A group of Apache Native Americans are vowing to appeal a court ruling that has approved the sale of an Apache sacred site to an Australian mining company.
Should the sale go through and mining operations be allowed to begin, it would likely destroy much of the land.
The Apaches argue part of their faith and their way of life will be blown away forever.
The group says it's an example of blatant religious discrimination, as mining profits are being put ahead of preserving a sacred spiritual area.
"Our Mount Sinai"
Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 6-5 to deny an injunction by Apache Stronghold to block the federal government’s sale of Oak Flat, a plot of land in Tonto National Forest in Arizona.
The land will be sold to Resolution Copper, a subsidiary of a multinational mining corporation.
Critics argue that construction of a mine would destroy land that holds immense spiritual value to the Apaches; It is the birthplace of their faith, and the location of important religious and cultural ceremonies going back thousands of years.
As Dr. Wednsler Nosie of Apache Stronghold puts it, “Oak Flat is like Mount Sinai to us—our most sacred site where we connect with our Creator, our faith, our families, and our land.”
The Apaches insist that the sale of the mine violates a whole host of freedoms and treaties, including their First Amendment right to religious freedom, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and an 1852 treaty between the federal government and the Apaches.
Profits Over People?
The recent ruling even notes that Oak Flat has great spiritual value to the Apaches… but also – there’s a lot of copper down there.
“Oak Flat is a site of great spiritual value to the Western Apache Indians and also sits atop the world’s third-largest deposit of copper ore,” it reads. “To take advantage of that deposit, Congress by statute—the Land Transfer Act—directed the federal government to transfer the land to Resolution Copper, which would then mine the ore.”
It’s the latest blow scored in a decade-long battle between the Apaches and the mining company, which began back in 2013 when Resolution Copper first proposed the mine.
In 2014, the Senate approved the sale, but two years later, the U.S. Forest Service added Oak Flat to the National Register of Historic Places.
In 2021, Apache Stronghold sued the federal government, arguing that the sale is a blatant violation of their religious freedoms.
As their legal counsel Luke Goodrich puts it, “blasting a Native American sacred site into oblivion is one of the most egregious violations of religious freedom imaginable.”
It’s All Mine
Resolution Copper is championing the ruling, arguing that mining the area will add hundreds of millions to Arizona’s economy and create thousands of jobs. The company also says that throughout the mining process they’ll make sure to listen to Apache concerns.
“Our dialogue with local communities and Tribes will continue to shape the project as we seek to understand and address the concerns that have been raised,” said Resolution Copper President Vicky Peacey.
Given this nation's history, however, one couldn't exactly fault an indigenous group for being less than eager to trust a promise from a powerful organization.
Meanwhile, an appeal of the ruling would likely fast-track things to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
What do you make of this – have the Apache people been wronged here? Should companies be allowed to steamroll sacred sites if there is a strong enough economic interest?
76 comments
-
John Condron
"(Resolution Copper) also says that throughout the mining process they’ll make sure to listen to Apache concerns."
We can surely trust that the Australians and the Americans will keep their word on this, given both governments' sterling histories of keeping promises to indigenous peoples.
Of course, they aren't actually promising NOT to destroy this sacred site. Only to "listen to Apache concerns." I guess that won't be too hard for them... especially from Australia.
(This is sarcasm, for the many people in this blog who just don't get it.)
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Yes, because they've listened to the Apache so well up till now. LOL!
-
ServantOfJudgement
Right. We've seen how the aboriginals get listened to down under. Those guys know to listen, especially if dollars get involved. I'm sure once the Apache see the Australians will listen about as much as our USA does, they'll feel way way better about letting them strip mine their heritage. They'll probably be nice enough to let the Apache do the work stripping the copper from the ground.
I'll bet once the Australian company takes all that it possibly can, it'll make the ground the way it was and plant some nice trees and pay the appropriate carbon taxes of course. It's the right thing to do, it's the green thing to do.It's ok to feel weird when the desires of a corporation outweigh the desires of human beings to the point of taking their property and heritage.
-
Russel A. Kester
Yes, John, your post was surely sarcastic. It was also disparaging of our government. It was intended to surreptitiously undermine the readers belief and confidence in our government and it's intensions. However, it did not answer the question we were asked. Should the government permit mining of land considered sacred by some people. I rephrased the question hoping to remove any slant or bias in the questions original form.
-
-
Colleen McAllister
If there is no way to access the copper without destroying the land, then no. To even consider this after it was declared part of the Historuc Places registry should stop it right there. It is admittedly a special place. Once scarred or desecrated it cannot be restored. Leave the site untouched.
-
James Riggle-Johnson
If this were a Christian site, say The San Miguel Chapel in Santa Fe, New Mexico, they wouldn’t be allowed to touch it. America has shown time and again that we have no concern for the rights of Native Americans. I realize this site isn’t on a reservation, but it is on the National Register of Historic Sites.
I guess religious freedom only applies to certain people and certain religious groups, and when placed next to the all might dollar, the dollar will win every time.
-
James L. Giberson
Once again, the Federal government violates treaties, breaks promises and stabs native Americans in the back in the name of progress and the almighty dollar. What a pathetic, pitiful, sickening place America has become. Congrats Comrades, welcome to AMERIKA.
-
Daniel Gray
Cool, then you are all for making Ben and Jerrys store give back their national HQ to the American Natives whos land it originally belonged to? Or how about shutting down Interstate 80/90 in NY right outside of Buffalo where it illegally was run right through the Tonawanda Reservation? Or better yet hows about you abide by the treaties that gave the Native Americans ALL the land west of the Mississippi? And that includes ALL of the west coast. Or how about you demand that the Cherokee (my people) be given back their land...the only problem is it covers everything south of the Penn state line to the gulf of Mexico and from the Mississippi all the way back to the Atlantic Ocean with the lands south of Tallahassee florida belonging to another group of Native Americans.
Be careful what you wish for as we native Americans could force all of you "white eyes" back to europe if we followed all the treaties.
-
-
Keith Graham Ainsworth
If we look at who own Resolution Copper, we will find two of the worst destroyers of native cultures and environment in the world. Cultural issues are not even a minor consideration of these companies, not a flea bite. And the environment? Look at the Ok Tedi river in Papua New Guinea, buried under 70 metres of mud
-
James Mounts
We should all know by now, land given to the red man by the white man is only his until it is discovered to have value, then it reverts back to the white man. I think that is a rule. However, what sticks in my craw is that we want to take the land away from Americans and give it to foreigners. Our precious resources should not be given away. I am sure there is a reasonable accommodation that can be made here. Maybe help finance the tribe to enable them to mine the copper. Who better to do the mining and at the same time take care of the land?
-
Lloyd Eugene Hargrove
Welcome to globalism and rule by the international plutocracy my friends. The whole world recognizes that the U.S.A. has the best government that money can buy, totally regardless of who is paying the money (or other such good and valuable consideration) to whom for the granting of any kind of political favor. I seem to recall reading that this particular "sale" had the full support of the late Sen. John McCain of Arizona so yeah, it was definitely going through... which makes the situation similar to that portrayed in the "Li" Abner musical, "He makes the rules And he intends to keep it thataway, What’s good for General Bullmoose Is good for the U.S.A.".
-
-
Nicholas J Page
Why is this being allowed to happen.Although I'm English I'm on the side of the Apaches it's sacred ground to them and why has it taken all these years to want to start mining work now.If there's a lot of copper minerals in the ground surely the Australian Company could mine further away from the Apache land.I wonder if the Indigenous Australians were in this situation they wouldnt like the same treatment.So what's good for the Australians is good for the Apaches God Bless them and good luck with their fight with the mining company I hope the Apaches win it's their land leave it alone
-
Theresa C. Marquess
Once again, the Federal Government is trying to give our Indigenous Peoples the shaft. How many times has this happened in the past that they haven't learned to let these people live in peace? Our religious freedom is spelled out very clearly in the Constitution. I can see where greedy politicians want to get their hands on the money that the copper would produce. By rights the land and its mineral deposits belongs to the people to whom it was granted. How can the government sell what has been granted to others? Go for it, Luke Goodrich!
In borrowing his quote, may I add, 'As their legal counsel Luke Goodrich puts it, “blasting a Native American sacred site into oblivion is one of the most egregious violations of religious freedom imaginable.”'
-
Ari Joseph Bertine
Selling that land to the mining company would be an egregious display of disrespect and hostility to a people that has already been robbed, harmed and debased by the US government. The cult of greed is utterly shameless, and is an ever-growing stain on our nation's honor. I hope that the addition of the site to the registry of historic places is protection enough. I have no faith left in the ethical discernment or compassion of the Supreme Court.
-
William J Lewis
We keep blaming the government but keep voting the same people in. It is Big money that controls the government as it has since the beginning of time. The Dutch West Indies company Destroyed most of the indigenous people where ever there were spices or coffee or so many other commodities. The slave trade was very profitable also. Being wealthy is no sign of success as a human, often it is a sign of selfishness and the exploitation of others for personal gain. "The government" IS run by money and we vote the slobs in there.
-
CJC
Why would the US sell to a foreign company in the first place? To much of the US is owned by foreign interests.
-
Grand Poobah M
I was wondering the same thing.
-
Mary Gomez
Greed, lobbyists paid a lot of money and our officials took it.
-
-
Daniel Gray
Ok IF this is on the Apache Reservation then there is nothing the courts can do as a Native American Reservation is legally and basically a sovereign country inside the US. Now on the other hand if it isnt on the "Rez" then the Apache cant stop this.
Now looking at the right side of this if this is on the national Register of Historic Places, then the copper mine cant come into being anyway as that would violate federal law. In my area we have a building that was built in 1918 and its on the same list. And our local government has been told that they can move around it BUT they cannot under violation of federal law, remove even one stone off the outside of the building as if they did then they would be looking at over 1000. a day in fines for each and every day that damage was done/ Same thing here.
Now what they can do is move out about 5 miles and dig down and into the ground so its below the area and remove the copper and then replace the copper ore taken out with dirt and rock so that it does not leave a trace.
-
Russel A. Kester
Well, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you, Daniel..
-
Mary Gomez
They’ve already discounted that idea, too expensive to mine it that way. What does that tell you??!?
-
Daniel Gray
then if they say its too expensive thats their problem. But then again its like I said, if this is actually ON the Rez, then it cant be touched without the Apache's permission and it does not look like they are going to get it. BUT saying that if its not on the Rez, then its all huff and bluff as there isnt a thing the Apache can do about it except to try ans how that this is somehow historic and get it placed on the National Register of Historic Places and then its protected. Or to get Congress to deem it historical. If they cant do this then its all over but the shouting.
-
-
John Robert Milner
Great point, if it’s on the rez, leave it alone !
-
-
Paul Johnson
To me it seems everything has a boiling point and many times it seems to be just plain wrong.
Indians kinda reminds me of Row v Wade . Never satisfied with the outcome unless it’s what they want.
First they complain about the illegal problem now they are complaining about the illegal’s wanting to take over their Happy Hunting Grounds.
Just like women complaining about men being allowed in their sports, but it was supposed to be okay as long as they (women) were wanting to be allowed into men’s sports.
It will be so nice to see JESUS show up, are will it? Only time will tell.
-
Robin Anne Hannon
Paul that is the most uninformed, sad thing I've seen when it comes to posts. What you are discussing has nothing to do with tribal rights and a sacred site. To me, it sounds as if you have a beef with women. You might want to get off your high horse long enough to see the forest from the trees. If you don't want to hear women complain fine, but it just shows that you don't respect women, glad I'm not your wife. And it has nothing to do with greed, with ruining a sacred site either. What if I sent a few miners to dig up the graves of your loved ones in a cemetery? Would that be okay with you? Rambling on about women is not the topic, so try to stick to it if you can put aside your obvious hatred of women long enough that is.
-
William Lewis Vass
Really? You, in just a few words, have shown the mentality of the nations of the world. You can have your sacred sites as long as there is nothing there that can be exploited. Bravo, you should be proud of what you stand for.
-
Russel A. Kester
Paul, your thoughts about women invading men's spaces and then whining when men invade theirs is spot on. Eventually they even invaded the Boy Scouts! But it was by design. Way back in early feminist literature they wrote of the need to invade all men's spaces in order to destroy the patriarchy with their presence. And they don't even want the rules to apply equally. Take sports reporters for example. Women were eventually allowed into men's showers with unfettered access. Women reporters wrote of talking with male athletes stepping nude out of the shower. But males were not given the same unfettered access. After many battles male reporters were allowed to stay for 30 minutes only at which time the women would go shower. No male reporter could interview women coming naked from the shower. It's always a double standard. Your overall observation that those who engage in identity politics whine and complain when they don't get their way is correct. Especially women. God save men.
-
-
John Eubanks
Let's face it, in reality Christianity is the only thing that has religious freedom. The Christian nationalists and christofascist are doing everything they can to keep it that way. That is the reason why they are solidly in bed with a Godless pig like trump. And the reason why the morally deficient right-wing politicians are pandering to them. It's for power and money that's it.
-
Russel A. Kester
John, in the US one can be a Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, and many other faiths. We are all free to practice our beliefs. Describing Trump as a godless pig is hyperbole. He is a man with political ideas that differ from yours. That's all. Right-wing politicians are no more morally deficient that Left-wing politicians. Politics is about power. It's been that way for all of recorded history and probably before. Currently Christianity does not hold sway in the US, other beliefs or ideologies do. So why are you bashing Christianity and conservative politicians? Do you not believe that Christians should have freedom of religion or the free exchange of political ideas?
-
Daniel Gray
It figures, when you descend into name calling and bringing politics into the argument/discussion John; that just shows how weak your point is and shows you have absolutely noting to contribute except for seeing your name here.
-
-
David Arthur Lewis
It's called Capitalism.
-
Rev Frankie PG
There is never of enough of a reason to deny any group their reasonable Religious Freedoms. However, many don't appreciate the freedoms of others when it benefits their own cause. This case absolutely should never have arisen, if the Apaches had done their due diligence of protecting and delineating said area, the government should've immediately denied the corporations proposal. The only Eminent Domain that's being shown is money, which should never be considered valid. Our tribal nations have suffered enough.
-
David M Hines
Some people appear to be under the impression the whole “religious freedom” deal is something besides a way for affluent white people to maintain their traditional privileges and advantages. It’s not.
-
Russel A. Kester
Well that was nonsense, David, and racist. Affluence probably does make people seem to hold on to it and the perks that come with it. But that's a human characteristic, not a white one. Look around the world..
-
-
Victor Allen Hawthorne
The government continually takes from its citizens, and the Indian Nations. Selling land to a foreign entity is an abomination. Australia has its own resources to tap on their own land. If mining is a problem because of the rules and regulations there, then allow this company to take it up with the government there. Perhaps the US Government should sell the land to the Apache Nation for a dollar, and that will be the end of it.
-
Russel A. Kester
Victor, I don't agree with selling the land to either the Apaches or to the Australian company. I've always thought that valuable resources in federal land could be leased but not sold.
-
Daniel Gray
You mean like what the Australians did to the Aborigines? Where they came into land set aside for the original natives and took it because of the mineral rights underneath it?
-
-
John T. Watson
The First Amendment to The Constitution states their will be NO established government religion and that the people are free to follow the religion of their choice. The Apache people are following their religion just as Christians, Jews, Muslims, and people of other faiths do. The land over which this dispute is, is Apache land and is sacred to the Apache people. The government has NO right to confiscate this land and sell it to an International Mining Corporation. The land is sacred to the Apache who were on that land Long Before the US Government existed. I wonder how much money was offered to certain politicians from the mining corporation?
-
Daniel Gray
unless its on the Reservation, then sadly yes they do have the right to take it and give a mining permit.
-
-
Matthew W Meister
Seems to me we have a great number of legal experts on this thread. Making up your mind from reading one article is a dangerous practice. There are SO many issues here. Who legally owns the ground? Who owns the mineral rights or air rights to the property? What is the exact wording of any treaty or agreement signed with the Apache tribe(s) involved? By whom and for what reason is all or part of this ground considered sacred? My guess is that whatever court looked at this did a lot more thoughtful consideration before coming to its verdict than the lot of us combined. It is easy to rush to judgment based upon the limited facts.
-
Daniel Gray
Nope, as ALL Native Americans consider Mother Earth sacred and the sky above as the father figure to the earth mother figure. So using your examples then you would not be able to cut down trees for fire nor mine for minerals or to make chemicals that might save your life one day.
-
-
Robert Chokonen Anthony Van Fleet
Wow, I am stunned that there are so many people that stand with my People, please write to the senate and the House of Representatives and the White House, make sure that they know that there are some decent people listening to the plight of my People. Thank you for your support!! Ixexe!
-
Catherine
“Our dialogue with local communities and Tribes will continue to shape the project as we seek to understand and address the concerns that have been raised,”
Bribes. Bribes. More bribes. Until nothing is left for debate. What comes to one of us comes to all of us.
-
Russel A. Kester
Is the ground sacred and is removing minerals from it tatamount to a sacrilege? For something to be sacred is a religious belief. Should the government recognize one's religious beliefs in its deliberations? Many here who take a pro-abortion stance have argued that religion has no place in judicial decions. Therefore, to be consistent, they must discard the Apache's religious claims and rule against them. I have previously argued that religious beliefs should be considered. So I must acknowledge the claims put forth by the Apaches. Is removing minerals from sacred sites tatamount to sacrilege even if doing so changes the landscape? I don't think so. Jews have held Israel to be sacred despite wars which caused changes in its landscape and ownership, or at least control, many times. How can that be? For something to be sacred, it must be sacred in our hearts. The land in question can continue to be sacred to the Apaches even if mined.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
Oh, pull-eeze! The government makes many decisions around religious beliefs, like protecting them from governmental interference in the practice thereof. Abortion being a bad analogy, by the way--the government does not force individuals or subgroups of the population to have abortions regardless of those individuals'/groups' religious views, even though these days it looks like some areas of the country are trying to force people NOT to have them.
And native Americans have their own views of sacred vs. profane--the universe and all that is in it are sacred.
-
Russel A. Kester
Tecla, we seem to both agree that religious claims should be considered by the courts. I hold that to be true whether the issue considered is abortion or land. It's a matter of consistency in thinking.
I like the very end of your last sentence, "the universe and all that is in it are sacred." I agree. So the paved over concrete jungles we call cities are sacred. The forests are sacred. Oil deep within the earth is sacred. Changing it's form does not make it any less sacred because there's nothing outside of or beyond everything. Therefore, the site the Apaches claim as sacred to them will remain sacred, it couldn't be otherwise, it is part of everything, and everything is sacred. Let the project move forward, mining cannot affect the sacredness of the land.
-
Tracie Lynn Alexis
Well... you have to remember that there are treaties in place to protect the Apache that are being violated.
-
-
James L. Giberson
Once again, the Federal government violates treaties, breaks promises and stabs native Americans in the back in the name of progress and the almighty dollar. What a pathetic, pitiful, sickening place America has become. Congrats Comrades, welcome to AMERIKA.
-
James L. Giberson
Once again, the Federal government violates treaties, breaks promises and stabs native Americans in the back in the name of progress and the almighty dollar. What a pathetic, pitiful, sickening place America has become. Congrats Comrades, welcome to AMERIKA.
-
Brien
Ok, first let me say for the record that I think the sale of American soil to foreign interests should simply not be allowed. Here is a very simple definition of eminent domain that I believe our government is using for this: Eminent domain refers to the power of the government to take private property and convert it into public use, referred to as a taking. The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this power if they provide just compensation to the property owners. Now, above Daniel has brought up a few legal type arguments that do fit this situation. So, as disgusting as this is to me I have to ask, do the apache own the land? If so then they are to be compensated for it. If not, then they don't have much to work with. If this were a reservation issue than it would be blocked by the court. Who ever owns the land would need to show irreparable harm in court and even then that might not be enough. That is just the way it is. Gross abuse of government power. Just my opinion peace ✌
-
Russel A. Kester
Brien, a thoughtful post. I followed your reasoning easily. I was glad to read that strip mining is not contemplated as it leaves the land looking quite ugly. Esthetics is important. Thank you for your post.
-
William Lewis Vass
Reservation land isn't safe from governments and their greed. Look at the attempt of certain tribal people back in the 1970's. They tried to back door a sale of tribal reservation land for mining uranium. The list of atrocities never runs out.
-
Brien
Unfortunately I must agree with you. The federal government considers all land within it's borders as belonging to the United States and is subject to eminent domain at any time. Technically speaking, no one owns any land but only leases it through taxes. I know that sounds wrong, but again that is the way it is. Peace 🕊️
-
-
-
Rolando Couce
Money is good and evil it is how you use it
-
Keith Graham Ainsworth
The love of money is evil too, and these people worship it, it's their god
-
-
Robin Anne Hannon
The Apache should have the same religious rights as anyone else. If this is their sacred site leave it alone. It is the height of arrogance to encroach on their land. Maybe we should ask if the Vatican should be there hmmmm????? No? Just because Christianity is the major religion, remember it's not the only one here in America. Respecting beliefs and cultures is the Christian thing to do.
-
William Lewis Vass
Let me keep this brief. If you want to know how much the government cares about the first amendment rights then I will simply point to the black hills. That was a major spiritual site for the Lakota people. They called it Paha Sapa, the heart of mother Earth. Gold was found and the rest is history. Tell me why one spiritual site is more important than another. When is enough, enough?
-
Steven Ferrell
Leave their land alone.
-
Govannon Thunorwulf
The ancestors will set it straight, mark my words.
-
Takaya Kovani Sweeney
Some people just refuse to learn and wish to continue digging up the earth in pursuit of wealth.
This mind numbing greed is what got us into the major issues we currently face.
I wish there was some deity coming to destroy everything, I’m so sick of the same dumb shxt by the same dumb people.
-
Danny D. Maynard
There is no such thing as "Holy"
-
Donald G Magel
That what he said. It is OK for us to continue to use Native land for what ever we want, Forget any treaties, they mean nothing because the signers are dead.
-
Russel A. Kester
Who said that, Donald?
-
-
Michael Scott Bouve
Russel, due to recent rulings about reparations to descendants of slavery, I believe your statement that no one currently living has responsibility for the past is not true.
-
Russel A. Kester
Michael, interesting. To which rulings are referring? This is the only one I'm familiar with "The Supreme Court has said that race-based remedies are allowed only when they target the current effects of the government’s own widespread discrimination in the relatively recent past. In Richmond v. J.A. Croson, the high court ruled that the government cannot provide race-based' remedies that are ageless in their reach into the past.' " The source is https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/dec/6/giving-reparations-slaves-descendants-california-u/
-
-
Mary Gomez
The land swap was approved, however, the only reason it exists is because of McCain and Flake who snuck a midnight rider into the National Defense Spending bill, which consisted of thousands of pages and didn’t give the Apaches or anyone else time to review or contest it. There are other groups fighting alongside the Apaches, in this drought the immense amount of water it would use is way out of bounds. The city of Superior, a few miles down from the proposed mine would be eventually destroyed also. The waste would be a mountain of toxic tailings. It’s a bad mine, and the ore would have to be sent overseas for processing. We’d most likely have to buy the copper back, once Resolution gets their money. Foreign owned, many reasons this mine should not be here.
-
JoAnna Nellessen
First off mining for copper at a religious site should only be allowed if a proven plan is created to keep their religious sites intact. Second, why are we allowing a FOREIGN company to come and extract the copper?! The whole thing smells corrupt!
Dear Lord This world is so full of evil. I wish people would remember that we came here and took their land and their way of life we force them into doing American world. Now they want to take away the sacred site. That would be like somebody telling me they’re going to dig out my aunt my grandmother. My grandfather is my father, my mother because they want to put something there leave their side alone let them have their dead. I’m sure there’s another place they can do mining.
Laura, we didn't do any of the things you claim. It's our national history, but not the fault of any individual person or group. Everyone currently living has no responsibility for the past.
Regardless, there's absolutely no reason why we current occupants can't do the right thing and help fellow Americans keep their religion and preserve their heritage. Native religions are just as valid as any other. How would you like to see your place of worship wrecked by a bunch of Aussies (who have plenty of religious sites on their very own continent to wreck anyway)?
In the end, it's really all about the money, isn't it? Sad.
Are you saying that we should continue the mistakes of the past just because we weren't alive when the mistakes occurred?
Did they say that? Why would you ASSume that? That is a lame political arguing tactic...
Regardless, a treaty is a commitment.
Clay, my comment was in response to Laura's in which she said that "we" did a laundry of things instead of "they." It's a subtle way of blaming people alive today for things done in the past who, usually, who look like people from the past. It's a type of identity politics. It forgets that perhaps most of our population today is from people who immigrated after these events occurred. It also insinuates that people are responsible for the actions of long dead ancestors. That's just nonsense of course, but the way the sentences were structured put the 'crimes' of the past onto today's population. Hence, my point that that was all history not current news.
The responsibility lies in learning from the past, so that evil doesn't happen again.
Diana, that's a nice thing to say, but learning and blaming are two different things. And seeing only evil in the past instead of seeking to understand the conditions and challenges of the past isn't helpful. We shouldn't use today's standards to judge the past. We exist today because of those events. I'm glad to be here, how about you?