DOCSLIB.ORG

Holocaust Compensation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Holocaust Compensation In Re HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS LITIGATION (Swiss Banks) SPECIAL MASTER’S PROPOSAL, September 11, 2000 HOLOCAUST COMPENSATION I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................5 II. GERMAN INDEMNIFICATION (NON-PROPERTY) PAYMENTS.............................7 A. Background .........................................................................................................7 B. The Luxembourg Agreement ...............................................................................9 C. The Bundesentschädigungsgesetze (Federal Indemnification Laws or BEG) ................................................................................................................. 16 1. Bundesergänzungsgesetz zur Entschädigung für Opfer des Nationalsozialismus (BErgG)................................................................. 16 2. Bundesgesetz zur Entschädigung für Opfer der Nationalsozialistischen Verfolgung (BEG- Bundesentschädigungsgesetz)................................................................. 18 a. Background to 1956 amendment.................................................18 b. Selected Provisions of the BEG ..................................................22 (1) Part One – General Provisions:........................................22 (2) Part Two – “Categories of Damages”: .............................23 (3) Parts III, IV and V – “Special Provisions for Legal Persons, Institutions or Associations”; “Special Groups of Persecutees”; “Persons Damaged Because of Their Nationality”: ...................................................................28 (4) Parts VI and VII – Payment of the Compensation Claims; Mitigation of Hardship:...................................................31 c. Bundesentschädigungsschlussgesetz (BEG –Schlussgesetz, or “Final Federal Compensation Law” or “Second Revised BEG”) (1965-1969)................................................................................32 (1) Provisions .......................................................................32 (2) Limitations:.....................................................................33 d. Summary of BEG Compensation Statistics .................................37 D. Hardship Fund (1980 – to date)......................................................................... 40 1. Overview ............................................................................................... 40 R&O-665994.1 E - 1 In Re HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS LITIGATION (Swiss Banks) SPECIAL MASTER’S PROPOSAL, September 11, 2000 2. Summary of Hardship Fund Statistics..................................................... 45 E. Article 2 Fund (1992 – to date) ........................................................................ 47 a. Overview....................................................................................47 b. Summary of Article 2 Fund Statistics..........................................52 F. German Social Security Payments ..................................................................... 54 G. Central and Eastern European Fund (“CEEF”)................................................... 55 H. Agreement Between the United States and Germany (“Princz” Agreement)....... 56 III. GERMAN PROPERTY RESTITUTION ...................................................................... 59 A. Background - 1945-1957: .................................................................................. 59 1. Restitution of “heirless” assets ............................................................... 59 2. Restitution to survivors or heirs.............................................................. 62 B. Federal Restitution Law (“BRUEG”):................................................................ 64 1. Background: Global Settlement with Successor Organizations .............. 64 2. Provisions and Effect of the BRUEG...................................................... 65 C. Restitution of Property from the Former East Germany...................................... 69 IV. OTHER EUROPEAN COMPENSATION PROGRAMS .............................................. 72 A. Western European Nations................................................................................. 73 1. Austria ................................................................................................... 73 a. Background ................................................................................73 b. Recent Austrian Measures ..........................................................76 2. Belgium ................................................................................................. 79 3. Denmark ................................................................................................ 80 4. France .................................................................................................... 81 5. Greece.................................................................................................... 82 6. Italy........................................................................................................ 83 7. The Netherlands ..................................................................................... 84 8. Norway .................................................................................................. 87 9. Switzerland ............................................................................................ 89 10. Great Britain .......................................................................................... 90 R&O-665994.1 E - 2 In Re HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS LITIGATION (Swiss Banks) SPECIAL MASTER’S PROPOSAL, September 11, 2000 11. Other Western European Countries ........................................................ 91 B. Central and Eastern Europe................................................................................ 92 1. Czechoslovakia; Czech Republic; Slovakia ............................................ 92 2. Estonia ................................................................................................... 95 3. Hungary ................................................................................................. 95 4. Latvia..................................................................................................... 97 5. Poland.................................................................................................... 97 6. Other Nations of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union..................................................................................................... 99 V. COMPENSATION TO NON-JEWISH VICTIMS OR TARGETS OF NAZI PERSECUTION ......................................................................................................... 102 A. Roma............................................................................................................... 102 1. BEG..................................................................................................... 103 2. Compensation to Roma for Sterilization and Other Harms.................... 106 3. Other German compensation to Roma Victims..................................... 107 4. Other Nations’ Compensation to Roma Victims ................................... 109 B. Jehovah’s Witnesses ........................................................................................ 110 C. Persons with Disabilities.................................................................................. 112 D. Homosexuals ................................................................................................... 113 VI. SLAVE LABOR SETTLEMENTS WITH GERMAN ENTERPRISES....................... 115 A. IG Farben Co................................................................................................... 115 B. Friedrich Krupp Company ............................................................................... 118 C. AEG-Telefunken Co........................................................................................ 119 D. Siemens-Halske Company ............................................................................... 121 E. Rheinmetall Co................................................................................................ 122 F. Dynamit Nobel (Flick)..................................................................................... 123 G. German Slave and Forced Labor Agreement of 2000....................................... 124 R&O-665994.1 E - 3 In Re HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS LITIGATION (Swiss Banks) SPECIAL MASTER’S PROPOSAL, September 11, 2000 VII. INSTITUTIONAL ALLOCATIONS .......................................................................... 125 A. Overview......................................................................................................... 125 B. The Successor Organizations (1947 – 1957) .................................................... 126 C. Claims Conference Institutional Programs Pursuant to the Luxembourg Agreement....................................................................................................... 127 D. Institutional Programs Pursuant to the Hardship Fund...................................... 133 E. Allocations From Sales of Proceeds of Restituted Properties From the Former GDR.................................................................................................... 134 VIII. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 137 R&O-665994.1 E - 4 In Re
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Repatriate . . . Then Compensate: Why the United States Owes Reparation Payments to Former Guantánamo Detainees
    Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 48 Number 3 Developments in the Law: Election Article 8 Law; Developments in the Law: Law of War Spring 2015 Repatriate . Then Compensate: Why the United States Owes Reparation Payments to Former Guantánamo Detainees Cameron Bell Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the President/ Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Cameron Bell, Repatriate . Then Compensate: Why the United States Owes Reparation Payments to Former Guantánamo Detainees, 48 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 867 (2015). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol48/iss3/8 This Law of War Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REPATRIATE . THEN COMPENSATE: WHY THE UNITED STATES OWES REPARATION PAYMENTS TO FORMER GUANTÁNAMO DETAINEES Cameron Bell* In late 2001, U.S. government officials chose Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as the site to house the “war on terror” detainees. Since then, 779 individuals have been detained at Guantánamo. Many of the detainees have endured years of detention, cruel and degrading treatment, and for some, torture—conduct that violates well-established prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment under both general international law and the law of war.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Participants
    JUNE 26–30, Prague • Andrzej Kremer, Delegation of Poland, Poland List of Participants • Andrzej Relidzynski, Delegation of Poland, Poland • Angeles Gutiérrez, Delegation of Spain, Spain • Aba Dunner, Conference of European Rabbis, • Angelika Enderlein, Bundesamt für zentrale United Kingdom Dienste und offene Vermögensfragen, Germany • Abraham Biderman, Delegation of USA, USA • Anghel Daniel, Delegation of Romania, Romania • Adam Brown, Kaldi Foundation, USA • Ann Lewis, Delegation of USA, USA • Adrianus Van den Berg, Delegation of • Anna Janištinová, Czech Republic the Netherlands, The Netherlands • Anna Lehmann, Commission for Looted Art in • Agnes Peresztegi, Commission for Art Recovery, Europe, Germany Hungary • Anna Rubin, Delegation of USA, USA • Aharon Mor, Delegation of Israel, Israel • Anne Georgeon-Liskenne, Direction des • Achilleas Antoniades, Delegation of Cyprus, Cyprus Archives du ministère des Affaires étrangères et • Aino Lepik von Wirén, Delegation of Estonia, européennes, France Estonia • Anne Rees, Delegation of United Kingdom, United • Alain Goldschläger, Delegation of Canada, Canada Kingdom • Alberto Senderey, American Jewish Joint • Anne Webber, Commission for Looted Art in Europe, Distribution Committee, Argentina United Kingdom • Aleksandar Heina, Delegation of Croatia, Croatia • Anne-Marie Revcolevschi, Delegation of France, • Aleksandar Necak, Federation of Jewish France Communities in Serbia, Serbia • Arda Scholte, Delegation of the Netherlands, The • Aleksandar Pejovic, Delegation of Monetenegro, Netherlands
    [Show full text]
  • The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews: Part II
    The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews: Part II CARL0 MATTOGNO 1. Birth and Development of Revisionism ational Socialist policy in the matter of Jewish emigration, N pursued officially until the beginning of February 1942, thus posed a question that really was "throbbing," to use again the adjective employed by Poliakov. If it was true that exterminating the Jews "conformed to the fundamental objective of National social ism"^; if it was true that it was not "the coming to a head of an unforeseeable explosion of violence, or of a betrayal of trust by subordinates, but the fruit of an ideology of death and of an organic design"^; if it was true that "according to Hitler, among the ends that had to be achieved thanks to the war, the general extermination of the Jews had a very important place, to the realization of which the German government would devote a large part of its forces,"3 for what mysterious reason did Adolf Hitler deprive himself of at least a million victims by allowing them to emigrate? It was thus inevitable that so atrocious an accusation, based essentially on "third and fourth hand accounts," on 'Wle game of psychological deductions," knowing that "all these could offer was fragile and speculative," and on "fragmentary and sometimes hypothetical answers," be placed in doubt. In the immediate post-war period and in the following years severe criticisms were formulated in regard to the trials of those who were called "Nazi war criminalsn-in particular, the Nuremberg trial4-and concerning the behavior of the Allies during the war.5 The first to raise doubt about the reality of the "extermination" of the Jews was the Frenchman, Paul Rassinier,a who is justly considered to be the precursor of present-day Revisionism.
    [Show full text]
  • MS 315 A1076 Papers of Clemens Nathan Scrapbooks Containing
    1 MS 315 A1076 Papers of Clemens Nathan Scrapbooks containing newspaper cuttings, correspondence and photographs from Clemens Nathan’s work with the Anglo-Jewish Association (AJA) 1/1 Includes an obituary for Anatole Goldberg and information on 1961-2, 1971-82 the Jewish youth and Soviet Jews 1/2 Includes advertisements for public meetings, information on 1972-85 the Middle East, Soviet Jews, Nathan’s election as president of the Anglo-Jewish Association and a visit from Yehuda Avner, ambassador of the state of Israel 1/3 Including papers regarding public lectures on human rights 1983-5 issues and the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, the Middle East, human rights and an obituary for Leslie Prince 1/4 Including papers regarding the Anglo-Jewish Association 1985-7 (AJA) president’s visit to Israel, AJA dinner with speaker Timothy Renton MP, Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Kurt Waldheim, president of Austria; accounts for 1983-4 and an obituary for Viscount Bearsted Papers regarding Nathan’s work with the Consultative Council of Jewish Organisations (CCJO) particularly human rights issues and printed email correspondence with George R.Wilkes of Gonville and Cauis Colleges, Cambridge during a period when Nathan was too ill to attend events and regarding the United Nations sub- commission on human right at Geneva. [The CCJO is a NGO (Non-Governmental Organisation) with consultative status II at UNESCO (the United National Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation)] 2/1 Papers, including: Jan -Aug 1998 arrangements
    [Show full text]
  • The Memory and Historiography of the Porrajmos Making a Transnational National Site of Memory
    S: I. M. O. N. Vol. 8|2021|No.1 SHOAH: INTERVENTION. METHODS. DOCUMENTATION. György Majtényi The Memory and Historiography of the Porrajmos Making a Transnational National Site of Memory Abstract This article investigates the memory and historiography of the Roma Holocaust/Porrajmos. It examines the stages and actors in the process through which the Porrajmos became a ‘site of memory’ within Roma minority communities living in different nation states, and how later, this ‘site of memory’ played a role in the making of a unified, common narrative of Roma history and in the transnational process of Roma national identity building. The Porrajmos, as a site of memory of shared Roma history, has played a significant role in the local, ethnic, national, as well as transnational identities of the Roma, and through this also the creation of ties among different Roma communities. This study is not concerned with the Roma Holocaust/Porrajmos. In the follow- ing, I will examine the memory and historiography of the Porrajmos and their role within the Roma nation-building process. The memory of the Holocaust undoubtedly played an important role in the for- mation of Jewish and Roma national identities.1 The construction of the collective memory of the Roma Holocaust began later in time, which, in my interpretation, led to decisive differences between the memory constructions of the Shoah and the Porrajmos. The other important difference to be emphasised is that the Roma do not have their own nation state, and consequently no nation state framework of memory could be developed in their case, either.
    [Show full text]
  • SS-Totenkopfverbände from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (Redirected from SS-Totenkopfverbande)
    Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history SS-Totenkopfverbände From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from SS-Totenkopfverbande) Navigation Not to be confused with 3rd SS Division Totenkopf, the Waffen-SS fighting unit. Main page This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason Contents has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (December 2010) Featured content Current events This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding Random article citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2010) Donate to Wikipedia [2] SS-Totenkopfverbände (SS-TV), rendered in English as "Death's-Head Units" (literally SS-TV meaning "Skull Units"), was the SS organization responsible for administering the Nazi SS-Totenkopfverbände Interaction concentration camps for the Third Reich. Help The SS-TV was an independent unit within the SS with its own ranks and command About Wikipedia structure. It ran the camps throughout Germany, such as Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Community portal Buchenwald; in Nazi-occupied Europe, it ran Auschwitz in German occupied Poland and Recent changes Mauthausen in Austria as well as numerous other concentration and death camps. The Contact Wikipedia death camps' primary function was genocide and included Treblinka, Bełżec extermination camp and Sobibor. It was responsible for facilitating what was called the Final Solution, Totenkopf (Death's head) collar insignia, 13th Standarte known since as the Holocaust, in collaboration with the Reich Main Security Office[3] and the Toolbox of the SS-Totenkopfverbände SS Economic and Administrative Main Office or WVHA.
    [Show full text]
  • Romani Identity and the Holocaust in Autobiographical Writing by German and Austrian Romanies
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Journeys into Memory: Romani Identity and the Holocaust in Autobiographical Writing by German and Austrian Romanies Marianne C. Zwicker Doctor of Philosophy University of Edinburgh 2009 Abstract This PhD thesis examines the ‘working through’ of traumatic memories of the Holocaust and representations of Romani cultural identity in autobiographical writing by Romanies in Ger- many and Austria. In writing their memories in German, these Romani writers ended the ‘muteness’ previously surrounding their own experiences of persecution in the Third Reich and demanded an end to the official silence regarding the Romani Holocaust in their home countries. The thesis aims to explore how the writing of these narratives works to create a space for Romani memories within German language written tradition and to assert a more positive Romani identity and space for this identity in their homelands.
    [Show full text]
  • USHMM Individual Profile Cards
    INDIVIDUAL PROFILE CARDS UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM Faiga (Fanny) Orenbach was born into an Orthodox Jewish family in Łódź, Poland. The family moved to Brussels, Belgium when she was a young child, where her parents became active in the Jewish community. Fanny earned a art degree and designed clothing for the Royal House of Belgium. In May 1938, Fanny married Jacques Aizenberg, and less than a year later, gave birth to a daughter, Josiane. Germany invaded Belgium on May 10, 1940. Jacques left immediately to join the military, and after Belgium was defeated, he evacuated to England. Although she was Jewish, Fanny soon became actively involved in the resistance movement, hiding refugees in her attic. In October 1942, a few months after Fanny’s father was arrested, Fanny put Josiane in hiding. Fanny and her mother, Rivke, also went into hiding, but the Gestapo discovered and arrested them in 1943. They were beaten and taken to the Mechelen (Malines) transit camp. After ten days in Mechelen, Fanny and Rivke were deported to Auschwitz. Upon arrival at Auschwitz, Fanny and Rivke were placed in separate lines. Fanny Orenbach Aizenberg Fanny never saw her mother again. Fanny found encouragement from a group of six women. Together, they endured beatings, forced labor in a grenade factory, cruel and painful medical experiments, and the many other Born 1916 horrors of Auschwitz. Łódź, Poland In January 1945, the SS evacuated Auschwitz, sending Fanny and tens of thousands of prisoners on a forced march in frozen temperatures. After four months, Fanny and the other survivors were liberated near the Elbe River by the Soviet Red Army.
    [Show full text]
  • A Violation of Jus Cogens Norms As an Implicit Waiver of Immunity Under the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act Thora A
    Maryland Journal of International Law Volume 19 | Issue 2 Article 4 A Violation of Jus Cogens Norms as an Implicit Waiver of Immunity Under the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act Thora A. Johnson Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil Part of the Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Thora A. Johnson, A Violation of Jus Cogens Norms as an Implicit Waiver of Immunity Under the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act, 19 Md. J. Int'l L. 259 (1995). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil/vol19/iss2/4 This Notes & Comments is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A VIOLATION OF JUS COGENS NORMS AS AN IMPLICIT WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER THE FEDERAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT I. INTRODUCTION The recent case, Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany,' exem- plifies the fact that foreign sovereigns are irreproachable in the courts of the United States for human rights violations perpetrated abroad. Despite the enactment of the Torture Victim Protection Act2 and the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act s (hereinafter "the FSIA"), courts of the United States lack jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign when it commits human rights violations against United States citizens and aliens abroad. This note argues that United States courts could exert jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign under the FSIA by accepting a theory of implied waiver of sovereign immunity in cases where a sover- eign violates human rights." Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 5, 1993 Decided July 1, 1994 Nos. 92-724
    <<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>> USCA Case #93-7006 Document #67188 Filed: 07/01/1994 Page 1 of 30 UnitedÿStatesÿCourtÿofÿAppeals FORÿTHEÿDISTRICTÿOFÿCOLUMBIAÿCIRCUIT ArguedÿNovemberÿ5,ÿ1993ÿÿÿÿÿÿDecidedÿJulyÿ1,ÿ1994 Nos.ÿ92-7247ÿandÿ93-7006 HUGOÿPRINCZ, APPELLEE v. FEDERALÿREPUBLICÿOFÿGERMANY, APPELLANT AppealÿfromÿtheÿUnitedÿStatesÿDistrictÿCourt forÿtheÿDistrictÿofÿColumbia (92cv00644) Peter Heidenberger argued the cause for appellant. Withÿhimÿo nÿt heÿbriefsÿwereÿ Thomas G. Corcoran,ÿJr. andÿKathleenÿS.ÿRice. StevenÿR.ÿPerles arguedÿtheÿcauseÿforÿappellee.ÿÿWithÿhimÿonÿtheÿbriefÿwasÿ DavidÿE.ÿSher. On the brief for amici curiae The Anti-Defamation League, The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, and Faculty Members of the American University, Washington College of Law, were Jill Kahn Meltzer, Sheldon H. Klein, David M. Levine, Steven M. Roth, and Warren L. Dennis. NicholasÿN.ÿKittrie enteredÿanÿappearanceÿforÿamicusÿcuriae WashingtonÿCollegeÿofÿLaw. BeforeÿWALD,ÿGINSBURG,ÿandÿSENTELLE,ÿCircuitÿJudges. OpinionÿforÿtheÿCourtÿfiledÿbyÿCircuitÿJudge GINSBURG. DissentingÿopinionÿfiledÿbyÿCircuitÿJudge WALD. GINSBURG,ÿCircuit Judge: HugoÿPrincz,ÿaÿHolocaustÿsurvivor,ÿbroughtÿsuitÿinÿtheÿdistrict court against the Federal Republic ofGermany to recover money damages for the injuries he suffered andÿtheÿslave labor he performed while a prisoner in Nazi concentration camps. Theÿdistrictÿcourt asserted subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Princz's claim, and Germanyÿappealedÿpursuantÿtoÿ28
    [Show full text]
  • Theory in Nazi Occupied Denmark Katherine Greenwood [email protected]
    Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs) Spring 5-2016 “Not With an Iron Fist, But With a Velvet Glove”: The Go‘ od Germans’ Theory in Nazi Occupied Denmark Katherine Greenwood [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations Part of the European History Commons Recommended Citation Greenwood, Katherine, "“Not With an Iron Fist, But With a Velvet Glove”: The Good‘ Germans’ Theory in Nazi Occupied Denmark" (2016). Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). 2192. https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/2192 “Not With an Iron Fist, But With a Velvet Glove”: The ‘Good Germans’ Theory in Nazi Occupied Denmark By Katherine Greenwood Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree: Master of Arts Department of History Seton Hall University May 2016 © 2016 Katherine Greenwood Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter I: “On principle we will do our utmost to make the operation appear as a peaceful occupation.” ................................................................................................................................. 3 Chapter II: “The canary bird of a murderer.” .............................................................................. 11 Chapter III: “I gather a situation
    [Show full text]
  • "With a Very Great Blame on Our Hearts": Reparations, Reconciliation, and an American Indian Plea for Peace and Justice William Bradford
    American Indian Law Review Volume 27 | Number 1 1-1-2002 "With a Very Great Blame on Our Hearts": Reparations, Reconciliation, and an American Indian Plea for Peace and Justice William Bradford Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, and the Legal Remedies Commons Recommended Citation William Bradford, "With a Very Great Blame on Our Hearts": Reparations, Reconciliation, and an American Indian Plea for Peace and Justice, 27 Am. Indian L. Rev. 1 (2002), https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/ailr/vol27/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in American Indian Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "WITH A VERY GREAT BLAME ON OUR HEARTS":' REPARATIONS, RECONCILIATION, AND AN AMERICAN INDIAN PLEA FOR PEACE WITH JUSTICE William Bradford I.Introduction In a post-September 1lth era riven by ethno-nationalism, territorial revanchism, and religious terror, the United States has assumed the mantle of leadership in articulating the moral, political, and legal norms that will inform reconstruction of global security architecture.2 Defense of human rights,3 whether motivated by its contribution to the calculus of national 1. The Lakota Indian, "American Horse," commented on the December 29, 1890, Massacre at Wounded Knee where U.S. Army troops of the 7th Cavalry slaughtered over 300 peaceful Indian women and children after a fruitless search for weapons in their encampment: The women as they were fleeing with their babes were killed together, shot right through, and the women who were very heavy with child were also killed.
    [Show full text]