“Fairness” should likely be defined by what the law has historically limited it to, to those directly impacted by an action.

I cannot sue someone who wronged my great-great grandfather 120 years ago. Likewise, I cannot be sued for something my great-great grandfather had done.

The concept of legacy damages is ridiculous. I am approximately half Polish, a people that was systematically abused over many centuries by Russians, Germans, and even Mongols. Do I file the lawsuit in The Hague or Ulan Bator?

I am part Irish. Do I get recompense from London, Rome, and any decendent of a store owner in America with an “Irish Need Not Apply” sign in the window?

I am also part Native-American. Do I receive funds from the American government, European countries, or all of the above? Do I sue myself as well because there were Scotch-Irish pushing Native-Americans out of Appalachia?

Now, I acknowledge that you have not explicitly called for damages, but you certainly seem to imply it.

ALL people belong to cultures, nations, races that have both perpetrated awful crimes and been the victims. Yet, I have heard of no Poles asking Mongolia for compensation or using it as an excuse for personal failure.

As I stated prior, there are many people of humble beginnings from all over the world that come here and prosper. They do this despite looking different, speaking different languages, having little pre-knowledge of our culture, and having absolutely no generational wealth.

I don’t disagree about “changes in economic circumstances”–my argument is that we start from different baselines in an identifiable way.

Studies of actual individual persons show that most of us experience substantial changes in economic circumstances durinng our lifetime, both upward and downward.

Your findings from a “study” you cannot cite makes little logical sense. Many groups (some white, some not), have immigrated to this country with as little or less generational wealth as the groups you have mentioned and prospered greatly, many in the last couple of generations.

Tell the Irish, Italians, Jews, Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, Koreans, and Bosnians that they cannot succeed in this country because of a lack of generational wealth. And I failed to mention Mexicans, who come into this country illegally by the truckload despite having none of the generational wealth you imply is necessary for success.

And two, questions:

1) Could you define “fairness” in relation to, how would you make it fair?

2) Does fairness have an expiration date?

It’s not a question of guilt. It’s a question of fairness.

PS–I loved Avatar as a movie. I didn’t bother to think deeply about the plot, though–it’s James Cameron, a bad script it to be expected.

I do feel that Stephen gave as even-handed assessment as he is capable, but that is as far as I can go with a compliment. The post is still replete with haughty and unsubstantiated assertions based upon a bent history.

He takes a swipe at Texas without a shred of knowledge (I suspect) regarding what is actually in the new standards. He pre-judged them through the lense of the Progressive echo chamber to which he belongs. Be honest Stephen, have you read the standards?

From those standards:

“G) analyze federal and state Indian policies and the reasons for the removal and resettlement of Cherokee Indians during the Jacksonian era, including the Indian Removal Act, Worcester v. Georgia, and the Trail of Tears.”

So yes, the Trail of Tears will still be taught in Texas. For heaven’s sake, Stephen, do you even have a clue? What is so bad about inserting the FACTS that we are not a democracy, that McCarthey’s fear of communist infiltration was well-founded despite what you think about his tactics, and that FDR relied on teachings of a Socialist “economist?” What scares you so much about going back to teaching the DoI, the US Constitution, and the Federalist papers other than the hopelessness of the Progressive agenda if Americans knew what was in them?

Why do Progressives have to hide behind faux history instead of debating in the light of day?

No country has held such power and wielded it more responsibly, yet we are under the constant barrage of absolutely insane criticisms that we are somehow the festering tumor on the world’s behind. There is much for this country to be ashamed of but many times more reasons to be proud.

There is not a country/culture/ethnic group that has not enslaved and been enslaved, been the perpetrator of murder and been the victim, invaded or been invaded. None of these make a country noble or wicked. The deciding factor in that equation is the willingness and ability to learn from these successes and failures in a march towards equality and freedom.

In that regard, very few if any country/culture can even be mentioned in the same conversation.

I admire this post. It makes a lot of sense. I’d quibble with one point. Steven wrote, “In 1831, far more acculturated Indian groups were punted out of the South because we coveted their land.”

I don’t buy the word “we”. I wasn’t there. I didn’t commit those acts. Nor did my ancestors. Even if they had done so, I don’t believe that guilt moves from generation to generation. Whatever worldly goods I have in this country came from discipline and work by my parents and by my wife and myself, not from robbing Native Americans.