This relates to the BBC article [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790] which states “the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries”.
The UK abolished slavery in 1833. That’s 190 years ago. So nobody alive today has a slave, and nobody alive today was a slave.
Dividing £18tn by the number of UK taxpayers (31.6m) gives £569 each. Why do I, who have never owned a slave, have to give £569 to someone who similarly is not a slave?
When I’ve paid my £569 is that the end of the matter forever or will it just open the floodgates of other similar claims?
Isn’t this just a country that isn’t doing too well, looking at the UK doing reasonably well (cost of living crisis excluded of course), and saying “oh there’s this historical thing that affects nobody alive today but you still have to give us trillions of Sterling”?
Shouldn’t payment of reparations be limited to those who still benefit from the slave trade today, and paid to those who still suffer from it?
(Please don’t flame me. This is NSQ. I genuinely don’t know why this is something I should have to pay. I agree slavery is terrible and condemn it in all its forms, and we were right to abolish it.)
This is so false, slavery was wide practice in Africa already, the “slaving countrys” just bought them for the most part…
Yeah it existed as a practice. The big slave markets and infrastructure was not there until the North American slave trade opened up.
Simply not correct at all. Look up the trans Saharan slave trade. It was absolutely enormous business before the Portuguese sailed down the West Coast of Africa.
Lol why is that comment you’re replying to so upvoted, people just like what they want to hear.
Uhh okay. You’re talking about dozens or hundred people or so at a time, thousands of people per year, mostly prisoners of war, traded domestically, deported over a period of 1,700 years.
And it still not half as many slaves as were deported across the Atlantic in only 350 years. Millions of slaves died on the voyage. They built vast trading routes and employed slavers as a business model, building customized ships to transport 600 slaves at a time.
Apples and oranges.
You have a profound misunderstanding of the trans Saharan slave trade. Over centuries it resulted in millions of West African slaves being transported into and through the Arab world. This may not even have been the most significant source of slaves out of Africa during the pre-European colonial period. It is highly likely that more slaves came from Central and East Africa via Zanzibar. Millions upon millions of slaves being extracted from Africa before the Portuguese arrived. I’m not saying that what Europe did was even remotely reasonable. Just understand that we didn’t invent slavery, we didn’t start up slavery in Africa out of nowhere. It doesn’t excuse us. But we’re not uniquely evil either.
I don’t see the misunderstanding.
And? Thats not exactly question…
deleted by creator
Between 1500 and 1865, more than 80% of enslaved Africans were shipped to the Americas by European slave traders.
I’ve never seen an exact number ascribed to it, any chance you have a source?
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teacher-resources/historical-context-facts-about-slave-trade-and-slavery
Very nice, thanks!
Uh… Yes Traders. They bought them in Africa and shipped them to America.
What are you trying to say?
Removed by mod
What’s your point?
“I’m going to take these slaves and exploit them because if I don’t someone else will”
What do you think an enormous demand for slaves, as the colonial nations building plantations and mines in the americas, does to a the supply of slaves? Supply and demand, friend. It’s not as if all the enslaved people exported to the Americas were already in circulation when the europeans came knocking
Removed by mod
I can’t think of a single ethical framework that considers having someone else do your dirty work as permissible. If you have zero agency, sure. If you have nearly all the agency, like the colonial powers, no. The colonial powers threatened to topple governments that restricted slave trade, like the Kongo.
I’ve never said that it was a good or acceptable thing, im just very very opposed to the idea of reparations for such things.
This argument is based on the idea that buying ill-gotten water is equivalent to buying people
I’m not sure if you are an ignorant apologist or outright racist but it feels important to comment on this given the number of uovotes this post is receiving. From an article from Slate I will link below:
"But, as historian Marcus Rediker writes, the “ancient and widely accepted institution” of enslavement in Africa was exacerbated by the European presence. Yes, European slave traders entered “preexisting circuits of exchange” when they arrived in the 16th century. But European demand changed the shape of this market, strengthening enslavers and ensuring that more and more people would be carried away. “[European] slave-ship captains wanted to deal with ruling groups and strong leaders, people who could command labor resources and deliver the ‘goods,’ ” Rediker writes, and European money and technology further empowered those who were already dominant, encouraging them to enslave greater numbers. Both the social structures and infrastructure that enabled African systems of enslavement were strengthened by the transatlantic slave trade.
Advertisement
Bottom line: Why should this matter? This is a classic “two wrongs make a right” ethical proposition. Even if Africans (or Arabs, or Jews) colluded in the slave trade, should white Americans be entitled to do whatever they pleased with the people who were unlucky enough to fall victim?"
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/09/slavery-myths-seven-lies-half-truths-and-irrelevancies-people-trot-out-about-slavery-debunked.html
Nope, they deliberately made it so that the populations of African countries can easily be enslaved.