[jacobolus]

> Many people came to the US long after the Trail of Tears. Are they responsible [...]

Yes, the whole point of being citizens is taking responsibility collectively as a populace for the actions of the state.

We collectively owe interest on the national debt. We still must abide by international treaties signed and ratified by long-dead representatives. We follow a constitution written long ago, and if we want to change it we follow its prescribed process. We pay taxes. We serve on juries. Those of us eligible agree we can be drafted into military service if necessary. And so on.

[keith__talent]

Maybe 2 discussions are here, one of legal/fiscal and another of social culpability.

Absolutely, we have the process to modify laws or treaties we find no longer to suit the modern country. We try to move forward with better laws or fairer treaties, everyday. We as living citizens have the responsibility to improve today's laws. (As I hope we do regarding police conduct, to be topical.)

If I take your statement "...Citizens is taking responsibility collectively as a populace for the actions of the state." I would have to accept that my ancestors escaping persecution in another country and coming to this one, that I am morally bound to take on the social dogmas of the United States for crimes I did not commit or do not endorse today. I don't believe this to be correct or fair, but this is my opinion.

It seems like the historical weight of this country (or maybe any country) will crush it under past social deeds that are irremediable. Unfortunately, we can not correct the past, but we should heed it, to not make similar mistakes. If there is no way to not be guilty for the crimes of the state then perhaps we should abandon the state.

[oxAAAFFB]

It’s one thing to be obligated to follow the law of the country. But it’s another to be assigned moral guilt for things you have no involvement in.

[japhyr]

You don't need to be "assigned moral guilt" to recognize atrocities from the past, their influence on the present state, and reparations that should be made.

[darawk]

It's kind of an interesting moral question though. Should immigrants have to pay reparations for the crimes of a state that neither they nor their ancestors were a part of?

If we accept that the entity of the United States is responsible for these crimes and owes reparations...is it fair to use fungible tax dollars paid partially by immigrants to pay those reparations?

I don't know. Interesting puzzle to think about though.

[rswail]

Yes, immigrants are part of that "entity of the United States". The reparations are owed by that entity for not complying with a legally binding treaty.

The rule of law means that the entity states that it will comply with everything that is legally binding. As such it is responsible for paying those reparations. The way that entity raises funds is by taxation or borrowing, using itself as the collateral for the debt.

[mlrtime]

The law is objective, but morals are not. That was the line of discussion.

[Supermancho]

Morals are reasoned, which is not objective but logical, fair enough. Logically, the morality question is answered by deriving the concept of personal responsibility. As an immigrant, you agree to the responsibility inherent to a new citizenship.

[moduspol]

Likewise, the Native Americans who controlled the land before the US likely didn't have it gifted to them freely. Tribes were constantly at various stages of war with each other, and some wiped out completely.

Do they owe reparations to each other, too? And what about the ones that are completely gone?

All of the discussion of reparations and making good on centuries-past injustices always leaves out how it all gets swept under the rug if there are no decendents around to make claims.

[itsokimbatman]

The ones that are completely gone have no way to make a claim. But if one tribe wants to make a claim to reparations from another they’re free to do so. It’s between them to sort that out and none of my business.

On the other hand I am a citizen of the USG and believe it should be held to its promises.

[moduspol]

Promises are a different case, imo. If the deal was made for the land, then past injustices and reparations are irrelevant.

> The ones that are completely gone have no way to make a claim.

I could have been more clear, but I was trying to imply that we should remember that it's the lesser injustices that have claimants. The greater injustices would have none.

In fact, it raises an interesting question. Suppose that early American settlers genuinely just conquered the whole land, provided no reservations, made no special deals, and expected / enforced all remaining Native Americans to submit to the laws of the land. You know, like virtually every other conquering of a territory throughout history.

Would we look on those actions less favorably than the actions that were actually taken? Or would we just write it off morally as "every place was ultimately taken by force by someone at some point" and it be a non-issue, despite it being a much greater injustice?

[take_a_breath]

It is a part of the system the immigrants are choosing to join when they arrive in a new country. You don’t get to choose only the good parts.

[qppo]

what about guilt for the quantitative benefits you derive from no other reason but the position of your birth, often at the expense or detriment of others who suffer from the position of theirs?

[berryjerry]

I understand the point, because one was born with more, one owes it to those born with less. Correct? I think that is an economical system argument than a moral argument. I don't find being born into ANY situation a reason to feel guilt or apologize.

[qppo]

No, not correct. It's less of a debt and more of a duty, and less of an apology than an acknowledgement, and not a guilt but a recognition.

I didn't own slaves, I didn't commit genocide, and neither did my ancestors. But I benefit from slavery that did exist, and my ancestors benefited from a genocide. Do I owe anything to the victim? No, because the victims have been dead for decades if not a century. But a failure to recognize ones obligation or duty to the rest of their community to bring an equity about such that their children or grandchildren don't even consider such questions - that's not nearly at the scale of destruction as our history has wrought but it does continue the cycle. If you want future generations to break from it, it starts by reconciling that your status is derived from the status of those who came before you, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

[astrange]

> But I benefit from slavery that did exist, and my ancestors benefited from a genocide.

I don't think this is the best way to say it, because "I benefit from slavery" sounds kind of abstract at this point. In fact, white people benefited from all kinds of 100% real and explicit racism right up to and beyond Civil Rights.

You don't have to uncover anything hidden because you can just go look up e.g. zoning laws in Berkeley and they will just say in the meeting minutes that they'd invented them to keep out the blacks and Chinese. The reason highways go through US cities instead of around them is because they wanted to knock down the black neighborhoods. They really put a lot of effort into it.

One reason to fix it is that it'll improve life for you too - undoing zoning will make your commute shorter and housing cheaper. But of course, people tend to not care about their absolute quality of life as long as it's better than someone else's.

[oxAAAFFB]

I agree with this.

[CathedralBorrow]

Did anyone ask you to feel guilt or to apologize?

[berryjerry]

I have to disagree. No one chose to be citizens of the collective populace and state, they were born/forced into it since they were young. Try not to participate in the system by say not paying taxes or ignoring any law and you get locked up. Try to physically leave the system and at best you are at the mercy of another system. There was no choice where you are born. It is a collective agreement only by force.

[icebraining]

Fine. If there's no choice then it doesn't matter, you are deemed responsible and that's it.

But you can't say "we collectively should decide we don't owe because we individually don't have choice". Either you are forced or you have choices.