- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmings.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmings.world
The United Nations General Assembly has voted to recognise the enslavement of Africans during the transatlantic slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity”, a move advocates hope will pave the way for healing and justice.
The resolution - proposed by Ghana - called for this designation, while also urging UN member states to consider apologising for the slave trade and contributing to a reparations fund. It does not mention a specific amount of money.
The proposal was adopted with 123 votes in favour and three against - the United States, Israel and Argentina.
Countries like the UK have long rejected calls to pay reparations, saying today’s institutions cannot be held responsible for past wrongs.
You must log in or # to comment.
Does it need to be a competition? Jeez
deleted by creator
Trump : The gravest crime against humanity is I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize, everybody knows that. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I get it is extremely important to remember how bad the transatlantic slave trade was, but I think reparations after two centuries makes no sense. You cannot track responsibility 10 generations separated, you cannot track beneficiaries in a globalized world. Countries not involved in slave trade got indirect benefits through commerce, countries involved are instead not benefiting today from that historic trade. Slavery was common everywhere in the world for millennia. I find it hard to even begin to quantify a reasonable approach to a reparation framework that would work in the context of all the human tragedies in the last 5 centuries.
deleted by creator
I am a westerner, born in a non slave trader country that never existed before the 1860s. The country before was not a slaver country. The country before that was client state of a slaver country, but just for 20 years! The one before that was not a slaver country. Going event further the country before that was still not a slaver country. Then it was not even a country and still not a slaver one. This until the 1200s when we abolished slavery, so I guess that before then slavery was somewhat ok, but was white people slaves so I do not think that counts.
I think we never became rich on the spoils. We were definitely richer in the 1200s (we were so rich we paid for the slaves to be free!) and for some centuries after that. That was definitely our golden age I would say. Post war recovery after 1960 was also good, but mainly driven by local mechanical industries, not spoils I am afraid.
deleted by creator
your lack of understanding of history does not constitute contradiction
deleted by creator
I have said nothing racists, so which part of history is incorrect?
deleted by creator
You don’t have to look at everything in terms of individual responsibility. We can clearly see that the injustices caused by transatlantic slavery, and imperialism more broadly, are very much still here. I think it would be nice to try to remedy this.
Of course, it’s non-binding, and the countries that should probably be paying reparations just happen to have all abstained (except for the rogue USA of course, voting against) so I don’t expect anything will happen. But it’s a nice idea.
are the descendants of the enslaved people still suffering from it? are the descendants of the enslavers still benefitting from it? yes?
then reparations should be paid.
I think at this point it would be better to focus on providing things like universal healthcare, education, and retirement, to everyone, keeping the cost of living in check, and working on ensuring opportunities for dignified labor and fair compensation are available to everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity.
That alongside rigorous policy measures to reduce (with a mind towards eliminating) things like workplace discrimination, redlining, racial profiling, etc.
There are some examples where the descendants of enslaved people can trace their heritage to their enslaved ancestors, and identify the descendants of their enslavers (often generationally wealthy business tycoons who own factories that pollute the neighborhoods of the enslaved people’s descendants…). The people of Africa Town near Mobile, Alabama are a prime example, and there’s a pretty good documentary about it.
In those cases, where there is a demonstrable chain of ancestry, yes, civil law should require the descendants of the enslavers to pay reparations to the descendants of the enslaved.
But so many times it happens that everyone wants to paint with a broad brush, where there’s no room for nuance, and say things like “all white people should pay reparations to black people.” And that’s just too clumsy and would never work.
One, because not all white people are generationally wealthy descendants of enslavers, so such a blanket policy of collective punishment meets the definition of racism. Two, because there’s no way to quantify in abstract terms how much money “every white person” owes to “every black person.”
It’s better to focus on making society better as a whole, filling in the gaps where racial disparity still exists (by lifting up the disenfranchised, not by tearing down the privileged), making the wealthy pay their fair share to the government’s coffers, making the government ensure robust social safety nets which benefit everyone who needs them, and only demanding reparations in specific cases where there is a direct link between the descendants of enslavers and the descendants of the particular people they enslaved.
How do you determine who is descended of enslaved and enslaver? How do you identify who is benefitting today for something that happened 500 years ago? How do you deal with people that descend from both enslavers and enslaved? There is a long thread about this. Ultimately it is not possible to do what you are asking. Should a farmer in Turkey pay for the benefit the ottoman empire got from slave trade to a white looking mixed american of west african descent? You realize how stupid that sound?
the states would be paying those reparations, not the people individually
european states should pay reparations to the nations they colonized and enslaved, and colonial states (the usa, canada…) should pay reparations to their colonized populations.
And where do ‘the states’ get their money? Taxes. You’d still be taxing the people to pay for reparations
deleted by creator
Here’s the biggest problem with reparations…
Most slaves were captured and then sold by other africans from competing kingdoms or tribes, to the europeans who would then take them across the atlantic.
Giving reparations to current africans would actually be like rewarding the original slavers.
This is just a complete lie what the hell
It’s the truth. Sorry? Do you think the slave traders were parking outside Africa, ranging across the continent, and grabbing people with big nets?
deleted by creator
Which part? That Africans captured other Africans? Definitely not a lie… Europeans didn’t go to the interior. They showed up at the western coast, anchored offshore, and bought captives from mercenaries or tribal warlords who had brought conquered Africans from the interior to the coast specifically because there was a customer (horrible I know) to buy them – the European slavers waiting in their ships. Port towns grew wealthy and powerful as the “portal” to African slaves.
Slave Ship is a good (and brutally dark) book about this.
They did show up at the shores and took slaves. Then they found out they could sell guns and arm mercenaries to do it for them for even more effective slavery. And they killed anyone who resisted them.
Just because they armed and hired middle-men to do the dirty work on the shores (and only because it was cheaper for them to do this) doesn’t absolve them from being the cause these people were transported into slavery.
Well you’re conflating “how it happened” with “who’s to blame”.
Obviously the European slave trade was the prime mover for regional African warlords capturing would-be-slaves in the interior and of course this doesn’t absolve the European slavers of anything lol
today’s institutions cannot be held responsible for past wrongs.
It’s not just that they don’t want to face the consequences of benefiting from apartheid. They want to continue benefiting from it.
Lots of americans would be very upset with you right now if they could read.
Americans fought a war over slavery, so obviously they very much weren’t all ok with it. Also, look at stats of where most slaves went. Brasil had the most, USA wasn’t in the top 5. Any number of slaves is too much though.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, […] What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union - Abraham Lincoln
So the president felt more responsibility to his nation than to the slaves, at a time where slavery was much less frowned upon than today. I have a hard time retroactively faulting him for that. If he did the right thing for the wrong reasons, is it not still the right thing to do?
The war was not fought over slavery. That was only a convenient add-on. The US south was the primary party benefiting from slavery and the north wasn’t. Therefore it was easy for the North to tack that on the list.
While I don’t see it as a bad thing, it was certainly not the primary motivator or reason the civil war was fought. Also it took quite a while after the civil war to actually abolish slavery and even now there are have things like forced prison labor which is primarily done by black men whose neighborhoods are overpoliced.
The war was fought over slavery according to the South’s constitution.
You quoted the wrong side, I suggest that you correct this mistake in the future.
The statement that “the war was not fought over slavery” is a falsehood according to history. It’s not an obscure fact, you can read their constitution at any time. Educate yourself, please, you make me wince in embarrassment
That’s weird, Abe just said that he didn’t really care about slavery, so why was there a war then?
It was not a primary factor for the north. For the south, slavery was the single most important issue for fighting this war.
Can’t you see how this story doesn’t make sense? Slavery already existed. So if the North didn’t care about slavery, then why would the South need to fight for it?
Not going to dispute this other than to say that it’s “the gravest crime against humanity in MODERN TIMES.”
In past times, enslaving the populations of entire conquered nations or villages was common. Bringing slaves back to Rome was a regular part of an Army’s return. Enslaving one’s neighbors has been extremely common across the globe, since the beginning of humanity.
Beyond slavery, there have been marauders like the Huns or the Khans, who would attack a city, and kill every single living thing, and then move on the the next one.
Unfortunately, there are lots of candidates for the award.
deleted by creator
Not just Rome, but Egypt, and every other nation, or whatever they were back then.
deleted by creator
That’s not what I was saying, and you damn well know it. I mentioned Rome, and you seized on that to make an illegitimate point, which I countered that Rome wasn’t the only civilization participating in slavery, and you took that as an opportunity to accuse me of being soft on slavery, which is really, really stupid.
Highly disengenuous.
deleted by creator
if I believed that, I would say that, but I don’t believe that, and I didn’t say that. I will not engage with a liar who places their own words in quotes, and attributes them to me.
Done with you.
deleted by creator
