...the same as Hitler would have found another automotive plant, and when the all powerful leader of a country comes to you and tells you to give them a hairdo or build them a car, you generally do.
First, in the eyes of America, Hitler was most certainly not an all powerful leader yet in 1939 when Americans were still calling it the European war. And, who knows the direction the war would have taken had the American automobile industry refused to provide product. Maybe they'd all be Russian cars, but when one strategic mistake can have dire consequences in a war, who's to say this wouldn't have had a tremendous and potentially defeating blow to the German army. As I'm sure you read in the article, Henry Ford personally vetoed a plan to produce the Rolls-Royce engines for the British planes. Now, if he was concerned about making as much money as he could off the war, why did he do this?
The example of Ford is a very specific one: not only did they aid in the mass production of automobiles for the German army, they turned a blind eye to enlsaved workers, and they *allegedly* continued to do business with Germany *after* the U.S made it illegal in 1941.
I haven't been advocating the kill-Marie-Antoinette's-hairdresser theory (though, I never liked her hair), I'm saying this is a very specific example within a certain context in which the principle of war crimes and restitution can be applied. And, you know, Adolf's style consultant didn't do near the kind of damage as Ford's German automobiles did. Sure, Adolf would have killed his hairdresser if she didn't oblige, but what was he going to do to Henry Ford, in America, under the government's protection? Threaten to take Ford's picture down from his wall? Ask for the German medal back that he personally gave to Ford. [I'm sorry, but when the Fuhrer gives me a medal and brags about my picture hanging on his wall, I'd have to be some fool to be flattered by it.]
One of the reasons the lawsuits were going on long after the war is the information wasn't available until recently and Ford motor company wasn't complying to any request to see such documentation. I mean, *how* long ago was it that the Catholic church finally said "sorry" for supporting Hitler?
Still, I'm in agreement with you on not taking this to an extreme and suing Levi's for the cotton in their jeans, but neither do I think it appropriate when new information is found to simply say, "oh well, it's all in the past now. Buck up Mr. Victim and give us money to save sweat shops." And here I find myself, yet again, quoting the timeless words of Jan Brady, "...But what about [their] needs!"
Okay, well, now I need a beer. Until tomorrow! And, just so you know, all your points are really well taken.
Kevin,
This is actually a more in-depth, less biased reference to the Ford lawsuit article I linked to in my previous note:
Ford Lawsuit
With Ford Motors and Cisco, both of those things were happening legally with the US government's blessing, so I'd park the blame there instead if I have to park it anywhere, since it's not likely either the Nazis or the Chinese government said to the respective companies "Thank you, these should work splendidly to help us hunt and kill our own citizens!"
Kevin,
I understand the point you're making here and there's sense to it, but using the same logic...the German government sanctioned the extermination of Jews. That doesn't excuse the individuals and corporations who willingly jumped on the kill-all-the-Jews bandwagon. I'll grant the choices were limited in Germany (either you complied or you fled or you died), but the U.S. is different in that the U.S. government may have permitted it, but they certainly didn't encourage it or make it a law.
I don't know whether or not the Chinese government thanked Cisco for their contribution toward oppressing their people, but there's a lot of evidence suggesting this was exactly the case with Hitler and Ford. A few references:
Holocaust Studies
Ford Lawsuit
Just because a government legalizes thud behavior shouldn't excuse the thud. Sure, the government's responsible for sanctioning the crime. But so is the person or institution that perpetrated it.
In regards to investing, one certainly can't know everything but there is a reasonable amount of knowledge that can be gained about any company. Acting off of a hot stock tip without doing the research yourself might get you rich, but it might bankrupt you if you didn't spend the time getting publicly available facts about the company.
I don't mean to say that if you unwittingly invested in some company who was later proven to have ties to terrorism that you should be brought up on charges.
Anyhow, your points are well taken. We may see things a bit differently on this subject, but as I said before, it's not something I'm completely sure about, so there's much to still consider.
For example, my grandfather invested heavily in German railway stock, being an economist and knowing this would likely survive the war. It didn't save his life, but it did end up providing for a lot, including college funds for myself and all my cousins.
Kevin, your points are well taken and as I said earlier, this is not such an easy question for me. I do think, though, that stockholders are responsible for discovering as much about a company as is publicly available before investing, and if they don't do the research and the company's poor performance or illegal ties comes back to bite them, well, it's on the investor *if the information was knowable.*
This is not to speak at all to your grandfather's investment. I have no idea of his context, whether or not he knew or had the ability to know the railroads were transporting Jews to their eventual deaths. But, if he did know, and invested anyway, I would say *his* return would be subject to fines. It's like investing in real estate when one *knows* that property was bought with drug money. It's the risk of being part of something illegal.
Now, should *you* have to pay any fines with the money you received as part of your grandfather's investment. Of course, that doesn't seem fair and you made excellent points about the initial investors who might have known about the nature of their investments have already made and spent their money. Does the torch pass to you? I'd have to say no on that. I'm not a fan of the current Holocaust tax which Germans still have to pay today (I think...maybe they stopped it a couple years ago?), because what the hell did any of them have to do with the holocaust? It is a classic case of the son paying for the sins of the father.
But, you know, what if you've amassed a huge amount of wealth based on the specific investments into Nazi-supported companies at the time they were supporting them (Ford Motor being a huge one), I would say, should those companies be forced into a settlement and if you still have stock in the company, you would be responsible for either selling your stock or you'd have to the take lumps of a depleted stock. After all, if you invested in Ford during the war and your stock quadrupled due to the German based Ford factories supplying military vehicles to the Nazi's...because you personally profited from that and because your money supported it, I'd say it's subject to fine.
There's an interesting thing with Cisco stock. I don't own any, but my husband does, and I'm sure I'll be all too happy to take part in any profit we make from selling the stock. But, an interesting tidbit on Cisco: they've been accused of supplying highly customized firewalls and software designed *spefically* for China in order to spy on their citizens and prevent them from reaching certain websites. This has allegedly resulted in numerous arrests of Chinese citizens who simply searched for "Chinese Independence." Whether or not or to what extent this is true, it's still information I need to be aware of as an investor and if ever some financial restitution were to result, either in depleted stock or actual fines, I think I'd be responsible if I invested in the company.
Just how, to what extent, after what date, and what kind of money we're talking about, I'm just not sure about. Alas, I'm at the same place I started.
Dave,
Being that you're Australian, I'm certain you know far more about the Aboriginal plight than I, so I'll defer to your historical knowledge if I get something wrong.
First, I'm not sure where I stand on AA. As a principle I'd have to say I'm against discrimination of any kind, including some forms of reverse discrimination that have resulted from AA practices (I keep wanting to spell out Alcoholics Anonymous ;-). Anyhow, I'm inclined to believe that as a race which suffered grievous wrongs for hundreds of years there is a time period in which it's appropriate to compensate that race and that time period should have something to do with how long it takes a new generation of that race to come out from under the cloud of its enslaved past (education-wise, health-wise, opportunity-wise).
As an example, slavery in America officially ended in 1865 with the ratification of the 13th ammendment, but Reconstruction lasted much longer, and the actual acceptance of the end of slavery, well, there's some folk who *still* do't accept it... Now that black people were freed, they were left with little or no education, no money, little or no skills (except those they learned while being forced to work on plantations), and a hell of a lot of justified hatred. Slaves were never given the opportunity to pursue their own happiness and create any kind of wealth to pass along to their generations, so it seems only fair to institute reparations for the whole race until such time as that race is on equal footing with the race that enslaved it. Just *what* is that time frame? Well, you got me there. I'm not so sure, but I'm inclined to think, some 150 years later, maybe it's not so much of a financial or educational issue as it was a hundred years ago. African-Americans still suffer tremendous prejudice in this country, but I don't know how many of them still suffer from the injustices of slavery, between which I think it's important to note, there is a difference.
But I think it's too soon to be comparing this with the Stolen Generations (I checked, I can capitalize it!) of the Aboriginal people. From 1910 all the way up to 1970 Aboriginal children were forcibly removed from their homes, separated, and sent to rehabilitation schools where they had their cultures scrubbed from their lives. They were taught to integrate with white Australians as, basically, slaves: mistreated, malnourished, raped, even killed. There are displaced children living today still searching for their families.
The example you gave of your friend who drives a nice car, has a nice house, takes nice vacations, I wonder what the whole context is. Does she have missing family members, an aunt, or uncle, or grandmother who endured the terrible tragedy of being ripped from their homes? And I guess even if she doesn't know someone personally, less than 35 years ago her government wanted to eradicate her race. What do you think she thinks of that?
Like I said when I started this note, I'm deferring to you if I've gotten my facts wrong on this. A couple years ago I saw the movie "Rabbit-Proof Fence" and was motivated to do more research on the subject. Perhaps in 150 years when reparations are still being made to the Aboriginal people we can compare it to American slavery.
And, after all, *you* personally didn't take part in displacing these children (as far as I know), so you might be wondering why you should pay for it (as I wonder why I should pay for slave reparations or my father, who is German and was 10 years old when WWII ended should pay for the holocaust). That's where things get fuzzy for me. I'm in favor of finding all the people (including corporations who ever supported such crimes) actually responsible and taking *their* money.
Anyhow, those are my convoluted thoughts. It's a difficult topic for me so I'm glad we're threading it.
I fear it may not be possible to separate the term 'marriage' back out from the church's ownership grab. We may need to retreat from that battleground word in order to win the war of equality under the law for same-sex unions. I'd rather concentrate on securing equality under the law than trying to win back the rights to a co-opted word. For now.
I agree with the latter part of this (concentrating on securing equality under the law...). But I think in order to do that, the fight is ultimately rooted in the word, because if it weren't for the word, there wouldn't be the fight.
The church can claim whatever 'ownership' they want to whatever words, but if we let them win the battle on the word, it's only a matter of time that they win the war on the meaning, and then the law. These things happen in small steps and often it's the concession of a seemingly inconsequential dispute on semantics that loses it all.
Consider the word "citizen" as applies to whites and blacks. What if, instead of declaring blacks born in the U.S free citizens, we declared them free citizen-like people (like a civil union is like a marriage): they have all the benefits of citizenship, they just don't have the name. Or, we call women who can vote women with voting-like rights? It's ANIMAL FARM all over: they're all equal, some are just more equal than others, because the more equal ones, in this case, get the use of a special name.
If you compromise on the word, I think you've started out losing the battle, because by backing down you've already admitted to your opponent you don't need the name, you just want the privilege and that's an inequality in itself. This is an all or nothing deal. Any compromise merely makes the opposition stronger for future morality based legislation.
Personally, I'm very picky about the words I have the right to own, 'moral' being one of them. I grew up Christian (Lutheran, Baptist, Pentacostal, Episcopalian, I did it all). Later in life, I had a reverse Paul the Apostle experience. I shed my Christian faith and replaced it with agnosticism because I was too afraid of proclaiming myself an atheist (that, and philosophically atheism is quite different from agnostocism). Why? Because popular culture held that atheists weren't moral people. It took me years to really understand what was going on: that religious organizations had cornered the market on morality and they'd be damned if they were going to give it up...and I bought into it, hook, line and sinker. Admitting you're an atheist is still a stigma...like you're expected to sacrifice goats and rob banks at any moment...but at least now I fight for the right to my word: moral. [I feel like the Jan Brady of atheism to the Marsha Brady of religion: "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha! It's always about Marsha. What about MY needs!"]
Gay people have the right to these words, too. They have the right to say, "we're married," NOT "we're civil-unioned." There IS a difference, and while the government shouldn't be in the business of attributing religious meanings to the word 'marriage,' by allowing another phrase (civil-union) to stand alongside it as though there were no difference, those who concede to it have just introduced religion into the law.
Dave, thanks for clearing up your point on homosexual marriage *not* hurting the institution.
I'll go back to the most important point of my earlier post: to hold as superior the rights of an institution (marriage) over the rights of an individual (homosexuals) is going against everything this country, this constitution stands for (equal rights for *all* people, not just some of them, or those of them who don't offend others). Regardless of the countless and well-reasoned logical arguments you have in favor of keeping legal gay marriage banned (and any other compromise maintains the banned stated), gay people are still denied the right to form a legal union called marriage. This is a breach of the two consenting adult's rights who happen to be homosexual.
In regards to this:
I hold that marriage is a social institution the primary purpose of which is to provide the means to bring up the offspring of the sexual relationship which it includes. If that is true, then homosexual relationships cannot be marriages.
It doesn't matter what the *purpose* of a thing is. Let's say that, indeed, this was the reason marriage was invented (which, I don't agree with, but for the sake of argument, will concede it). If this is being used as the reason for why an institution should not be ammended to include a certain type of person from its benefits, then you must logically enforce its purpose. Meaning, you must force all married people to attempt to conceive a child or adopt one.
It helps to know why an institution was created for general knowledge but the only thing that this government should protect (instead of the institutions) is the individual whose rights are being subjugated for the sake of the sanctity of an institution, which, in this case, again, is the homosexual.
Hi Dave, this is Jax. I don't comment much, but in reading this, I got a bit confused. When you say this:
...why then would I accept as a marriage a heterosexual union that does not or could not produce offspring? My answer is the conservative one: because it has always been so and it harms no-one...
I'm not sure what you're implying, so I'm guessing you mean a heterosexual marriage (not resulting in offspring) is okay because it's the custom and it doesn't hurt anyone. I get that. But you also seem to be implying the counter theory that homosexual marriage is not okay because it is not the custom and it hurts someone, but in an earlier post you stated the Britney marriage did not harm her (i.e., someONE) but rather the moral sanctity of marriage (an institution).
Then you said:
...social institutions are not perfect fits to every individual. They never were, and never could be. The question is whether they meet society's need, not that of every individual.
So, first you said homosexual marriage is wrong because it hurts someone (read: individual), then you said particular institutions are okay in spite of certain individuals getting hurt? Am I completely misunderstanding you here? If so, please correct me.
Though, when you say the question is whether society's need is met over that of the individual, I'd have to say my understanding of the Constitution is the exact opposite of that. First and foremost this country is about protecting individual rights. This was the country men founded to get away from social institutions that only seemed fair for a certain group of people. If we still held the right of a social institution as supreme over the right of the individual, we'd still have slavery, and women wouldn't be able to vote or participate in the Olympics, to name a few.
In my opinion I don't think the question should be so much what institution will get hurt if we allow gay-marriage as much as what individuals will be harmed by denying them a right others have. And those individuals, in this case, are homosexuals.
Again, if I've misunderstood your position, please correct me.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 9 |
Total: 9 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Jax:
Show all comments by Jax.