After Grendel pointed this thread out to me, I sampled three pages.

What I see here is the Cellarers at their finest and most sensible.

And let us thank whatever Powers we acknowledge for the good sense of President Harker.

Psst. RK, Dana is from the north of England. Didn't those references to William the Conqueror tip you off?

For the record, it doesn't affect your arguments any.

Although it did make me think of one thing. This definition of racism, mad as it is, is specifically tailored to the USA, and generally tailored to places where there has ever been a racial supremacist structure. Has Britain had this? Better check with Dana, but if not, then great news! All the Brits here are non racist. (I don't think anti-Irish/Scottish/Welsh bigotry/repression could count, because I doubt that they could be construed as a different race.)

: ponders Australian history : oooh damn I'm such a bad guy.

Ummmm.... Hell yes.

Britain owned the world at one time via sea power. So did a number of other European countries. Including England, if we historically look at only Africa the others that come to mind are Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, And Italy. The US was not even involved, except from an export basis in Africa (humans). But if you look around the world even the US was trying to break into the ownership/control/colonialism book in a number of countries. And least we not forget one of England’s greatest treasures, The East India Company and The area we now know as India.

http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.ed...ialism1914.jpg

I believe the Aussie had their own problems at home:

http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/abo...ralia_map.html

http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/Abo...tralia_Map.jpg

Touche!

For some reason (or none at all) I was thinking in terms of a racially segregated society within the British Isles. : removes blinkers :
Good lord I have read Kipling and some similar stuff, White Man's burden and all that.

Say, Merc, do you like Kipling?


Answer: I don't know, I've never Kipled.

I think the situation in the colonies is a different matter to the situation in the UK itself. In terms of racial segregation, there was really only de facto segregation, rather than de jure segregation.

Obviously, prior to the abolition of the slave trade in britain, there were black slaves, but not in the same numbers as there were in sugar growing colonies. There would have been a few cities where large numbers of slaves would be processed, but the serving classes in the UK were the lower social orders, not imported slaves. Even then, one could be black and free, being black did not automatically confer inferior status in law.

We did, however, have laws limiting the particiation of Catholics, Jews and non-Anglican protestants, up until, I believe the 19th century.

Mostly our legal constraints on the person have historically settled onto the working classes and the very poor. And....y'know...the Irish....and women.

Within the colonies, however, we would often institute very codified and strictly hierarchical systems which would take account of racial background and class. In the British colonial mindset, the average middle-class / upper-class administrator would have far more in common with the ruling elites of the countries they governed than than the working-classes of their own culture.

It's a different history to America. Class is/was a much bigger factor in our political culture, I think.

Australia as a colony has a disgusting record as far as racism goes.

We're descended from people who thought it was ok to hunt down all the aboriginal people in Tasmania and shoot them, basically so that there were no aboriginals left alive on the island.

Of course, this is possibly the worst thing as far as cold blooded murder goes, but let's not forget the stolen generation (the systematic removal of aboriginal children from their families) and the fact that aboriginal people were not even allowed to participate in government processes (including voting) till about the 1970's.

Oh yes, when an Australian talks about racism, they're speaking from a position of experience that's for sure.

On the surface it makes good sense. I tend to agree. But I wonder about this.

What if you today are continuing to benefit from some historical act, while someone else is continuing to be a victim from the same act? Let me make up an example: If your great grandfather was a pirate who amassed great wealth by stealing it from others. You grew up in this rich family, and today you meet a descendant of one of your great grandfather's victims. You are wearing some expensive jewelry that used to belong to the family of this other guy. You didn't personally steal it, but you still posses it. Should you feel shame for that? (I think yes.)

Now change the example to something that's more of a gray area. You grew up in an old plantation in the South. Your family is one of the few that is still well off from the money generated by slave labor over a century ago. Should you feel shame that you are well off, while some of the descendants of your family's former slaves live in poverty? (I think yes, a little.)

One final example. You are the child of immigrants, living in the South. Nobody in your family even lived in this country during the time that slavery was legal. You work hard and save up enough money to buy a nice historic old house that happens to have been built by slave labor. Any shame there? (I think no.)

Why? Did I steal it? Did I do anything to possess it other than be born? Did the other guy do anything that necessarily entitles him to possess it? If it is something that is easily identifiable as historical item of significance and important to the other guy's family, then it would be an act of class to gift it to him, but certainly not necessary.
Again, why? Did I personally do anything that led these people into poverty? My guilt or feelings of discomfort are reserved for things that I have some sort of control over. I can't control what happened then, I can control what I do now. Flip it to the otherside (much smaller scale) My grandfather once invested in and owned large tracts of land where midway airport is today. He was absolutely and verifiably screwed over by a couple of individuals who became stinking wealthy and have passed that wealth on to the current generation. My grandfather never recovered financially and died penniless and had nothing to pass on. Should I have some claim to those riches? I don't think so, those were events before I was born and have no bearing ont he choices I make with my life and the opportunities I have in front of me.
absolutely not, it is just a piece of property and who built it is of little relevance except for coctail party conversation.

How does this compare to, say, things stolen by the Nazis in WWII? How about buying stolen speakers out of the back of a van? (Assuming the items in question can be verifiably traced back to the specific people they were stolen from.)

On the one hand, I feel there is definitely a statute of limitations on crime--not just a legal one, but an ethical one. But on the other, if all you did to get the expensive jewelry was to be born, then if it's returned to the rightful owner then that shouldn't really affect you either, right?

Items stolen by the Nazis? Well, if it something that has been knowingly kept in a warehouse hidden from prying eyes all these years because the owner stole it and doesn't want to give it back... i think there is an obvious case for it's return. If it something that has been out in circulation for 60 years, been bought and sold, and transferred around... well, life's a bitch and bad stuff happens to possessions in a war. move on. If the current owner feels compelled to return it, fine. if not, fine. it's just stuff.

Speakers out of a van? c'mon, i knowingly purchased something under shady circumstances. LJ may be a nice guy but if he is selling it out of a van I know i'm taking my chances.

Let's assume in this example that if it hadn't been stolen a century ago, it would be his. And you both know it, but it can't be proven in any court.

You say it would be a class act to return it. I agree. I'd go further and say there is shame in continuing to hold onto it, because it's ill gotten. I think that by continuing to hold onto it, the person is actively continuing a misdeed done by their ancestor.

I don't know where to draw the line though. I think something like paying off the descendants of the slaves would be drawing the line too far, for example.

see i feel no guilt in continuing to hold it. if i felt compelled to give it to them, so be it. but you can't make me feel guilty about holding something just because someone a long time ago stole it. i just feel every family has a skeleton in the closet and you can make yourself crazy trying to fix a wrong that occurred long before you were born.

if the other guy has spent his whole life, and his father's life without the possession and probably didn't even know it existed, why does he need it now? it has never been in his life before and he has continued to breathe up to this point.

I just remembered that I have a German army helmet from WW2 stashed in a trunk somewhere. Don't know the story of where it came from, other than my grandfather, who never served, gave it to me a while ago. Don't know where he got it. There's a good chance that who ever owned it was killed in combat and it was collected on the battlefield. Or maybe it was collected from a prisoner. Either way, it was probably taken by force. I have no problem holding on to it. Feel no guilt.

Beats me.

Just like I do not feel pride for something I have not personally done or had anything to do with nor will I accept guilt/remorse for anything I have not personally done/created including the "big picture" shit, ignorant people love to lay at the doorstep of Americans and any wealthy.