Why is guilt such a large part of western culture?

[Elegiac]

they aided because their other choice was death.

Yeah, no.

I'm certain that many people made the decision under duress, but trying to sweep the fact that Europe at the time wasn't exactly pro-Jewish under the rug is just dangerous revisionism. It's an attempt to try and cast the Holocaust off as a historical anomaly rather than as the product of a sociocultural environment - the Nazis were able to enact the Holocaust precisely because there was already a strong foundation of prejudice to exploit.

It's worth noting that the only written protest to the Axis' treatment of the Jews during the War was written by the Archbishop of Athens.

[schwank05]

This is something that always struck me as a bit off but why does guilt seem to play such a large role in the history of the west? From Canada with its Indian schools to Americans with slavery, and Europe with the holocaust.

Why is it that these issues seem to press so heavily on the mind of so many especially when the grand majority of people alive had nothing to do with them? Looking around the world this sort of culture seems to really only exist in the west what makes it stick around so long?

Most of us feel 0 guilt over something no one alive today had any cause or effect on. It's just a small vocal minority of people that talk about such stupid ass ideas as reparations for slavery, something which again no one alive today had anything to do with.

[roboscorcher]

This is something that always struck me as a bit off but why does guilt seem to play such a large role in the history of the west? From Canada with its Indian schools to Americans with slavery, and Europe with the holocaust.

Why is it that these issues seem to press so heavily on the mind of so many especially when the grand majority of people alive had nothing to do with them? Looking around the world this sort of culture seems to really only exist in the west what makes it stick around so long?

Regarding the Canadian natives, maybe my generation didn't hurt them, but their generation is still screwed up because of previous generations. I don't feel guilty over my actions, but I support making their lives better and hopefully convincing them to integrate without forcing it.

More importantly, guilt is not a bad thing! It is a driver for improvement. The most dangerous people in society are those who never feel guilt over their misdeeds. This trait often leads to criminal behaviour. I'd rather be around someone who is too remorseful than one that never is.

[Unholyground]

Guilt can be used as a weapon just as any tool can unfortunately. If you feel guilt because of your actions and not someone pointing it out then that is a time for reflection. forcing guilt on someone because they are not what you want them to be is the toxic weaponized form of it.

[jiih]

Yeah, no.

I'm certain that many people made the decision under duress, but trying to sweep the fact that Europe at the time wasn't exactly pro-Jewish under the rug is just dangerous revisionism. It's an attempt to try and cast the Holocaust off as a historical anomaly rather than as the product of a sociocultural environment - the Nazis were able to enact the Holocaust precisely because there was already a strong foundation of prejudice to exploit.

It's worth noting that the only written protest to the Axis' treatment of the Jews during the War was written by the Archbishop of Athens.

Dislike towards Jew and actually kill them in a industrial optimized way are two very different things no ?

[Lodreh]

Why is guilt such a large part of western culture?

Research "Original Sin" and cross reference that with Christianity's influence on Western Civilization. Should bring you up to speed.

[Elegiac]

Dislike towards Jew and actually kill them in a industrial optimized way are two very different things no ?

The difference is one of degree.

And on the contrary; "dislike" is what made it so easy to prime the ground for extermination. It's easy to justify revocations of civil liberties if you already view X minority as a social blight; why do you think the right wing in the US is so gung ho on dehumanising minorities.

[Elegiac]

Basically, some morons think that if people did something bad 100 years ago - before you or your parents were alive - you're in someway responsible. Silly, isn't it.

Social guilt is not individual guilt. Shocking concept, I know.

[Elegiac]

Okay - explain to me how I'm wrong.

Namely in the assertion that the things which are the subject of white guilt are in the past and don't have impacts persisting into the present.

Criticism of slavery, colonialism, imperialism, etc. is criticism of the systems that supported them and the people who continue to maintain those systems.

[PC2]

Namely in the assertion that the things which are the subject of white guilt are in the past and don't have impacts persisting into the present.

Criticism of slavery, colonialism, imperialism, etc. is criticism of the systems that supported them and the people who continue to maintain those systems.

This nonsense. Nobody is "maintaining" those systems.

[Elegiac]

I didn't assert any of that did I

Yeah, you did:

Basically, some morons think that if people did something bad 100 years ago - before you or your parents were alive - you're in someway responsible if you share gender or race. Silly, isn't it.

If you're not willing to claim ownership of your opinions that's on you.

that's you. I made quite a simple statement. I've never had a slave, I don't like slavery - so I have no need to feel guilty about it. The same principle can be said for women's rights, the same thing can be said about religious persecution. How many people alive today in the west openly support slavery do you think?

Anyone who supports the private prison system; so quite a few people.

[PC2]

Yeah, you did:



If you're not willing to claim ownership of your opinions that's on you.



Anyone who supports the private prison system; so quite a few people.

Seriously? You're equating private prison with slavery, and somehow this makes current people guilty of past misdeeds.

[Elegiac]

Seriously? You're equating private prison with slavery

Namely because the thing that allows the former to exist was the thing that outlawed the latter. They're not separate issues.

and somehow this makes current people guilty of past misdeeds.

Get back to me when you're capable of viewing the world through the lens of someone other than yourself. Society is a thing.

[PC2]

Namely because the thing that allows the former to exist was the thing that outlawed the latter. They're not separate issues.



Get back to me when you're capable of viewing the world through the lens of someone other than yourself. Society is a thing.

Private prison and slavery are separate issues. I think you're trying to find some kind of "hidden" intersectionality that links everything bad.

[Elegiac]

Private prison and slavery are separate issues. I think you're trying to find some kind of "hidden" intersectionality that links everything bad.

No, I've actually just read the amendments that aren't #2.

[Laerrus]

I wouldn't say guilt, it's more just a realization of what they were doing was wrong.

Many of my ancestors owned slaves, but there was one notable exception, Dr. James Thomas Mabry.

5 - James Thomas Mabry b ca 1790 GA; m1 Mattie Walker; m2 15
Oct 1832 Elizabeth (Allen) Sevall; m3 Affa or Orpha
Crowder; d 1861 Leake Co MS (1830 MS Hinds; 1840 MS
Leake; 1850 MS Attala; 1861 MS Leake). Like many other
Mabry ancestors, James Thomas Mabry participated in the
development of settlements where he lived. He also took
advantage of public land sales. Records of these activities,
along with the places of birth of his children, make it
possible to follow his movements from Georgia through
eastern Alabama and into Hinds, Leake, and Attala
Counties in Mississippi. Although educational
opportunities were limited on the frontier at the time, James
Thomas received medical training and became a doctor.
Descendants still have some of his medical books.

In a letter written in 1909 by his grandson Roland Madison
Mabry,James Thomas was described as“a grand good man
who would not do anything he thought was wrong. He
never did own any slaves. He said he knew it was wrong to
hold ******* in slavery. He was a man of great intellectual
power and of high character.”35

See pages 17-18

http://sites.rootsweb.com/~mabry/Hinchia%20Maybury.pdf

This was pre-Civil War in the US South, so I imagine he probably met some resistance and ridicule among his peers for his unpopular opinions.

Now, if this concerns the idiots of today (SJWs) that grovel at the feet of the people (many Black Americans) whose ancestors (Slaves) were oppressed by their ancestors (or even none at all, lol). Fuck if I know. Honestly, as a descendant of people (Koreans) that were subjugated by the Japanese, I find their (White apologists) self-deprecating quite embarrassing. I don't harbor any ill will towards the Japanese for Korea under their rule or for the attack on Pearl Harbor. I know and understand their crimes against my peoples, but I would much rather stop living in the past and move forward.

[SirKickBan]

Private prison and slavery are separate issues. I think you're trying to find some kind of "hidden" intersectionality that links everything bad.

"Penal labor in the United States, including a form of slavery or involuntary servitude, is explicitly allowed by the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

[Themius]

The pot calling the kettle black...

...ever heard of a place called Rome? The hearth of what was the culture of Europe at that time and which more than a millennia earlier had a population in the 500'000 range replete with water piping and public baths? Some estimates even push its population to 1'000'000.
Its successor Constantinople displayed similar population numbers at the peak of the Eastern Roman Empire, and in 1500 was past 200K reaching back the half a million league under the reign of the Ottomans.

And you have absolutely no clue about the the state of urbanization in Europe in 1500, just Paris, although not the most sanitized city, had a population in the 200k range at that time, same for Venice.
Even the sovereign of Spain at that time, Charles V/Carlos I of Habsburg had in his domains large cities such as Antwerp, Bruges, Brussels, Milan, Naples and Palermo which were all in the 100000-250000 range. Even in Spain proper, Barcelona was 70'000 and the recently conquered Granada had a population of at least 70'000 in 1500.

And those are numbers for late XVth to beginning of XVIth Century, several of those Cities and others grew considerably over the course of the XVIth Century.

As for the largest city in the World at that time, it is widely accepted that it was Beijing, at 600-1'000K inhabitants. A place Europeans of that time knew about, since they were aiming to reach it when they stumbled on the Americas...

Rome was a huge city... NOT IN THE 16TH CENTURY saying that Rome was so huge is one thing, but you must then consider the population of rome also plummeted several times below 50k. So for 16th century people it doesn't mean much when the city has fallen from grace.

The point was largest clean city which paris did not meet. "Around 70k" 70k is a far cry from 250.

Venice was roughly 100k, not 200k, Venice had estimates that from mid 10s to 200k, but not in the 16th century from there the population fell and never hit 200k until more modern times as in 20th century.

As for beijing it likely had more space per resident, it was a huge city several times larger, wouldn't be as densely packed. And which Europeans? Western Europeans weren't really exploring extensively the eastern hemisphere until a bit later than the period I am talking about and when they did they often ended up trading with south asia.

antwerp was roughly about 50k in the early 16th where are you getting 100-250k from?

Antwerp didn't top 100k until early 19th century

Bruges was big in the early 16th though in decline.

Brussels barely grew to 50k by the mid 16th so again where areyou getting these all 100-250k numbers from?

[Martymark]

There's a couple groups that are profiting off it. So they push it nonstop.

[Halicia]

There isn't.

Removal of statues from public parks is not the same as removal of names from history books.

Except that the vocal minority is doing both.

I don't know how to frame the discussion, but when you punish someone that's long been dead for acts that weren't criminal then, and aren't criminal now, its effort wasted that could have instead served a useful purpose in society by punishing those people that are still alive now and committing crimes that the public has agreed to in writing ARE CRIMES.

I know, I know, people can do two things at once... but the more time goes by, the more that's proven largely false.