Collective Guilt

[DrZoidberg]

Its not Belgiums fault that chocolate producing countries are actively preventing their people from refining the product themselves.

What's bizarre is the massive weight of Colonial history you're ignoring. If every time we bring up a concrete account of Colonial expoitation, you merely cry "that doesn't count", you're wasting everyone's time.

I never said there's not a massive weight of colonial history. Colonialism did a huge amount of damage in every country they ruled. Everything from purposely destroying intricately balanced homegrown power structures, to creating ethnic and racial hierarchies where there was none before, imposing cultural practices that work great in Europe but which are pointless over there, rearranging the economies to be monoculture producers, and so and and so on. The colonial powers created a massive mess.

But what you said is that colonialism enriched Europe, and still enriching Europe. You haven't made a single coherent argument that backs that up. They just created a massive mess without it benefiting
anyone.

Colonialism is more a bull in a china shop rather than a thief in the night. Industrialism allowed Europe to take over the world. But failed to come up with a good reason to do it. In an agrarian economy your wealth is based on how much land you have. But that doesn't apply in an industrial economy. The huge difference in wealth production made the colonial holdings, pretty much, worthless. And since they had to pay for an army to keep it, made it a net loss.

Have you noticed how USA is much more wealthy than Europe in spite of starting to industrialize 300 years after Britain? I wonder why. Could it possibly have something to do with them not having run an overseas empire, but instead reinvested the wealth generated into their own economy?

You're just repeating old socialist tropes about the greedy capitalist conspiracy sucking the world dry of resources. It's just slogans off political posters. There was never any deeper thought than that that went into making them.

 

[Politesse]

But what you said is that colonialism enriched Europe, and still enriching Europe. You haven't made a single coherent argument that backs that up. They just created a massive mess without it benefiting
anyone.

So this chocolate industry you mention, it isn't making any money? And that money doesn't, almost entirely, leave the countries where the cacao is produced?

We have not accepted your seeming premise that only industrialization or only colonialism can have occurred. I have not denied that there was an industrial transformation of the colonial landscape or that it greatly increased both the rate of resource extraction globally and the wealth disparity that results from it. It was, however, a fundamental element of the colonial paradigm, and succeeded in preserving economic subdomination of the "developing world" long after political cessation of most of these empires.

You're a fine one to complain about mindless propaganda!

 

[DrZoidberg]

But what you said is that colonialism enriched Europe, and still enriching Europe. You haven't made a single coherent argument that backs that up. They just created a massive mess without it benefiting
anyone.

So this chocolate industry you mention, it isn't making any money? And that money doesn't, almost entirely, leave the countries where the cacao is produced?

The dictators who rule the cocoa producing countries want to keep them as monoculture produceers of cocoa. Because it allows them to keep a choke hold on the country. The colonial powers set up a system to make it easier to control the country. After indipendence the "freedom loving patriotic" ethnically local rulers kept the system in place

The ex colonial powers who used to rule these countries don't have much power left over these countries. The exploitative nature of the cocoa processing industry certainly benefits Belgium. But it's primarily enabled by the dictators in these countries they're the bad guys here. Not Belgium.

While a lot of the value leaves the country, I think most of it ends up in dictators bank accounts.

We have not accepted your seeming premise that only industrialization or only colonialism can have occurred. I have not denied that there was an industrial transformation of the colonial landscape or that it greatly increased both the rate of resource extraction globally and the wealth disparity that results from it. It was, however, a fundamental element of the colonial paradigm, and succeeded in preserving economic subdomination of the "developing world" long after political cessation of most of these empires.

You're a fine one to complain about mindless propaganda!

What? I don't understand what you are saying? If you think the colonial powers became rich from their colonies, then argue for it. Can you do that or not?

Here's a good example of what I mean. In the Russian revolution the workers seized the means of production. They took from the rich, but gave to no one. They made all the wealth they seized disappear into a black hole of mismanagement that benefitted no one. It barely benefitted the communist dictators.

With your logic there should somehow be a massive mountain of hidden Russian money that was hidden from the people. No, that wealth is just gone. Its the same with colonialism

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The dictators who rule the cocoa producing countries want to keep them as monoculture produceers of cocoa. Because it allows them to keep a choke hold on the country. The colonial powers set up a system to make it easier to control the country. After indipendence the "freedom loving patriotic" ethnically local rulers kept the system in place

The ex colonial powers who used to rule these countries don't have much power left over these countries. The exploitative nature of the cocoa processing industry certainly benefits Belgium. But it's primarily enabled by the dictators in these countries they're the bad guys here. Not Belgium.

I don't think Belgium benefits much at all from the exploitation--the countries doing it are the ones that extract the excess value, not the countries that buy the product.

 

[Bomb#20]

Has anyone here expressed feelings of guilt for injustices committed before they were born? Or is the whole notion of "collective guilt" just a meme developed into a straw-man argument against reform?

Bingo.

You say that as though it's one or the other. But there are plenty of people who express feelings of guilt for injustices committed before they were born who happen not to be here participating in this thread; and there are plenty of people advocating the collective guilt concept who apply it in the "They're all guilty" style or in the "You're all guilty" style instead of in the "We're all guilty" style. One doesn't need to consider oneself a member of the guilty collective in order to engage in collective blaming. For example,

... I think sometimes that is what should have happened. Lincoln and Johnson should have just taken all the Confederate political leaders and hung them as well as all the southern aristocrats.

 

[Politesse]

You say that as though it's one or the other. But there are plenty of people who express feelings of guilt for injustices committed before they were born who happen not to be here participating in this thread; and there are plenty of people advocating the collective guilt concept who apply it in the "They're all guilty" style or in the "You're all guilty" style instead of in the "We're all guilty" style.

I don't think this is a common position; I do think it is common for conservatives to whine that this is happening whenever the subject of the history of race issues arises. I'm not sure it's "liberals" struggling so much with the whole guilt idea. There's not as much reason to feel guilty about the injustices of the past if you're actively fighting against those same injustices in the present. It's those who know they're living an unjustly advantaged lifestyle but don't wish to lose it that feel sublimated anxiety about how history will see them and their choioces. And rightly so! They will not, in fact, be remembered kindly, or with much deferance to their vaunted, oh-so-wounded feelings. I would never feel guilty about something my ancestors did, but in many cases I would feel guilty if I didn't strive to do better, or in other cases, strive to do as well as they did in difficult times.

Speaking of family pride, I notice that none of the people railing against feelings of guilt toward the past seem equally enraged, or even concerned, about people who express pride in our national history. Shouldn't you all be just as angry about unearned pride as unearned shame?

For example,

How is that an example of collective guilt that should be felt by the now-living?

 

[Jarhyn]

You say that as though it's one or the other. But there are plenty of people who express feelings of guilt for injustices committed before they were born who happen not to be here participating in this thread; and there are plenty of people advocating the collective guilt concept who apply it in the "They're all guilty" style or in the "You're all guilty" style instead of in the "We're all guilty" style.

I don't think this is a common position; I do think it is common for conservatives to whine that this is happening whenever the subject of the history of race issues arises. I'm not sure it's "liberals" struggling so much with the whole guilt idea. There's not as much reason to feel guilty about the injustices of the past if you're actively fighting against those same injustices in the present. It's those who know they're living an unjustly advantaged lifestyle but don't wish to lose it that feel sublimated anxiety about how history will see them and their choioces. And rightly so! They will not, in fact, be remembered kindly, or with much deferance to their vaunted, oh-so-wounded feelings. I would never feel guilty about something my ancestors did, but in many cases I would feel guilty if I didn't strive to do better, or in other cases, strive to do as well as they did in difficult times.

Speaking of family pride, I notice that none of the people railing against feelings of guilt toward the past seem equally enraged, or even concerned, about people who express pride in our national history. Shouldn't you all be just as angry about unearned pride as unearned shame?

For example,

How is that an example of collective guilt that should be felt by the now-living?

One thing I just keep scratching my head at is now certain forces cannot seem to acknowledge the simple geometry that people who are against "racism" today, and seek to end "systemic racism" in general are focused not on the "bodies buried under the school" but rather on "the people who wish to keep their existence 'buried' and unsung".

Collective guilt is not about past acts. It is about the continuation of current acts and the perpetuation of the wave of their results through time. It is about giving people a reason to demand of their leaders accountability.

At some point, between being made to "beat face" every time someone clearly dropped the ball and let someone fuck up, I can say that my platoon stopped letting people fuck up like that.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm not sure it's "liberals" struggling so much with the whole guilt idea.

It certainly isn't. Not too many people seem to be struggling with it; what we keep seeing is liberals understanding the whole guilt idea while progressives misunderstand it. It would be nice if the progressives would struggle a bit more -- maybe they'd start to figure it out.

There's not as much reason to feel guilty about the injustices of the past if you're actively fighting against those same injustices in the present. It's those who know they're living an unjustly advantaged lifestyle but don't wish to lose it that feel sublimated anxiety about how history will see them and their choioces. And rightly so! They will not, in fact, be remembered kindly, or with much deferance to their vaunted, oh-so-wounded feelings.

So few sentences, so many fallacies. An appeal to novelty, an appeal to the Marxist version of heaven, and multiple ad hominems.

When fourth-century Christians argued with Roman atheists, they no doubt told the atheists people in the future would judge them harshly; and they were perfectly right about that. But it doesn't mean the atheists were wrong.

Speaking of family pride, I notice that none of the people railing against feelings of guilt toward the past seem equally enraged, or even concerned, about people who express pride in our national history. Shouldn't you all be just as angry about unearned pride as unearned shame?

So who's railing against feelings of guilt toward the past? If someone feels guilty about what somebody else did, that's his problem; he deserves sympathy for his ailment, not anger. What people rail against is deliberate attempts to infect others with the same disease. People who express pride in our national history aren't hurting anyone. They simply have not yet put away childish things.

For example,

Lincoln and Johnson should have just taken all the Confederate political leaders and hung them as well as all the southern aristocrats.​

How is that an example of collective guilt that should be felt by the now-living?

Huh? Of course it should not be felt by the now-living! Who said it should be, other than maybe some wingnut progressive trying to hold current southern aristocrats responsible for events they didn't cause?

There's no intellectual difference between blaming en masse a social group that's spread across space and one that's spread across time. The mentality that can hold an 1865 southern aristocrat guilty based on what his countrymen did is the same mentality as one that holds a 2021 southern aristocrat guilty based on what his ancestors did. The collective guilt fallacy wrongs innocent individuals by conceptually lumping them with guilty individuals; it's an equal opportunity fallacy that does not discriminate on the basis of the spacetime direction of the vector separating those individuals.

 

[Gospel]

Blah, this whole notion of guilt has nothing to do with the reality that many people (white or black) work for companies today that benefited from the slave trade. How much of a benefit is hard to determine but they profited nonetheless. So in a scenario where a company's benefit from the slave trade was key to their survival as a company well into the future, I'd think it's reasonable for said Company to acknowledge this and make an effort (financially or not) to assist in cleaning up the aftermath. Whether the current employees/owners were alive when it happened doesn't matter. There is no law forcing any company to do so, there is just nothing morally wrong with any company that does. Guilt debators can eat shit for all I care.


That's my take,

 

[Politesse]

Indeed. Some corporations, like Lehman Brothers and JP Morgan, have at least acknowledged their role in that sorry trade recently. But a verbal apology is not quite the same thing as just compensation. If corporations are persons, and the law says that they are, that should include personal responsibility for past crimes. We use CSX and CNL transported goods on a daily basis here in North America -- when will the descendants of those who built all that critical infrastructure finally see their long overdue paychecks?

 

[Trausti]

Blah, this whole notion of guilt has nothing to do with the reality that many people (white or black) work for companies today that benefited from the slave trade. How much of a benefit is hard to determine but they profited nonetheless. So in a scenario where a company's benefit from the slave trade was key to their survival as a company well into the future, I'd think it's reasonable for said Company to acknowledge this and make an effort (financially or not) to assist in cleaning up the aftermath. Whether the current employees/owners were alive when it happened doesn't matter. There is no law forcing any company to do so, there is just nothing morally wrong with any company that does. Guilt debators can eat shit for all I care.


That's my take,

What companies? Maybe Lehman Brothers, which accepted slave produced cotton for payment. But it went belly up in 2008. Would think nearly every major US company post-dates the Civil War.

 

[Politesse]

Blah, this whole notion of guilt has nothing to do with the reality that many people (white or black) work for companies today that benefited from the slave trade. How much of a benefit is hard to determine but they profited nonetheless. So in a scenario where a company's benefit from the slave trade was key to their survival as a company well into the future, I'd think it's reasonable for said Company to acknowledge this and make an effort (financially or not) to assist in cleaning up the aftermath. Whether the current employees/owners were alive when it happened doesn't matter. There is no law forcing any company to do so, there is just nothing morally wrong with any company that does. Guilt debators can eat shit for all I care.


That's my take,

What companies? Maybe Lehman Brothers, which accepted slave produced cotton for payment. But it went belly up in 2008. Would think nearly every major US company post-dates the Civil War.

Even if it was just Lehman Brothers, that would have been an avenue worth exploring. The companies dividing up their loot now are accepting blood money. But actually, a lot of US and British capital belongs to corporations that built their wealth on the slave trade here and are still giants. A short list would include JP Morgan Chase, Aetna, NY Life Insurance, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Tiffany's, Rothschild and Sons, Norfolk Southern, CNL, CSX, Brown Brothers Harriman, and Brooks Brothers. Collectively, trillions of still existing capital fueling the modern anglophone market.