[bobbyz]

The problem is not past sins, its past sins that have yet to be atoned for. Conditions for Native Americans are still inexcusable up to this day.

[stjohnswarts]

Those should be fixed and I would support them. but do I feel guilty about what my ancestors did to my ancestors? No, I don't. I feel we should right the wrongs, but I refuse to fold to the "woke" culture that I should feel like a POS for what my ancestors did.

[tekknik]

So present day americans need to pay for the sins of our fathers so to speak? Or to put it another way, we present day americans had no say in the decision but we must pay for the past americans decisions?

[bognition]

No we aren’t guilty for the sins of our parents but if we decide to ignore the ongoing injustice then we become complicit.

[tekknik]

I’m sorry, but no.

[kazinator]

The concept is valid.

Suppose someone's great grandfather stole from my great grandfather something I was supposed to inherit. They inherited it instead.

It remains stolen property that belongs to me.

[tekknik]

No the concept is not valid and we have laws in place to protect against this very thing. Should all debts be transferred upon death? Do you want to pay for your parents loans they didn’t finish?

[kazinator]

No, debts should not be transferred. What should be transferred to heirs is what is left of the estate after creditors are paid off, if anything.

If someone dies and they owe money, the creditors have a claim to the estate.

If their claims exceed the value of the estate, they are out of luck; they can't go after other parties to recover everything.

If someone dies and leaves your their house, but it is mortgaged, then the mortgage likely has to be paid off before the title is transferred.

Creditors having a right to the estate means that you can't borrow (or steal) something, die, and have that property pass it to a heir free and clear.

[tekknik]

So someone who lost their property is a creditor now, having loaned the stolen object?

[maxbond]

That is true, but all that means is that we have two problems, not that the criticism is wrong.

Hypocrisy is rarely a substantive counterargument. It's much more often whataboutism.

[_4jlx]

Okay, but in this case I'm not saying there's whataboutism in your argument. The point I'm trying to make is that if you're powerful enough, you can make human rights abuses and then get away with it scot-free and that America helped set this precedent.

[sn9]

Not defending human rights abuses or China's behavior, but the idea that America set the precedent is myopic. The US isn't even 300 years old. History is much longer, darker, and more violent.

Human rights are themselves a fairly recent idea. I can't think of a single powerful country/empire that hasn't committed them to some degree. And things were much worse in the past.