I am reading Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, the first and likely most famous of an informal trilogy. I thought I had already read it, but I think I only saw the PBS show. Having recently finished Josephine Quinn’s How the World Made the West, I wanted to revisit this perspective. The two books are presented in different styles and represent different perspectives, but they seem to be complementary.
Where Diamond focuses on environmental factors (an oft-voiced critique), Quinn focuses on human agency.
Diamond takes a bird’ s-eye view, looking for universal patterns and systemic explanations, whilst Quinn adopts a granular, specific approach, highlighting the fluidity and contingency of history.
Diamond deconstructs European dominance by attributing it to environmental luck, but his narrative risks sidelining the agency of colonised peoples. Quinn critiques the very idea of Western dominance, arguing that the concept of the West itself is a myth born of appropriation and exchange.
Rather than being wholly opposed, Diamond and Quinn’s approaches might be seen as complementary. Diamond provides the structural scaffolding – the environmental and geographic conditions that shape societies – whilst Quinn fills in the cultural and human dynamics that Diamond often glosses over. Together, they represent two sides of the historiographical coin: one focusing on systemic patterns, the other on the messiness of cultural particularities.
Medical doctors, lawyers, and judges have been the undisputed titans of professional authority for centuries. Their expertise, we are told, is sacrosanct, earned through gruelling education, prodigious memory, and painstaking application of established knowledge. But peel back the robes and white coats, and you’ll find something unsettling: a deep reliance on rote learning—an intellectual treadmill prioritising recall over reasoning. In an age where artificial intelligence can memorise and synthesise at scale, this dependence on predictable, replicable processes makes these professions ripe for automation.
Rote Professions in AI’s Crosshairs
AI thrives in environments that value pattern recognition, procedural consistency, and brute-force memory—the hallmarks of medical and legal practice.
Medicine: The Diagnosis Factory Despite its life-saving veneer, medicine is largely a game of matching symptoms to diagnoses, dosing regimens, and protocols. Enter an AI with access to the sum of human medical knowledge: not only does it diagnose faster, but it also skips the inefficiencies of human memory, emotional bias, and fatigue. Sure, we still need trauma surgeons and such, but diagnosticians are so yesterday’s news. Why pay a six-figure salary to someone recalling pharmacology tables when AI can recall them perfectly every time? Future healthcare models are likely to see Medical Technicians replacing high-cost doctors. These techs, trained to gather patient data and operate alongside AI diagnostic systems, will be cheaper, faster, and—ironically—more consistent.
Law: The Precedent Machine Lawyers, too, sit precariously on the rote-learning precipice. Case law is a glorified memory game: citing the right precedent, drafting contracts based on templates, and arguing within frameworks so well-trodden that they resemble legal Mad Libs. AI, with its infinite recall and ability to synthesise case law across jurisdictions, makes human attorneys seem quaintly inefficient. The future isn’t lawyers furiously flipping through books—it’s Legal Technicians trained to upload case facts, cross-check statutes, and act as intermediaries between clients and the system. The $500-per-hour billable rate? A relic of a pre-algorithmic era.
Judges: Justice, Blind and Algorithmic The bench isn’t safe, either. Judicial reasoning, at its core, is rule-based logic applied with varying degrees of bias. Once AI can reliably parse case law, evidence, and statutes while factoring in safeguards for fairness, why retain expensive and potentially biased judges? An AI judge, governed by a logic verification layer and monitored for compliance with established legal frameworks, could render verdicts untainted by ego or prejudice. Wouldn’t justice be more blind without a human in the equation?
The Techs Will Rise
Replacing professionals with AI doesn’t mean removing the human element entirely. Instead, it redefines roles, creating new, lower-cost positions such as Medical and Legal Technicians. These workers will:
Collect and input data into AI systems.
Act as liaisons between AI outputs and human clients or patients.
Provide emotional support—something AI still struggles to deliver effectively.
The shift also democratises expertise. Why restrict life-saving diagnostics or legal advice to those who can afford traditional professionals when AI-driven systems make these services cheaper and more accessible?
But Can AI Handle This? A Call for Logic Layers
AI critics often point to hallucinations and errors as proof of its limitations, but this objection is shortsighted. What’s needed is a logic layer: a system that verifies whether the AI’s conclusions follow rationally from its inputs.
In law, this could ensure AI judgments align with precedent and statute.
In medicine, it could cross-check diagnoses against the DSM, treatment protocols, and patient data.
A second fact-verification layer could further bolster reliability, scanning conclusions for factual inconsistencies. Together, these layers would mitigate the risks of automation while enabling AI to confidently replace rote professionals.
Resistance and the Real Battle Ahead
Predictably, the entrenched elites of medicine, law, and the judiciary will resist these changes. After all, their prestige and salaries are predicated on the illusion that their roles are irreplaceable. But history isn’t on their side. Industries driven by memorisation and routine application—think bank tellers, travel agents, and factory workers—have already been disrupted by technology. Why should these professions be exempt?
The real challenge lies not in whether AI can replace these roles but in public trust and regulatory inertia. The transformation will be swift and irreversible once safeguards are implemented and AI earns confidence.
Critical Thinking: The Human Stronghold
Professions that thrive on unstructured problem-solving, creativity, and emotional intelligence—artists, philosophers, innovators—will remain AI-resistant, at least for now. But the rote professions, with their dependency on standardisation and precedent, have no such immunity. And that is precisely why they are AI’s lowest-hanging fruit.
It’s time to stop pretending that memorisation is intelligence, that precedent is innovation, or that authority lies in a gown or white coat. AI isn’t here to make humans obsolete; it’s here to liberate us from the tyranny of rote. For those willing to adapt, the future looks bright. For the rest? The machines are coming—and they’re cheaper, faster, and better at your job.
I recently watched The Penguin on HBO Max, a series set in DC’s Batman universe. Ordinarily, I avoid television – especially the superhero genre – but this one intrigued me. Less spandex, more mob drama. An origin story with a dash of noir. I’ll spare you spoilers, but suffice it to say that it was an enjoyable detour, even for someone like me who prefers philosophy over fistfights.
This post isn’t a review, though. It’s a springboard into a larger idea: morality’s subjectivity – or, more precisely, its relativity.
Audio: Spotify podcast related to this topic.
Morality in a Vacuum
Morality, as I see it, is a social construct. You might carry a private moral compass, but without society, it’s about as useful as a clock on a desert island. A personal code of ethics might guide you in solitary moments, but breaking your own rules – eating that forbidden biscuit after vowing to abstain, for instance – doesn’t carry the weight of a true moral transgression. It’s more akin to reneging on a New Year’s resolution. Who’s harmed? Who’s holding you accountable? The answer is: no one but yourself, and even then, only if you care.
The Social Contract
Introduce a second person, and suddenly, morality gains traction. Agreements form – explicit or tacit – about how to behave. Multiply that to the level of a community or society, and morality becomes a kind of currency, exchanged and enforced by the group. Sometimes, these codes are elevated to laws. And, ironically, the act of adhering to a law – even one devoid of moral content – can itself become the moral thing to do. Not because the act is inherently right, but because it reinforces the structure society depends upon.
But morality is neither universal nor monolithic. It is as fractured and kaleidoscopic as the societies and subcultures that create it. Which brings us back to The Penguin.
Crime’s Moral Code
The Penguin thrives in a criminal underworld where the moral compass points in a different direction. In the dominant society’s eyes, crime is immoral. Robbery, murder, racketeering – all “bad,” all forbidden. But within the subculture of organised crime, a parallel morality exists. Honour among thieves, loyalty to the family, the unspoken rules of the game – these are their ethics, and they matter deeply to those who live by them.
When one criminal praises another – “You done good” – after a successful heist or a precise hit, it’s a moral judgement within their own framework. Outside that framework, society condemns the same actions as abhorrent. Yet even dominant societies carve out their own moral exceptions. Killing, for instance, is broadly considered immoral. Murder is outlawed. But capital punishment? That’s legal, and often deemed not only acceptable but righteous. Kant argued it was a moral imperative. Nietzsche, ever the cynic, saw this duality for what it was: a power dynamic cloaked in self-righteousness.
In The Penguin, we see this dichotomy laid bare. The underworld isn’t without morals; it simply operates on a different axis. And while the larger society might disdain it, the hypocrisy of their own shifting moral codes remains unexamined.
Final Thoughts on the Series
I’ll save other philosophical musings about The Penguin for another time – spoilers would be unavoidable, after all. But here’s a quick review: the series leans into drama, eschewing flashy gimmicks for a grittier, more grounded tone. The writing is generally strong, though there are moments of inconsistency – plot holes and contrivances that mar an otherwise immersive experience. Whether these flaws stem from the writers, director, or editor is anyone’s guess, but the effect is the same: they momentarily yank the viewer out of the world they’ve built.
Still, it’s a worthwhile watch, especially if you’re a fan of mob-style crime dramas. The final episode was, in my estimation, the best of the lot – a satisfying culmination that leaves the door ajar for philosophical ruminations like these.
Have you seen it? What are your thoughts – philosophical or otherwise? Drop a comment below. Let’s discuss.
Jean-François Lyotard’s Le Différend has a way of gnawing at you—not with profound revelations, but with the slow, disquieting erosion of assumptions. It got me thinking about something uncomfortably obvious: political orientation is nothing more than the secular cousin of religious indoctrination. Just as most people will, without much scrutiny, cling to the religion of their upbringing and defend it as the One True Faith, the same applies to their political worldview. Whether you’re baptised into Anglicanism or wade knee-deep into the waters of neoliberalism, the zeal is indistinguishable.
Of course, there are the self-proclaimed rebels who smugly declare they’ve rejected their parents’ politics. The ones who went left when Mum and Dad leaned right or discovered anarchism in the ruins of a conservative household. But let’s not be fooled by the patina of rebellion: they may have switched teams, but they’re still playing the same game. They’ve accepted the foundational myths of institutions and democracy—those hallowed, untouchable idols. Like religion, these constructs are not just defended but sanctified, preached as the best or only possible versions of salvation. Dissenters are heretics; non-believers are unthinkable.
It’s not that political ideologies are inherently bad (just like religion has its occasional charm). It’s that the devout rarely stop to question whether the framework itself might be the problem. They assume the boundaries are fixed, the terms are immutable, and the debate is merely about the correct interpretation of the catechism. But if Lyotard has taught us anything, it’s this: the real battles—the différends—are the ones no one’s even acknowledging because the language to articulate them doesn’t exist in the prevailing orthodoxy.
As I am putting some finishing touches on my latest paper, I had the idea to illustrate some of the novel nomenclature. For some reason, Zeno’s Paradox came to mind. Unlike in maths, it is not reconcilable in language. I asked ChatGPT how I might integrate the concept into my paper. Here is what it rendered. Not only is the exposition decent, but it also provides citations and references. Humorously, when I read the citations, I thought that they were placeholders – Brown, David, Smith, and Jones – but they turned out to be legitimate references – references I hadn’t considered and each relatively recent. I’m chalking this up as a win. This was not a case of ‘ChatGPT, do my homework’. Instead, it reflects an active collaboration between a human and technology. And now I have more reference papers to read and absorb.*
Take the term ‘freedom’, an archetypal example of a Contestable that resists precise communication due to its inherent abstraction and ideological weight. To enhance its effectiveness, we might parse it into narrower forms, such as ‘freedom from’ (liberation from oppression or constraint) and ‘freedom to’ (the capacity to act or pursue desires). Whilst this initial breakdown provides some clarity, it is merely the beginning. Each parsed term demands further qualification: ‘freedom from what?’ and ‘freedom to do what?’ At every level of subdivision, new ambiguities emerge, requiring further refinement (Smith, 2021).
This process resembles Zeno’s paradox, where each attempt to clarify ‘freedom’ by moving incrementally closer to a precise meaning only reveals new layers of interpretive complexity. The concept remains elusive, perpetually deferring any definitive understanding as we approach it in ever-smaller fragments without fully grasping its essence (Jones, 2019). Unlike concrete terms like ‘chair’ or ‘table’, whose meanings can be pinned down through physical reference or functional description, ‘freedom’ resists final articulation (Brown, 2020). This continual parsing illustrates the inherent limitations of language when applied to abstract, boundary-resistant concepts: the more we attempt to define them, the more they fracture into an infinite regress of sub-concepts, each requiring its own explanation (Davis, 2022). Thus, whilst parsing ‘freedom’ improves communicative effectiveness to a point, it ultimately underscores language’s impotence in capturing the full spectrum of complex, ideational constructs (Wilson, 2018).
References:
Brown, J. (2020). The elusive nature of abstract concepts. Journal of Philosophical Studies, 35(2), 123-145.
Davis, S. (2022). Language and the limits of definition. Linguistic Quarterly, 57(1), 78-92.
Jones, M. (2019). Zeno’s paradox and the infinite regress of meaning. Metaphysical Review, 82(3), 245-263.
Smith, L. (2021). Freedom and its discontents: A study in semantic complexity. Political Philosophy Today, 14(2), 56-78.
Wilson, G. (2018). The impotence of language in capturing ideational constructs. Journal of Language and Meaning, 27(4), 198-215.
* References: Here’s the twist. When I went to read the cited references, none were found. Here’s what ChatGPT had to say about it:
I understand your difficulty in locating the references you’ve mentioned. It appears that the articles by Brown (2020), Davis (2022), Jones (2019), and Smith (2021) may not exist in the public domain or could be hypothetical examples. Consequently, Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for these works are unavailable.
If you’re interested in exploring topics related to abstract concepts, the limits of language, or semantic complexity, I can recommend some reputable sources:
“The Challenges of Abstract Concepts” by Guy Dove (2021): This chapter discusses the theoretical challenges posed by abstract concepts and reviews current evidence and responses. Springer Link
“Abstract Concepts and Metacognition: Searching for Meaning in Self and Others” by Anna M. Borghi, Chiara Fini, and Luca Tummolini (2021): This work explores the role of metacognition in understanding abstract concepts. Springer Link
“The Limits of Language: Wittgenstein’s Later Philosophy and Skinner’s Verbal Behavior” by R. Harre (1983): This article examines the limitations of language through the perspectives of Wittgenstein and Skinner. JSTOR
“Varieties of Abstract Concepts and Their Multiple Dimensions” by Anna M. Borghi et al. (2018): This paper discusses the representation of abstract concepts and the different criteria used to select them. Cambridge University Press
These sources should provide valuable insights into the subjects you’re interested in.
The United States have just finished another presidential election cycle. Given the choices, I didn’t vote, but I recently had a chat with my twenty-something son. He identifies with the policies of the Democratic Party of yore but reckons they’ve abandoned their position, so he’s taken an ‘anyone but them’ stance.
Looking back, he voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries for the 2016 election cycle—his first vote. He wanted a voice for change over the status quo. Without going into details, Bernie was back-stabbed and kicked in the groin by the DNC, the corporation in charge of the Democratic Party, because Hillary Clinton wanted to run. The rest is history, and my son reflected the sentiment. He wanted something other than status quo. If it wouldn’t be Sanders, it would be Trump, and he cast his vote accordingly.
The Democrats have lost touch with their base, whilst the Republicans have become the Big Tent party—a feature of the old Democratic party. Let’s rewind to see where it all fell apart.
It started during the Bill Clinton era—or rather, with the opposition against him. Before Clinton, politics were more like mates competing in sport. There were always sore losers, but by and large, people got behind the next administration, and we had peaceful transitions of power.
With Bill Clinton, a Democrat, the Republicans swore to hinder every possible policy or position he took. Despite this, he ran the first federal budget surplus to burn down the national debt for three of his eight years—the first since Lyndon B Johnson in 1969—and reversed a trend established by Ronald Reagan of leveraging debt, heaping it on future generations in the name of generating positive economic figures. Reagan ran the country like a bloke who’d found someone else’s limitless credit card. Americans are still paying off his binge.
When Clinton termed out, Republican Bush II was elected. The Democrats were furious. Then his cabal engaged in illegal crimes against humanity in the Middle East with the full support of the Democratic Party. When Bush II termed out, there was a lot of noise that he was going to commandeer the administration. This is the first I heard this rhetoric used, and the fear-based messaging has remained ratcheted up ever since. I heard this again at the end of Obama’s term and then Trump’s term.
Any semblance of world-based ideology has been drained, replaced with party fealty. In this election, the Harris campaign heavily messaged university-educated females. This was a strategic blunder as this was already her base. Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign targeted his former weak spots, taken for granted and left withering on the vine by the Harris campaign.
In the end, Harris ran a tepid campaign as a status quo candidate. No one is happy with the status quo save for those at the top. Democrats used to be about the average working-class Joe and Jane. Now, they’re about themselves. They never did any soul-searching after their loss in 2016. They thought they turned things around with Obama’s campaign of ‘Hope’, but he was another status quo turncoat whose actions didn’t match his rhetoric. He had two years where his party had full control of the House and Senate. Like a boxer throwing a fight, he sat on his hands for two years and then complained that he couldn’t get anything done.
Neither party has any material prospects for the future. They should just turn the page on this chapter of history—better still, they should open a new book.
In an idealised vision of science, the laboratory is a hallowed space of discovery and intellectual rigour, where scientists chase insights that reshape the world. Yet, in a reflection as candid as it is disconcerting, Sabine Hossenfelder pulls back the curtain on a reality few outside academia ever glimpse. She reveals an industry often more concerned with securing grants and maintaining institutional structures than with the philosophical ideals of knowledge and truth. In her journey from academic scientist to science communicator, Hossenfelder confronts the limitations imposed on those who dare to challenge the mainstream — a dilemma that raises fundamental questions about the relationship between truth, knowledge, and institutional power.
I’ve also created a podcast to discuss Sabine’s topic. Part 2 is also available.
Institutionalised Knowledge: A Double-Edged Sword
The history of science is often framed as a relentless quest for truth, independent of cultural or economic pressures. But as science became more institutionalised, a paradox emerged. On the one hand, large academic structures offer resources, collaboration, and legitimacy, enabling ambitious research to flourish. On the other, they impose constraints, creating an ecosystem where institutional priorities — often financial — can easily overshadow intellectual integrity. The grant-based funding system, which prioritises projects likely to yield quick results or conform to popular trends, inherently discourages research that is too risky or “edgy.” Thus, scientific inquiry can become a compromise, a performance in which scientists must balance their pursuit of truth with the practicalities of securing their positions within the system.
Hossenfelder’s account reveals the philosophical implications of this arrangement: by steering researchers toward commercially viable or “safe” topics, institutions reshape not just what knowledge is pursued but also how knowledge itself is conceptualised. A system prioritising funding over foundational curiosity risks constraining science to shallow waters, where safe, incremental advances take precedence over paradigm-shifting discoveries.
Gender, Equity, and the Paradoxes of Representation
Hossenfelder’s experience with gender-based bias in her early career unveils a further paradox of institutional science. Being advised to apply for scholarships specifically for women, rather than being offered a job outright, reinforced a stereotype that women in science might be less capable or less deserving of direct support. Though well-intentioned, such programs can perpetuate inequality by distinguishing between “real” hires and “funded outsiders.” For Hossenfelder, this distinction created a unique strain on her identity as a scientist, leaving her caught between competing narratives: one of hard-earned expertise and one of institutionalised otherness.
The implications of this dilemma are profound. Philosophically, they touch on questions of identity and value: How does an individual scientist maintain a sense of purpose when confronted with systems that, however subtly, diminish their role or undercut their value? And how might institutional structures evolve to genuinely support underrepresented groups without reinforcing the very prejudices they seek to dismantle?
The Paper Mill and the Pursuit of Legacy
Another powerful critique in Hossenfelder’s reflection is her insight into academia as a “paper production machine.” In this system, academics are pushed to publish continuously, often at the expense of quality or depth, to secure their standing and secure further funding. This structure, which rewards volume over insight, distorts the very foundation of scientific inquiry. A paper may become less a beacon of truth and more a token in an endless cycle of academic currency.
This pursuit of constant output reveals the philosopher’s age-old tension between legacy and ephemerality. In a system driven by constant publication, scientific “advancements” are at risk of being rendered meaningless, subsumed by an industry that prizes short-term gains over enduring impact. For scientists like Hossenfelder, this treadmill of productivity diminishes the romantic notion of a career in science. It highlights a contemporary existential question: Can a career built on constant output yield a genuine legacy, or does it risk becoming mere noise in an endless stream of data?
Leaving the Ivory Tower: Science Communication and the Ethics of Accessibility
Hossenfelder’s decision to leave academia for science communication raises a question central to contemporary philosophy: What is the ethical responsibility of a scientist to the public? When institutional science falters in its pursuit of truth, perhaps scientists have a duty to step beyond its walls and speak directly to the public. In her pivot to YouTube, Hossenfelder finds a new audience, one driven not by academic pressures but by genuine curiosity.
This shift embodies a broader rethinking of what it means to be a scientist today. Rather than publishing in academic journals read by a narrow circle of peers, Hossenfelder now shares her insights with a public eager to understand the cosmos. It’s a move that redefines knowledge dissemination, making science a dialogue rather than an insular monologue. Philosophically, her journey suggests that in an age where institutions may constrain truth, the public sphere might become a more authentic arena for its pursuit.
Conclusion: A New Paradigm for Scientific Integrity
Hossenfelder’s reflections are not merely the story of a disillusioned scientist; they are a call to re-evaluate the structures that define modern science. Her journey underscores the need for institutional reform — not only to allow for freer intellectual exploration but also to foster a science that serves humanity rather than merely serving itself.
Ultimately, the scientist’s dilemma that Hossenfelder presents is a philosophical one: How does one remain true to the quest for knowledge in an age of institutional compromise? As she shares her story, she opens the door to a conversation that transcends science itself, calling us all to consider what it means to seek truth in a world that may have forgotten its value. Her insights remind us that the pursuit of knowledge, while often fraught, is ultimately a deeply personal, ethical journey, one that extends beyond the walls of academia into the broader, often messier realm of human understanding.
Reparations, Sovereignty, and the Enduring Legacy of Colonialism
The story of Indigenous peoples in the United States is a story of profound loss—loss of land, culture, and sovereignty. But perhaps the most painful and enduring losses are the broken promises: the hundreds of treaties signed in good faith and then systematically violated. These broken promises have not only left Native nations impoverished and disenfranchised but have also created a debt so immense that, by some estimates, it could run into the trillions if fully accounted for.
The Weight of Broken Treaties
From the earliest days of European settlement, treaties were used as a tool of diplomacy between the United States government and Native nations. These treaties, over 370 in total, were meant to secure peace, land agreements, and coexistence. In exchange, Native peoples were promised sovereign rights, land, and, crucially, compensation in the form of resources, healthcare, education, and protection. Yet, these promises were almost universally broken, often within years of being signed.
The true cost of these broken promises is impossible to measure in simple monetary terms.
The true cost of these broken promises is impossible to measure in simple monetary terms. Land, culture, and sovereignty are not commodities that can be easily priced. However, if one were to quantify the economic and material loss incurred by Native peoples—through stolen land, expropriated resources, and missed opportunities—the total would be staggering. Some estimates suggest the cost could run into the hundreds of billions if not trillions when factoring in centuries of economic injustice, treble damages, and interest.
Calculating Reparations: Land, Wealth, and Justice
Any serious discussion of reparations must start with the land. Native nations once held over 2 billion acres of land in what is now the United States, a vast expanse rich with natural resources. Through a series of coercive treaties, legislation, and outright theft, much of this land was lost, culminating in the General Allotment Act (or Dawes Act) of 1887, which further fragmented Native lands and opened millions of acres for white settlers.
Reparations would need to account for the value of this land and the resources extracted from it—timber, minerals, oil, gas, and agricultural produce
Reparations would need to account for the value of this land and the resources extracted from it—timber, minerals, oil, gas, and agricultural produce—that have enriched generations of non-Native Americans. The land itself is invaluable, not just in terms of its market price but as the foundation of Indigenous identity, culture, and sovereignty. The land is not only an economic asset but a spiritual and cultural one. In this context, mere monetary compensation seems inadequate.
However, if we were to calculate reparations based on these lost lands and resources, the numbers quickly skyrocket. Consider the Black Hills of South Dakota, illegally seized from the Lakota after the discovery of gold, despite an 1868 treaty guaranteeing their sovereignty over the region. The Lakota have refused financial compensation for the Black Hills, insisting instead on the return of the land. The value of the Black Hills alone, when adjusted for inflation and interest, would be immense. And this is just one example. If treble damages were applied—tripling the original valuation to account for the egregiousness of the theft—the total would become astronomical.
Interest on Injustice
A crucial factor in calculating reparations is the interest accrued over time. The land was not just taken, but taken centuries ago, meaning that any fair compensation would need to account for the economic opportunities missed due to that loss. Compounded interest, a financial mechanism commonly applied in lawsuits to reflect the time value of money, would exponentially increase the debt owed. This debt is not just economic but cultural, as the loss of land also meant the loss of a way of life.
Reparations could…easily run into the trillions.
Reparations could, therefore, easily run into the trillions. This is not merely hypothetical. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians that the U.S. government had illegally taken the Black Hills, and the Sioux were entitled to compensation. The sum awarded was $106 million—today, with interest, that figure exceeds $1 billion. Yet the Sioux have refused the payment, demanding the return of their land instead. Their stance underscores the inadequacy of financial compensation for the cultural and spiritual dimensions of the loss.
Beyond Dollars: The Moral and Ethical Case for Reparations
While the financial dimension of reparations is essential, the moral and ethical dimensions are equally important. Reparations are not simply about writing a cheque; they are about justice. The broken treaties were not merely legal failures but moral failures, reflecting a systemic disregard for Native sovereignty and human dignity. The U.S. government’s persistent violations of treaties reveal a deep-rooted pattern of exploitation and dishonour that continues to reverberate through Native communities today.
broken treaties were not merely legal failures but moral failures
Reparations, in this broader sense, must include the return of lands, the restoration of cultural and political autonomy, and a fundamental rethinking of the relationship between Native nations and the U.S. government. The return of land—such as in the Land Back movement—is a critical component of this. Land is not only a material asset but a living connection to identity, tradition, and the future. Restoring land to Native nations would not only right historical wrongs but also empower them to rebuild their communities on their own terms.
The Political Challenge of Justice
Despite the moral clarity of the case for reparations, political challenges remain immense. Many Americans are unaware of the extent of Native dispossession or may see reparations as impractical or divisive. Yet, as the fight for racial justice has shown, justice is often uncomfortable. The fact that reparations would be costly, complex, and difficult is not an excuse to avoid the issue. If anything, it highlights how deep and enduring the injustice is.
Reparations are not a “handout” but a payment of a debt long overdue.
Reparations are not a “handout” but a payment of a debt long overdue. Native nations were once economically, politically, and culturally self-sufficient. The disruption of their societies, through land theft and broken treaties, is the root cause of the poverty, health disparities, and political marginalisation they face today. Addressing this requires more than just policy tweaks; it demands a fundamental reckoning with the past.
Conclusion: Trillions Owed, Promises to Keep
The reparations owed for centuries of broken treaties, stolen land, and unfulfilled promises are not simply about money but about honouring the sovereignty and humanity of Indigenous peoples. The debt is vast—financially, morally, and ethically—but it must be addressed if there is to be any hope for genuine reconciliation. Justice, long delayed, can no longer be denied. This underscores the larger point that the United States rarely follow through on their commitments, but this is a story for another day. Meantime, they’ll continue running roughshod over their people and the world, bullying their way through it.
I just finished reading How the World Made the West by Josephine Quinn. I don’t tend to read many history books. My last was probably David Graeber’s The Dawn of Everything a few years ago. I appreciate that these books reject the prevailing grand narratives, which is refreshing. My first exposure to this type of historical reporting was likely Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.
I’ve just ordered an updated translation of The Odyssey by Emily Wilson. I’ve had this on my reading list since before it was published in 2017. I’ve read versions by Robert Fagles and another in high school. I didn’t like the version I read in high school, but high school reading assignments always seemed to suck the life out of everything. The Wilson version updates the language and is presented in Iambic pentametre, which I look forward to reading. I considered reading Fagle’s The Aeneid (Vergil), as I haven’t read that yet, but not today.
I am not going to review Quinn’s book here, but I may do so in the future. I found the book enjoyable and educational. There’s actually some content that I will be adding to my book on Democracy whenever I release it. She employs a first-person plural perspective, which is a nice twist and not o POV I’ve encountered much.
If you appreciate a different view on history from a noted expert, snatch this up. Meantime, I’ll be back to post more presently.
As the years pass and my disappointment matures like a fine wine (spoiler alert: it’s vinegar), I’m reminded of the average intelligence quotient floating about in the wild. A few years back, I stumbled upon The Half-Life of Knowledge. Cute title, but it’s more optimistic than it should be. Why assume knowledge even has a shelf life? It’s one thing for once-useful information to spoil thanks to “progress,” but what about the things that were never true to begin with? Ah, yes, the fabrications, the lies we’re spoon-fed under the guise of education.
I’m well-versed in the lies they peddle in the United States, but I’d bet good money (not that I have any) that every nation’s curriculum comes with its own patriotic propaganda. What am I on about, you ask? Let’s just say I’ve been reading How the World Made the West by Josephine Quinn, and it’s got me thinking. You see, I’ve also been simmering on an anti-democracy book for the better part of five years, and it’s starting to boil over.
Here in the good ol’ US of A, they like to wax lyrical about how Athens was the birthplace of democracy. Sure, Athens had its democratic dabblings. But let’s not get it twisted—if you really look at it, Athens was more akin to the Taliban than to any modern Western state. Shocked? Don’t be. For starters, only property-owning men could vote, and women—brace yourselves—were “forced” to wear veils. Sounds familiar? “It’s a start,” you say. True, American women couldn’t vote until 1920, so let’s all pat ourselves on the back for that—Progress™️.
But no, hold your applause. First off, let’s remember that Athens and Sparta were city-states, not some cohesive entity called “Greece” as we so lovingly imagine. Just a bunch of Greek-speaking neighbours constantly squabbling like reality TV contestants. Meanwhile, over in Persia—yes, the supposed enemy of all things free and democratic—they had participative democracy, too. And guess what? Women in Persia could vote, own property, and serve as soldiers or military officers. So much for the idea that Athens was the singular beacon of democratic virtue.
More than this, Persian democracy was instituted by lottery, so many more people participated in the process by serving one-year terms. At the end of their term, they were audited to check for corruption. Now, you can see why we adopted the so-called Greek version. These blokes don’t welcome any oversight of scrutiny.
As a postmodern subjectivist, I tend to side-eye any grand narrative, and the history of Western civilisation is just one long parade of questionable claims and hidden agendas. Every time I think I’ve seen the last of the historical jump scares, another one comes lurking around the corner. Boo!
Philosophics 