I care about people. I simply am trying to fight the push to treat people to try to turn every event and conversation into seeking the victim. "How can I turn what they are talking about into a case of victimization?" That is a mental illness. It is currently one of the biggest problems GLOBALLY in my opinion.
I am guilty of the things I do. You are guilty of the things you do.
Neither of us had any SAY in what our ancestors did. We are not guilty of their crimes.
If I take YOUR property that you hold while you are alive that is theft. I would be a thief.
If my ancestor takes your ancestors property that is theft. My ancestor is a thief. After both sets of ancestors die there is no person to return the property to. Was theft involved? Yes. Did the descendant of the person robbed ever possess the stolen property? No. Was a crime committed against that descendant? No.
Was what my ancestor did wrong? Yes.
Should I be punished for that? No.
Should the ancestor stolen from have had their property returned? Yes.
If that had happened would the descendant have that property? We can't say. We have no idea what the ancestor would do with that property. Possibly.
Yet to speculate on what would have happened with it is a work of FICTION not FACT. It is a guess, and it will likely be tainted to favor what the person imagining it wants to believe. That doesn't make it truth.
Is that descendant owed reparations from the descendant of the thief for crimes they themselves did not commit? No.
We should pursue crimes when those alive that were wronged can experience justice.
When we push for compensation of descendants that did not actually perpetuate a crime that is injustice.
So what is my point?
If someone invades a country or territory in which the people living there are alive then they could try to convince the rest of the world that this invasion was wrong. They could try to do something about it.
Once those people all die due to time passing then their descendants have no claim.
If they did then every single inch of the planet would be in a state of contention, because invasions have happened pretty much everywhere (perhaps not antarctica).
When we talk about ILLEGAL immigrants the media and those who want to seek the victim will drop the word ILLEGAL and say we are anti-immigrant.
There is a distinct difference between an immigrant and an illegal immigrant. One followed the laws of their new home and was invited. Much like you invite someone into your house. The other did not follow the laws and was not invited. If it were your house the illegal immigrant would be arrested for trespassing, breaking and entering, etc. If they ate your food or took some of your goods it would also make them a robber.
When it comes to countries there are other words for illegal immigrant. Those words could be Trespasser, or Invader and both would apply.
Whether bashing on the door with a battering ram, or sneaking into a territory via stealth a person is still an invader if they were not invited.
It's simple.
So could we say X are invaders because their ancestors invaded the land and took it from Y?
If Y that were alive at the time then are still alive then you can try. If you can convince the world then you might have a case. A modern example of the results of this attempt can be seen in Israel and Palestine.
It may not work. It can be attempted.
If all that remains is descendants of Y then the territory is lost and that is now a moot point. For if we can base things off of descendants then EVERY inch has been changing hands by such things.
Also people would cede territory as part of surrender agreements. This can't really be claimed as something that should be returned. It can be argued, but if it was agreed to then there is not much ground to stand on.
We can look at treaty violations and those I believe are valid concerns and can be multi-generational since a treaty is essentially a contract. So the violation of the treaty is also a breach of contract.
However, when you are using that as justification against entities that are currently unaccountable and frequently violate the bill of rights of their own people with impunity and no consequences then speaking about treaties is much like spitting in the rain.