrong because we refuse to learn from past mistakes when the same situations occured in Vietnam and WW2.

 

In the final analysis, stressing the "innocence" of all modern societies is a recipe for a repeat of the past.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

When one man commits a crime, it is a personal crime.  When tens of thousands of men commit the same crime, it is a societal crime.

 

It's okay for us to disagree on individual responsibility vs. societal responsibility, as Steve put it, but I hardly think that your assertion of societal responsibility being a cause for resentment apt.  Yes, this has been argued in the past (in fact, the Treaty of Versailles is used as an example of when societal responsibility created deeper resentments), but what one observes in each circumstance where a society feels resentment at being held responsible for its past is the common thread that said society is not at all repentent.

 

That is, said society resents its guilt only because it disbelieves that such a guilt exists, only because it holds itself as to never having been wrong.  If it genuinely believed in its guilt, resentment would not have arisen.  Much as in the case of individuals, true guilt begets regret and then redeemption.  It is the ones who are charged guilty but who do not believe that they are that resents their charges.

 

Therefore, bracketing the question of whether societal guilt truly exists or not, my insistence that its existence is a positive force is not at all preposterous.  If we *truly* felt guilty about our past we would not resent those who hold us to it.  Instead, we would seek to address that guilt through correcting our mistakes.  This could only lead to a better world. 

 

It is only when a society consisting of people who think very much like you (ie no societal responsibility possible) are charged with societal guilt that the opposite happens, that resentment begins to stir against both the judges and the victims.  This is self-righteousness: the declaration that "I was never wrong!"  It is a fine declaration, but it does not lead itself to building a better world.  Instead, it is doomed to repeat the mistakes of its past because it refuses to acknowledge them.  Yeah, your claim does not preclude the possibility of learning from "other people's" mistakes, but it is common sense that no one learns as much from other people's mistaks as they do from their own. 

 

Instead, we opt for the opinion that we'll never become like them: "surely, we'll never be like the Nazis.  Surely, we can never commit such acts."  And in doing so we forfeit all the lessons we have learned because as many historians have observed, it is NORMAL people who commit these crimes, it is people who never believed that they were capable of such horrors.  And so it is that modern American society is faced with dealing with torture in prisons and CIA cover-ups: we thought that we were righteous enough; we thought we were immune to corruption.  We are wrong, and we are wrong because we refuse to learn from past mistakes when the same situations occured in Vietnam and WW2.

 

In the final analysis, stressing the "innocence" of all modern societies is a recipe for a repeat of the past.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That dosnt make sense tens of thousands of people do commit the same crime and we lock up the people who did it. We dont just pick someone off the street and lock them up for it. Thats the very basis of our nature of justice.

 

Oh I think it's very apt. If I was paying taxes to fund some slavery guilt trip I wouldnt feel particularly like helping the people who were "robbing" me. I think you mean when society feels it is being unfairly put upon. It's against every concept of justice to make an innocent person pay for the crimes of the guilty and I have the very best defence which was I wasnt born.

 

This is where I laugh at you. Why do you think these people have jumped on the slavery bandwagon ? Do you think they want justice or do you think they want a fat settlement cheque. So they are basically laying a guiltrip on guilable Americans (you are one it seems) in order to get a payoff. Since all these guilt trips tend to revolve around money I tend to treat them with contempt.

 

Like I said why should I feel guilty about something I'm not responsible for ? Do you feel guilty when someone commits a crime which you had nothing to do with?

 

No these people are not normal. If that were the case then everyone put in the same situation would commit those crimes, which they dont. Rather it's the breakdown of social order that allow these people to express their sociopathic tendencies.

 

While you might take comfort in the idea that admitting guilt somehow makes the human race better. It really dosnt work that way. The people who are likely to be the next generation of Hitlers dont see those acts as mistakes, but rather inspiration. So I guess while you are making innocent people feel guilty for no reason the sociopaths are learning the ropes at the same time.

Edited December 2, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Blank]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ah, i agree then.

 

i will bow out for now, since i don't have anything very constructive to say, and u guys seem to be doing fine on your own . but once i really disagree or really agree with something, then i'll be back.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Blank

[Azarkon]

That dosnt make sense tens of thousands of people do commit the same crime and we lock up the people who did it. We dont just pick someone off the street and lock them up for it. Thats the very basis of our nature of justice.

 

And if said crime was institutional and legal, such as slavery? You throw around the idea of locking people up alot, but what do you do when those who are doing the locking are the criminals - when society itself is the perpetrator?

 

Oh I think it's very apt. If I was paying taxes to fund some slavery guilt trip I wouldnt feel particularly like helping the people who were "robbing" me. I think you mean when society feels it is being unfairly put upon. It's against every concept of justice to make an innocent person pay for the crimes of the guilty and I have the very best defence which was I wasnt born.

 

Except you're not innocent. The country you're born in and the priviledges you're surrounded with are built upon the backs of slaves and taken from the hands of Native Americans. Sure, you weren't there, but you're enjoying the benefits of what used to be theirs, and your system continues to discriminate against them. That in and of itself is a crime that transcends any barriers of generation.

 

This is where I laugh at you. Why do you think these people have jumped on the slavery bandwagon ? Do you think they want justice or do you think they want a fat settlement cheque. So they are basically laying a guiltrip on guilable Americans (you are one it seems) in order to get a payoff. Since all these guilt trips tend to revolve around money I tend to treat them with contempt.

 

They want both. Justice for the institutions that brought them low. A fat settlement check that'll compensate for the products of that discrimination. They deserve both. You may laugh at me, but I weep for you.

 

Like I said why should I feel guilty about something I'm not responsible for ? Do you feel guilty when someone commits a crime which you had nothing to do with?

 

Depends on whether that person committed the crime out of his own volition or because he was coerced into doing so by a system I support.

 

While you might take comfort in the idea that admitting guilt somehow makes the human race better. It really dosnt work that way. The people who are likely to be the next generation of Hitlers dont see those acts as mistakes, but rather inspiration. So I guess while you are making innocent people feel guilty for no reason the sociopaths are learning the ropes at the same time.

 

The reason they don't see those acts as mistakes is because they don't feel guilty about them. And the reason other people SUPPORT them is because THEY don't feel guilty about those mistakes either. It's not about making innocent people feel guilty so that sociopaths take over. The only reason those sociopaths can take over is through exploiting the masses' indignity at being blamed for something they, supposedly, did not commit. But of course this is just a common excuse.

 

Regardless, I feel we've reached an impasse. You can keep on believing what you do, but I maintain that society has a responsibility, and that those who support society are, therefore, collective guilty of society's mistakes. No man is an island onto himself, and while you are only responsible for your own actions, there's a certain action called "supporting the government" that places you in direct responsibility of your government's actions.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

And if said crime was institutional and legal, such as slavery? You throw around the idea of locking people up alot, but what do you do when those who are doing the locking are the criminals - when society itself is the perpetrator?

 

Except you're not innocent.  The country you're born in and the priviledges you're surrounded with are built upon the backs of slaves and taken from the hands of Native Americans.  Sure, you weren't there, but you're enjoying the benefits of what used to be theirs, and your system continues to discriminate against them.  That in and of itself is a crime that transcends any barriers of generation.

 

They want both.  Justice for the institutions that brought them low.  A fat settlement check that'll compensate for the products of that discrimination.  They deserve both.  You may laugh at me, but I weep for you.

 

Depends on whether that person committed the crime out of his own volition or because he was coerced into doing so by a system I support.

 

The reason they don't see those acts as mistakes is because they don't feel guilty about them.  And the reason other people SUPPORT them is because THEY don't feel guilty about those mistakes either.  It's not about making innocent people feel guilty so that sociopaths take over.  The only reason those sociopaths can take over is through exploiting the masses' indignity at being blamed for something they, supposedly, did not commit.  But of course this is just a common excuse.

 

Regardless, I feel we've reached an impasse.  You can keep on believing what you do, but I maintain that society has a responsibility, and that those who support society are, therefore, collective guilty of society's mistakes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is there a society that has institutionalised slavery ? I dont live in one do you ?

Slavery was common place in the ancient world. You would be hard pressed to find a civilisation that didnt have slaves.

 

No I'm innocent. No ammount of you telling me otherwise is going to change that

I know for a fact that I cant be charged for a crime that occured before my birth.

 

Well since they were eager to sell each other (different tribes) to slavers and those tribes used their connections with said slavers to enslave even more tribes I'd say africans should cough up too since they are equally guilty by your reconining. Save your tears if you want to try to absolve some imagined guilt because you happen to be an American be my guest.

 

Heres my natural justice. If I get taxed for some slavery reperation I'll raise the rent on some black guys house till it evens out. Now you may scream unfair, but since I'm being picked on just for being a certain nationality I'm just doing the same thing.

 

You have an odd concept of guilt. Would you be indignent if someone locked you up because your next door neighbour hit his wife ? Wouldnt you be even more indignant if they had both been dead for 50 years (actually incredulous seems more appropriate).

 

Well you can believe what you like but if you want to foister that self loathing stuff onto me you really need something to back it up.

Edited December 2, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Azarkon]

Heres my natural justice. If I get taxed for some slavery reperation I'll raise the rent on some black guys house till it evens out. Now you may scream unfair, but since I'm being picked on just for being a certain nationality I'm just doing the same thing.

 

Except that's not the same thing. If society decides to tax for slavery reparations, the authority comes from society. If you decide to tax some black guys house till it evens out, the authority comes from your personal sense of vindictiveness. In the former case, society bears the responsibility for its taxes. In the latter case, you alone are responsible.

 

If we're talking in terms of guilt, this is the difference between collective and personal guilt, and you obviously support it since instead of getting back at those who are taxing you (which you'd do if you really believed that societal guilt does not exist), you're getting back at people who are part of the society you feel you've been wronged by. Thus, by your own example, I proclaim that society must be held accountable for its own actions.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Except that's not the same thing.  If society decides to tax for slavery reparations, the authority comes from society.  If you decide to tax some black guys house till it evens out, the authority comes from your personal sense of vindictiveness.  In the former case, society bears the responsibility for its taxes.  In the latter case, you alone are responsible.

 

If we're talking in terms of guilt, this is the difference between collective and personal guilt, and you obviously support it since instead of getting back at those who are taxing you (which you'd do if you really believed that societal guilt does not exist), you're getting back at people who are part of the society you feel you've been wronged by.  Thus, by your own example, I proclaim that society must be held accountable for its own actions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Comes from the government actually. Oh I see so taxing totally innocent people is "justice" and doing the same thing to another totally innocent person is being vindictive. Can we say double standard.

 

Actually I'm getting to the source of the tax thats all. Guilt or innocence isnt even a factor here. If you wanted to be pedantic however he would be paying for a current crime. IE robbing me ,not one that is 300 years old.

 

Since I'd do the same regardless of the source it dosnt really help your case any

 

See so by making it personal IE making me guilty of a crime I could have had nothing to do with you have done the exact opposite of what you intended. Now not only do I have no particular reason to help the people who indirectly robbing me, but I'd also be sure I got it all back.

Edited December 2, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Azarkon]

Comes from the government actually. Oh I see so taxing totally innocent people is "justice" and doing the same thing to another totally innocent person is being vindictive. Can we say double standard.

 

Actually I'm getting to the source of the tax thats all. Guilt or innocence isnt even a factor here.

 

Since I'd do the same regardless of the source it dosnt really help your case any

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can't you see that just by "getting the source of the tax," you're proving the existence of societal guilt? The source of the tax is not the black guy whose house rent you've just raised. It's the government, and a specifically the persons who introduced and approved the tax. But you don't go after them, you go after the people who you perceive as being the "source," which is to say the African American society that supposedly clamored for the tax (regardless of whether said black person was part of this clamoring or not). Clearly, you hold them responsible for a tax that another party imposed. In doing so, you're acknowledging the fact that one group can be held responsible for the direct actions of another. That is essentially what societal guilt is all about: society must be held responsible for the direct actions of its constituents.

 

It really doesn't matter if you think this is double standard or not, whether it's about guilt or innocence. The point is that you acknowledge the existence of agency beyond the direct perpetrators of an action. That's equivalent to my claim, and very contradictory to your own claim which is that every man is only responsible for his own actions. The black guy you're raising the rent on is not responsible for the tax (at least not directly; he might've helped elect the senator who passed the bill, but how is that different from the average joe who helped elect Hitler who massacred the Jews?), but you hold him responsible for the actions of society. Henceforth, my point is proven.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Can't you see that just by "getting the source of the tax," you're proving the existence of societal guilt? The source of the tax is not the black guy whose house rent you've just raised.  It's the government, and a specifically the persons who introduced and approved the tax.  But you don't go after them, you go after the people who you perceive as being the "source," which is to say the African American society that supposedly clamored for the tax (regardless of whether said black person was part of this clamoring or not).  Clearly, you hold them responsible for a tax that another party imposed.  In doing so, you're acknowledging the fact that one group can be held responsible for the direct actions of another.  That is essentially what societal guilt is all about: society must be held responsible for the direct actions of its constituents.

 

It really doesn't matter if you think this is double standard or not, whether it's about guilt or innocence.  The point is that you acknowledge the existence of agency beyond the direct perpetrators of an action.  That's equivalent to my claim, and very contradictory to your own claim which is that every man is only responsible for his own actions.  The black guy you're raising the rent on is not responsible for the tax (at least not directly; he might've helped elect the senator who passed the bill, but how is that different from the average joe who helped elect Hitler who massacred the Jews?), but you hold him responsible for the actions of society.  Henceforth, my point is proven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No it's those people doing the whole slavery guilt trip.

 

You may have failed to notice but thats me playing by your rules. All you have proven is far from making society a more peaceful place laying guilt unjustly on the innocent causes the opposite reaction which kind of strikes at the heart your arguement dosnt it.

 

Your system turned someone who had no particular hatred for any race of people into someone that totally resented black people and their money grubbing slavery excuse to make money.

 

(all hypothetical of course).

 

If that was your goal , congratulations.

Edited December 2, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Azarkon]

If guilt over your society's past is enough to make you resent the victims and loath yourself, then I daresay you're overreacting. Self-loathing is a reaction of personal guilt, not collective guilt. People who feel the pangs of collective guilt loath the society that is the perpetrator and then attempt to change said society. They don't loath themselves, especially if they didn't support the society (which they wouldn't if they feel that it is guilty) in the first place.

 

Of course, to you everything may simply be personal guilt, in which case yeah I can see why you'd react with self-loathing and resentment. But that defeats the whole purpose of collective guilt, as then the target of guilt is not society but people. That's not what I'm arguing for, and never was. Notice that I never said that we should blame a country's people for the actions of their ancestors. Rather, we blame the country's system and those who *choose* to support the system. The former leads to hatred and animosity between people. The latter can lead, if it's allowed to take seed, to a better world.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If guilt over your society's past is enough to make you resent the victims and loath yourself, then I daresay you're overreacting.  Self-loathing is a reaction of personal guilt, not collective guilt.  People who feel the pangs of collective guilt loath the society that is the perpetrator and then attempt to change said society.  They don't loath themselves, especially if they didn't support the society (which they wouldn't if they feel that it is guilty) in the first place.

 

Of course, to you everything may simply be personal guilt, in which case yeah I can see why you'd react with self-loathing and resentment.  But that defeats the whole purpose of collective guilt, as then the target of guilt is not society but people.  That's not what I'm arguing for, and never was.  Notice that I never said that we should blame a country's people for the actions of their ancestors.  Rather, we blame the country's system and those who *choose* to support the system.  The former leads to hatred and animosity between people.  The latter can lead, if it's allowed to take seed, to a better world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Self loathing is what collective guilt aims for. Thats why the Germans were never allowed to celebrate their bravery in WWII. And yes there were a lot of brave Germans. It all got buried under the whole self loathing that people expected of them.

 

But thats exactly what you would be doing by taxing the current populace for something like slavery reperations. That society no longer exists it's gone. By all means learn from it, but dont expect anyone to feel guilty about it.

 

Oh resentment sure. Self loathing why ? I might loathe them and thier money grubbing antics certainly wouldnt loathe myself.

 

How could I support a system or not support a system that existed 300 years prior to when I was born ? Can you answer that ? See no one alive today could have possibly supported that system and thats where you argument fails. The other alternative as you say is resentment, and actually that turns out to be the only alternative.

 

The system no longer supports slavery therefore it's not the same system and didnt you say that absolves "society" of guilt anyway ? So why would you be in favour of paying reperations for slavery since you are asking the innocent to pay for the guilty even by your own "rules".

[Azarkon]

If the society today is truly independent of the society of the past then there is no need for collective guilt, because society would then not be guilty of its actions in the past. But it's precisely the continuation of society that necessitates collective guilt, because a society does *not* merely die with its leaders. Like I said, modern society possess many undesirable elements from past societies: discrimination, imperialism, ethocentrism, etc. All of these attributes constitute a continuation of the society that committed atrocities. If we are to remove them, we must first recognize the fact that they exist and that they are undesirable - and the only way we can do this is by admitting that those past societies were wrong and that our society still retains many attributes of those societies. That's the function of societal guilt: to confess that our society was wrong in the past, to realize that our current society is a continuation of the past in many cases, and to correct the mistakes in modern society as a result. This cannot be done without first admitting that our society was wrong in the past, and that implies a sense of guilt; but not a personal one - the guilt is directed squarely at current society insofar as it is a continuation of the past. If modern society is completely free from the past, then it is exonerated.

 

Germans are not allowed to celebrate their war heroes because to do so represents a return to the past, to the system of military glorification, which is seen by many as the fundamental flaw of German society. Their "guilt" should not be seen as the guilt of being German but rather the guilt of having a militaristic society in the past. They are exonerated insofar as their modern society is free of that militaristic past, and there would be no self-loathing here if the Germans were truly repentent of that militaristic society in the past. After all, why would you loath yourself over not celebrating war heroes if you truly, in a genuine way, rejected militarism? Course, I suspect that German self-loathing does not rise from being unable to celebrate war heroes as much as it rises from being in a subject position due to having lost the war and thus forced to do what the victors say. That's a different issue and has little to do with whether societal guilt produces self-loathing.

 

For example, very few people today feel personal guilt over America's history of slavery. However, many feel *collective* guilt over the country's past and that's been the driving force of racial equality and an end to discrimination. If such a guilt disappeared before racial discrimination is completely eliminated, people would more likely assume a position of complacency and thus inaction - stifling civil rights progress in the process. It is by keeping the memories of slavery strong that we are able to make social progress in making sure that it never occurs again. Thus is societal guilt a positive force in the world.

 

Likewise, if I didn't think that modern Japanese society is in danger of reverting to its militaristic past because of how much hasn't changed, I wouldn't be insisting on societal guilt.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If the society today is truly independent of the society of the past then there is no need for collective guilt, because society would then not be guilty of its actions in the past.  But it's precisely the continuation of society that necessitates collective guilt, because a society does *not* merely die with its leaders.  Like I said, modern society possess many undesirable elements from past societies: discrimination, imperialism, ethocentrism, etc.  All of these attributes constitute a continuation of the society that committed atrocities.  If we are to remove them, we must first recognize the fact that they exist and that they are undesirable - and the only way we can do this is by admitting that those past societies were wrong and that our society still retains many attributes of those societies.  That's the function of societal guilt: to confess that our society was wrong in the past, to realize that our current society is a continuation of the past in many cases, and to correct the mistakes in modern society as a result.  This cannot be done without first admitting that our society was wrong in the past, and that implies a sense of guilt; but not a personal one - the guilt is directed squarely at current society insofar as it is a continuation of the past.  If modern society is completely free from the past, then it is exonerated.

 

Germans are not allowed to celebrate their war heroes because to do so represents a return to the past, to the system of military glorification, which is seen by many as the fundamental flaw of German society.  Their "guilt" should not be seen as the guilt of being German but rather the guilt of having a militaristic society in the past.  They are exonerated insofar as their modern society is free of that militaristic past, and there would be no self-loathing here if the Germans were truly repentent of that militaristic society in the past.  After all, why would you loath yourself over not celebrating war heroes if you truly, in a genuine way, rejected militarism? Course, I suspect that German self-loathing does not rise from being unable to celebrate war heroes as much as it rises from being in a subject position due to having lost the war and thus forced to do what the victors say.  That's a different issue and has little to do with whether societal guilt produces self-loathing.

 

For example, very few people today feel personal guilt over America's history of slavery.  However, many feel *collective* guilt over the country's past and that's been the driving force of racial equality and an end to discrimination.  If such a guilt disappeared before racial discrimination is completely eliminated, people would more likely assume a position of complacency and thus inaction - stifling civil rights progress in the process.  It is by keeping the memories of slavery strong that we are able to make social progress in making sure that it never occurs again.  Thus is societal guilt a positive force in the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes but your perpetuating them as my little experiment showed your not removing them.

 

Actually in the case of a Dictatorship that is pretty much the case. The Dictator dies the society changes.

 

I see no reason why they should not celebrate the bravery of their troops. We celebrated Nelson a couple of weeks ago no one got on a ship and started to shoot up french people. Thats more likely to happen after a football match than after a historical celebration.

 

So how does it benifit anyone to continue putting them through the guilt and self loathing ? Would anyone be suprised that they would say 50 years is enough now sod off because I sure wouldnt.

 

Never say never :D A nuclear war would pretty much reset the clock. As for collective guilt being a possitive force , nope dont see it. All it does is create resentment towards the group that you are trying to intergrate. If there is a reduction it's regional and thats due to seeing people on an every day basis and realising hey thats a person. In places where that is not the case there is just as much rasism and resentment as ever, even more in some places.

 

So rather than trying to guilt people into accepting blame for things that are not their fault what "society" should be doing is making people take responsibility for their own actions and not scapegoating these actions onto other institutions. Which is where the whole mob mentality and group absolution come in.

[Azarkon]

Nuclear war would most certainly not reset the clock unless humans became extinct, in which case eh, the animals that survived might resent us

 

Regardless, the reason Germany is not allowed to celebrate its war heroes is a symbolic one: it's not so much about what would happen directly after the celebration, but what would be signified by such an act (in this case, the resurgence of German militarism), even if that did not come about. Europe has a rather long memory of what Germany did during WW2, so it's not likely to acede to such a symbolic gesture unless it feels that Germany is truly repentent of its wartime society. Whether the Germans resent that or not is up to them - I could easily see Germans resenting people trying to control what they do while being repentent of wartime society, so it's not by any stretch of the imagination a simple matter, and there are valid arguments on both sides.

 

Japan is in a similar situation, except that rewriting history books so that they don't present any indication of Japanese atrocity during the war is blatant idiocy and shows Japan's unrepentence towards militaristic nationalism. Here is a case where the critics of Japan's policy in this matter have the upper hand, in my evaluation.

 

So rather than trying to guilt people into accepting blame for things that are not their fault what "society" should be doing is making people take responsibility for their own actions and not scapegoating these actions onto other institutions. Which is where the whole mob mentality and group absolution come in.

 

A society is a continuation of its past. Therefore, in accepting responsibility of the present you are accepting responsibility for the past's continuations into the present. A nation's conception of its own history is a perfect example of the past's continuation into the present: the "right" thing to do here is not to glorify the hell out of your past via skewed revisionism but to take responsibility for the truth of that past. If a society cannot even do that, how can it hope to take responsibility for the present? (and from history, very few such societies actually take responsibility for their actions in the present - they scapegoat the "powerful leaders in charge")

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Nuclear war would most certainly not reset the clock unless humans became extinct, in which case eh, the animals that survived might resent us

 

Regardless, the reason Germany is not allowed to celebrate its war heroes is a symbolic one: it's not so much about what would happen directly after the celebration, but what would be signified by such an act (in this case, the resurgence of German militarism), even if that did not come about.  Europe has a rather long memory of what Germany did during WW2, so it's not likely to acede to such a symbolic gesture unless it feels that Germany is truly repentent of its wartime society.  Whether the Germans resent that or not is up to them - I could easily see Germans resenting people trying to control what they do while being repentent of wartime society, so it's not by any stretch of the imagination a simple matter, and there are valid arguments on both sides.

 

Japan is in a similar situation, except that rewriting history books so that they don't present any indication of Japanese atrocity during the war is blatant idiocy and shows Japan's unrepentence towards militaristic nationalism.  Here is a case where the critics of Japan's policy in this matter have the upper hand, in my evaluation.

 

So rather than trying to guilt people into accepting blame for things that are not their fault what "society" should be doing is making people take responsibility for their own actions and not scapegoating these actions onto other institutions. Which is where the whole mob mentality and group absolution come in.

 

A society is a continuation of its past. Therefore, in accepting responsibility of the present you are accepting responsibility for the past's continuations into the present. A nation's conception of its own history is a perfect example of the past's continuation into the present: the "right" thing to do here is not to glorify the hell out of your past via skewed revisionism but to take responsibility for the truth of that past. If a society cannot even do that, how can it hope to take responsibility for the present? (and from history, very few such societies actually take responsibility for their actions in the present - they scapegoat the "powerful leaders in charge")

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes it would. It's pretty hard to have the nicieties and social control when your just trying to survive. Want to see what happens. Take a look at New Orleans after the Hurricane and thats people who know that there is help out there.

 

Wow a country celebrates brave men I'm sure it will kick off a new invasion of poland

 

And yet I dont hold anything against the Japanese when I probably have far more reason to than you do. Funny that isnt it.

 

No thats got nothing to do with accepting responsibility for your own actions. You can just as easily use that excuse to get your revenge on some poor sod who just happens to belong to a society that "wronged" you 300 years ago.

 

The only thing I will accept responsibility for are my own actions simple as that.Thats all I expect from others as well. So no hating them collectively because they happened to kill one of my ancestors.

 

So now your trying to say Hitler is a scape goat for the Holocaust ? WOW good luck with that one.

[Azarkon]

Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust, but he's a scapegoat for society's role in aiding his rise to power (and his anti-Semitism was reflective of German anti-Semitism at the time; in fact, it was a factor in his popular support). As I said in one of my earliest posts, it's never just the leaders who shape national destiny: it's also the people who, actively or passively, consent to his leadership.

 

I know that you'll never accept the idea that a person must take responsibility for something that occured before he was born, but understand that it's neither vindictiveness nor resentment that drives this principle. I don't argue for societal guilt so that I can take revenge on people for what they didn't so, nor to create resentment between two peoples. I argue for societal guilt because it's proven that if a society feels genuinely guilty about what it did, then said society will opt to change for the better, and to ensure that it never occurs again. On the other hand, if a society does NOT feel guilty about its past, then it will regard such a past with nostalgia and seek to return to it, as Germany did after WW1. Such is the reason why criticisms of a country's policies with regards to its past are fully justified: because if a society refuses to acknowledge its past mistakes, then it's bound to repeat them, and the world has a responsibility - to humanity itself - to prevent any society from repeating the mistakes of the past.

 

It's not about individuals and guilt-trips. It's about recognizing what was wrong about a society's past and taking steps to correct them. This responsibility must rise on the shoulders of those who inhabit said society, who must come to understand that their neighbors' bitterness is not something to be dismissed as simple guilt-tripping, but a direct reflection of their society's legacy. If they don't take steps to correcting such a view, no one will, and they'll simply be setting themselves up for another tragedy.

[Lucius]

LOL okay, so patriotic Germans should feel guilt because... they're being patriotic? Should they feel guilt just because little you is scared of a little German nationalism?

Please, your bias is showing, it's people like you who keep reminding people that the evil Germans were nazies, and in doing so you contribute to the still very much existing level of hate that young Germans are exposed to, especially in England where we're actually talking about hate-crime.

 

Also, I've studied the Great War and I know as much as to say that claiming it to be the fault of Germany moreso than Russia, France, Italy, Serbia or Austria-Hungary is ridiculous. Its like the Entente blaming all of the costs of war on the Germans in the Treaty of Versailles, this was the French and British getting their revenge on the Germans whom they had so much trouble fighting, and you're doing the same.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Lucius

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It's pretty clear what personal responsibility has going for it over collective guilt.

 

1. No "I was just following orders"

2. No sharing actions to mitigate guilt (see Ordinary Men)

3. None of that "It's gods will crap"

 

All of which have been used to excuse genocide.

 

During WWII my Grandfather spoke to an American who had lead some Germans around a deathcamp. Were they aware it was there ? Yep. Would they have been shot if they had spoken out against it ? Yep.

 

So while lots of Germans may have taken what some may see as the easy route. The primary motivation for mr ordinary German was saving their own skin and not getting them and their families killed.

Which strikes me more as common sense than anything else.

 

It's also no reason why the Germans should not be allowed to celebrate their own heroism.

 

If you want to see something that incites racial violence, look no further than football. You will find more deaths and injuries resulting from football matches than you will ever find resulting from comemerative events.

Edited December 2, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Azarkon]

LOL okay, so patriotic Germans should feel guilt because... they're being patriotic?

 

Yep. If you're a true patriot of the country, then you damn well better shoulder the responsibility of both past and present if the past continues to the present. Course, Germany is not alone in this. All countries must do the same, and I've made that quite clear. Germany is simply a convenient example for the purpose of discussion; I could just as soon talk about the US, Japan, Britain, France, China, the Middle East, etc. etc. etc. Course, some countries have less to remember than others.

 

It's pretty clear what personal responsibility has going for it over collective guilt.

 

1. No "I was just following orders"

2. No sharing actions to mitigate guilt (see Ordinary Men)

 

Actually, it's the exact opposite. The reason those men were able to get off the hook was because they they were appealing to the idea of personal responsibility over collective responsibility. Their argument was that a few evil men were responsible for all the deeds; everyone else just followed orders. That's, of course, an excuse since it'd be quite easy for the masses to overthrow a few evil men. If nothing else, cowardice was their guilt, and their redeemption would lie in having the courage to rebuild society so that it could never occur again.

 

Which strikes me more as common sense than anything else.

 

It's this "common sense" that led to the deaths of millions. If that doesn't strike you as a problem with society, then damn, let's just go back to the time of the cave men.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

1. No "I was just following orders"

2. No sharing actions to mitigate guilt (see Ordinary Men)

 

Actually, it's the exact opposite.  The reason those men were able to get off the hook was because they they were appealing to the idea of personal responsibility over collective responsibility.  Their argument was that a few evil men were responsible for all the deeds; everyone else just followed orders.  That's, of course, an excuse since it'd be quite easy for the masses to overthrow a few evil men.  If nothing else, cowardice was their guilt, and their redeemption would lie in having the courage to rebuild society so that it could never occur again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No your completely wrong on both counts. Following orders absolves you of responsibility under collective responsibility since the order comes from someone other than yourself since you are just carrying out the instructions of another. Where as if you believe in personal responsibility you are still responsible for what you do even if you are ordered to do it.

 

Following orders is a collective not an individual act. Thats the very concept of what an order means.

 

If you read the synopsis of Ordinary Men it clearly states that they felt they were able to perform those duties because they shared the responsibility for them. By sharing the blame it lessened it to the point where they could do what they were ordered to do. Individually none of them would have likely did that , but because they were a collective they were able. All in all it kind of screws up your theory that shared responsibility prevents that sort of thing dosnt it?

 

Not true since the men in charge are the ones with the weapons. They may not act alone, but they hardly act as a nation either. Not every German fought for Hitler not every Japanese fought for the emporer. The majority of those that did fought honourably and were completely unaware of what was going on in the minds of the upper echelons.

 

 

reluctance to force the others to bear more than their share of what each viewed as an excruciating duty

 

 

Note the word share.

Edited December 2, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0