Should the next generations be held responsible for the deeds done by their ancestors? If yes, then for how many generations?
It seems like an accepted fact that the responsibility for the deeds done by one generation (especially the bad ones) is passed on to their offspring. The current German generation is supposed to feel guilty and responsible for the holocaust of the Jews by their parents/grandparents and is held responsible for paying reparations to the surviving Jews and their descendants. Likewise, current white American generation is supposed to feel guilty about slavery practiced by their ancestors and is held responsible for paying reparations to the descendants of those black slaves.
Is it right to hold the subsequent generations responsible for what their ancestors once did?
Typically Jews and Christians don’t hold them responsible till the third generation of continuing a act, then your damned.
It is a logic that has parallels to the business world, very few family owned businesses survive past the third generation… the children three generations on are more numerous, often have claims to the business only in partial stock, instead of primogeniture, and the personality and ideals of the founder rarely matches the idealized understandings of the founders vision. So… they explode… estates are chopped up, sold, etc for their portion if their rightful gain, busibess dies.
Lots of family businesses, very few long lived.
Institutions profiting off this sins of the father scenario, say slavery… the society kept it going, are dependent upon it.
I don’t think the Germans, unlike the Turks who didn’t admit to their genocide, should be punished. The Turks are digging their own grave, because the denial of genocide has a large, encompassing effect on their policies internal and external. More and more is reliant upon it, despite it being abstract bullshit. It likely isn’t something they will soon be able to shrug off, it will be too physically entrenched in the actual operations if society. They same denial they give for the so called coup and mock elections stem from the earlier denials of genocides generations earlier. They are facing a ever less Democratic and more miserable path. They don’t need punished, they do it to themselves.
I can’t blame a man for the acts of his father, but if embraced and continued through the generations, as a increasing necessity, hell must unquestionably follow.
A society is responsible. In as far as the citizens want to take part in society they must bear the burden of ‘we did this’. Otherwise there is no way a society can remember its actions or ever change by conscious intent. Memory is to a good extent what makes for consciousness.
Held responsible by whom?
Those who are in power in a given society?
It was wrong that caveman Bob smashed the head of caveman Bill.
Who says that? Jeff says so today because he wants Bob’s great-great-great-grandson to be submissive to his demands.
Bob’s grandson is easily guilted into this submission because he has been growing up in a very sheltered environment where he believes that being nice to everybody actually always works and is his one and only moral good.
Bob is so stupid that he actually believes that giving Jeff what he wants because of his guilt-tripping is making the world a better place because he likes to reward guilt-trippers. If only we all could become guilt-trippers, the world would be a better place.
Oh no, I’m wrong-thinking here. Jeff will be satisfied with the submissive acts of Bob and become appeased by it. Guilt-tripping is not what Jeff is about, although he has been doing it all his life. No, no, the more we give into guilt-trippers the less they do their guilt-tripping.
That’s how righteous-indignation works. The more you give in to such people the less they wag their finger at you.
The more you apologise, the more they let go of your throat.
Evidence for this can be found everywhere.
For example in modern politics, where apologising works wonders for your career. In contrast to that, politicians who just ignore their critics don’t make it very far. Or was that the other way around?
Yes, the problem is in how the event is remembered. It’s possible that, at the time, considering all the circumstances, the deeds done were warranted. But societies change, minds change, even terminology of the events change. Liberation becomes occupation (or vice versa), revolutionaries become terrorists (or vice versa)-things and perceptions of events change.
But should he be able to? And how about the common topic of land disputes, which are often included with other issues? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t … l_disputes
If one feels that he surrendered his land ownership in an unfair deal, should he still consider it his own and pass it on to his ancestors for future repossession?
But the same is true of America and its denial of genocide of its Native American population. You don’t hear that often on the news, or media. The existence of Native American population is hardly even acknowledged in the United States. Look at China, Japan, Middle East, etc… In fact, if you look at any big world nation today, you’ll find some skeletons in its closet.
Should he be able to be squeaky?
There is the saying, ‘the squeaky wheel gets the grease’.
First of all, just because somebody is protesting the loudest, or protesting on behalf of somebody else the loudest is not a good way to evaluate (moral) merit or how deserving somebody is of considerations.
To give to the loudest inevitably also promotes things like shamelessness, lying, asocial behaviour,…
That’s something to be aware of.
Should a society grant such reparations - In my view, no. It’s self-destructive to do so. It’s undermining the foundation, the past, of said society.
An easy test for this is always to ask a modern liberal what he thinks about it. He has an instinctive grasp of what subverts and destroys the society which spawned him.
Sometimes you gotta say Yes. Affirming what happened in the past, not only the ‘good’ parts but also the ‘bad’ parts. Who knows, maybe times change again and the ‘bad’ parts become important and good qualities again, to go on, to survive.
But sure, the resentment in society won’t go away just like that. It never will as long as the trend is being one pseudo-happy-harmonious singular society.
But either way, the resentment will most assuredly not go away by giving in to the resentful. No, this only fuels his/her resentment.
Think of a woman who resents her (ex-)husband. She will only resent him more if he tries to appease her.
Intuitively I would have thought otherwise, but then, maybe that’s also from common narratives which are broadcasted.