Fait accompli: Your opinion?

[StrongHeartsWin]

When something is unlikely to be reversed, even if that thing which IS, is a result of something that one abhors, do you accept it and accept that you profit from it?

For example, it is no secret that much of the U.S. success and prosperity has come from the backs of slavery. But, how could we ever divorce oursleves from that in order to not be tainted by it by reaping the benefits of it -- although those benefits have filtered down through hundreds of years and may at first glance now seem to be hidden?

How about the many treaties that the U.S. broke with Native Americans? Are not their claims now forgotten and swept away under the banner of fait accompli?

What do you think about the rammifications of this french concept that allows society and its members to move forward by trying to relieve guilt, responsibility or any sense of trying to reverse what has been done? Is imploring fait accompli justified, knowing that reversing past deeds and changes would be unrealistic and would make greater hardships for the present and future?

[Autolykos]

One cannot change the past.

- Rob

[Praxius]

Nor can one dwell on the past.... one can only learn from it.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Praxius Nor can one dwell on the past.... one can only learn from it.

But, one can get paid for past wrongs. Almost 50 years after WWII payments were given to Japanese Americans who were interned during the war. Why would that not be considered a fait accompli, but some kind of payment to the black ethnic group due to slavery is? Is it merely the length of time? What denotes a fait accompli in your mind -- or anyone`s who reads this thread?

[Autolykos]

Here is a thought experiment:

Suppose that we're in the Antebellum South. There is a certain slaveowner, Charles, who owns a slave, Samuel. Both men have families and children. Now let's say that the Civil War comes and Charles goes to fight in it. In the process, he is killed in combat. Samuel and his family are freed after the war.

Years go by and Samuel also dies. Both his children and the late Charles' children have descendants of their own, and so on. At this point, we're in the present day. My question to you is, do the descendants of Charles owe any sort of compensation to the descendants of Samuel for the fact that Charles owned Samuel as a slave? Why or why not?

- Rob

[dilligras]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Quote by: Praxius Nor can one dwell on the past.... one can only learn from it. But, one can get paid for past wrongs. Almost 50 years after WWII payments were given to Japanese Americans who were interned during the war. Why would that not be considered a fait accompli, but some kind of payment to the black ethnic group due to slavery is? Is it merely the length of time? What denotes a fait accompli in your mind -- or anyone`s who reads this thread?

Your very first sentence contains the essential truth of this matter, and the real motivation behind this movement--filthy lucre.

It is a movement without reason, based in ignorance and politically correct offal.

How about the idea of 'reparations' for the whites whose ancestors never owned any slaves (about 98% didn't), and yet died to free those blacks? Shall we just ignore the white American's contribution to the black man's freedom, given that slavery would have possibly gone on for decades longer had it not been for the blood spilled upon the battlefields of our Civil War?

And not just a little blood, either. We're talking biblical scales, here, folks.

In fact, in all America's wars since, we have but hardly reached the total of that one callous adventure.

Add to that, the further insult of the revisionist's goal of painting America as the sole perpetrator and promoter of this vile, albeit entirely natural phenomenon called slavery, and you have a recipe for unfair and divisive recriminations that can only serve to alienate one part of our society from another.



Knock it off.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin this french concept

Hey now. It just means "accomplished fact".

Quote by: Auto At this point, we're in the present day. My question to you is, do the descendants of Charles owe any sort of compensation to the descendants of Samuel for the fact that Charles owned Samuel as a slave? Why or why not?

In that specific circumstance, no.

While there are many details left unspecified that might influence my decision (was Charles a pseudo-owner like Benjamin Martin in "The Patriot" or was he a whip-wielding sadist?), my reasoning is as follows:

I believe in the idea that your misdeeds should be repaid to those upon whom they were inflicted.

When Charles died and Samuel and family were free, Samuel lost the ability to be repaid for his lost humanity at the hands of Charles' ownership.

In a sense, giving Samuel his freedom is the reparation.

"Sorry for that. Here, you can be 3/5ths human now."

But cash repayment for future generations, now way.

That's the equivalent of making a child do jail time for their parent's crime.

Not cool.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Autolykos Years go by and Samuel also dies. Both his children and the late Charles' children have descendants of their own, and so on. At this point, we're in the present day. My question to you is, do the descendants of Charles owe any sort of compensation to the descendants of Samuel for the fact that Charles owned Samuel as a slave? Why or why not? - Rob

I don't think so. As crappy as it is to say, that's how society was back then and was the norm..... what my descendant did back in those times is not my responsibility and I will not take the fall for someone else's actions, just because they're dead.

That's kinda like something today that we do everyday, suddenly being outlawed and then you have to be penalized for something your government permitted.

Hell with that reasoning, I should sue England for Queen Elizabeth the 1st's actions when she sent armies after my ancestor, destroyed our castle, killed our men and sent my ancestor into exile, losing his rule over southern Ireland and having to escape to the North where the Queen made all villages and towns into enemies and would be punished for assisting him.

For those who don't know, my ancestor was Donal O'Sullivan:
The History of the Sullivan/O'Sullivan Clan

I should go back there, rebuild my castle and get England to pay for it all.... even though it happened centuries ago and immediately had nothing to do with me.

[Autolykos]

Fonceai and Praxius, you have both completed my case.

To Praxius alone, I have this to say: Éirinn go Brách.

- Rob

[Praxius]

Indeed.... I'll make my way back there eventually. In my opinion, it's one of the most beautiful lands in the world, and hopefully it does last till the day of judgment and beyond.

My own name is quite immersed in Irish background. With my name being fully translated it means:

God is gracious-Noble-Son of Hawk-Eyed

I'll let you figure out what my actual name is with the above clues

[dilligras]

The English, Dutch, and Spanish were the true miscreants in slavery, not the southern American plantation owner, even though those were mainly the only ones who could afford to buy and keep a slave in the US. The African tribesmen rounded up their enemies and shipped them off for a profit, instead of simply killing them or enslaving them for their own use, as was the custom there for thousands of years before that, and in fact, continue there today.

Ever hear of Rawanda? Too many Tutsis to enslave, so the Hutus just chopped them all up, turning 800,000 souls into so much dog food, and all while the lefty heroes of the UN stood around with their, "thumbs up their butts and big smile on their face:", to paraphrase an Ernest Borgnine line from the movie, "The Wild Bunch".

One has to keep in mind that prevalent attitudes of Antebellum America were much worse then than even the early 20th century, mostly because much of the racial animousity was truly started by the Cival War Reconstruction behavior of the carpetbaggers, and only came to a head 60-80 years later, when institutionalised elements were attacked more directly.

Some of our more ignorant citizenry are laboring under the pitiful misconception that Lincoln freed all the slaves by passing legislation known as the Emancipation Proclamation.

Balderdash, I say, complete and utter poppycock! For the proof, one only need read the document to see that it did not free any slave living in any state not in rebellion against the central government., and in fact, even went so far as to name specific parishes (like counties in other states) in the state of Louisiana where the slaves were NOT freed, because the plantation owners there were not joining the rebellion.

Some of the more famous of the all-black army units who fought for the North were from Louisiana.

Also one should be aware of another, similar legislation that Lincoln passed 9 mos before the EP, called the The District of Columbia Emancipation Act.

A most cursory examination of the document reveals several interesting differences between the law passed for the elitist pricks around the 'Beltway' and that designed primarily for the facilitation of the rape of their southern neighbors.

1. Each slaveowner was paid $300 for each slave freed. (slaves cost about $2000 ea, but that money would likely buy a nice luxury car today)

2. Each slave was given up to $100 to emigrate to either Haiti or Liberia. (My god, Myrtle, you mean Lincoln was tryin' to send 'em back to Africa???)

Now, one may think briefly that this information is irrellevant, until it is pointed out that Southern slaveowners were never offered a penny as recompense for the huge outlay of capital required to set up the efficient agricultural machine that was the then modern plantation.

Basically an agricultural enterprise of the day had two choices, one cheaper, but less efficient and not really viable as a large scale enterprise and the other was slavery, which worked very well, especially when run by people who cared about its success enough to treat their workers humanely, just as it behooves some modern, third world farmers to take very good care of their labor force, whether it be their own children or the sturdy water buffalo.

It made no sense then, just as it makes none now, for a man to abuse those people OR animals who do his work and feed his family. To suggest otherwise, generalizing from a few outrageous anecdotal accounts, is not only stupid, it is insulting to one's innate common sense.

But I am used to such foolishness, living in 'liberal' America as I do.



As you were.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin But, one can get paid for past wrongs. Almost 50 years after WWII payments were given to Japanese Americans who were interned during the war. Why would that not be considered a fait accompli, but some kind of payment to the black ethnic group due to slavery is? Is it merely the length of time? What denotes a fait accompli in your mind -- or anyone`s who reads this thread?

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.

[Praxius]

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.

indeed.

If the person in question is still alive, then you got that factor. Otherwise the descendants can got take a flying leap into a cactus and start their own dam lives.

That's one thing that always got my goat.... or as Peter says..... what really grinds my gears........

.... is those people today who are not getting to where they want in life easily and they decide to blame other's or the misfortune of other's for their failures, rather then to suck it up and get a pair.

[StrongHeartsWin]

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?

[Praxius]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin 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?

Slave labour is slave labour, no matter what date it is, or what you're making them do..... just because VW needed them based on economic survival, is not an excuse...... if they couldn't survive on their own without it, then they shouldn't have been in business to begin with (ie: they didn't know how to run a proper business) Anybody living afterwards who was slaved and demanded comp. then they should get it...... if it's their family or decendants going for it..... they can suck a lemon.

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?

I never knew of their past history of slave labour, nor does it affect my judgement on them now. If I buy one of their vehicles, I am rewarding them on the decent vehicle I am about to recieve, nothing more.

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?

What is done is done. You have no future if you hang onto the past.... if you hang onto the past, then you will never learn from your past.

There are countless situations all over the planet of such things being done to people..... how do you propose we go about making sure everyone and their decendants recieve all the justice they deserve? Life is not fair..... Unless the person who was the victim is still alive today to seek justice on their own behalf, the only thing one can do is learn from one's and other's mistakes.

There was a lot of progress in technology and development in WWII by all sides of the globe, and most of that was on the backs of millions of people who had no say in things..... should we just abandon our current way of life, so we can make sure those who suffered in the past, can rest in peace?

One can only learn from the past and try to avoid repeating history.

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?

Yup.... it's done... how far back do we need to go in time to make sure everything is politically correct, or justice is served for all? Witch burnings, the crusades, WWI, WWII, everything.....

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?

Yup. Once again, you can only learn from past mistakes and try and avoid them in the future. You and I didn't cause what happened in the past, so we shouldn't have to pay for someone else's mistakes/loses/benifits.

Sounds harsh, but it is the most simple solution.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Sorry, but I still can't get over you calling it a french concept.

Anyway, I too sorta agree with fait accompli.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin 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?

In WWII, we learned a lot from the suffering of draftees, those Americans who were involuntarily entered into servitude to the US Army, and other branches. These include phsycological and physical information about the treatments of injuries.

Today such involuntary servitude is not used but has not been completely ruled out.

Given that, should we seal the information that derived from that slavery?

Keith

[Duke1985]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin When something is unlikely to be reversed, even if that thing which IS, is a result of something that one abhors, do you accept it and accept that you profit from it?

I work for Wal-Mart, does that count?

[Compugasm]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin What denotes a fait accompli in your mind?

Diamonds

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger In WWII, we learned a lot from the suffering of draftees, those Americans who were involuntarily entered into servitude to the US Army, and other branches. These include phsycological and physical information about the treatments of injuries. Today such involuntary servitude is not used but has not been completely ruled out. Given that, should we seal the information that derived from that slavery? Keith

Interesting, but there are glaring differences in your example to direct testing on humans with the sole purpose of getting data.

Purposefully inflicting hypothermia or a stomach wound with a projectile in order to extract it and get data from that with zero concern for the welfare of the test subject, and knowing it to certainly cause suffering without any chance of it benefitting the test subject is different than forcing some to serve a military. Being forced to serve a military does not necesitate suffering (although suffering can occur). Of the millions who were ever drafted it is quite probable that some thrived in the environment, were better for the experience, and profitted. What person of forced testing with the immediate goal to learn from that purposely induced suffering has benefitted?

Sure, data has been gleaned as a result of drafting persons to serve, but that data was not the goal of the drafting.