Chris Rock: "White people need to own the actions of their ancestors"

suicide_circus

jmayo wrote: »

Not all the massacres and Jewish deportations were carried out by the SS, Gestapo, Einsatzgruppen, etc.
Believing the Wehrmacht were somehow above that is like believing in fairy stories.

Chances are if your relatives were particularly on the Eastern Front or in the Balkans they either did, saw or damm well knew about some very unsavoury sh** being carried out by their colleagues.



Well since they are not makling reparations to the Armenians, then they might as well be paying towards the Jews.



Yeah right...
PS you forgot the Russians/Soviets.

BTW could you tell us how the history of WWII could be written to make the Germans look any better and the Western Allies look worse.

Scrub that I don't think I want to know your version of WWII. :rolleyes:

And how should I "own" the atrocities which my ancestors may or may not have been involved in?

BlaasForRafa

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

Wehrmacht were the regular army, not sure there is anything to be owned there

The Heer were the regular army, the Wehrmacht was the collective armed forces of the reich.

Molester Stallone II

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The Heer were the regular army, the Wehrmacht was the collective armed forces of the reich.

I didn't use the term heer as the waffen ss were included in that

The Corinthian

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

I didn't use the term heer as the waffen ss were included in that

Well, not wanting to be a nit picker but... the Heer or Reichsheer was a branch of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS was not.

Molester Stallone II

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, not wanting to be a nit picker but... the Heer or Reichsheer was a branch of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS was not.

I genuinely can't remember, I thought the Wehrmacht was the term for air, sea and army only, Heer was all land forces including the waffen ss, but I'm open to correction

Karl Stein

The Corinthian wrote: »

while their ancestors may have suffered a terrible crime, their descendants are ironically probably better off for it.

As I have already pointed out to another rambler this is a non-point that has no bearing on the discussion other than to subtly suggest that they should shut up be thankful for their lot.

suicide_circus

Karl Stein wrote: »

As I have already pointed out to another rambler this is a non-point that has no bearing on the discussion other than to subtly suggest that they should shut up be thankful for their lot.

No one suggests they should be happy but then, life doesn't guarantee happiness. No one is owed happiness.

Molester Stallone II

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, not wanting to be a nit picker but... the Heer or Reichsheer was a branch of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS was not.

Sorry!! I just saw my typo, I should have said were not! forgot the important word, apologies

The Corinthian

Karl Stein wrote: »

As I have already pointed out to another rambler this is a non-point that has no bearing on the discussion other than to subtly suggest that they should shut up be thankful for their lot.

When opt your lips, let no dog bark?

Unfortunately, if seeking compensation for anything the question of damages does have a baring on the discussion. If it can be demonstrated that one has either not suffered or even actually profited from the tort, then it severely damages any right to compensation.

jmayo

The Corinthian wrote: »

This reminds me of a quote by the historian Donald Bloxham:

"[That the Dresden Bombings should legally be considered a war crime] should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation."

Your response is an excellent example of this.

Ah yes the customary example of Dresden.
If you were to drag out Dresden then why not drag out every raid ?
Why not drag out Hamburg ?

Dresden was a lot of luck.
Everything went pretty much right for the Allies and everything went pretty much wrong for the Germans.

BTW when we talk of Dresden we talk about fires and dropping of incendiaries.
Well people might care to take this little fact into account, on Dec 29th (this exact date) the Luftwaffe dropped 22,000 odd incendiaries on London.
The seeds of the likes of Dresden were sown and it is a bit rich to expect the aggressor to recieve some form of reprieve they never offered themselves.

And for every so called Allied (western I must add) so called war crime, I bet I can drag out many score more attributable to the German forces.
I don't recall the Allies (again Western Allies) wiping out villages in captured territory ala what the Germans were fond of doing in reprisals.

But of course lets have the customary dig at the Brits and the Yanks.

I always luagh when I consider those now bashing them would not have the right to bash anyone, bar some "Untermensch", if it not for these nations.

Karl Stein

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unfortunately, if seeking compensation for anything the question of damages does have a baring on the discussion. If it can be demonstrated that one has either not suffered or even actually profited from the tort, then it severely damages any right to compensation.

If you'd taken the time to click on the link in the OP you'd see that the comedian Chris Rock doesn't mention compensation.

He said that '[white people] must own the actions of their ancestors'. I don't think it's such an unreasonable request to, at least, have a conversation about it.

Not so long ago Tony Blair issued an apology for the role ancestors of British people played in the Irish Famine:

"The famine was a defining event in the history of Ireland and Britain. It has left deep scars. That one million people should have died in what was then part of the richest and most powerful nation in the world is something that still causes pain as we reflect on it today. Those who governed in London at the time failed their people."

You may return to arguing against a point he never made.

jmayo

suicide_circus wrote: »

And how should I "own" the atrocities which my ancestors may or may not have been involved in?

You don't own the atrocities of your forefathers.
You were not even alive so how can you be blamed for the sins of the fathers/grandfathers.

But I think you (and all of us really) do have a duty to make sure it is never forgotten.

My point was in reference to post about Wehrmacht.
A lot of people at the time used the excuse they knew nothing or did nothing because they were not in SS, Gestapo, secret police, etc.
And there are probably some Germans today who could say well my forefathers did nothing because they were only in the Herr, Luftwaffe, or Kriegsmarine.

It was not always that black and white.

TheLastMohican

Malaak is one lucky gal

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/chris-rock-files-divorce-wife-malaak-compton-rock/story?id=27876007

Tony EH

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

Wehrmacht were the regular army, not sure there is anything to be owned there

Actually, the regular German army was the Heer. Die Wehrmacht was the entire German armed forces.

EDIT: which I've just seen mentioned above...oh well...if something's worth saying once...

Tony EH

suicide_circus wrote: »

I have a number of relatives who were in the Wehrmacht. I was born some 40 years later. In what way should I be "owning" this?

Own what you want to own.

The odds are your Wehrmacht relatives weren't involved in anything except staying alive.

Tony EH

suicide_circus wrote: »

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht

Unless you can point out any specific case where your relative(s) were involved, the above link is meaningless.

Tony EH

jmayo wrote: »

You don't own the atrocities of your forefathers.
You were not even alive so how can you be blamed for the sins of the fathers/grandfathers.

But I think you (and all of us really) do have a duty to make sure it is never forgotten.

My point was in reference to post about Wehrmacht.
A lot of people at the time used the excuse they knew nothing or did nothing because they were not in SS, Gestapo, secret police, etc.
And there are probably some Germans today who could say well my forefathers did nothing because they were only in the Herr, Luftwaffe, or Kriegsmarine.

It was not always that black and white.

You're correct, it's not black and white in any way at all, but many, many shades of gray.

The fact is that the vast majority of the Wehrmacht, including the Waffen SS took part in no crimes whatsoever.

Yet, the popular image of the German soldier of WWII, no matter what branch of service he/she was involved in, is one of "guilty".

floggg

crockholm wrote: »

While it does sound controversial,the fact is that Chris Rock Owes his vast wealth and comfortable Lifestyle to Slavery,the slaves,the slave-masters and so forth.

Without the unimaginable cruelty sufferred by his distant relatives,Mr. Rock would most likely be living in a West African country,worrying about Ebola,AIDS,Civil war,famine.Who knows perhaps,trying to jump over a high fence at Cueta or hopping on a glorified tub hoping to make land at Sicily or Lampedusa.

I would imagine Chris Rock,Jay Z,LeBron James and Oprah Winfrey don't Dream of the bountless opportunities that would await them in Liberia,but I can sure Imagine many Liberians wishing to get the chance to live free in the USA.

Just so there is no doubt,I do not condone slavery or see it as anything other than vile,nor do I see the slavers as some type of philantrophists-they sicken me,but what we have is a by-Product of history that has suited the descendents of the Unfortunates who came to America in shackles and their bound Children.

This post is so ridiculously stupid.

If you want to throw out the "(some)black people wouldnt be successful in the US if it wasn't for slavery" argument, then you should also acknowledge what should be the equally obvious corollary -West Africa likely wouldn't be anywhere near as ****ed up if it wasn't for Slavery and colonialism.

GalwayGuitar

floggg wrote: »

This post is so ridiculously stupid.

If you want to throw out the "(some)black people wouldnt be successful in the US if it wasn't for slavery" argument, then you should also acknowledge what should be the equally obvious corollary -West Africa likely wouldn't be anywhere near as ****ed up if it wasn't for Slavery and colonialism.

How is it stupid?

floggg

Karl Stein wrote: »

This is a really bizarre rabbit-hole line you've taken. How would Africa look had Europeans not enacted the slave trade and subsequent colonization of Africa?

How would Africa look if Europeans hadn't become technologically advanced and instead developed at a similar rate to other regions?

Where do we stop with the 'what ifs'?

While it does sound controversial, the fact is that white Americans owe their success and wealth to the Africans who left Africa and travelled across the globe....

crockholm

floggg wrote: »

This post is so ridiculously stupid.

If you want to throw out the "(some)black people wouldnt be successful in the US if it wasn't for slavery" argument, then you should also acknowledge what should be the equally obvious corollary -West Africa likely wouldn't be anywhere near as ****ed up if it wasn't for Slavery and colonialism.

Just because you cant comprehend the Point does not make it stupid,it rather Points to your own limitations instead.

Nothing you have added refutes the Point-you have only presented a hypothisis which is conjecture because slavery did happen in the reigon.

I can imagine that Life is better in the USA than it is in West Africa-what I would base that on would be factors like-

Black people have a higher level of education in the USA than in West Africa.

They are wealthier in the USA.

They have better access to better Healthcare in the USA.

There is more political stability in the USA.

Nothing,I have said is a defense of slavery.

Now,to make my Point stupid,you ought to explain to me why it is more beneficial to be born in west africa than it is to be born in the USA.

On the topic of being owed,because they built America is false.The USA would not have become the super/hyper Power it is today if it was Reliant on the Tobacco and cotton industries,which were themselves Reliant on slaves( though even Economists have done studies that shows not only is slavery immoral,but it is also economically self-defeating).The building of America as a superpower had much more to do with the rust-belt states and industrialization than the (in relative terms)impoverished Southern Slave States.

RobYourBuilder

You mentioned that you were Swedish, living there.

Mind if I text you?

Optimalprimerib

Remember, the irish were also sold as slaves as well. In fact I read somewhere, the Irish were often treated worse than the African slaves as we were easier to obtain, therefore cheaper and more disposable.

suicide_circus

Tony EH wrote: »

Own what you want to own.

The odds are your Wehrmacht relatives weren't involved in anything except staying alive.

You see I'm eager to own wrongdoings in which I played no part

jank

The Corinthian wrote: »

Call me cynical, but while their ancestors may have suffered a terrible crime, their descendants are ironically probably better off for it.

That is a true point, which is sometimes stated crudely by some, however it is factual. I asked an African American friend of mine from Alabama about this and the answer was 'Hell yeah, he was glad to be an American rather than living in Africa'. He said it was it was good that some 'good' came from it.

Some people will always have a gripe. Sure we are still hearing about the evils done to us for 800 hundred years.

jank

floggg wrote: »

While it does sound controversial, the fact is that white Americans owe their success and wealth to the Africans who left Africa and travelled across the globe....

There are plenty of successful countries that have had no or very little interaction to slavery e.g. Canada or New Zealand. There are also countries that have a deep history of slavery that are no where near as successful as those countries mentioned. e.g. Brazil, Jamacia.

In other words, correlation does not equal causation.

CiDeRmAn

jank wrote: »

There are plenty of successful countries that have had no or very little interaction to slavery e.g. Canada or New Zealand. There are also countries that have a deep history of slavery that are no where near as successful as those countries mentioned. e.g. Brazil, Jamacia.

In other words, correlation does not equal causation.

But a country like New Zealand is not without racial strife, a holdover from the policies of the colonial state.
It may not have been slavery but it generated a racially delineated underclass of Maori people, with issues around education, alcohol abuse and employment.
Should the Anglo folks of NZ "own" this historical behaviour that led to this situation?
I'm not talking about taking responsibility as if they did it but rather acknowledge the situation exists, take a objective view of history, and use available resources to make a more equitable society.
Australia is in the same boat with their native population versus the colonial stock.
No slavery exactly but certainly since racially dubious policies and discrimination that have only driven the socio economic gap wider.
AFAIK the government there has recognised their part in the problem in the past and are working towards solutions .
This is what I think Chris Rock is trying to say.

The Corinthian

jmayo wrote: »

Ah yes the customary example of Dresden.

Actually the Dresden bombing has very little to do with what I posted.

You might actually want to read the quote I posted rather than regurgitate some mindless rubbish irrelevant to the post you're responding to.

The Corinthian

Karl Stein wrote: »

If you'd taken the time to click on the link in the OP you'd see that the comedian Chris Rock doesn't mention compensation.

I never mentioned Chris Rock. I widened the discussion to discuss the current fashion for collective responsibility that has become popular of recent years.

He said that '[white people] must own the actions of their ancestors'. I don't think it's such an unreasonable request to, at least, have a conversation about it.

Well it is unreasonable to paint an entire ethnic group with the same brush as inheritors of their ancestors guilt, especially when many did not have any guilty ancestors.

Not so long ago Tony Blair issued an apology for the role ancestors of British people played in the Irish Famine:

Leaving aside the question of who was to 'blame' for the Famine (there's plenty of historical and contextual evidence that shows it was not all black and white), I've no problem with a government apologizing for the past action of it's predecessors - but this is not the same thing as an ethnic group doing so.

Such apologies can be taken to absurd levels though; Italy's apology to Israel, a few years ago, for the expulsion of the Jews from Judea under the emperor Vespasian, was frankly taking the piss.

floggg wrote: »

While it does sound controversial, the fact is that white Americans owe their success and wealth to the Africans who left Africa and travelled across the globe....

Arguable. America owes her success mainly to territorial expansion (at the expense of the native Americans and Mexicans) and industrialization. By the time of the civil war north and south had very different economies - the former was far more industrialized while the latter relied on a plantation economy, powered by slaves. And the industrialized north won, was successful; not the south.

This is not to say that slavery was not part of the overall success of America, but to suggest that it owes it's success to it is quite flawed.

jank wrote: »

Sure we are still hearing about the evils done to us for 800 hundred years.

I used to wonder, as a child, about this; you'd hear this old '800 years' line trotted out on a regular basis as some sort of reason for why we had a basket-case economy where even the Soviets seemed to have a better standard of living to us, despite having had, at that stage, sixty years of independence to sort ourselves out.

Nowadays we just blame the Church, bankers and Fianna Fail. After all, it couldn't be down to us...

floggg

The Corinthian wrote: »

When opt your lips, let no dog bark?

Unfortunately, if seeking compensation for anything the question of damages does have a baring on the discussion. If it can be demonstrated that one has either not suffered or even actually profited from the tort, then it severely damages any right to compensation.

Where did Chris Rock mention compensation or reparations?

And they argument that their descendants are better of because of the suffering of the slaves is ridiculously stupid.

If you want argue that, then you have to ask would West Africa be in the state it was in without colonialism and Slavery? Would the US be as prosperous as it was without the slave labour which built Irs southern economies? Or without being able to trade with the slave colonies or Caribbean?

Without Slavery, would the British economic policies in the Americas have changed? Would the white colonists have been directed towards the spice producing carribean colonies instead of new England in order to make up the labour deficit.

You can't play the "what if" game selectively.

And that's ignoring the "butterfly effect". Change one variable and we really va t guess what the world would look like.