Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Did Reagan support the Apartheid in S.A?

CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 9:00:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 3:56:12 AM, Aned wrote:
Is that right that republicans supported the aparrheid in South Africa?

Both parties supported SA apartheid via trade, and both stopped short of the military aid that sustains Israeli apartheid, which is of much greater strategic value to the US. The main difference was rhetorical, with Republicans being more critical of the resistance and Democrats rationalizing the lack of economic sanctions more in terms of the effect they would have on the oppressed (compare to bipartisan support for Iran sanctions).
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 9:05:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ok, so Aned is probably a troll based on his previous posts.

I'm frankly shocked that the South Africans not only let the invaders continue to stay, but also let them keep the stolen lands, stolen diamond mines, etc. I'm ok with the forgiveness process, but I don't think it should have been extended to murderers or rapists, and it was. Were black Africans who harmed Caucasians extended the same courtesy? Nope.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 9:27:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 9:05:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so Aned is probably a troll based on his previous posts.

I'm frankly shocked that the South Africans not only let the invaders continue to stay, but also let them keep the stolen lands, stolen diamond mines, etc. I'm ok with the forgiveness process, but I don't think it should have been extended to murderers or rapists, and it was. Were black Africans who harmed Caucasians extended the same courtesy? Nope.

I still don't understand your position on these things at all. Should the descendants of the Bantu who colonized South Africa in 1000 BC be kicked out as well, or does this only apply to white people?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 9:30:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, how does your thesis that very one should go back to their "homelands" apply to people who don't, like you do, have the privilege of knowing their ethnic composition?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 9:34:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 9:27:19 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:05:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so Aned is probably a troll based on his previous posts.

I'm frankly shocked that the South Africans not only let the invaders continue to stay, but also let them keep the stolen lands, stolen diamond mines, etc. I'm ok with the forgiveness process, but I don't think it should have been extended to murderers or rapists, and it was. Were black Africans who harmed Caucasians extended the same courtesy? Nope.

I still don't understand your position on these things at all. Should the descendants of the Bantu who colonized South Africa in 1000 BC be kicked out as well, or does this only apply to white people?

Please don't bring racism into this. Yes, the Bantus should also be forced to leave. South Africa belongs to the San people (known by Europeans as the Bushmen).

So, you have no problem with invaders coming in, stealing your property and subjecting you? They should be permitted to stay? Was it wrong for the South Africans to defend their rights against the invaders through both violence and nonviolence?

Suppose China invades the US tomorrow and takes your property. After fifty years, they are forced to concede political control back, but are allowed to keep your lands. Would you accept this as just? That's basically what happened in South Africa.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 9:35:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 9:30:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
Also, how does your thesis that very one should go back to their "homelands" apply to people who don't, like you do, have the privilege of knowing their ethnic composition?
I don't know. I haven't worked out a policy.

Also, I don't really know my true ethnic composition. All I know is that my ancestors were invaders who mixed with the local population.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 9:46:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 9:34:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:27:19 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:05:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so Aned is probably a troll based on his previous posts.

I'm frankly shocked that the South Africans not only let the invaders continue to stay, but also let them keep the stolen lands, stolen diamond mines, etc. I'm ok with the forgiveness process, but I don't think it should have been extended to murderers or rapists, and it was. Were black Africans who harmed Caucasians extended the same courtesy? Nope.

I still don't understand your position on these things at all. Should the descendants of the Bantu who colonized South Africa in 1000 BC be kicked out as well, or does this only apply to white people?

Please don't bring racism into this. Yes, the Bantus should also be forced to leave. South Africa belongs to the San people (known by Europeans as the Bushmen).

So your position is that everyone should leave due to actions their ancestors committed. Duly noted. Five things:

1. What of mixed people?

2. How do you assign land ownership in any way other than private property or a coherent community? Like how can I coherently say "Texas should belong to X" if community/person X is non existent?

3. What is your response to the fact that humans inhabit much "stolen" Neanderthal territory? Should they all leave?

4. Is land theft the only crime whos guilt is transmitted through ancestry or theoretically could I morally punish the descendants of people who have wronged me? Would it be ok, for example, for the son of a holocUst victim to kill the grandson of an SS soldier?

5. Given that all people once came from Africa if they were forced back to their homelands, is Africa not it? You have even said in other threads that to fully account for justice we need to go as far back as possible. Well we know that humanity arose from Africa so don't we all have an equal moral claim to it? Remember that your thesis makes no distinction regarding time, you just told me a group that's been there 3000 years should be kicked out.


So, you have no problem with invaders coming in, stealing your property and subjecting you? They should be permitted to stay?

That isn't the same and you know it. You actually do bring up a good point about the stolen land and such, and when it's heirs can actually be located I would agree that they have the moral claim to it, where I don't agree is whe you go so far as to say that this applies even after many generations. Furthermore you want them to all leave even if they bought their land peacefully so....

Was it wrong for the South Africans to defend their rights against the invaders through both violence and nonviolence?

No

Suppose China invades the US tomorrow and takes your property. After fifty years, they are forced to concede political control back, but are allowed to keep your lands. Would you accept this as just? That's basically what happened in South Africa.

Refer to the above. Honestly I was mainly just attacking you taking this to the extreme with regards to basically every other situation. So no, I wouldn't accept that as just and there are situations im which you are correct. But you haven't shown moral culpability to be heritable over dozens of generations
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 9:48:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 9:35:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:30:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
Also, how does your thesis that very one should go back to their "homelands" apply to people who don't, like you do, have the privilege of knowing their ethnic composition?
I don't know. I haven't worked out a policy.

Also, I don't really know my true ethnic composition. All I know is that my ancestors were invaders who mixed with the local population.

Oh, even better so you can't go back to India...how many Indians have the invaders blood in them? Hundreds of millions? A billion? Where do they all go?

Oh and why are you in the US?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:02:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 9:35:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:30:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
Also, how does your thesis that very one should go back to their "homelands" apply to people who don't, like you do, have the privilege of knowing their ethnic composition?
I don't know. I haven't worked out a policy.
Perhaps because it's not a tenable position to begin with...

Also, I don't really know my true ethnic composition. All I know is that my ancestors were invaders who mixed with the local population.
Yet it is PREDOMINANTLY you're invading ancestor's FOREIGN culture which you carry on. Does that not mean that it is time for you to go?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:03:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 9:34:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:27:19 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:05:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so Aned is probably a troll based on his previous posts.

I'm frankly shocked that the South Africans not only let the invaders continue to stay, but also let them keep the stolen lands, stolen diamond mines, etc. I'm ok with the forgiveness process, but I don't think it should have been extended to murderers or rapists, and it was. Were black Africans who harmed Caucasians extended the same courtesy? Nope.

I still don't understand your position on these things at all. Should the descendants of the Bantu who colonized South Africa in 1000 BC be kicked out as well, or does this only apply to white people?

Please don't bring racism into this. Yes, the Bantus should also be forced to leave. South Africa belongs to the San people (known by Europeans as the Bushmen).

So, you have no problem with invaders coming in, stealing your property and subjecting you? They should be permitted to stay? Was it wrong for the South Africans to defend their rights against the invaders through both violence and nonviolence?

Suppose China invades the US tomorrow and takes your property. After fifty years, they are forced to concede political control back, but are allowed to keep your lands. Would you accept this as just? That's basically what happened in South Africa.
I don't see you leaving new York because it is the homeland of the native Americans. Isn't that kind of hypocritical to tell the Bantu to leave?
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:19:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 3:56:12 AM, Aned wrote:
Is that right that republicans supported the aparrheid in South Africa?

Interesting topic. From the comments this has garnered so far, I would say that realism is extremely applicable here.

The use of force to ameliorate anarchy at the international level is justified. Regardless of whether or not Apartheid itself was just or not, it is more just than the natural state of anarchy. If the ruling class in South Africa did not do it, someone else would have done it.

Obviously Apartheid did not just spring up in the 40s, there was a long cultural history of colonialism that exacerbated the divide between conquerors and the conquered. Regardless, there is nothing unique about the situation in South Africa except for the pronounced, superficial differences in the skin color of the two classes.

Utilizing such justification would have me side with thett3 on this matter. If the conquered subjects demand recognition of civil rights, they must do it in a convincing fashion, which they did and thus we see the end of de jurs Apartheid. Although I don't know too much about the South African economy, I would imagine that de facto economic and political Apartheid still remains, as it does here in America as well.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:22:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have another question

Consider the following scenario:

State X after the revolutionary war sells land that it did not morally/legally own (historically happened) to farmer Y. Farmer Y settles in the land he bought, without knowing that it was illegally obtained, and displaces Indian Z. Well after a few centuries, Farmer Y's family has sold the land, and that famiily sold it, ect. Indian Z's family line has died out.

Who is morally culpable, the legal heir to State X (as in the state today), the personal heirs of the leaders in state X who sold the land, the heirs of farmer Y who unknowingly bought stolen land, or the people currently living on it? To confuse the situation more, assume farmer Y's grandson took Indian Z's granddaughter as a mate, but she died before having children (so who would the true family heirs be?).

Who owns the land now? Where do the current inhabitants go if it isnt them?

These are the kinds of situations you would have to be dealing with to enact your policies Royal. Actually they'll likely be far more complicated
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:23:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 10:19:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2013 3:56:12 AM, Aned wrote:
Is that right that republicans supported the aparrheid in South Africa?

Interesting topic. From the comments this has garnered so far, I would say that realism is extremely applicable here.

The use of force to ameliorate anarchy at the international level is justified. Regardless of whether or not Apartheid itself was just or not, it is more just than the natural state of anarchy. If the ruling class in South Africa did not do it, someone else would have done it.

Obviously Apartheid did not just spring up in the 40s, there was a long cultural history of colonialism that exacerbated the divide between conquerors and the conquered. Regardless, there is nothing unique about the situation in South Africa except for the pronounced, superficial differences in the skin color of the two classes.

Utilizing such justification would have me side with thett3 on this matter. If the conquered subjects demand recognition of civil rights, they must do it in a convincing fashion, which they did and thus we see the end of de jurs Apartheid. Although I don't know too much about the South African economy, I would imagine that de facto economic and political Apartheid still remains, as it does here in America as well.

Strike this bolded part. The racial composition of America and South Africa are almost polar opposites, so if there's de facto political Apartheid of any sort it is to the detriment of the European colonists. The rest stands.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:39:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 10:03:55 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:34:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:27:19 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:05:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so Aned is probably a troll based on his previous posts.

I'm frankly shocked that the South Africans not only let the invaders continue to stay, but also let them keep the stolen lands, stolen diamond mines, etc. I'm ok with the forgiveness process, but I don't think it should have been extended to murderers or rapists, and it was. Were black Africans who harmed Caucasians extended the same courtesy? Nope.

I still don't understand your position on these things at all. Should the descendants of the Bantu who colonized South Africa in 1000 BC be kicked out as well, or does this only apply to white people?

Please don't bring racism into this. Yes, the Bantus should also be forced to leave. South Africa belongs to the San people (known by Europeans as the Bushmen).

So, you have no problem with invaders coming in, stealing your property and subjecting you? They should be permitted to stay? Was it wrong for the South Africans to defend their rights against the invaders through both violence and nonviolence?

Suppose China invades the US tomorrow and takes your property. After fifty years, they are forced to concede political control back, but are allowed to keep your lands. Would you accept this as just? That's basically what happened in South Africa.
I don't see you leaving new York because it is the homeland of the native Americans. Isn't that kind of hypocritical to tell the Bantu to leave?

To apply Royal's logic to this argument, I would say that she is not a conqueror, but the conquered. Similarly there are a lot of non-Anglo-Saxons in England today...they are also not conquerors.

You bring up a good point though, what is the distinguishing aspect of being a "conquerer"? One could attempt to argue that a simple tourist is imposing some sort of economic domination over the country he/she visits. Should we ban the practice of tourism too?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:41:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 10:39:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2013 10:03:55 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:34:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:27:19 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:05:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so Aned is probably a troll based on his previous posts.

I'm frankly shocked that the South Africans not only let the invaders continue to stay, but also let them keep the stolen lands, stolen diamond mines, etc. I'm ok with the forgiveness process, but I don't think it should have been extended to murderers or rapists, and it was. Were black Africans who harmed Caucasians extended the same courtesy? Nope.

I still don't understand your position on these things at all. Should the descendants of the Bantu who colonized South Africa in 1000 BC be kicked out as well, or does this only apply to white people?

Please don't bring racism into this. Yes, the Bantus should also be forced to leave. South Africa belongs to the San people (known by Europeans as the Bushmen).

So, you have no problem with invaders coming in, stealing your property and subjecting you? They should be permitted to stay? Was it wrong for the South Africans to defend their rights against the invaders through both violence and nonviolence?

Suppose China invades the US tomorrow and takes your property. After fifty years, they are forced to concede political control back, but are allowed to keep your lands. Would you accept this as just? That's basically what happened in South Africa.
I don't see you leaving new York because it is the homeland of the native Americans. Isn't that kind of hypocritical to tell the Bantu to leave?

To apply Royal's logic to this argument, I would say that she is not a conqueror, but the conquered. Similarly there are a lot of non-Anglo-Saxons in England today...they are also not conquerors.

You bring up a good point though, what is the distinguishing aspect of being a "conquerer"? One could attempt to argue that a simple tourist is imposing some sort of economic domination over the country he/she visits. Should we ban the practice of tourism too?

She doesnt make that distinction though, she says that anyone inhabiting stolen land is morally culpable. Unless she changed her opinion since we last discussed this
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:01:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 10:41:16 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/21/2013 10:39:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/21/2013 10:03:55 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:34:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:27:19 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:05:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so Aned is probably a troll based on his previous posts.

I'm frankly shocked that the South Africans not only let the invaders continue to stay, but also let them keep the stolen lands, stolen diamond mines, etc. I'm ok with the forgiveness process, but I don't think it should have been extended to murderers or rapists, and it was. Were black Africans who harmed Caucasians extended the same courtesy? Nope.

I still don't understand your position on these things at all. Should the descendants of the Bantu who colonized South Africa in 1000 BC be kicked out as well, or does this only apply to white people?

Please don't bring racism into this. Yes, the Bantus should also be forced to leave. South Africa belongs to the San people (known by Europeans as the Bushmen).

So, you have no problem with invaders coming in, stealing your property and subjecting you? They should be permitted to stay? Was it wrong for the South Africans to defend their rights against the invaders through both violence and nonviolence?

Suppose China invades the US tomorrow and takes your property. After fifty years, they are forced to concede political control back, but are allowed to keep your lands. Would you accept this as just? That's basically what happened in South Africa.
I don't see you leaving new York because it is the homeland of the native Americans. Isn't that kind of hypocritical to tell the Bantu to leave?

To apply Royal's logic to this argument, I would say that she is not a conqueror, but the conquered. Similarly there are a lot of non-Anglo-Saxons in England today...they are also not conquerors.

You bring up a good point though, what is the distinguishing aspect of being a "conquerer"? One could attempt to argue that a simple tourist is imposing some sort of economic domination over the country he/she visits. Should we ban the practice of tourism too?

She doesnt make that distinction though, she says that anyone inhabiting stolen land is morally culpable. Unless she changed her opinion since we last discussed this

BAN TOURISM! :D
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 12:14:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 9:35:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:30:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
Also, how does your thesis that very one should go back to their "homelands" apply to people who don't, like you do, have the privilege of knowing their ethnic composition?
I don't know. I haven't worked out a policy.

But even if one's homeland is known, it's likely occupied, and not necessarily by other invaders. So might returning to it constitute another invasion? Should such unfortunate descendants be exterminated in that case? The problem is, you're trying to apply English common law to that which is prior to English common law and, in the case of both southern Africa and North America, responsible for English common law. I agree that rich white South Africans should be expropriated, but the notion that the San's ancestors being the first to reach the Cape entitles them to permanent property in the land awaits justification.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:06:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 9:46:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:34:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:27:19 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:05:11 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Ok, so Aned is probably a troll based on his previous posts.

I'm frankly shocked that the South Africans not only let the invaders continue to stay, but also let them keep the stolen lands, stolen diamond mines, etc. I'm ok with the forgiveness process, but I don't think it should have been extended to murderers or rapists, and it was. Were black Africans who harmed Caucasians extended the same courtesy? Nope.

I still don't understand your position on these things at all. Should the descendants of the Bantu who colonized South Africa in 1000 BC be kicked out as well, or does this only apply to white people?

Please don't bring racism into this. Yes, the Bantus should also be forced to leave. South Africa belongs to the San people (known by Europeans as the Bushmen).

So your position is that everyone should leave due to actions their ancestors committed.
That's a bit of a strawman. It's not because their ancestors committed a crime but rather because it doesn't belong to them. I'm not punishing for a crime that their ancestors committed; I am restoring what was lost to the rightful owners. There's a difference. It doesn't belong to the current occupiers in the first place, so I can't be stealing it from them.
Duly noted. Five things:

1. What of mixed people?

If their ancestry is a result of rape or forced marriage(I guess forced marriage is essentially rape, but I'll make a distinction anyways), then I would say that they have no claim to the land.
2. How do you assign land ownership in any way other than private property or a coherent community? Like how can I coherently say "Texas should belong to X" if community/person X is non existent?

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm returning the property to the people who owned it. That's private property. They may choose to share that property communally, but it's still owned by them privately.

For example, if your parents buy a house and make the owners the "Smith Family", it belongs to all of you collectively. It's still private property though.
3. What is your response to the fact that humans inhabit much "stolen" Neanderthal territory? Should they all leave?

You would have to provide evidence that humans stole the territory from the Neanderthals, but if you could provide it, then yes.
4. Is land theft the only crime whos guilt is transmitted through ancestry or theoretically could I morally punish the descendants of people who have wronged me? Would it be ok, for example, for the son of a holocUst victim to kill the grandson of an SS soldier?

Again, you're not really understanding the argument. It's not that the culpability is passed down through generations. Rather, the ownership is passed down through generations. I'm not punishing you by taking away something that doesn't belong to you in the first place and restore it to its rightful owner.
5. Given that all people once came from Africa if they were forced back to their homelands, is Africa not it? You have even said in other threads that to fully account for justice we need to go as far back as possible. Well we know that humanity arose from Africa so don't we all have an equal moral claim to it? Remember that your thesis makes no distinction regarding time, you just told me a group that's been there 3000 years should be kicked out.

The place of human origin doesn't constitute the entire African continent and certainly not Africa. Anyways, if people willingly and permanently left their place of origin (i.e. their property was not stolen, if they even had a conception of property at that point) and didn't care what happened to it, then no, it doesn't belong to them. If I throw something in the trash on purpose and don't care what happens to it anymore, it doesn't belong to me.

So, you have no problem with invaders coming in, stealing your property and subjecting you? They should be permitted to stay?

That isn't the same and you know it. You actually do bring up a good point about the stolen land and such, and when it's heirs can actually be located I would agree that they have the moral claim to it, where I don't agree is whe you go so far as to say that this applies even after many generations. Furthermore you want them to all leave even if they bought their land peacefully so....

So if I shoot you and steal your laptop (not that I ever would) and sell it on Ebay, does it now belong to the buyer since he purchased it peacefully?

If so, what's the limit on the property that I can do that to? If someone uses violence to steal me through enslavement and another person purchases me peacefully, do I now belong to the other person?
Was it wrong for the South Africans to defend their rights against the invaders through both violence and nonviolence?

No

Suppose China invades the US tomorrow and takes your property. After fifty years, they are forced to concede political control back, but are allowed to keep your lands. Would you accept this as just? That's basically what happened in South Africa.

Refer to the above. Honestly I was mainly just attacking you taking this to the extreme with regards to basically every other situation. So no, I wouldn't accept that as just and there are situations im which you are correct. But you haven't shown moral culpability to be heritable over dozens of generations

Because that was never my argument. My argument was about restoration and not about culpability.

Also, I'm not sure why you disagree with black South Africans being permitted to have their lands returned to them if you agree that within reason, lands should be returned. You were fine with the 50 year timeframe in the hypothetical example, but why not in the other case?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:06:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 9:48:57 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:35:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:30:54 AM, thett3 wrote:
Also, how does your thesis that very one should go back to their "homelands" apply to people who don't, like you do, have the privilege of knowing their ethnic composition?
I don't know. I haven't worked out a policy.

Also, I don't really know my true ethnic composition. All I know is that my ancestors were invaders who mixed with the local population.

Oh, even better so you can't go back to India...how many Indians have the invaders blood in them? Hundreds of millions? A billion? Where do they all go?

A lot. They can return to the Aryan/Greek/Persian homelands, depending on DNA testing.
Oh and why are you in the US?

Where else can I go?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:08:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 10:22:11 AM, thett3 wrote:
I have another question

Consider the following scenario:

State X after the revolutionary war sells land that it did not morally/legally own (historically happened) to farmer Y. Farmer Y settles in the land he bought, without knowing that it was illegally obtained, and displaces Indian Z. Well after a few centuries, Farmer Y's family has sold the land, and that famiily sold it, ect. Indian Z's family line has died out.

Who is morally culpable, the legal heir to State X (as in the state today), the personal heirs of the leaders in state X who sold the land, the heirs of farmer Y who unknowingly bought stolen land, or the people currently living on it? To confuse the situation more, assume farmer Y's grandson took Indian Z's granddaughter as a mate, but she died before having children (so who would the true family heirs be?).

Who owns the land now? Where do the current inhabitants go if it isnt them?

I'm sure you can find some distant relative of the original owners to give it to, and if not, it doesn't belong to anybody. It sits there unoccupied. Property transfer must be done through voluntary exchanges only.
These are the kinds of situations you would have to be dealing with to enact your policies Royal. Actually they'll likely be far more complicated
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:17:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We've been over this topic a ton of times, and we never agree . . .

I think the issue of the "forgiveness" is more interesting. In fact, I actually detest Desmund Tutu and Nelson Mandel for forcing that on people. I also think it's ridiculous that they forgave murderers and rapists who killed black Africans but not people who killed white South Africans. Totally disgusting. Either forgiveness goes both ways or neither way.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:26:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
On a related note, it is almost certainly true that most South Africans fared much better under the Apartheid than the ANC.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:34:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 2:26:17 PM, BigRat wrote:
On a related note, it is almost certainly true that most South Africans fared much better under the Apartheid than the ANC.

LOL, what are you talking about? Yeah, being able to be killed, raped, and stolen from legally was definitely great. Having no say in your own home was awesome.

Even if it were true, it doesn't justify it. You can't justify coercion on the grounds that it was good for that person. A homeless man dying of hunger might be better off if he were enslaved, but that doesn't mean the slavery was justified.

Also, if you're talking about the economy, a lot of the stolen wealth was taken outside of the country after apartheid ended, so of course the economy did worse. That wealth needs to be returned before a fair assessment can be made.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:42:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The other problem now is that the people who gained power are incredibly selfish and corrupt. As the forgiveness incident demonstrates, they only care for political advancement and not about justice.That's why they permitted the invaders to stay and keep the stolen lands and wealth.

http://blackagendareport.com...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:49:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 2:34:48 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:26:17 PM, BigRat wrote:
On a related note, it is almost certainly true that most South Africans fared much better under the Apartheid than the ANC.

LOL, what are you talking about? Yeah, being able to be killed, raped, and stolen from legally was definitely great. Having no say in your own home was awesome.

Even if it were true, it doesn't justify it. You can't justify coercion on the grounds that it was good for that person. A homeless man dying of hunger might be better off if he were enslaved, but that doesn't mean the slavery was justified.

Also, if you're talking about the economy, a lot of the stolen wealth was taken outside of the country after apartheid ended, so of course the economy did worse. That wealth needs to be returned before a fair assessment can be made.

I wasn't trying to justify anything.

I was just pointing out that, regardless of what happened during the apartheid, the ANC has been pretty bad too.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:50:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 2:49:40 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:34:48 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2013 2:26:17 PM, BigRat wrote:
On a related note, it is almost certainly true that most South Africans fared much better under the Apartheid than the ANC.

LOL, what are you talking about? Yeah, being able to be killed, raped, and stolen from legally was definitely great. Having no say in your own home was awesome.

Even if it were true, it doesn't justify it. You can't justify coercion on the grounds that it was good for that person. A homeless man dying of hunger might be better off if he were enslaved, but that doesn't mean the slavery was justified.

Also, if you're talking about the economy, a lot of the stolen wealth was taken outside of the country after apartheid ended, so of course the economy did worse. That wealth needs to be returned before a fair assessment can be made.

I wasn't trying to justify anything.

I was just pointing out that, regardless of what happened during the apartheid, the ANC has been pretty bad too.

I agree. I was criticizing the ANC's leaders in this thread.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 3:15:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Royal, you're being inconsistent. Half the time, you insist it's not about culpability, that all you want to do is retroactively apply English common law to laughing heirs with rape-free lineages; but the other half, when no such heirs can be identified, you want the land to be deserted. If it's not about punishment, what's to stop the invaders from immediately reoccupying the land as per the arbitrary homesteading principle you've evidently internalized?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 3:18:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 3:15:46 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
Royal, you're being inconsistent. Half the time, you insist it's not about culpability, that all you want to do is retroactively apply English common law to laughing heirs with rape-free lineages; but the other half, when no such heirs can be identified, you want the land to be deserted. If it's not about punishment, what's to stop the invaders from immediately reoccupying the land as per the arbitrary homesteading principle you've evidently internalized?

The force of law. It doesn't belong to them, so they cannot use it.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 3:53:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 3:18:02 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2013 3:15:46 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
Royal, you're being inconsistent. Half the time, you insist it's not about culpability, that all you want to do is retroactively apply English common law to laughing heirs with rape-free lineages; but the other half, when no such heirs can be identified, you want the land to be deserted. If it's not about punishment, what's to stop the invaders from immediately reoccupying the land as per the arbitrary homesteading principle you've evidently internalized?

The force of law. It doesn't belong to them, so they cannot use it.

But, again, that contradicts the homesteading principle by which you grant peaceful settlers permanent property. If we waited until we owned land before we started using it, we wouldn't exist.