You are not responsible for the Crimes of your Ancestors.

a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

A simple comparison friend, you needn't turn it in to an attack, though it seems what simple observations are often taken as.

The ins and outs of Christian beliefs are a fantasy to me so I do not try to make sense of it all. If you dig it, fine.

didn’t you just post about white people needing to feel guilty because slaves?

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Who is saying that you are responsible for other's crimes?

Who is saying that you are responsible for crimes of your ancestors, relatives, or friends?

I hear this a lot, but I've NEVER heard anyone say that.

And please point to ONE COURT CASE that brings charges against someone who's ancestor committed a crime.


a reply to: CryHavoc

a reply to: CryHavoc

Gays had it worse. Blacks were permitted to marry more than a hundred years before gays & during the era of american slavery at least being black didn't come with a mandatory death sentence. If reparations are to be made I'm 1st in line.

According to the Constitution there are several legal concepts at play here based on the title of the thread.

First off would be Ex post facto laws. You cannot make an action illegal after the fact. Like it or not Slavery was legal up to the 1860s. You can't write a law now declaring the act of slavery illegal in 1860.

Bills of attainder. You can't hold the children responsible for the crimes of their parents or ancestors. Crimes of blood end at the lifetime of the person accused.

Lastly the post civil war Congress got the emancipation clause added to the 14th Amendment which says.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Any reparations over slavery on either side of the argument were bundled up with Confederate war debt and repudiated.

Reparations are Unconstitutional.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
What kind of Scam is being run here?

You are not responsible for the Crimes or Actions of your Ancestors. I'm pretty sure it was in the Magna Carta or something similar. It is a Basic Civil Right.

I'm not responsible for Crimes I did not commit. Neither is anyone else.

Why would this ever be a question in the 21st Century?

Who doesn't believe this?

I guess it's gonna depend on wtf you're talking about...

a reply to: CryHavoc

Do you believe you should be able to reap the benefits of something that was stolen by your ancestors in perpetuity?

a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Women are still suffering in child birth, seems they wern't absolved of anything.

originally posted by: Akaspeedy
We’re also governed under maritime law but I’m not at sea…..??


a reply to: CryHavoc

That's because the Federal Government can only override state law in matters of "insterstate commerce", so if they don't term the legal framework that way, they would have no jurisdiction.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Who is saying that you are responsible for other's crimes?

Who is saying that you are responsible for crimes of your ancestors, relatives, or friends?

I hear this a lot, but I've NEVER heard anyone say that.

And please point to ONE COURT CASE that brings charges against someone who's ancestor committed a crime.


a reply to: CryHavoc

Apparently every living white person is guilty of having kept black people as slaves.

No one remembers doing this. But some people's white ancestors did it. At the time of the civil war, the South was outnumbered by more than 2 to 1, so it was at most 1/3 of the population doing it.

But apparently even the people whose ancestry comes entirely from Northern states, or whose ancestors migrated from Europe later than the Civil war.... are all still guilty of it.

originally posted by: CloneFarm1000

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Why would this ever be a question in the 21st Century?

Who doesn't believe this?

There's plenty of ways to creatively sidestep this logic.

Reincarnation, for one. You could be the reincarnation of your ancestors.

Time travel. Who's to say that within the 21st century we couldn't go back and influence the past?

Assassin's Creed. The Animus is a machine that analyzes DNA and allows people to relive their ancestors' memories.

In any case, logical or illogical, there is no current legal structure in place to punish one for the crimes of their ancestors.

Rhetoric is not law.

We've witnessed quite a lot of selective prosecution in Portland Oregon, however. With Antifa members generally being released without a trial after attacking whom ever they wished.

Our DA appears to view acts of retaliation against the descendants of past offenders to be not a crime.

originally posted by: ConcernedCanadian
a reply to: CryHavoc

Gays had it worse. Blacks were permitted to marry more than a hundred years before gays & during the era of american slavery at least being black didn't come with a mandatory death sentence. If reparations are to be made I'm 1st in line.

How do we give reparations to the descendants of people who don't have descendants?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I assure you gays are capable of reproduction.

Only the worst of the worst could have an issue with this very basic statement

a reply to: Cambury

Yes.

They rightfully conquered all those places and people. I am not interested in judging the past by modern standards. Everything at the time was done according to custom and tradition and was perfectly fine by the standards of the time. Don't blame those of us alive today for the fact our ancestors clearly mastered technology, weapons, strategy clearly earlier than those they conquered.

You should take those grievances up with the US political party who abided all that stuff anyhow: The Democrats. Not the party of Lincoln, the GOP, which ended it.



upload.wikimedia.org... May_17%2C_1860.jpg
Zoomed

a reply to: ConcernedCanadian

Indeed. And you are correct. To this day, a lot of gay folks are still treated as second class citizens

I know how people feel. I get it. But at the same time, if they would just let their guard down long enough to get to know the person...I really bet it would be a shock

I was what you could easily describe as homophobic for a good part of my life. I never hated anyone for it, but also could not understand why I felt a certain type of way about them. It took a while. Some thinking, and more thinking. And an even longer while. But I figured it out, why hold animosity toward someone that has never even done anything to me? Better to treat everyone as individuals and give them a chance to show you who they are

By the same token; You're not responsible for all that your ancestors have positively contributed either.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Cambury

Yes.

They rightfully conquered all those places and people. I am not interested in judging the past by modern standards. Everything at the time was done according to custom and tradition and was perfectly fine by the standards of the time. Don't blame those of us alive today for the fact our ancestors clearly mastered technology, weapons, strategy clearly earlier than those they conquered.

You should take those grievances up with the US political party who abided all that stuff anyhow: The Democrats. Not the party of Lincoln, the GOP, which ended it.



upload.wikimedia.org... May_17%2C_1860.jpg
Zoomed

Yeah. A lot of people forget that Native American tribes were committing genocide against each other also. A lot of the wars between the settlers and natives were due to whole villages of settlers being massacred, often brutally tortured before they died.

The settlers probably were settling somewhere they oughtn't, but the idea of bloodshed being one sided, or even of it having first been initiated by the settlers, is revisionist history.


And then there is the conquistadores. It's easy to think of Cortez as a jackass for conquering the Aztecs, until you look at the insane atrocities the Aztecs had committed in their existence. (Ever wonder why it was so easy for Cortez to get the surrounding tribes to join his army??)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Native Americans had no concept of land ownership they did however have an idea of property in the way of horses and the like and were avid and skilled traders... so when it came to trading land the idea was just too absurd of a concept to grasp unless they were the settled fishing tribes; herd followers and nomadic. So when the more settled fishing tribes were expected to move out in nomad land after trading such wars broke out. They only had squabbles between each other when someone would horse or woman thief instead of doing proper trade as was their custom... when in Rome didn't apply to the would be settlers on arrival as they brought "Rome" with them and expected the people already here to just accept it. When that didn't occur Rome allowed slavery and since the people were still under the crown as authority and had no separation of church and state of affairs until winning Independence from crown... From church is a more complicated matter but the ending of slavery also marked the end of church which is something Washington fought against vehemently to protect the New Lands charter of peace that included the tribes... hundreds of years later and such a things still isn't really settled in many people's minds as the crown had no issues with white slaves in the Northern mines and cutting timber.

After the Mints were established for a currency the government would back and enforce; the slave tokens aka trade tokens were abolished.

Immersion is still not an easy thing for many families some that have been here all along not many people mention the Asian railroad slaves including them but melting pot is a truism as every "race" has at one time been a slave in the founding of America... even Mexicans that migrated to crop when there was a big fight that such a thing was beneath them after Southern slavery was abolished.

I still find it an absolute absurdity that only "black" was still and is still taught to have been the only slaves... to avoid more land grabbing Native Americans even allowed slavery and the re-education of their people.

So honestly no one has been or was immune to such a thing occurring... There is no king and queen of America there is no state church of America for that reason and only that reason is America said to be free.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Spot on! And, they are perfectly fine in my book for having done so. I don't blame the native Americans who killed people who were trying to invade their properties. Not one bit

originally posted by: Crowfoot
By the same token; You're not responsible for all that your ancestors have positively contributed either.

EXACTLY that

I don't go around trying to name drop the relative I was named after, because specifically I didn't achieve any of that or even know them well enough (not at all actually) to provide anything of value

I feel pride in some of those things...inventions, achievements...the same way we all should.

a reply to: JBurns

Oh the underserved accolades by those knowing the relation embarrassment is the typical feeling when younger; When older I think the term is ingratiating or simply to be a good steward to preserve the family's dignity; Since some fame or honor was bestowed upon them as it lifts all family members off the bottom so to speak even if it is just by name; title of duty is also what some refer to it as, since such accomplishments often served others as inspiration to also achieve the same or better.

Understanding that and gaining the grace of it is often a complex social learning skill or attribute that not many people could really give advice on; although there are some people chasing coattails of famous family like I'm so and so's babies mother brothers cousin and if living the person would typically be why are y'all allowing cousin mothers baby of so and so drag my name around to and with places and people I don't associate?

a reply to: Crowfoot

Heh how very true that is

We had a certain BOI director not incidentally related to the family although several generations removed by now. Through my entire career in the SO I have never tried name trading, always was just uncommon/obscure enough for the average person to never make the connection 😋

I could have claimed he was in part responsible for my career in law enforcement, and maybe to a subconscious degree thats even true, but for me it was my Father. He was a reserve deputy for 19 years mostly my childhood years and more than anything was why I went the way I did

That is a fact! I have heard stories, but none are (substantially at least) any different than historically available information. In fact the historical data is probably more accurate than our mostly verbal family history 😁