nonsense
a reasonable middle ground is not unattainable
there are mechanisms in place...petition for redress of grievance etc
some successes, some failures, not kneejerk naysaying
Having said yes to Japanese Canadians, the government cannot make a credible case for saying no to another group. A mixture of noble sentiments and crass multicultural politics produced the previous decision, and that same mixture beckons the government again. For better or worse, the country will be forced quite literally to pay for its history for many years to come. (link)
so?
an apology or a billion bucks
pay the fuck up
Redressing grievances from the 1940's is far easier to do because many of the victims are still alive and for those who are not their lineal descendants are still likely to be relatively manageable in number. Sure you can come up with a bullshit number that is not based on anything, but that number is as likely to be "zero" out of a sense of forgiveness as "a billion bucks" out of sense of retribution. And who gets that billion bucks anyway?
If you calculate damages the way the law does (i.e. with an eye towards properly compensating people for their injuries, not punishing the wrongdoer because you dislike them) and look at addressing grievances from the 1820's, not one single victim will be alive. Assuming an average of let's say 5 living descendants per 30-year generation (which is on the low side for the 19th and early 20th century, and a bit high for the generation born after 1940), *each victim* could easily have more than 15000 descendants. If the grievance was 1850, under those assumptions you'd expect 3125 descendants. In 1880, he should have about 625 living descendants, and so on. Then, you have to determine how to allocate it amongst his thousands of descendants...pro rata? What if one descendant can show that by will all the victims property was left to his ancestor and none of the other siblings? What about the descendants that are not full-blooded. Does Jane Smith get a full share because she's 1/16th blooded? A 1/16th share? No share?
In general, first you have to figure out who the victim was. Then you can to figure out what his injuries were. Did he get sick in or on the trip to the new lands the U.S. sent him to? Might he not have gotten sick had he stayed home untroubled by the U.S.? What other injuries were there? What was the value of the lost property that there is no documentation for? How do we even begin to guess? Then you have to determine how much his injury was worth. Then, there's the matter you have to determine how to allocate it amongst his thousands of descendants, many of whom are not full-blooded. Does Jane Smith get a full share because she's 1/16th blooded? A 1/16th share? No share?
Does the U.S. get due process for this law suit? Evidence is going to be hard to come by, so who has the burden of proof? If the issue is the lack of evidence. what about the doctrine of laches? Does that apply? Why not?
All of the problems are vastly simpler when the mystery is only 60 years old, and not 160. Then you still have to guesstimate but if the death and displacement of your grandfather was worth $1 million in damages (in 2008 dollars), you and your fellow grandchildren get a $40,000 each (assuming 5 per generation). The descendants of the native American killed in 1820 get an insulting $64 each, if you can find all 15,625 of them. The government might be better off using the money to build a museum of native cultures, rather than paying cash awards.
Again, you can skip this process by use guidelines to come up with proxy numbers unrelated to the facts, but the results will have nothing to do with the actual economic impact of the harm done. It's not even "damages" at that point, it's just a wealth transfer.
Better to acknowledge the truth, you did not know your ancestors from 1820, and unless you are a freak they do not mean shit to you. Giving me money for what my distant ancestor—to whom I have no connection—did makes no more sense than slapping me in jail for what my ancestor did.
