Grann explains that "Many of the cases seemed bound by a web of silent conspirators" including court-appointed guardians, private eyes, doctors, attorneys, bankers, the mayor, countless lawmen and prosecutors and judges--a high percentage of the county's leading citizens. As Grann puts it, "virtually every element of society was complicit in the murderous system" (316).
Do you think it is fair to say that the family members and descendants of those implicated in this conspiracy as well as the businesses that the conspirators worked for owe something--either money or an apology--to the descendants and family members of those who were victims of that conspiracy?
As I see it, everyone is responsible for their own actions. That being said, it is the responsibility of each individual to take care of any wrongs that they have done against someone else. This may include an apology, restoration of monies, etc. Upon reading the stories about some of the people who caused so much harm to the Indians, it is clear that they felt no remorse about what they had done, and there would be no apologies. However, that does not mean that their responsibility passes to another family member simply because they refuse to apologize. Now, if a family member feels that they should apologize for the actions of their relative, then I believe they should do that. I do not believe, though, that they should be made to feel that they are required to do so. After all, they were not the one who committed the wrongdoing.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of descendants apologizing for their relatives' past wrongs, I believe the same thing applies. They were not the ones who did the wrong, so they should not be required to apologize for it. In fact, they really were in no way related to the wrongdoing. In short, I do not believe that anyone should be made to offer restitution for something that they were not directly involved in. The person who committed the wrong should take care of it themselves.
-Kaylee George
I completely agree with all the points Kaylee said. Nobody should feel obligated that they must apologize for their ancestors wrongdoings, past or present. Many times the descendants would rather move on from their ancestors actions and do right by making sure they never be repeated. If the family wants to acknowledge and apologize for what happened, then it should be completely up to them if they choose to do so. Nobody should be forced into apologizing for somebody else's actions. Personally, if somebody was forced to apologize to me, I wouldn't want their apology; it simply wouldn't be sincere. I would rather have somebody apologize to me that truly meant it and wasn't forced into giving it.
DeleteI feel that it is hard for the descendants of those who harmed the Indians to apologize or give money to the descendants of the Indians that where harmed in the times of the murders. Simply because the descendants did not harm anyone or owe anyone anything. It may be a hard situation for those who are descendants of the Indians that were harmed. Their family has held onto a pain and so many unanswered questions about what happened. I’m sure that they feel as if they are owed something. It is a tough situation for your family to be put through and it is a long road to recovery, but you cannot place the blame of one person on their entire family. For instance, I would not feel the need to apologize for something I did not do. To me, that does not make any sense. I do understand that maybe I would feel sorry for what happened to them, but I did was not the one who harmed them. I do have mixed emotions about this certain situation though. I feel that some people did not get the justice they deserved and I think that in itself has a lot to do with the descendants still feeling that they may be owed something.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I agree that it’s not really fair for a family to have to assume responsibility for the actions of their ancestors. However, it makes me wonder what this looks like from a criminal’s point of view. They might think that as long as their behavior is hidden until their death, it will not cause them or their family any trouble. How would this discourage them from doing wrong? Perpetrators could really take advantage of that mindset. If no one is held accountable, then there would seem to be no reason for people to stop mistreating others. This is not to say that I believe the families should have to take responsibility, but I can see where there is a flaw in that thought process.
ReplyDeleteTo answer this question let me momentarily step into Justice theory. The theory that there must be recompense regardless of who pays it, is the theory of Lex Talionis. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" as the old saying goes. To abide by that logic would be to kill a child for a child. Each man should be given what he is due. Monetary compensation makes this question a bit trickier, however, my resolve remains the same, if the individual was not involved, they should not be punished. This leads me to a caveat. In the United States there is such a thing as an accessory to crime, if the family member or business owner was found to be in conspiracy with the individual who committed the crime, even if they themselves do not, I would agree with compensation or punishment.
ReplyDeleteWould this impact the criminal’s actions? Probably, however, this would be to the detriment of our criminal justice system.
I really agree with some of the previous responses stating that everyone is responsible for his or her own actions, but ancestors are not necessarily held liable for the actions of those before them. In some cases the family may feel like they personally need to take action for those who came before them, like for instance if a man had burnt down a house and then later committed suicide, the family of the man who committed the crime may reach out for an apology and to try and help out of guilt, but I do not think they are to be held accountable for the actions of those who came before them.
ReplyDeleteI definitely do not think that descendants of the conspirators should owe the family members of victims any money. That seems unnecessary given that they were not the ones who actually committed these crimes. However, I do see paying respects to the descendants of victims and apologizing to these descendants as being necessary. If this book showed me anything, it is that tragedy is generational. These deaths still weigh heavily on the hearts of the Osage people today, and given how complicit the people before us were in these deaths, it only seems right that we do the apologizing that was not done by those implicated.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult for me to decide what the descendants of the conspirators must do, but since it was not necessarily their fault, I do not think they should really do anything unless they wanted to do something to resolve a conflict. There is no reason for them to do anything, and furthermore, it would be out of place if they made an apology right now. I do believe it would definitely be all right to make an apology, but I do not think it should be enforced at all. It would make no since to me. I honestly could agree with both sides of this question, but I will lean on this side for now.
ReplyDeleteI believe the decedents of the conspirators should not owe the family members of the victims money but I do believe they owe the family peace of mind. As in the book the family of the victims are still tormented by the conspirators actions and the fact that many others disregarded the life of those murdered. The families deserve to know who committed the crimes against their loved ones. I also believe that the descendants of the conspirators owe those that were harmed at that time and their families respect and understanding of the pain the conspirators caused to those of the victims and to the many generations to come that have to live with the fact that members of their family were considered less than human and were murdered for their money and oil rights.
ReplyDelete