A lot of the injustice to which several social groups were [and are] exposed to have acquired space in the every day human rights conversation. The analysis of the historical facts allows us to identify several manifestations of opression that, in its totality, configure system of tyrannny that seek to erase manifestations of some social groups. At the same time that this analysis occurs, however, other considerations arise: how did it happened? Who is/are responsible for it? How can we change the status quo in order to bring equality?

From this debate emerged a lot of concepts that act as a north to political mobilization. Among those, I would like in this article to discuss the concept of historical responsability — the idea that a group that used to opress has more reponsability than the others to promote a better and more equal world — and why I think that, in its genesis, it is a just argument, but incoherent after the logical scrutinity.

The best example to start analysing the issue is the Nazi case and the responsability that the new generations of Germans have in using this burden as a tool to repel any form of authoritarianism. This logic is visible in movies like The Wave (2008), and it surely pops up in the mind of every German when any mention to German nationalism comes up.

What is incoherent, however, is to assume that for the fact that Nazism was embraced by the majority of Germans decades ago, the new generations must carry more responsabilities. It is simply impossible to sustain that new generations of Germans have historical responsability at the same time that we agree that the genesis of Nazism is not a uniquely German phenomenon. I explain:

If we are going to consider that new generations of Germans have more [even if just a little more of] responsability for what happened, we must also argue that the Nazi authoritarianism could not have happened in other country besides Germany. We must argue that there is something inherently hostile in the Germans that justify this burden. On the other hand, if there is no obvious difference between Germans and any other people in the world, then it is also not true that it exists something they should feel more accountable.

Short story: it is not possible to assign historical responsability to a whole group [including its descendants] without having to drop the idea of equality. If Germans are equal to any of us humans, then the Nazism could have happened anywhere in the world. The new generations of Germans should carry the same responsability [for equality and, therefore, for the protection of minorities] as we in Brazil, or USA, or Canada.

Note: I do not mention the blame of the people involved in those crimes against humanity inflicted by the Nazis. The fault of these people is obvious; the concept of historical responsability I use here is the one that attribute a heavier burden to next generations of Germans.

The same can be applied to Racism institucionalized by the major colonial powers. In the absence of evidence that black people would have not been able to do the same as the white people in the same situation, we must assume that there is no historical burden that can be attributed to an ethnicity. Just like the patriarchy founded during history can not be assigned to men living today [that do not wish to contribute to gender disparities]. To argue otherise, if my logic is correct, would mean to give up the idea of equality and assume that if women have had the economic and political power in (let’s say) XX century, they would have gladly distributed it because they are biologically more kind and fair.

Obviously, arguments can be made in order to establish that men [especially white] are naturally more hostile. In this case, I recognize that my reasoning does not hold. However, the scientific literature does not appear to show any obvious difference between genders, ethnicities or nationalities. The most reasonable, therefore, is to assume that we are equal.

If new generations of a group can not be accountable for the opression of its ancestors, then how can we demand social change bringing together the concept of responsability? Sharing equally the accoutability for change. If as society we define that it is imperative equality [at least of opportunities] to be the ideal, then there is no need to call responsabilities for historical events. It is attributed equally to all of us.

If by chance previous system of opressions brought privileges to some groups to the detriment of the others, it appears to me that what changes are the [more] opportunities that the privileged group will have to advocate for equality. However, our commitment to equality must be the same.

Our true historical responsabilty is, actually, collective. Instead of selecting groups as perpetuators of violence, maybe the most reasonable thing to do is to collectively learn from the historical mistakes and use it for personal improvement. After all, the battle between the good and evil happens every moment inside us. We must respond only for our own acts and nothing should be more shameful and convoke more responsability than our own bad actions, for over these we have total control.

To sumarize my arguments:

1) The blame for a system of opression and inequality are from those who engage active and consciously in its perpetuation. When these people cease to exist, the blame is not transmitted to its descendants.

2) The descendants have no blame, for it would imply that there is something inherently violent in this group of people. I consider that we are equal and there is no reason to believe that other group could not have opressed if they had the opportunity.

3) As humans that share the ideal of equality, our responsability in fighting against inequality is the same. There are no groups [that accept the normativity of equality] more accountable than others; we all share the same obligation.

Note 2: by normativity of equality, I mean the “ought to” that comes from the concept of equality. If someone consider herself to be an equality advocate, then she can not be an opressor, for she always seek this end [equality]. If, for example, someone reasonably points flaws in her behaviour that ends reinforcing opression systems and she refuses to change, then she is not truly comitted to equality.