Obama Signed a law to wiped Haiti's debt

[Chibibar]

http://www.essence.com/news/hot_topics_4/president_obama_drops_haiti_debt.php

Wow.. I learn something new today. I didn't think you could do that, but I guess since I'm not big government I can't quite do that.

Average citizen like us HAVE to pay our debt one form or another, even bankruptcy, you can lose everything and anything (within the bankruptcy law) before it is 'wipe' from your record.

868 million dollars!?!!?!?!

 

[MindDetective]

3 bucks per American citizen? I guess I can handle it.

 

[GasBandit]

Let's be honest, it's not like we were ever actually going to see that money again anyway, so we might as well write it off the books. You'd be surprised at how much of that goes on even in everyday American life. I've seen my own company end up having to write off money that other people and companies owed us because the amount of effort it would take to collect it far outpaced the amount of money owed. I guess it's rather similar here on a much larger scale.

Really, that money shouldn't have been "lent" in the first place, it should have been called what it was - foreign aid, or charity.

Aw hell, I broke character didn't I?


I mean... Squeeze those rubble-covered poor people for every penny until we get it all back, with interest!

Whew, that was a close one.

 

[drawn_inward]

Let's see if China will follow Obama's lead.

 

[Chibibar]

I mean... Squeeze those rubble-covered poor people for every penny until we get it all back, with interest!

Whew, that was a close one.

heh, should have gone with, they can work off their debt as manservant to U.S. citizens

 

[Krisken]

Let's be honest, it's not like we were ever actually going to see that money again anyway, so we might as well write it off the books. You'd be surprised at how much of that goes on even in everyday American life. I've seen my own company end up having to write off money that other people and companies owed us because the amount of effort it would take to collect it far outpaced the amount of money owed. I guess it's rather similar here on a much larger scale.

Really, that money shouldn't have been "lent" in the first place, it should have been called what it was - foreign aid, or charity.

Aw hell, I broke character didn't I?


I mean... Squeeze those rubble-covered poor people for every penny until we get it all back, with interest!

Whew, that was a close one.

:tape:

 

[Soliloquy]

Let's see if China will follow Obama's lead.

So... hard... to... not... channel... Shawnancy...

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously though, I don't see that happening. The massive debt that we owe China is probably one of their biggest playing pieces in becoming the strongest world power in the world... as if they weren't there already.

 

[Chibibar]

Let's see if China will follow Obama's lead.

So... hard... to... not... channel... Shawnancy...

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously though, I don't see that happening. The massive debt that we owe China is probably one of their biggest playing pieces in becoming the strongest world power in the world... as if they weren't there already.[/QUOTE]
As a Chinese, I don't see that happening. Chinese have LONG memory and not as forgiving.

 

[@Li3n]

China will never actually call it in anyhow... why would they even give up their Sword of Damocles?!

Plus, foreign debts are a political tool more then anything... you only cancel then when there's more to win from it then having it... and as there's nothing to win from Haiti why not.

 

[TommiR]

Let's see if China will follow Obama's lead.

So... hard... to... not... channel... Shawnancy...

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously though, I don't see that happening. The massive debt that we owe China is probably one of their biggest playing pieces in becoming the strongest world power in the world... as if they weren't there already.[/QUOTE]
As a Chinese, I don't see that happening. Chinese have LONG memory and not as forgiving.[/QUOTE]
Plus, I guess most nations that have foreign debts will seek to pay them back if at all possible. If a creditor has to forgive a debt, then the borrower nation will see it's credit rating plummet through the basement floor, and it becomes very difficult and very expensive for them to secure future loans. No-one wants to loan you money if they have doubts about getting it back in the future.

 

[Rob King]

This is a great move. As a next step, I would love to see the US, the UN, or someone else with a decent amount of clout urge France to compensate Haiti for the money they unjustly took over the last two centuries. In today's dollars, I believe it amounts to something like 27 billion U.S. dollars which France required from Haiti as 'compensation' after having lost the colony to the freed black slaves.

Not like that'll happen, but those payments to France are a big reason for why Haiti is in the shape it is today.

 

[TommiR]

This is a great move. As a next step, I would love to see the US, the UN, or someone else with a decent amount of clout urge France to compensate Haiti for the money they unjustly took over the last two centuries. In today's dollars, I believe it amounts to something like 27 billion U.S. dollars which France required from Haiti as 'compensation' after having lost the colony to the freed black slaves.

Not like that'll happen, but those payments to France are a big reason for why Haiti is in the shape it is today.

Yeah, in the wake of the January earthquake, I guess the funds otherwise going into servicing Haiti's foreign debt are better spent rebuilding, at least from a humanitarian point of view.

But if I may, I'd like to enquire further into your views about the unjust-ness of the reparations Haiti paid to France in the aftermath of their independence. As I've understood it, the french and the haitians negotiated an arrangement in which France would recognise haitian sovereignty, and the haitians would compensate french nationals for their loss of property during the revolution, which was valued at 150 million francs and later the sum was reduced. A deal was made and the french kept up their end of the bargain. The effects of this reparation (for which the money was borrowed from foreign banks at quite a high rate of interest) might well have had a greatly negative impact on the development of Haiti, but taken at face value, I personally fail to see the deal itself as being fundamentally unjust or something for which the french would be morally obligated to compensate Haiti for.

 

[Rob King]

This is a great move. As a next step, I would love to see the US, the UN, or someone else with a decent amount of clout urge France to compensate Haiti for the money they unjustly took over the last two centuries. In today's dollars, I believe it amounts to something like 27 billion U.S. dollars which France required from Haiti as 'compensation' after having lost the colony to the freed black slaves.

Not like that'll happen, but those payments to France are a big reason for why Haiti is in the shape it is today.

Yeah, in the wake of the January earthquake, I guess the funds otherwise going into servicing Haiti's foreign debt are better spent rebuilding, at least from a humanitarian point of view.

But if I may, I'd like to enquire further into your views about the unjust-ness of the reparations Haiti paid to France in the aftermath of their independence. As I've understood it, the french and the haitians negotiated an arrangement in which France would recognise haitian sovereignty, and the haitians would compensate french nationals for their loss of property during the revolution, which was valued at 150 million francs and later the sum was reduced. A deal was made and the french kept up their end of the bargain. The effects of this reparation (for which the money was borrowed from foreign banks at quite a high rate of interest) might well have had a greatly negative impact on the development of Haiti, but taken at face value, I personally fail to see the deal itself as being fundamentally unjust or something for which the french would be morally obligated to compensate Haiti for.[/QUOTE]

From what I've read on the subject, it was less a negotiation and more an ultimatum. I mean, I guess the Haitians did have a choice: fight another massive flotilla of French warships with thousands upon thousands of soldiers (which they had been doing for 13 years at that point) or agree to pay the sum. As I understand it, though, the sum that the Haitians were forced to agree to was equivalent to three to four times the Haitian GDP at the time.

The reparation was for more than just the land. The Haitians had to pay for the land and the lost revenue for the French, where the revenues were essentially the money they would have made over their lifetimes if the slaves had simply shut up and put up with their lot.

In the end the sum was reduced a bit, which is more than the French would do for the Germans, so I guess that was nice of them. But even so, Haiti only managed to pay off that debt after 150 years of payments. If it had been any other country but Haiti, the first and only successful slave-founded Republic, I feel like they might have gotten a little more leeway, and a bit more sympathy from the international community.

 

[TommiR]

This is a great move. As a next step, I would love to see the US, the UN, or someone else with a decent amount of clout urge France to compensate Haiti for the money they unjustly took over the last two centuries. In today's dollars, I believe it amounts to something like 27 billion U.S. dollars which France required from Haiti as 'compensation' after having lost the colony to the freed black slaves.

Not like that'll happen, but those payments to France are a big reason for why Haiti is in the shape it is today.

Yeah, in the wake of the January earthquake, I guess the funds otherwise going into servicing Haiti's foreign debt are better spent rebuilding, at least from a humanitarian point of view.

But if I may, I'd like to enquire further into your views about the unjust-ness of the reparations Haiti paid to France in the aftermath of their independence. As I've understood it, the french and the haitians negotiated an arrangement in which France would recognise haitian sovereignty, and the haitians would compensate french nationals for their loss of property during the revolution, which was valued at 150 million francs and later the sum was reduced. A deal was made and the french kept up their end of the bargain. The effects of this reparation (for which the money was borrowed from foreign banks at quite a high rate of interest) might well have had a greatly negative impact on the development of Haiti, but taken at face value, I personally fail to see the deal itself as being fundamentally unjust or something for which the french would be morally obligated to compensate Haiti for.[/QUOTE]

From what I've read on the subject, it was less a negotiation and more an ultimatum. I mean, I guess the Haitians did have a choice: fight another massive flotilla of French warships with thousands upon thousands of soldiers (which they had been doing for 13 years at that point) or agree to pay the sum. As I understand it, though, the sum that the Haitians were forced to agree to was equivalent to three to four times the Haitian GDP at the time.

The reparation was for more than just the land. The Haitians had to pay for the land and the lost revenue for the French, where the revenues were essentially the money they would have made over their lifetimes if the slaves had simply shut up and put up with their lot.

In the end the sum was reduced a bit, which is more than the French would do for the Germans, so I guess that was nice of them. But even so, Haiti only managed to pay off that debt after 150 years of payments. If it had been any other country but Haiti, the first and only successful slave-founded Republic, I feel like they might have gotten a little more leeway, and a bit more sympathy from the international community.[/QUOTE]
But one does need to keep in mind that although Haiti had declared it's independence, it had not been recognised by that time by US, France, or any european power as far as I know. The french, therefore, had every justification in considering Haiti a rebellious colony where a slave insurrection had succeeded in overthrowing the french colonial administration. Such colonial revolts were not that uncommon in the past, present, and future of the time; many were crushed outright by forces of the metropolitan state, some gained initial success in evicting the european authorities only to be crushed later, and some revolts succeeded. Taken in the context of the time, in my mind there was nothing particularly odd about France sending an expeditionary force to reassert control in Haiti. For a new nation, receiving international recognition is very important, and France was willing to grant it on terms. Initially those terms were the 150 million francs in compensation, but as I recall that amount was later cut by 40 percent to 90 million.

In essence, I see the french behaving within acceptable limits of the time in sending that fleet to Haiti, and the deal did provide Haiti with real benefit as other recognitions of their independence followed. Though the amount of the indemnity was indeed great, it was probably as good of a deal as the haitians could get under the circumstances. What should the french have done? Gunboat diplomacy has a bad ring to it in modern times, but it was well understood back in the day, and with Haiti being merely a rebellious colony, I am not sure they had that much of a moral high ground according to the morals of the day, and the french to be out of line.

You might be right about Haiti having a tough time internationally at the time of it's foundation. Slavery was still a big part of the economies of many nations, and the establishment of a new country through a successful slave revolt could have been viewed by the powers as a dangerous precedent. By the time of the french expedition, Britain had already prohibited the slave trade and as I understand was enforcing the US Monroe Doctrine in the americas, so if the haitians had not cancelled british trading priviledges and instituted tariffs they might have received some support from there.

 

[Rob King]

But one does need to keep in mind that although Haiti had declared it's independence, it had not been recognised by that time by US, France, or any european power as far as I know. The french, therefore, had every justification in considering Haiti a rebellious colony where a slave insurrection had succeeded in overthrowing the french colonial administration. Such colonial revolts were not that uncommon in the past, present, and future of the time; many were crushed outright by forces of the metropolitan state, some gained initial success in evicting the european authorities only to be crushed later, and some revolts succeeded. Taken in the context of the time, in my mind there was nothing particularly odd about France sending an expeditionary force to reassert control in Haiti. For a new nation, receiving international recognition is very important, and France was willing to grant it on terms. Initially those terms were the 150 million francs in compensation, but as I recall that amount was later cut by 40 percent to 90 million.

In essence, I see the french behaving within acceptable limits of the time in sending that fleet to Haiti, and the deal did provide Haiti with real benefit as other recognitions of their independence followed. Though the amount of the indemnity was indeed great, it was probably as good of a deal as the haitians could get under the circumstances. What should the french have done? Gunboat diplomacy has a bad ring to it in modern times, but it was well understood back in the day, and with Haiti being merely a rebellious colony, I am not sure they had that much of a moral high ground according to the morals of the day, and the french to be out of line.

You might be right about Haiti having a tough time internationally at the time of it's foundation. Slavery was still a big part of the economies of many nations, and the establishment of a new country through a successful slave revolt could have been viewed by the powers as a dangerous precedent. By the time of the french expedition, Britain had already prohibited the slave trade and as I understand was enforcing the US Monroe Doctrine in the americas, so if the haitians had not cancelled british trading priviledges and instituted tariffs they might have received some support from there.

The British had their trading privileges ended in 1823 (19 years after Haiti declared independence) because Britain refused to recognize Haiti, even after recognizing the independence of other American states such as Buenos Aires, Mexico and Columbia. In 1925 the Americans refused to recognize Haiti due to the interference of the slave states, who felt that recognizing a black republic would be a detriment to the continuation of slavery. Later that same year, 24 years after Haiti declared independence and tried to rebuild their country as best as they could, the French showed up with their fleet and 'negotiated' the repayment in exchange for recognition.

Again, perhaps it was acceptable in the day. The more I think about it the less I can fault the French. Clearly nobody thought it was a reprehensible enough transaction to intervene. So maybe it's a bit much to hope that the French would return their ill-gotten gains. But it crippled Haiti right until this very day, and no other American colony-turned-independent state had to deal with the same onslaught of external meddling, and international ostracism.

I suppose what I'm really trying to express is that now, after yet another disaster, and with so much attention on Haiti it just feels like great opportunity to right some more of the colonial era's most glaring wrongs.

 

[Dubyamn]

But one does need to keep in mind that although Haiti had declared it's independence, it had not been recognised by that time by US, France, or any european power as far as I know. The french, therefore, had every justification in considering Haiti a rebellious colony where a slave insurrection had succeeded in overthrowing the french colonial administration. Such colonial revolts were not that uncommon in the past, present, and future of the time; many were crushed outright by forces of the metropolitan state, some gained initial success in evicting the european authorities only to be crushed later, and some revolts succeeded. Taken in the context of the time, in my mind there was nothing particularly odd about France sending an expeditionary force to reassert control in Haiti. For a new nation, receiving international recognition is very important, and France was willing to grant it on terms. Initially those terms were the 150 million francs in compensation, but as I recall that amount was later cut by 40 percent to 90 million.

In essence, I see the french behaving within acceptable limits of the time in sending that fleet to Haiti, and the deal did provide Haiti with real benefit as other recognitions of their independence followed. Though the amount of the indemnity was indeed great, it was probably as good of a deal as the haitians could get under the circumstances. What should the french have done? Gunboat diplomacy has a bad ring to it in modern times, but it was well understood back in the day, and with Haiti being merely a rebellious colony, I am not sure they had that much of a moral high ground according to the morals of the day, and the french to be out of line.

You might be right about Haiti having a tough time internationally at the time of it's foundation. Slavery was still a big part of the economies of many nations, and the establishment of a new country through a successful slave revolt could have been viewed by the powers as a dangerous precedent. By the time of the french expedition, Britain had already prohibited the slave trade and as I understand was enforcing the US Monroe Doctrine in the americas, so if the haitians had not cancelled british trading priviledges and instituted tariffs they might have received some support from there.

Several very good points about the reality of Haiti's exsistance in the first couple years.

None of those points excuse the over the top burden France places on Haiti which forced a poor country to pay a debt that they couldn't afford and led directly to Haiti's current troubles. I support the US canceling the debt, it really is the least we could do for our part in keeping Haiti a hellhole of a country.

 

[@Li3n]

It was acceptable at the time?! Now there's a great argument.

 

[TommiR]

From a legal perspective, it is actually a pretty good argument.

For the record, I also feel that the US cancelling their part of Haiti's debt is a good and right thing to do in the wake of January's earthquake, though the issue of third world debt relief in general is not entirely without controversy. A lot rests on the debtor nations's commitment to managing their finances responsibly, something several haitian regimes in the past have not been particularly well known for. When haitian president Aristide made his claim to reparations from France back in 2004, the move was opposed by several prominent haitian intellectuals, who saw it as little more than a government ploy to drum up public support and divert attention away from it's own inefficiencies and corruption. Aristide's successor renounced the claim, though there is some controversy surrounding that decision.

I'd like to examine the case of the french-haitian negotiations in 1825 a bit further. Not having been recognised at this stage, Haiti was still not a sovereign country as such, but rather a french colony in revolt where the rebels had proclaimed independence. And then the french expedition arrived. Were the french bluffing? The haitians did not seem to think so, or at least they viewed the deal on offer as being worth accepting. Had they refused and the french begun their reconquest, perhaps the haitians could have beaten off that and any possible subsequent french attempts, until eventually the french saw it in their own interests to recognise haitian sovereignty. Or perhaps the french had succeeded and subjected Haiti to a further 50-100 years of colonial rule, in which case we would likely see the entire episode as nothing more than a failed colonial uprising, with France no more (and no less) deserving of vilification than any other metropolitan state that ever suppressed a rebellion in their colonies through military action.

Again, I think the deal Haiti accepted was about as good as they could have gotten, and apparently better for them than the alternatives, which according to my understanding were legitimate on part of the french. What would you have had France do, a major power with several other colonies and pretentions of empire?

 

[@Li3n]

From a legal standpoint anything can be a good argument with the right laws in place.

When haitian president Aristide made his claim to reparations from France back in 2004, the move was opposed by several prominent haitian intellectuals, who saw it as little more than a government ploy to drum up public support and divert attention away from it's own inefficiencies and corruption.

Well duh... but me pointing out that some guy that murdered more people then me got away doesn't actually excuse me killing someone, does it?!

What would you have had France do, a major power with several other colonies and pretentions of empire?

What does that have to do with whether or not France is responsible?! Is the Armenian Genocide ok because the Turks where trying to make themselves a country, like a lot of other people at the time?!


The problem is one of pragmatism, France giving straight up reparations is unlikely to fix the problem, but that doesn't mean they're suddenly clean because of it.

 

[TommiR]

From a legal standpoint anything can be a good argument with the right laws in place.

Laws, perceptions, values, customs, and all such things have changed and will continue to change. Applying the standards of today to things in the past when standards were different is perhaps not very useful. One needs to make at least some allowance for how things were back then before making moral or legal judgements.

When haitian president Aristide made his claim to reparations from France back in 2004, the move was opposed by several prominent haitian intellectuals, who saw it as little more than a government ploy to drum up public support and divert attention away from it's own inefficiencies and corruption.

Well duh... but me pointing out that some guy that murdered more people then me got away doesn't actually excuse me killing someone, does it?!

I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by this example. Can you please elaborate?

What would you have had France do, a major power with several other colonies and pretentions of empire?

What does that have to do with whether or not France is responsible?! Is the Armenian Genocide ok because the Turks where trying to make themselves a country, like a lot of other people at the time?!


The problem is one of pragmatism, France giving straight up reparations is unlikely to fix the problem, but that doesn't mean they're suddenly clean because of it.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that genocide and mass murder were considered reprehensible in 1915.

In 1825, France was faced with a number of legitimate options on how to deal with their rebellious colony, and simply patting the haitians on the back and wishing them well just doesn't seem like it was realistically gonna happen and it didn't need to happen. The two of them struck a deal, and France delivered on it's side. The particulars of the deal and the methods of negotiation were in line with what was considered generally acceptable back then. In my view, and considering that things have changed since then, this is fair enough, even though some aspects might be considered more or less distasteful from a modern perspective.

 

[Soliloquy]

I think a good question to ask here (to both @li3n and and TommiR) is this:

Do you believe that there's actually such thing as right and wrong, or do you believe there's nothing but a constantly-shifting set of standards, with no one set being better or worse than another?

(and, on a bit of a tangent, if you believe there's nothing but a shifting set of standards, is there any point in changing said standards, other than pragmatic reasons? Or, if you believe there's such a thing as right and wrong, to what extent do cultural circumstances affect a person's moral character -- for instance, were most people in the 19th century complete bastards for their culturally-influenced views on race?)

 

[@Li3n]

@Soliloquy

Frankly i think there's both... some things you can get anyone to agree are wrong at any time (as long as they're done to them) while others depend on cultural standards.

for instance, were most people in the 19th century complete bastards for their culturally-influenced views on race?

Depends more on how they manifested their opinions...

From a legal standpoint anything can be a good argument with the right laws in place.

Laws, perceptions, values, customs, and all such things have changed and will continue to change. Applying the standards of today to things in the past when standards were different is perhaps not very useful. One needs to make at least some allowance for how things were back then before making moral or legal judgements.[/QUOTE]

Problem is that such an argument is broad enough to justify anything...

If your argument is that they just shouldn't be asked to actually give back what was taken with interest, sure, France has changed leaders and other stuff since, but to say they shouldn't have do anything is too much imo.

When haitian president Aristide made his claim to reparations from France back in 2004, the move was opposed by several prominent haitian intellectuals, who saw it as little more than a government ploy to drum up public support and divert attention away from it's own inefficiencies and corruption.

Well duh... but me pointing out that some guy that murdered more people then me got away doesn't actually excuse me killing someone, does it?!

I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by this example. Can you please elaborate?

Just because the guy was saying it to draw attention away from his own BS doesn't make it wrong.

What would you have had France do, a major power with several other colonies and pretentions of empire?

What does that have to do with whether or not France is responsible?! Is the Armenian Genocide ok because the Turks where trying to make themselves a country, like a lot of other people at the time?!


The problem is one of pragmatism, France giving straight up reparations is unlikely to fix the problem, but that doesn't mean they're suddenly clean because of it.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that genocide and mass murder were considered reprehensible in 1915.

They just didn't make such a fuss over it... or any of the other atrocities happening at the time. But if it makes you feel better, pick another period, like the spanish inquisition (no one expects it).

In 1825, France was faced with a number of legitimate options on how to deal with their rebellious colony, and simply patting the haitians on the back and wishing them well just doesn't seem like it was realistically gonna happen and it didn't need to happen. The two of them struck a deal, and France delivered on it's side. The particulars of the deal and the methods of negotiation were in line with what was considered generally acceptable back then. In my view, and considering that things have changed since then, this is fair enough, even though some aspects might be considered more or less distasteful from a modern perspective.

Dude, even now the stronger country can treat the weaker one like shit...

 

[TommiR]

I think a good question to ask here (to both @li3n and and TommiR) is this:

Do you believe that there's actually such thing as right and wrong, or do you believe there's nothing but a constantly-shifting set of standards, with no one set being better or worse than another?

(and, on a bit of a tangent, if you believe there's nothing but a shifting set of standards, is there any point in changing said standards, other than pragmatic reasons? Or, if you believe there's such a thing as right and wrong, to what extent do cultural circumstances affect a person's moral character -- for instance, were most people in the 19th century complete bastards for their culturally-influenced views on race?)

I lean more towards the 'shifting standards' side. I don't think an objective right and wrong really exists, it is pretty much all subjective in my view.

As to changing said standards, I suppose pragmatism accounts for a lot of it, as responses to changes in the conditions of the environment.

From a legal standpoint anything can be a good argument with the right laws in place.

Laws, perceptions, values, customs, and all such things have changed and will continue to change. Applying the standards of today to things in the past when standards were different is perhaps not very useful. One needs to make at least some allowance for how things were back then before making moral or legal judgements.[/QUOTE]

Problem is that such an argument is broad enough to justify anything...

If your argument is that they just shouldn't be asked to actually give back what was taken with interest, sure, France has changed leaders and other stuff since, but to say they shouldn't have do anything is too much imo.[/QUOTE]

To elaborate a bit on my viewpoint, when dealing with things of the past and asked to make moral calls, I usually evaluate issues based heavily on the particulars of time and circumstance, and try to determine if the matter was considered acceptable or if it was unusual in some respect (according to some form of an idea of an average informed viewpoint back then). I do try to keep my personal modern values from interfering with that assesment, as I don't see them as being particularly relevant for the outcome.

I am indeed arguing that France in my opinion is not obligated to refund the compensation they received from Haiti. My reasoning goes that the method upon which the compensation was negotiated was not particularly unusual for the time, France had other legitimate options available to them which might have been worse for Haiti though perhaps more palatable to us, and the haitians did accept the arrangement. The fact that France later cut the sum by 40 percent is also a point in their favor.

When haitian president Aristide made his claim to reparations from France back in 2004, the move was opposed by several prominent haitian intellectuals, who saw it as little more than a government ploy to drum up public support and divert attention away from it's own inefficiencies and corruption.

Well duh... but me pointing out that some guy that murdered more people then me got away doesn't actually excuse me killing someone, does it?!

I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean by this example. Can you please elaborate?

Just because the guy was saying it to draw attention away from his own BS doesn't make it wrong.

Ah, okay. With that sentence I was mostly referring to the issue of third world debt relief in general, with an implication that the haitians also share a responsibility for the current financial woes of their country (effects of the earthquake excluded, of course).

What would you have had France do, a major power with several other colonies and pretentions of empire?

What does that have to do with whether or not France is responsible?! Is the Armenian Genocide ok because the Turks where trying to make themselves a country, like a lot of other people at the time?!


The problem is one of pragmatism, France giving straight up reparations is unlikely to fix the problem, but that doesn't mean they're suddenly clean because of it.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that genocide and mass murder were considered reprehensible in 1915.

They just didn't make such a fuss over it... or any of the other atrocities happening at the time. But if it makes you feel better, pick another period, like the spanish inquisition (no one expects it).

Okay, let's pick the Spanish Inquisition, cardinals Ximinez, Fang, and Biggles, who delighted in making heretics feel the warm embrace of Holy Church.

The precise number of executions is difficult to determine due to gaps in the records, but modern scholarship has estimated the total death toll for the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition (in practice about 300 years) to be 3000-6000 people, roughly about half of whom were executed in the first 20 years. Excluding the initial 'sprint', these figures are similar to the number of death sentences handed out for similar offenses by courts in other parts of Europe. Such persecution was regretfully common in those days.

This does not excuse the activities of the Inquisition, of course, and they did hand out numbers of lesser punishments. They were also often accused of going after the rich, as a death sentence permitted the state to confiscate their properties, and the Inquisition was a useful tool to keep political opposition in check. But if you are going for the religious persecution angle, then the Spanish Inquisition does not really stand out that much from the crowd, regardless of their exaggerated reputation. It was a product of a dark, superstitious, and unenlightened age; just like the rest of them, a feature of the times. Not okay, but nothing to be singled out and condemned in particular, either.

In 1825, France was faced with a number of legitimate options on how to deal with their rebellious colony, and simply patting the haitians on the back and wishing them well just doesn't seem like it was realistically gonna happen and it didn't need to happen. The two of them struck a deal, and France delivered on it's side. The particulars of the deal and the methods of negotiation were in line with what was considered generally acceptable back then. In my view, and considering that things have changed since then, this is fair enough, even though some aspects might be considered more or less distasteful from a modern perspective.

Dude, even now the stronger country can treat the weaker one like shit...

I wasn't implying otherwise.

 

[GasBandit]

.

 

[Dave]

Damn you, Gas! You never leave your wingman!

 

[GasBandit]

I'm the kind of guy who, in super mario world, used to sacrifice yoshi off cliffs I could have jumped easily without doing so.

 

[@Li3n]

I lean more towards the 'shifting standards' side. I don't think an objective right and wrong really exists, it is pretty much all subjective in my view.

Even in the worst of regimes people still sought out some justification for the horrible things they where doing (they'd do the same to us, a higher power wants us to, we're saving them from themselves etc.), so at some level they knew it was wrong.

To elaborate a bit on my viewpoint, when dealing with things of the past and asked to make moral calls, I usually evaluate issues based heavily on the particulars of time and circumstance, and try to determine if the matter was considered acceptable or if it was unusual in some respect (according to some form of an idea of an average informed viewpoint back then). I do try to keep my personal modern values from interfering with that assessment, as I don't see them as being particularly relevant for the outcome.

I am indeed arguing that France in my opinion is not obligated to refund the compensation they received from Haiti. My reasoning goes that the method upon which the compensation was negotiated was not particularly unusual for the time, France had other legitimate options available to them which might have been worse for Haiti though perhaps more palatable to us, and the haitians did accept the arrangement. The fact that France later cut the sum by 40 percent is also a point in their favor.

The fact that they realised they where fucking them over too much is a point in their favour?!

And the situation at the time might be an attenuating circumstance (as is the fact that their country went through changes), but it's not really something that removes all responsibility.

Ah, okay. With that sentence I was mostly referring to the issue of third world debt relief in general, with an implication that the haitians also share a responsibility for the current financial woes of their country (effects of the earthquake excluded, of course).

Who said they did not?!

Okay, let's pick the Spanish Inquisition, cardinals Ximinez, Fang, and Biggles, who delighted in making heretics feel the warm embrace of Holy Church.

The precise number of executions is difficult to determine due to gaps in the records, but modern scholarship has estimated the total death toll for the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition (in practice about 300 years) to be 3000-6000 people, roughly about half of whom were executed in the first 20 years. Excluding the initial 'sprint', these figures are similar to the number of death sentences handed out for similar offenses by courts in other parts of Europe. Such persecution was regretfully common in those days.

This does not excuse the activities of the Inquisition, of course, and they did hand out numbers of lesser punishments. They were also often accused of going after the rich, as a death sentence permitted the state to confiscate their properties, and the Inquisition was a useful tool to keep political opposition in check. But if you are going for the religious persecution angle, then the Spanish Inquisition does not really stand out that much from the crowd, regardless of their exaggerated reputation. It was a product of a dark, superstitious, and unenlightened age; just like the rest of them, a feature of the times. Not okay, but nothing to be singled out and condemned in particular, either.

So i guess the Catholic Church (and Spain) has nothing to apologise for, not even the first 20 years. (and the Inquisition itself started earlier, with rather non-lethal methods, heck, heretics where simply excommunicated in teh first centuries of the Church) And as i recall the Inquisition didn't even handle the executions themselves (being priests and all) but let the local authorities handle that.

But it's not about the religious angle at all, it is about those very tihngs you mentioned, something which was even questioned at the time:

Sixtus IV promulgated a new bull categorically prohibiting the Inquisition's extension to Aragon, affirming that,

many true and faithful Christians, because of the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves and other low people—and still less appropriate—without tests of any kind, have been locked up in secular prisons, tortured and condemned like relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and properties, and given over to the secular arm to be executed, at great danger to their souls, giving a pernicious example and causing scandal to many.[8]
​

Which is why i pointed it out.

Might makes right will always be around, but i doubt anyone won't complain about it when used against them.

In 1825, France was faced with a number of legitimate options on how to deal with their rebellious colony, and simply patting the haitians on the back and wishing them well just doesn't seem like it was realistically gonna happen and it didn't need to happen. The two of them struck a deal, and France delivered on it's side. The particulars of the deal and the methods of negotiation were in line with what was considered generally acceptable back then. In my view, and considering that things have changed since then, this is fair enough, even though some aspects might be considered more or less distasteful from a modern perspective.

Dude, even now the stronger country can treat the weaker one like shit...

I wasn't implying otherwise.[/QUOTE]

You where implying it was acceptable at the time, and it isn't now... remember Iraq and how it's invation might not have been legal?! Did anyone ever bother making an official call on that?

 

[tegid]

I think the problem with the Haitian debt is not that France established it. It's understandable in its context etc. But 100 or 150 years later? You can not speak of 'the morals of the time', it was almost today!

 

[TommiR]

Even in the worst of regimes people still sought out some justification for the horrible things they where doing (they'd do the same to us, a higher power wants us to, we're saving them from themselves etc.), so at some level they knew it was wrong.

Throughout history, regimes have sought to put a positive spin to everything they do, 'good' or 'bad'. I view such as PR stunts and propaganda, and everybody does it.

The fact that they realised they where fucking them over too much is a point in their favour?!

The fact that they cut the amount Haiti had to pay by 40 % is a point in their favor.

Ah, okay. With that sentence I was mostly referring to the issue of third world debt relief in general, with an implication that the haitians also share a responsibility for the current financial woes of their country (effects of the earthquake excluded, of course).

Who said they did not?!

Huh? Several people in this thread have made the point that the debt Haiti owed France had a direct bearing on Haiti's financial woes. I don't see it in any way as inappropriate to point out that the haitians themselves have also had a big part in screwing up their own country.

So i guess the Catholic Church (and Spain) has nothing to apologise for, not even the first 20 years. (and the Inquisition itself started earlier, with rather non-lethal methods, heck, heretics where simply excommunicated in teh first centuries of the Church) And as i recall the Inquisition didn't even handle the executions themselves (being priests and all) but let the local authorities handle that.

But it's not about the religious angle at all, it is about those very tihngs you mentioned, something which was even questioned at the time:

Sixtus IV promulgated a new bull categorically prohibiting the Inquisition's extension to Aragon, affirming that,

many true and faithful Christians, because of the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves and other low people—and still less appropriate—without tests of any kind, have been locked up in secular prisons, tortured and condemned like relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and properties, and given over to the secular arm to be executed, at great danger to their souls, giving a pernicious example and causing scandal to many.[8]
​

Which is why i pointed it out.

This has a number of points I'd like to address, please forgive the unstructured presentation.

Spain has IMO about as much to apologise for as any other country which officially executed people for witchcraft, heresy and such things. Which means quite many countries in Europe. As the one who institutionalised these persecutions, the Catholic Church may shoulder more of the blame.

There were other forms of inquisitions earlier, but 'the Spanish Inquisition', which was what we were discussing, refers specifically to the institution set up by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1478.

Handing the condemned over to secular courts to be executed was standard operating procedure for the Spanish Inquisition, and has been taken into account in the 3000-6000 figure given earlier.

The Spanish Inquisition was not under the control of the Papacy, but reported directly to the Spanish crown. In any government institution where you have a lot of power and little oversight, you are bound to get abuses. The papal bull can be considered in two ways: first, as a legitimate attempt to curb the early excesses, and second, as an attempt at a power grab to gain control of a religious institution not under papal sway. It failed on both counts, as did a renewed attempt in 1484.

In 1825, France was faced with a number of legitimate options on how to deal with their rebellious colony, and simply patting the haitians on the back and wishing them well just doesn't seem like it was realistically gonna happen and it didn't need to happen. The two of them struck a deal, and France delivered on it's side. The particulars of the deal and the methods of negotiation were in line with what was considered generally acceptable back then. In my view, and considering that things have changed since then, this is fair enough, even though some aspects might be considered more or less distasteful from a modern perspective.

Dude, even now the stronger country can treat the weaker one like shit...

I wasn't implying otherwise.

You where implying it was acceptable at the time, and it isn't now...

Seems to me you are confusing two very different things here. Just because something is considered unacceptable it does not mean it doesn't happen. And yeah, if the perpetrators are strong or important enough, they may well get away with it. It's called life, and it isn't fair.

I think the problem with the Haitian debt is not that France established it. It's understandable in its context etc. But 100 or 150 years later? You can not speak of 'the morals of the time', it was almost today!

Actually, the debt to France was fully repaid by 1879. If I understand correctly, then the rest of the time was to pay back creditors for the money Haiti had loaned to pay the french with.

 

[@Li3n]

Even in the worst of regimes people still sought out some justification for the horrible things they where doing (they'd do the same to us, a higher power wants us to, we're saving them from themselves etc.), so at some level they knew it was wrong.

Throughout history, regimes have sought to put a positive spin to everything they do, 'good' or 'bad'. I view such as PR stunts and propaganda, and everybody does it.
[/QUOTE]

That was kinda the point.

Ah, okay. With that sentence I was mostly referring to the issue of third world debt relief in general, with an implication that the haitians also share a responsibility for the current financial woes of their country (effects of the earthquake excluded, of course).

Who said they did not?!

Huh? Several people in this thread have made the point that the debt Haiti owed France had a direct bearing on Haiti's financial woes. I don't see it in any way as inappropriate to point out that the haitians themselves have also had a big part in screwing up their own country.

But that has little bearing on the part France played.

So i guess the Catholic Church (and Spain) has nothing to apologise for, not even the first 20 years. (and the Inquisition itself started earlier, with rather non-lethal methods, heck, heretics where simply excommunicated in teh first centuries of the Church) And as i recall the Inquisition didn't even handle the executions themselves (being priests and all) but let the local authorities handle that.

But it's not about the religious angle at all, it is about those very tihngs you mentioned, something which was even questioned at the time:

Sixtus IV promulgated a new bull categorically prohibiting the Inquisition's extension to Aragon, affirming that,

many true and faithful Christians, because of the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves and other low people—and still less appropriate—without tests of any kind, have been locked up in secular prisons, tortured and condemned like relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and properties, and given over to the secular arm to be executed, at great danger to their souls, giving a pernicious example and causing scandal to many.[8]
​

Which is why i pointed it out.

This has a number of points I'd like to address, please forgive the unstructured presentation.

Spain has IMO about as much to apologise for as any other country which officially executed people for witchcraft, heresy and such things. Which means quite many countries in Europe. As the one who institutionalised these persecutions, the Catholic Church may shoulder more of the blame.

There were other forms of inquisitions earlier, but 'the Spanish Inquisition', which was what we were discussing, refers specifically to the institution set up by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1478.

Handing the condemned over to secular courts to be executed was standard operating procedure for the Spanish Inquisition, and has been taken into account in the 3000-6000 figure given earlier.

The Spanish Inquisition was not under the control of the Papacy, but reported directly to the Spanish crown. In any government institution where you have a lot of power and little oversight, you are bound to get abuses. The papal bull can be considered in two ways: first, as a legitimate attempt to curb the early excesses, and second, as an attempt at a power grab to gain control of a religious institution not under papal sway. It failed on both counts, as did a renewed attempt in 1484.

In 1825, France was faced with a number of legitimate options on how to deal with their rebellious colony, and simply patting the haitians on the back and wishing them well just doesn't seem like it was realistically gonna happen and it didn't need to happen. The two of them struck a deal, and France delivered on it's side. The particulars of the deal and the methods of negotiation were in line with what was considered generally acceptable back then. In my view, and considering that things have changed since then, this is fair enough, even though some aspects might be considered more or less distasteful from a modern perspective.

Dude, even now the stronger country can treat the weaker one like shit...

I wasn't implying otherwise.

You where implying it was acceptable at the time, and it isn't now...

Seems to me you are confusing two very different things here. Just because something is considered unacceptable it does not mean it doesn't happen. And yeah, if the perpetrators are strong or important enough, they may well get away with it. It's called life, and it isn't fair.

Dude, the Pope's reasons weren't important, what was important is the criticism used, because it must have been considered morally valid at the time for it to be included. The rest is like you said, is simply getting away with it. Maybe at the time getting away with it was more widespread, but frankly i think it was just more in the open.

As for the Church institutionalizing it... someone needs to take a closer look at history to see that nation states used religious reason as excuses to persecute people with or without the Catholic Church.

 

[TommiR]

Even in the worst of regimes people still sought out some justification for the horrible things they where doing (they'd do the same to us, a higher power wants us to, we're saving them from themselves etc.), so at some level they knew it was wrong.

Throughout history, regimes have sought to put a positive spin to everything they do, 'good' or 'bad'. I view such as PR stunts and propaganda, and everybody does it.
[/QUOTE]

That was kinda the point.[/QUOTE]

Then I'm glad we are in agreement. For a moment there, I thought you were saying that governments distort the truth because they somehow know they are doing wrong.

Ah, okay. With that sentence I was mostly referring to the issue of third world debt relief in general, with an implication that the haitians also share a responsibility for the current financial woes of their country (effects of the earthquake excluded, of course).

Who said they did not?!

Huh? Several people in this thread have made the point that the debt Haiti owed France had a direct bearing on Haiti's financial woes. I don't see it in any way as inappropriate to point out that the haitians themselves have also had a big part in screwing up their own country.

But that has little bearing on the part France played.

So does third world debt relief. Both were points in a line of argumentation in a debate I was having with other people.

Edited to add: Or are you referring to the the part the french indemnity plays in Haiti's current situation? If so, then I'm not sure one can take such a narrow viewpoint and parcel out Haiti's troubles like that; it's much too complicated an issue. If the gist of the argument is that Haiti is in bad shape today, then one really needs to figure in any other reasons for it as well IMO.

Dude, the Pope's reasons weren't important, what was important is the criticism used, because it must have been considered morally valid at the time for it to be included. The rest is like you said, is simply getting away with it. Maybe at the time getting away with it was more widespread, but frankly i think it was just more in the open.

As I said, in my view part of it was legitimate criticism against the early excesses and abuses of the Spanish Inquisition, that were on a scale that was out of the ordinary and towards which such criticism was valid at the time. I don't see a problem here.

As for the Church institutionalizing it... someone needs to take a closer look at history to see that nation states used religious reason as excuses to persecute people with or without the Catholic Church.

I think anyone who has ever opened a history book in their lives will know that religious persecution was around long before anyone had even heard of Christianity, much less the Catholic Church. For an example of medieval non-church religious persecution, jews were expelled from many lands by royal decree without any direct links to church authorities. As to inquisitions, I guess you could define the term as broadly as you like, but as far as medieval christian Europe (and after the emergence of Protestantism, the catholic part of the world) is concerned, Inquisitions were chuch organs, several of them established with direct papal approval.

 

[@Li3n]

Even in the worst of regimes people still sought out some justification for the horrible things they where doing (they'd do the same to us, a higher power wants us to, we're saving them from themselves etc.), so at some level they knew it was wrong.

Throughout history, regimes have sought to put a positive spin to everything they do, 'good' or 'bad'. I view such as PR stunts and propaganda, and everybody does it.
[/QUOTE]

That was kinda the point.[/QUOTE]

Then I'm glad we are in agreement. For a moment there, I thought you were saying that governments distort the truth because they somehow know they are doing wrong.[/QUOTE]

No, they do it because people might not accept it otherwise, when bad, or might not accept it as well as they want when good... which tells you more about the morals of the day then anything. What actually was going on doesn't, because i'm sure people in the future will have a better idea of the crap that's going on behind the scenes then most people have atm (secret prisons in europe are still a thing last i heard).

It's people that make up their own justifications for doing bad stuff...

Edited to add: Or are you referring to the the part the french indemnity plays in Haiti's current situation? If so, then I'm not sure one can take such a narrow viewpoint and parcel out Haiti's troubles like that; it's much too complicated an issue. If the gist of the argument is that Haiti is in bad shape today, then one really needs to figure in any other reasons for it as well IMO.

The poor are more likely to stay poor, and having such a bad start surely contributed to the development of the country. Of course it's only part of the problem, but ignoring it isn't gonna help either, just like ignoring the other parts won't.

As I said, in my view part of it was legitimate criticism against the early excesses and abuses of the Spanish Inquisition, that were on a scale that was out of the ordinary and towards which such criticism was valid at the time. I don't see a problem here.

Then why bother arguing, my point was about the early abuses, so i don't get why you mentioned it leveling out later... plenty of empires/countries stopped being genocidal, doesn't mean they're innocent now.

I think anyone who has ever opened a history book in their lives will know that religious persecution was around long before anyone had even heard of Christianity, much less the Catholic Church. For an example of medieval non-church religious persecution, jews were expelled from many lands by royal decree without any direct links to church authorities. As to inquisitions, I guess you could define the term as broadly as you like, but as far as medieval christian Europe (and after the emergence of Protestantism, the catholic part of the world) is concerned, Inquisitions were church organs, several of them established with direct papal approval.

Glad to know we weren't in Europe at the time...

Also, i don't understand if your arguing something or just clearing up some historical facts with this part.

 

[TommiR]

Even in the worst of regimes people still sought out some justification for the horrible things they where doing (they'd do the same to us, a higher power wants us to, we're saving them from themselves etc.), so at some level they knew it was wrong.

Throughout history, regimes have sought to put a positive spin to everything they do, 'good' or 'bad'. I view such as PR stunts and propaganda, and everybody does it.
[/QUOTE]

That was kinda the point.[/QUOTE]

Then I'm glad we are in agreement. For a moment there, I thought you were saying that governments distort the truth because they somehow know they are doing wrong.[/QUOTE]

No, they do it because people might not accept it otherwise, when bad, or might not accept it as well as they want when good... which tells you more about the morals of the day then anything. What actually was going on doesn't, because i'm sure people in the future will have a better idea of the crap that's going on behind the scenes then most people have atm (secret prisons in europe are still a thing last i heard).

It's people that make up their own justifications for doing bad stuff... [/QUOTE]

But those morals of the day are not fixed, they can and do change. I understood Soliloquy's question to be about whether or not there exists an objective right and wrong, something that is universal and constant regardless of time and circumstance.

The poor are more likely to stay poor, and having such a bad start surely contributed to the development of the country. Of course it's only part of the problem, but ignoring it isn't gonna help either, just like ignoring the other parts won't.

The way I saw it, you were taking issue with me pointing out that people are ignoring those other parts...

That aside, Haiti did experience a period of relative economic growth and modernisation during the 1880s, even with the shadow of the french indemnity still looming above them in the form of payments to creditors. The brief period of prosperity soon ended with internal rebellion, but it did include several improvements to the conditions there. Also, the U.S. occupation of Haiti (1915-1934) provided an unprecedented level of order to the country, and infrastructure, public health, education, and various other fields were greatly improved. U.S. officials ensured that haitian government fiscal policy was kept in line. There were problems with the occupation as well, but they mainly had to do with political and civil freedoms.

It would be easy and convenient to point a finger at the french and say "They dunnit" when talking about Haiti's current problems, but it's not exactly as if Haiti never had chances of making a functional country out of itself, regardless of the indemnity that happened some 200 years ago. Sadly, those chances have been wasted. I view this factor to be of vastly greater relevance to Haiti's current situation than the french indemnity ever was.

As I said, in my view part of it was legitimate criticism against the early excesses and abuses of the Spanish Inquisition, that were on a scale that was out of the ordinary and towards which such criticism was valid at the time. I don't see a problem here.

Then why bother arguing, my point was about the early abuses, so i don't get why you mentioned it leveling out later... plenty of empires/countries stopped being genocidal, doesn't mean they're innocent now.

I felt it useful to clarify that the Pope was not criticising the Inquisition per se or the methods it employed (torture, executions etc), but rather indeed the early abuses.

As to the genocide part, if everyone were genocidal at that time, who are we to judge from centuries in the future? We might view the goings-on back then as horrible and barbaric, but at the end of the day, what claim do we have to any form of 'Ultimate Wisdom' on what is set-in-stone right and wrong? There's no guarantee people 1000 years into the future will think anything like us, and the truths we may hold to be self-evident today could be nothing but a footnote in history to them. Are we (and our descendants by association) really responsible to them for our behavior, even though we have no clue as to how they will think we should have acted? Are the people of the distant past responsible to us and our truths?

The precise number of executions is difficult to determine due to gaps in the records, but modern scholarship has estimated the total death toll for the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition (in practice about 300 years) to be 3000-6000 people, roughly about half of whom were executed in the first 20 years. Excluding the initial 'sprint', these figures are similar to the number of death sentences handed out for similar offenses by courts in other parts of Europe.

So i guess the Catholic Church (and Spain) has nothing to apologise for, not even the first 20 years.

Spain has IMO about as much to apologise for as any other country which officially executed people for witchcraft, heresy and such things. Which means quite many countries in Europe. As the one who institutionalised these persecutions, the Catholic Church may shoulder more of the blame.

As for the Church institutionalizing it... someone needs to take a closer look at history to see that nation states used religious reason as excuses to persecute people with or without the Catholic Church.

I think anyone who has ever opened a history book in their lives will know that religious persecution was around long before anyone had even heard of Christianity, much less the Catholic Church. For an example of medieval non-church religious persecution, jews were expelled from many lands by royal decree without any direct links to church authorities. As to inquisitions, I guess you could define the term as broadly as you like, but as far as medieval christian Europe (and after the emergence of Protestantism, the catholic part of the world) is concerned, Inquisitions were chuch organs, several of them established with direct papal approval.

Glad to know we weren't in Europe at the time...

Also, i don't understand if your arguing something or just clearing up some historical facts with this part.

The above is what I thought was the relevant line of discussion for this.

We were discussing the Spanish Inquisition and what responsibility the Spanish state and the Catholic Church had in it. You point out that not all religious persecution happened under the Church (along with implying that I do not know my history), I said it didn't and provided an example but that the Inquisitions (which were what we were talking about after all) did happen under the Church.

I'm not really getting what you mean about us not being in Europe at the time.

 

[@Li3n]

It's people that make up their own justifications for doing bad stuff...

But those morals of the day are not fixed, they can and do change. I understood Soliloquy's question to be about whether or not there exists an objective right and wrong, something that is universal and constant regardless of time and circumstance.[/QUOTE]

Murder was always wrong, even if the circumstances of what would be considered murder might change, and genocide was always denounced by everyone, as long as they where talking about the other side, while doing it themselves... hypocrisy was and is well spread you know. There are plenty of things people from all times would recognize as "wrong" as long as you put it in a way that affect them (even only emotionally). Slavery was compatible with freedom because blacks weren't human, same thing foe women in Ancient Greece/Athens...

The way I saw it, you were taking issue with me pointing out that people are ignoring those other parts...

Well then, i guess this was more of a misunderstanding then anything... but it sure did look like in the beginning you where saying that it contributed nothing.

I felt it useful to clarify that the Pope was not criticising the Inquisition per se or the methods it employed (torture, executions etc), but rather indeed the early abuses.

You mean the early abuses of using torture to extract false confessions?! You're reading it as the political tool it was, and not the appeal to morals it used in the Pope's political attempt.

As to the genocide part, if everyone were genocidal at that time, who are we to judge from centuries in the future? We might view the goings-on back then as horrible and barbaric, but at the end of the day, what claim do we have to any form of 'Ultimate Wisdom' on what is set-in-stone right and wrong? There's no guarantee people 1000 years into the future will think anything like us, and the truths we may hold to be self-evident today could be nothing but a footnote in history to them. Are we (and our descendants by association) really responsible to them for our behaviour, even though we have no clue as to how they will think we should have acted? Are the people of the distant past responsible to us and our truths?

But we do.... just look at all the european chronicles condemning Genghis Khan while their own people employed very similar methods.

"Everybody else is doing it!" was always a lame excuse.

We were discussing the Spanish Inquisition and what responsibility the Spanish state and the Catholic Church had in it. You point out that not all religious persecution happened under the Church (along with implying that I do not know my history), I said it didn't and provided an example but that the Inquisitions (which were what we were talking about after all) did happen under the Church.

While being under the direct control of the Spanish monarchy?! (the spanish one i mean)...

I'm not really getting what you mean about us not being in Europe at the time.

I was talking about us, not you guys... you obviously didn't read enough if you think Catholic Europe came about after Luther.

 

[TommiR]

No, they do it because people might not accept it otherwise, when bad, or might not accept it as well as they want when good... which tells you more about the morals of the day then anything. What actually was going on doesn't, because i'm sure people in the future will have a better idea of the crap that's going on behind the scenes then most people have atm (secret prisons in europe are still a thing last i heard).

It's people that make up their own justifications for doing bad stuff...

But those morals of the day are not fixed, they can and do change. I understood Soliloquy's question to be about whether or not there exists an objective right and wrong, something that is universal and constant regardless of time and circumstance.[/QUOTE]

Murder was always wrong, even if the circumstances of what would be considered murder might change, and genocide was always denounced by everyone, as long as they where talking about the other side, while doing it themselves... hypocrisy was and is well spread you know. There are plenty of things people from all times would recognize as "wrong" as long as you put it in a way that affect them (even only emotionally). Slavery was compatible with freedom because blacks weren't human, same thing foe women in Ancient Greece/Athens... [/QUOTE]

This is kind of my point. As you said, what constitutes murder changes with the times. But so does what people consider right and wrong. Murder itself is simply a label people put on unlawful killing, which tells one little of their morals. It is what they consider to be unlawful killing (murder) which is the significant factor in determining the morals of the day in that part at least, IMO.

As to genocide, I am aware of relatively few (though some) instances in history where large groups were targeted for extermination solely because of their race or culture, so I am interpreting your meaning of genocide in this case to be mass killing, and that people who were negatively affected by it in any significant way have always thought it was wrong. This is quite probably true to an extent, people have a tendency to view things which are bad for them or theirs in a negative light, no matter what it is. Hypocrisy and double standards? Perhaps. Conclusive evidence of something being objectively wrong? I don't really see it, at least not if the perception of the 'bad' thing (whatever it may be) is largely based on the victims complaining about it. (DISCLAIMER: No-one should take this as me endorsing mass killings. I think they are wrong and horrible, and apparently the majority of the people think the same. But what I think doesn't really matter on the level we're talking about, objectiveness in the grand scheme of things)

On slavery, what you say may be true in part for the perceptions of the time of the slave trade from Africa. But debt bondage, indentured servitude and sale of war captives as slaves are a couple of examples of cases where people who often were considered completely human and perfectly free before the fact were reduced to a condition and status that modern understanding largely classifies as slavery.

On women's rights, if you mean inequality with men then you don't need to go as far back in history as ancient Athens. With a few cultures as exceptions, you could ask any person who lived say before the 20th century (to be sure) if the women in his/her culture have the same rights and opportunities as their male counterparts. I believe the honest answer would be "No".

The way I saw it, you were taking issue with me pointing out that people are ignoring those other parts...

Well then, i guess this was more of a misunderstanding then anything... but it sure did look like in the beginning you where saying that it contributed nothing.

... The effects of this reparation (for which the money was borrowed from foreign banks at quite a high rate of interest) might well have had a greatly negative impact on the development of Haiti...

^ Maybe you missed that ^

Though it is true that I view the french indemnity to have contributed markedly less to Haiti's current situation than many of the other factors.

I felt it useful to clarify that the Pope was not criticising the Inquisition per se or the methods it employed (torture, executions etc), but rather indeed the early abuses.

You mean the early abuses of using torture to extract false confessions?!

No, I mean the early abuses of using torture to extract false confessions from the wrong people - wrong people according to the Pope, that is. Torture was an acceptable means of interrogation and punishment in serious crimes back in the day.

As to the genocide part, if everyone were genocidal at that time, who are we to judge from centuries in the future? We might view the goings-on back then as horrible and barbaric, but at the end of the day, what claim do we have to any form of 'Ultimate Wisdom' on what is set-in-stone right and wrong? There's no guarantee people 1000 years into the future will think anything like us, and the truths we may hold to be self-evident today could be nothing but a footnote in history to them. Are we (and our descendants by association) really responsible to them for our behaviour, even though we have no clue as to how they will think we should have acted? Are the people of the distant past responsible to us and our truths?

But we do.... just look at all the european chronicles condemning Genghis Khan while their own people employed very similar methods.

"Everybody else is doing it!" was always a lame excuse.

One could say that the deeds attributed to Genghis Khan by the chronicles were unusual for the time at least in their scale. Even the things that really happened seem to be.

On a bit of a tangent, regardless of what some medieval chroniclers would have their readers believe, the designated enemies of the day were usually not in league with netherworldly powers, rarely fielded demons, vampires or werewolves as part of their forces, and seldom engaged in death and destruction for it's own sake or kicked puppies and ate babies for teh lulz. They did engage in deliberate death and destruction, but, assuming rational leaders, there was usually a reason for it. Perhaps a scare tactic, or a reward for the troops or in lieu of paying their wages they were set loose on a conquered city and given free reign for a couple of days, or a strategic policy of creating an empty area around their territory as a security cordon, or a number of other such rational motives. Still, the writers of the time were not unknown to exaggerate, especially if they had a stake in the matter. The first casualty of war is the truth and all that.

We were discussing the Spanish Inquisition and what responsibility the Spanish state and the Catholic Church had in it. You point out that not all religious persecution happened under the Church (along with implying that I do not know my history), I said it didn't and provided an example but that the Inquisitions (which were what we were talking about after all) did happen under the Church.

While being under the direct control of the Spanish monarchy?! (the spanish one i mean)...

Yes. Specifically sanctioned by the Pope, administered by the spanish clergy, operating under the spanish crown. Can't really say the Church wasn't involved.

I'm not really getting what you mean about us not being in Europe at the time.

I was talking about us, not you guys... you obviously didn't read enough if you think Catholic Europe came about after Luther.

Oh for fuck's sake...

I don't know which orifice you drew that conclusion out of. I understand it is a common internet debating tactic to be deliberately obtuse and purposefully misinterpret the other's points to mean the asinine, but most quote miners usually at least come up with strawmen made of things that weren't covered in elementary school.

Go ahead, find a single instance in this thread or elsewhere where I have said anything about Catholic Europe coming about after Luther. I dare you.