Um, history? Are you saying that you think countries exist because people in different countries really are inherently different? It sure does not seem like that to me.
You didn't answer the main point of the question. "history" did nothing, it's a concept meaning basically "what happened already" without agency by itself. I'm interested in you answering about the actual reasons that played a part.
So again, why do countries and nations exists ?
So because humans naturally discriminate we should enshrine that in law? Does this apply to all human traits?
I can only, again, refer you back to my
previous post. It's pretty much dedicated to this point, was in fact a direct answer to you and yet you haven't actually answered it.
---
If you've caused harm to someone by accident, you've still caused harm. There still needs to be redress based on (to some extent the severity of) the harm done.
Actually that's wrong, both morally and even legally. If you hurt someone, redress entirely depends on the circumstance, and it could be the one you hurt that could be punished (if you hurt him in self-defense for example).
This is the difference between first (or second, etc) degree murder and manslaughter, but at the end of the day, someone is still dead. This is a relatively extreme case (and specifically legal in context) but it trends the same for lesser injuries and the like. A moral system cannot discard harm done without intent just because it happens to be incidental or accidental.
As above : it depends on circumstance, but YES harm done without intent can totally be discarded. It's all about responsibility (if someone hurts you through negligence, even if he didn't intent to hurt you, he was guilty of a fault ; if someone hurts you because you put yourself in harm's way, it's actually on your head).
In fact, it's a hallmark of dystopic settings to have a justice system punishing people for events without considering context and intents, precisely because it's anathema to any sense of justice.
The same goes for something like accidental racism or the like. However when discussing systems that perpetrate discrimination (as was originally discussed), even if they might not have been created to perpetrate discrimination, there has usually been enough time between then and now for a lack of change to said system to be argued as intentional.
Something that was made yesterday that accidentally discriminates against a demographic? Arguably a blunder.
Something that was made a hundred years ago and has been maintained ever since, that happened to (a hundred years ago) accidentally discriminate, and yet that discrimination still exists obviously today? The original intent is somewhat irrelevant, no?
We already discussed it in another thread, and my answer hasn't magically changed with time. If the perpetuation of the discrimination is unjust and inherent to the system, then yes it's a problem. If the system is just and fair but applying it results in discrimination because people are people, then your idea to just apply your own discrimination to "correct" the results means you simply are ready to be unjust toward a different group so you can force the end result you want - basically a "end justifies the means" mentality - and that's not actual justice, just playing favorites.
