| |
Dilemma Four
A country is systematically killing citizens because
they belong to an ethnic minority.
There is too much evidence for anybody to doubt that
genocide is being practice.
· Families are being evicted from property that they
hold legal title to
. They are being evicted in the middle of the night
by armed men.
· Men are being executed on sight. The Army uses the
excuse that they probably belong to the resistance movement.
· Women and children are forced on marches during the
middle of winter and early spring (mud season). They have no logistical
support, only the food and clothes that they can carry.
· The destination of the forced march keeps changing.
First it is a border crossing...but it is closed. Then it is a refugee
camp...but it is full. Then it is a different refugee camp but in a more
rugged and isolated part of the country. The number of people marching
keeps getting smaller.
· Villages that are 100% the ethnic minority are shelled
with artillery. There is evidence (letters) that Army used biological
weapons.
What is our moral responsibility toward the victims
of these actions?
· Should we bomb them into stone-age? (Bosnia)
· Should we engage in economic boycotts? (Iran, Iraq)
· Should we send in ground troops? (Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia)
· Should we do nothing? (Rwanda, Chechnia)
· Should we encourage immigration to US? (Hmong, Cuba,
Vietnam boat people)
What if the atrocities occurred two generations ago?
· Is a “just” resolution possible when a Palestinian
refuge claims his grandfather’s farm after the Israeli developed the property
with irrigation and greenhouses?
· What of the atrocities occurred more than two generations
ago? What do we owe the American Indians? What do we owe African Americans?
· The “world-view” that generations provide a firewall
to debt is not a majority world- view. They make the point that wealth
is passed from generation-to-generation...why not obligations?
· White Americans are unique in that they view themselves
first as individuals, then as members of a group. Most cultures see themselves
first as members, then as individuals. They perceive a crime against one
of their members as nearly identical to a crime against them. This is
the origin of “hate-crime” legislation. “Hate-crimes” are treated more
severely than economic crime because there are more victims.
-
|