A few days ago, the Daily Mail ran an article on Richard Dawkins and his supposed family links to the slave trade. It would appear, says the Daily Mail, that Dawkins family fortune was made on the backs of Jamaican slaves, and that his family estate was purchased with these monies. Reprehensible? Certainly. But should Dawkins be held responsible for these actions?

Some groups seem to think so, and have been calling for his public apology, but how can that be justified - holding a man who was not alive accountable for actions he did not participate in? Particularly in the Western world where honor/shame societies are so foreign to us, this makes little sense. If the question is one of guilt/innocence, Prof. Dawkins should be held no more guilty for the actions of his slave-holding ancestors than his distant ancestors should be accountable for his polemics against the Almighty. Prof. Dawkins has plenty of his own actions to answer for, so I don't think we need to start holding him accountable for the evils of others just yet.

But what do you think? Can a person be held responsible for family crimes that they had no ability to stop?