Quote:
Quote by: Gods_Mercenary  You've made my point, those japanese americans had actually been interned. If you can find one living U.S. black person who has been legally enslaved, I'll gladly pay him whatever he needs. |
Actually, I agree with fait accompli, and was just fetting the question out.
However, let`s look at a few other instances:
1. Volkswagon profited immensely through slave labor and perhaps their
economic survival is due to it (not just profits). In that case it may be different for U.S. slavery, simply because while the U.S. profitted from it, their survival probably was not dependent on it. Perhaps U.S. growth and accension to power would have been much slower. So, would Volkswagon be less able to put forth fait accompli as a defense in avoiding payment to survivors, be they direct or 2nd or 3rd generation?
Sub question: Are consumers, if aware of Volkswagon's survival due to the economic gain from slave labor, but still purchase Volkswagon products, are they rewarding past deeds by doing so, or just rewarding the Volkswagon company of today?
2. Does fait accompli apply to human testing? Many Jews and prisoners of war were forced to undergo tests in order to find rapid warming procedures for hypothermia. Some think that knowledge is useful for mankind now, but should that knowledge gain from such tests stay sealed? Or, should fait accompli be applied and let that out to the world to benefit from despite the grotesque nature of the testing that was done? The same can be said with Japanese, whose surgeons wanted to learn quick bullet extractions from battlefield injuries, purposely shooting "test subjects" at close range in different body parts to practice. Should those files be opened for today`s benefit?
3. Surely some back roads in the south, probably once long winding "driveways" leading to plantation mansions, were at one time graveled over with rocks by forced labor, and now since those may have become part of the public infrastructure, are the use of those roads for pleasure or economic purposes merely protected by fait accompli?
I think the answer to #3 is rather simple, but #1, and more particularly #2 seem to be a little more complex. But, in the end, do they all lead to fait accompli, allowing us to benefit now from them?