Meh, blame is still relevant, and the kid deserves to keep getting blamed when he not only fails to give back what was stolen and keeps insisting he’s the rightful owner, but continues to rob and suppress the victims of the original theft, forcing them to pay exorbitant rent for access to the tiniest morsels of what was stolen from them.
I can’t help but think your framing is a little off. It’s more like someone stole the item, then gave it to their kids, who gave it to their kids, who gave it to their kids, who gave it to their kids, who sold it to someone else, who gave it to their kids. And then asking those kids to give up the item (in this case their property and home?).
So all you need to do to get away with theft is wait and move it around a bunch after the initial theft? And the rightful owner loses their right to it?
Like I feel like your perspective sounds nice and empathetic for about three seconds, then you realize you’re advocating another ethnic cleansing in response to ethnic cleansing. Or not, I guess it’s possible to think ethnic cleansing is good.
Returning land to the people it was stolen from isn’t ethnic cleansing, and it’s a typical settler response to accuse their victims of hypothetically doing something the colonizers are already guilty of.
So what you’re saying is that it’s okay to take back the food stolen by a homeless man desperate to feed his kids, right? And if they’ve already eaten, it’s okay to take a scalpel to their stomach to retrieve it.
Stealing is not okay as soon as you give the stolen item to your kid. It should still be returned.
Yeah but is the kid to blame?
Answer: no, but the kid should recognize inequity and help correct it anyway.
Blame is irrelevant, the kid needs to give back the stolen items.
Meh, blame is still relevant, and the kid deserves to keep getting blamed when he not only fails to give back what was stolen and keeps insisting he’s the rightful owner, but continues to rob and suppress the victims of the original theft, forcing them to pay exorbitant rent for access to the tiniest morsels of what was stolen from them.
I can’t help but think your framing is a little off. It’s more like someone stole the item, then gave it to their kids, who gave it to their kids, who gave it to their kids, who gave it to their kids, who sold it to someone else, who gave it to their kids. And then asking those kids to give up the item (in this case their property and home?).
So all you need to do to get away with theft is wait and move it around a bunch after the initial theft? And the rightful owner loses their right to it?
Like I feel like your perspective sounds nice and empathetic for about three seconds, then you realize you’re advocating another ethnic cleansing in response to ethnic cleansing. Or not, I guess it’s possible to think ethnic cleansing is good.
Returning land to the people it was stolen from isn’t ethnic cleansing, and it’s a typical settler response to accuse their victims of hypothetically doing something the colonizers are already guilty of.
Removed by mod
So what you’re saying is that it’s okay to take back the food stolen by a homeless man desperate to feed his kids, right? And if they’ve already eaten, it’s okay to take a scalpel to their stomach to retrieve it.
Hypocrisy isn’t excusable.
Land stolen from indigenous people isn’t done in desperation for starvatian, it’s theft.
China give back Tibet, when?
Give it back to who? The slave owning Dalai Lama? Fuck off, it wasn’t stolen, it was liberated.