From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: The past is done, what now?
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:32:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.031612.16975@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <1687F1062B.CJR10@CCCVM.CCC.AMDAHL.COM>
> cjr10@cccvm.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Russell) writes:
> 
> >You're right Donald, every group should hate every other group. Every
> >minority group that has been stomped on by a majority group should
> >hold that bitter memory for the rest of eternity and make them offer
> >retribution. After all, as long as we remember it we can never be
> >really equal, can we?
>  
> >Problem is, just about everyone, gay/straight, white/black, etc. can
> >lay claim to injustices done to them by some other group, somewhere
> >in history.
> 
> I think you have just said, in effect that the Holocaust
> should be forgotten.  Not while I'm alive, it won't be, and
> I think I share that view with quite a few other people.
> Remembering is not what compromises equality; bigotry is.
> In the case of racism, it is institutionalized, endemic,
> systematic, intentional, remorseless, unabashed,
> through-and-through, ubiquitous, and (if the status quo is
> not *radically* changed) eternal bigotry.  Forget that, and
> hope is gone, utterly gone.
> 
> Without in any way impugning your motives, I must say it
> seems to me your point that, in effect, "well, everybody's
> had some wrongs done to them," discounts and trivializes at
> least 15 generations of suffering wrought -- *none* of it
> willy-nilly -- by Europeans and their descendents in the New
> World.  To forget that is to excuse it, and that *cannot* be
> done, in the name of mercy and compassion, if nothing else.
> That it would also be ruinous in the practical sense need
> not even be invoked.

  My take on this post was more along the lines of "When can
we stop with the blame game, and get along onto the healing
game". To the point that one side of a dispute only expects
abject and utter (and continuous) apology for past injustice
is the point where nothing productive is being done to correct
the situation. Indeed, IMHO, this is not even realistic since 
people will not continue apologizing forever. At some point
the conclusion is drawn that the person/group is just whining for
the sake of whining, not asking for a fair shake in future dealings.
  Does this say that we should in any way excuse past injustice?
Of course not. But, like it or not, the past is the past. The
only hope that we have in the present is to learn something from
it by not repeating its mistakes.
  A contemporary example of what I see as this blame tendancy is 
the conflict in the mid-east. Is there any real chance of peace 
there without some amount of "turning the other cheek"? I can't see
it, can you? Does turning the other cheek imply that you condone 
atrocities? Not necessarily. At some point in the interest of
peace we must give people a chance, the benifit of the doubt, 
to get along with life. This of course is conditional with
a person/groups remorse of the past injustices. Even there it may
not be very deep, but *somebody* has to extend the olive branch.
Things cannot get better until this happens.
  In the case of the Holocaust, how long should Jews go on hating 
Germans? Forever? Certainly they should hate the Nazi's in perpetuity,
but what about the current crop? Shouldn't it depend far more on
their current deeds rather than their ancestors?
  As far as Europeans and their barbarism goes, yawn. They were
_all_ barbarians by our standards today. The Europeans that had
the good luck(?) of being the most successful barbarians; not that
almost every other culture wasn't trying their utmost to best
them. Implying that all other cultures were without fault and
that it was only the merciless European savages doing a number on
the rest of the world is hogwash. I am not particularily proud
of what Cortez did to the Aztecs, but the Aztecs were hardly
the sheepish and docile happy campers that the current set
of revisionist historians are trying to paint.
  The point is, how do you pick a victim and oppressor where
both sides of the conflict are equally (or very nearly) reprehensible,
and would gladly change the power balance to the opposite? There is no
right answer to this other than neutrality. This is what is currently
going on in xYugoslavia, and is precisely why we should *not* get
involved.
  As far as Africans go (and slavery in general), this is without 
question the most shameful part of European exploitation in the 
New World. The smug hypocricy of it is disgusting (condoning it here,
while they acted enlightened and above it at home). There can be no
excuses made for their behavior. Nobody deserves the sub-human treatment
that Africans and some Native Americans endured. 
  But what do we do today? The past is gone, bar the lesson of 
"never again". There is nothing that can be done to change history.
Our only option is making the present and future better, and trying
to live with what the past has bestowed us.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: soc.motss