Yes, and you shouldn't blame a nation where no one from the time period when that was acceptable is still alive and no on alive still condones that behavior. How long can you hold a grudge against a nation when that nation still exists in name only?

That's the whole point. Arguing over what countries have done in the far distant past doesn't do anyone any good.

On the other hand, lots of people from that nation say that whatever that nation does today is good - and the proof is that it has always been the "good guy" throughout history. That's not true, and demystifying this myth of the US exceptionalism is fundamental if we want to have a rational discussion about current issues.

Just one example: I remember someone saying here on HN that even in the war of 1812 the USA wasn't the aggressor...

This is not true.

>Arguing over what countries have done in the far distant past

There are people alive who are still dealing with devastating consequences from the past. There are also people who are living pretty comfortable lives because of the past. It's a lot easier for the beneficiaries to deal with it.

That having been said ... What is expected of me? How should I act? How should I feel?

When people get angry about this subject, I understand their feelings and I don't think for a minute that everyone was born with equal opportunity -- but, should I be throwing money at people? Should I give up my life dreams to go even the odds? I'm not sure what the expected response is? Is it enough if I hang my head at my ancestors, pay my taxes, and do my best to not sound entitled? I'm quite serious, because for all of the complaining about how good people like me have it, I never hear a series of actions that makes my life "acceptable" instead of "something that just causes seething rage in people when they think about it."

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is, I don't understand what the appropriate response is when someone says, "You don't own slaves but that doesn't mean you didn't get the benefits from it!". Is the answer "yes", "no", "I see", "I'm sorry"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness:_A_Restate...

Libertarians rightly believe this is incompatible with liberty, and thus reject this view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia

On the whole, I love Nozick's argument but think ultimately anarchy is a utopian (unrealistic) end that ignores history and presupposes too much. Thus I lean Rawls.

Among philosophers, his 1970's Theory of Justice is considered the greatest work of political philosophy and ethics of the 20th century, and the first real attempt at a foundational political ethics system since the 19th century with utilitarianism and Marxism. I linked to the shorter, updated book intended for a mainstream audience, as the original is a bit heavy going.

Nozick's book can be said to be the definitive rejoinder to Rawls, and the ethical foundation of much of American libertarianism today.

Most US political ethics debates still to this day boil down to Rawls vs. Nozick in my view, though many still harken back to 19th century ideas of utilitarianism and liberty as they go more "extreme" (eg. hard Marxists, or hard anarcho-capitalists). Rawls and Nozick at least attempt to deal with history and disadvantaged peoples.

As usual, its hard to separate politics, justice, and economics, though we often try: the end result is intertwingled.

Someone says stupid at X convention, and they are 'MALE opperssers!' We all seem to be colored with this brush, simply because we are male.

What can I do about men whom say rude things? Honestly, I think the answer is similar to your response... "I'm sorry?"

But when talking about issues like white privilege, it's important to realize that centuries of discrimination and mass theft have a lasting effect, and you can't simply say "well the offending laws themselves are gone, now it's all a clean slate!"

In short, I'm saying "Help me understand what the right thing to do now. I can't undo history." I hear far too much debate about guilt assignment and not enough about practical advise.

Why don't you focus on helping people who are disadvantaged with respect to their current disadvantage, rather than on shaming or punishing categories of people resembling abusers of the past?

If a Puerto Rican living in the US has been crippled by corrupt police, it becomes irrelevant that Puerto Ricans were not as historically disadvantaged as blacks. That person should be helped as a person, not moved down in priority for being a Puerto Rican. And so on.

Important corollary: it certainly doesn't defend current misbehavior of any other country to invoke ancient problems of the US. If you pay attention, you will see many examples of this. The status of the US as 'world police' seems to make it attractive to defend anything you're doing by saying the US is worse anyway.

1a. No, but that's irrelevant. The US is not Ariel Castro. You can't prove that the Hendersons are a terrible family if their problems are on par with the problems of almost all similar families.

2. How do you propose to 'punish' the US? Who will carry out the punishment? Do you think doing this will improve the US somehow?

If natural cause deaths dwarf murders, then efforts to extend lifespan will likely see a better return by focusing on natural causes than on murders. Similarly, if the average person is much more likely to see serious quality of life issues from natural causes. This doesn't mean nothing should be done to prevent murders, but a choice between two interventions of the same cost should be made based on benefit.

Punishment after the fact is not a reform, it is at best a deterrent and more typically revenge. Applied to international interactions, your 'punishment' is liable to be a war in which atrocities are committed against the 'prosecuted' nation.

If you are going to justify war or massive sanctions against the US then please come out and do so openly rather than beating around the bush with stupid metaphors.

3. When you blame 'Americans' you blame all the Americans. Your argument fails spectacularly when applied to anyone who did not receive inheritance or did not descend from slavers.

4. America can do both good and bad things. The fact that it does bad things (and other things which you just don't like) is not an excuse for censoring good things.

The range is from zero to two.

>You can't prove that the Hendersons are a terrible family if their problems are on par with the problems of almost all similar families.

I'm going to ignore the tautology here and say that "on par" is a stronger statement than "similar." The US is also not the Hendersons.

>How do you propose to 'punish' the US?

I have no interest in punishing the US.

>If natural cause deaths dwarf murders, then efforts to extend lifespan will likely see a better return by focusing on natural causes than on murders. Similarly, if the average person is much more likely to see serious quality of life issues from natural causes. This doesn't mean nothing should be done to prevent murders

Why doesn't it mean that?

>Your argument fails spectacularly when applied to anyone who did not receive inheritance or did not descend from slavers.

Only if you require that I blame every American, like you just did. I thought I was simply blaming the people who did it, and the people who benefit from it.

>America can do both good and bad things. The fact that it does bad things (and other things which you just don't like) is not an excuse for censoring good things.

I don't hear anyone upset about people saying nice things about America (unless they are factually incorrect.)