NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolution to Acknowledge and Put Slavery in the Past.

Description: RECOGNIZING that Slavery has in the distant past been an economic tool of currently progressive nations and that the bitter resentment of some decedents of slaves and the reactions of former slave owners to this resentment causes incalculable damage to social unity in member nations.

RECOGNIZING that laws alone cannot and will never adequately compensate descendents of slaves for the suffering that their forefathers endured, yet that no living person in most of these nations was ever a slave.

CONCERNED that in many nations social inequity is preserved by opportunists that seek to embitter descendents of slaves to further power through continuing the segregation of the populous creating a spiral of animosity between descendents of slaves, descendents of slave owners, and a total lack of comprehension of where this does not apply or where the lines blur and become unrecognizable.

CONVINCED of the need to address, acknowledge, and end this problem

RESOLVED to promote peace and social stability through acknowledgment and ending the debate regarding past slavery;

The General Assembly of The United Nations hereby ordains that:

(I) The past role of slavery in a nation will be taught in all schools covering the causes, effects, and all members of the mechanisms of slavery.

(II) That allowing as all races and all creeds played a part in the ownership of slaves in many if not all countries, no one race or creed will be singled out as guilty.

(III) Compensation to the families of former slaves, being unable to be obtained from the actual slave owners, will not be ordered by any nation.

(III) Persons attempting to capitalize on any lingering resentment from slavery in the distant past should be discouraged through education and if necessary enaction of localized sedition laws.

As Seabear70 has recently been given the right to submit proposals for resolutions to the UN, we are currently working on our first draft to this esteemed body.

We recognize that this proposal may ispire bitter debate, but also recognize that the time has come to move beyond the social impact of our forefathers and seek a brighter future for all races, creeds, and colors of peoples.

Towards that end, we respectfully request the imput and guidence of thegeneral assembly in refining and modifyingthis proposal.

Please note, the purpose of the proposal is clear, it is to remove the stigma associated with past slavery and past slave ownership of all races. Attempts to turn this into a bashing bill against the bigtopians will not be accepted into the final draft.

Slavery has never been a part of the Empire. Indentured servitude, or liege-service has. However, our people have never enslaved another or the like.

Further, we question why this requires legislation. Acknowleding slavery? Not an international issue.

Most courteously,

Slavery has never been a part of the Empire. Indentured servitude, or liege-service has. However, our people have never enslaved another or the like.

Further, we question why this requires legislation. Acknowleding slavery? Not an international issue.

Most courteously,

While this issue may not have affected your nation directly, the odds are you do infact have relations with or even trade with nations where this is an ongoing issue.

As that unresolved issue from the past may and probably will affect the relations with that country, no matter how unintentionally, it is an issue that must eventually be dealt with.

In addition, while your country may have been in existance for a few short years, it is quite likely that the natives of your soil were in fact, at some time in the distant past, involved in some way in the slave trade.

And even assuming that your nation had no involvement in any way in whatever distant past with slavery, the issue is widespread throughout the international community.

So, yes, this must be dealt with by an international body that is beyond reproach or attack by local agitators.

Slavery has existed for thousands of years, down to the eqyptians and beyond. In a time when the manpower of slavery was necessary to the economy, if not the structural integrity of society that demanded structure. However, as we approach our current year and date, we must remind ourselves that, Slavery is no longer a necessary evil.
But as we realize that Slavery is now an outdated practice...at least were civilized people dwell...There is still that sting of descendants of slaves and masters...a sting too far into the past to heal.

The best course, is knowing what was done, aknowledging it was wrong, and then we bury the hatchet.

In fact...should this go through, I suggest a physical ritual...a descendant of a slave and a slave owner literally bury a hatchet on the grounds of a former plantation.

And if one kills the other with the shovel or hatchet, well, I suppose that means back to the drawing board.

Slavery has existed for thousands of years, down to the eqyptians and beyond. In a time when the manpower of slavery was necessary to the economy, if not the structural integrity of society that demanded structure. However, as we approach our current year and date, we must remind ourselves that, Slavery is no longer a necessary evil.
But as we realize that Slavery is now an outdated practice...at least were civilized people dwell...There is still that sting of descendants of slaves and masters...a sting too far into the past to heal.

The best course, is knowing what was done, aknowledging it was wrong, and then we bury the hatchet.

In fact...should this go through, I suggest a physical ritual...a descendant of a slave and a slave owner literally bury a hatchet on the grounds of a former plantation.

And if one kills the other with the shovel or hatchet, well, I suppose that means back to the drawing board.

I like it, and appreciate the humor.

But, I would suggest that the details of any local ceremony if any ceremony is to be done, be leftto the locals.

While this issue may not have affected your nation directly, the odds are you do infact have relations with or even trade with nations where this is an ongoing issue.

As that unresolved issue from the past may and probably will affect the relations with that country, no matter how unintentionally, it is an issue that must eventually be dealt with.

In addition, while your country may have been in existance for a few short years, it is quite likely that the natives of your soil were in fact, at some time in the distant past, involved in some way in the slave trade.

And even assuming that your nation had no involvement in any way in whatever distant past with slavery, the issue is widespread throughout the international community.

So, yes, this must be dealt with by an international body that is beyond reproach or attack by local agitators.

But what does this accomplish? Before the formation of our modern nation, the Gishan Empire was the preeminent nation, one that practiced slavery. That was over 30,000 years in the past. Ethnic Gishans, true and full blooded, are few and far between, and have not practiced human slavery for about 40,000 years. Who would they have to apologize to? The descendants of the Lapitars of Ben Ral, whom the Gishans invaded and enslaved?

I would prefer to see legislation that has a definite, concrete aim or resulte, rather than a simple acknowledgement. The UN is here to make things better, not offer platitudes that condemn wrongs- better to take steps and eliminate those wrongs than apologize for them.

Further, I wonder what category and effect this would fit into, with almost no operation.

Most courteously,

Mmmmmm...Seabear raises as a good point...
Regardless, the item on hand has the people of Hentainova's support, as a formerly oppressed nation.

Slavery has never existed in Ariddia, giving us (we hope) an unbiased perspective. Nonetheless, inter-ethnic issues, the legacy of colonial discrimination against Indigenous Ariddians, and notably dispossession of indigenous land, was settled generations ago through policies recognising specific traditional rights to indigenous Ariddians. This to clarify our perspective on inter-ethnic issues.

We commend the honourable delegation of Seabear70 on bringing the issue of slavery to the attention of this august assembly, but, like the honourable representative of Allech-Atreus, we are not convinced this should be an issue for international legislation.


CONCERNED that in many nations social inequity is preserved by opportunists that seek to embitter descendents of slaves to further power through continuing the segregation of the populous creating a spiral of animosity between descendents of slaves, descendents of slave owners, and a total lack of comprehension of where this does not apply or where the lines blur and become unrecognizable.

The end of that statement in unclear. As for the opening premise, while it may be true in a few countries, we believe it definitely not an issue to be addressed through international legislation.


(I) The past role of slavery in a nation will be taught in all schools covering the causes, effects, and all members of the mechanisms of slavery.

(II) That allowing as all races and all creeds played a part in the ownership of slaves in many if not all countries, no one race or creed will be singled out as guilty.


This we support.


(III) Compensation to the families of former slaves, being unable to be obtained from the actual slave owners, will not be ordered by any nation.


This issue is best left up to individual nations. Especially since some nations recognise that there may be a responsability of the State in this matter. It is unjustifiable to forbid a member nation to act on this matter.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

But what does this accomplish? Before the formation of our modern nation, the Gishan Empire was the preeminent nation, one that practiced slavery. That was over 30,000 years in the past. Ethnic Gishans, true and full blooded, are few and far between, and have not practiced human slavery for about 40,000 years. Who would they have to apologize to? The descendants of the Lapitars of Ben Ral, whom the Gishans invaded and enslaved?

I would prefer to see legislation that has a definite, concrete aim or resulte, rather than a simple acknowledgement. The UN is here to make things better, not offer platitudes that condemn wrongs- better to take steps and eliminate those wrongs than apologize for them.

Further, I wonder what category and effect this would fit into, with almost no operation.

Most courteously,

What this is intended to accomplish, and it is possible that it does not apply to a few nations such as yours, is to end the debate on slavery once and for all.

Far too many agitators in many of our nations seek to encourage this debate, and the ill will it generates, so that they may obtain wealth and power. In practice this generates confusion, ignorance, and greater hostility that few nations need or want.

Without actively acknoledging all races participation in the events of slavery, and educating the people as to the people involved, the mechanism, the origins, and the pressures that produced slavery, there can be no end to this social conflict.

We feel it is better to have this out in the open, acknoledged, accepted, and dealt with, all at once, then to allow this social situation to continue on indefinately.

We further feel that as the resentment the status quo cultures grows, that the resentment and desire for resolution will eventually grow into a desire for revenge in many nations, and could infact lead to a civil war, which in turn could lead to the continuation of slavery, or of genocide.

I cannotthink of a single thing that the UN would find more important to deal with than avoiding the nuturing of hostilities between nations, or of avoiding hostilities withing the borders of nations when it is within their power to prevent them.

One of the things I hope to recieve through this debate is guidance as to which catagory would be the best fit, and to further understand the resolution process.

Slavery has never existed in Ariddia, giving us (we hope) an unbiased perspective. Nonetheless, inter-ethnic issues, the legacy of colonial discrimination against Indigenous Ariddians, and notably dispossession of indigenous land, was settled generations ago through policies recognising specific traditional rights to indigenous Ariddians. This to clarify our perspective on inter-ethnic issues.

We commend the honourable delegation of Seabear70 on bringing the issue of slavery to the attention of this august assembly, but, like the honourable representative of Allech-Atreus, we are not convinced this should be an issue for international legislation.



The end of that statement in unclear. As for the opening premise, while it may be true in a few countries, we believe it definitely not an issue to be addressed through international legislation.



This we support.



This issue is best left up to individual nations. Especially since some nations recognise that there may be a responsability of the State in this matter. It is unjustifiable to forbid a member nation to act on this matter.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I was attempting to avoid excessive verbosity.

Essentially, the lines of descendent of slave and descendent of slave owner have blured with many having intermarried and interbred. As it is no loger clear, in many cases which side of the issue a person's genetic heritage lies on, and in many cases, through emmigration, the people currently involved have no genetic stake in the issue whatsoever, it is believed that the internal debate cannot be adaquetly resolved at this late of a date by those currently involved in the debate, and that a resolution must be forced upon them by outside means.

In addition, the solution We propose is intended to be the best fit for all affected nation, and so is unlikely to be 100% satisfactory to all nations.

Reguardless, the numbers were calculated in Seabear70 as to the actual compensation a proven descendent of a slave would recieve, it came out to 16 asenines, roughly one hour's pay for the average Sebearian, and the calculated social impact and resentmet resulting would likely set race relations back over 20 years.

Understand, the descendents of slave owners would resent having to pay this tribute, and the desendents of slaves would be insulted by this amount. So, we chose not to go there.

However, if there is significant suport for the removal of this clause, we will remove it before submission.

One of the things I hope to recieve through this debate is guidance as to which catagory would be the best fit, and to further understand the resolution process.

Whoa! Stop right there, you're better off to pick your category before writing your proposal than to try to shoehorn it into one after it's written.

Plus I think your title is too long.

Whoa! Stop right there, you're better off to pick your category before writing your proposal than to try to shoehorn it into one after it's written.

Plus I think your title is too long.

And as it stands now, I can't see it fitting any category.

EDIT: Oh, and yeah, the title's definitely too long.

Whoa! Stop right there, you're better off to pick your category before writing your proposal than to try to shoehorn it into one after it's written.

As a new member of the UN, we are still learning the process.

Furthermore, this issue is of such significance that we believe it must be addressed.

We would appreciate any suggestions that you may have in furthering this debate and the resolution of this issue.

And as it stands now, I can't see it fitting any category.

EDIT: Oh, and yeah, the title's definitely too long.


Like I said....

A Very Rough Draft.

A quick read of the guidelines seems to suggest that this would be catagorized as a Political Stability resolution with Mild impact.

Essentially, the lines of descendent of slave and descendent of slave owner have blured with many having intermarried and interbred. As it is no loger clear, in many cases which side of the issue a person's genetic heritage lies on, and in many cases, through emmigration, the people currently involved have no genetic stake in the issue whatsoever, it is believed that the internal debate cannot be adaquetly resolved at this late of a date by those currently involved in the debate, and that a resolution must be forced upon them by outside means.

Than you for clarifying that.

I understand the situation in Seabear70, but given the differences between nations, and the fact that many nations may already have adequate and consensual policies in place to deal with the repercussions of slavery, I believe it would be advisable to replace the mandating clause (III) by a simple recommendation.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Than you for clarifying that.

I understand the situation in Seabear70, but given the differences between nations, and the fact that many nations may already have adequate and consensual policies in place to deal with the repercussions of slavery, I believe it would be advisable to replace the mandating clause (III) by a simple recommendation.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We will strongly consider this, and feel that this can be resolved through debate.

It would actually be nice to be able to take avote among interested nation as to wether this should be a requirement or a recomendation.

What this is intended to accomplish, and it is possible that it does not apply to a few nations such as yours, is to end the debate on slavery once and for all.

As a nation that has ethnic and nationalist issues, we would simply say this: that's not your debate to end. Nor is it the UN's debate to end. Every nation needs to have the right to resolve such issues in their own time, and in a way that best suits their society and nation.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

As a nation that has ethnic and nationalist issues, we would simply say this: that's not your debate to end. Nor is it the UN's debate to end. Every nation needs to have the right to resolve such issues in their own time, and in a way that best suits their society and nation.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador


The same could be said of religon, abortion, capital punishment, etc....

This is an issue that affects every nation in some shape or form, and it is high time we stopped pretending that it does not exist and hoping it will go away.

The same could be said of religon, abortion, capital punishment, etc....

It could, and it has.

This is an issue that affects every nation in some shape or form, and it is high time we stopped pretending that it does not exist and hoping it will go away.

Every nation? Altanar has never practiced slavery, and I am sure many nations never have either. For that reason, we do not feel that this is an issue that really merits an international response. What right do nations that have never had a slavery problem have to tell nations that have had that problem to, in effect, just get over it and move on?

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

It could, and it has.



Every nation? Altanar has never practiced slavery, and I am sure many nations never have either. For that reason, we do not feel that this is an issue that really merits an international response. What right do nations that have never had a slavery problem have to tell nations that have had that problem to, in effect, just get over it and move on?

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

We're going in circles here, please read the minutes of the meeting before asking again.

We're going in circles here, please read the minutes of the meeting before asking again.

I could do that. You could also answer my question, since it doesn't appear anywhere in the discussion that you've really answered it. By what right do we start dictating to nations with issues of slavery how to resolve the aftereffects of those issues?

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I could do that. You could also answer my question, since it doesn't appear anywhere in the discussion that you've really answered it. By what right do we start dictating to nations with issues of slavery how to resolve the aftereffects of those issues?

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Ok, let me clarify.

First, this would not affect nations with existing slavery, and could not affect them for a minimum of one generation, most likely two or more.

Second, racial conflict in nations that are affected by this, can and at times do affet the trade and livelyhood of nations that are not directly affected by this resolution.

Third, we have the right and the responsibility to avoid the needless bloodshed that has arisen from the tensions created by an un acknoledge and often misrepresented past.

Fourth, this resolution dictates no more to any nation than any other resolution.

Would you cate to join the debate, or are you content trying to disrupt the proceedings?

I wasn't aware that not agreeing with your beliefs in this matter was disruptive to the proceedings. However, we don't agree with them.

While we are aware that this draft of yours would not affect existing slavery, and that racial conflict does, sadly enough, affect nations outside the conflict zone, we do not agree that forcing a blanket resolution to the issue of previous slavery is any way to fix those concerns. And we also strongly disagree with the idea that your draft would be no more intrusive than any other resolution. Forcing a nation to accept a UN-prescribed way to come to terms with their racial issues and slavery-influenced past would inhibit, and perhaps even prevent, the natural evolution of that society towards a more enlightened way of treating those problems, in favor of a nifty-sounding but culturally insensitive quick fix. We'd rather allow societies to evolve naturally towards resolving these painful issues; we don't like the idea of slapping a UN-approved band-aid on the issues and calling them good.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Ambassador Agaranath is most correct. The UN cannot expect success through forced application of cultural apology. Furthermore, to say that once this resolution is passed there will no longer be a problem with past slavery and that all wounds will be healed is naive and doomed to failure.

It is much more advantageous to deal with concrete issues- like slavery itself, in all of its more modern forms, rather than the spectre of past servitude and hurt.

Most courteously,

The UN already has its aknowledgement and sentiments towards slavery on record and in the books in the form of one or two passed resolutions. All this would be doing is making nations put the history of slavery in their nation into their educational curriculum. While there is some room for the UN to legislate on educational matters, dictating specific curriculum content is hardly an international affair worthy of the UN's time.

Ambassador Agaranath is most correct. The UN cannot expect success through forced application of cultural apology. Furthermore, to say that once this resolution is passed there will no longer be a problem with past slavery and that all wounds will be healed is naive and doomed to failure.

It is much more advantageous to deal with concrete issues- like slavery itself, in all of its more modern forms, rather than the spectre of past servitude and hurt.

Most courteously,

First of all, who is appoligizing?

Who is left alive to appoligize?

Who is left alive to appoligize to?

We seek to put an end to a debate which continues to destabalize nations to no good purpose, and further put an end to the vocation of hate by acknoledging where we, as a world, have been, and where we, as a world are now.

Furthermore, there is no current debate of facts in most nations. Recently, on a world tour, I realized that what most nations teach their children is shallow and one sided with no emphasis put on actual facts.

Furthermore, can this issue ever be resolved by any nation if it is not finally acknoledged and dealt with?

And I do take issue with the esteemed gentlething's insistance that this is more intrusive on any nation's rights then discussing on gay rights, the environement, education, religon, or any other topic that has been approached by this august body.

His discomfort withthe topic in no way invalidates it's seriousness or it's necessity.

The UN already has its aknowledgement and sentiments towards slavery on record and in the books in the form of one or two passed resolutions. All this would be doing is making nations put the history of slavery in their nation into their educational curriculum. While there is some room for the UN to legislate on educational matters, dictating specific curriculum content is hardly an international affair worthy of the UN's time.

Can you cite the resolution you are refering to?

By the Way, this has less to do with slavery than with race relations.

OOC:Sorry about the delay, jolt was being wonky./ooc


By the Way, this has less to do with slavery than with race relations.

It is mandating teaching the history of slavery. That is directly related to slavery.

Can you cite the resolution you are refering to?

UNR#6 End Slavery is the first one that somes to mind, which refers to slavery as a scourge, at once acknowledging and taking a stance upon it.

UNR#68 Ban Trafficking In Persons deals with another form of slavery, sexual slavery.

UNR#53 Universal Freedom Of Choice also takes the stance that individuals be allowed to make their own choices without coersion or control.

There are probably others, but those are the only ones that leap to mind.

For racial relations, we get into discrimination legislation.

#56-BioRioghts Declaration
#99-Discrimination Accord
#??-Fair Sentencing Act
#44-Fair Treatment of the Mentally Ill
#88-Fairness and Equality
#182-Marriage Protection Act
#19-Religious Tolerance
#89-Rights Of Indigenous People
#80-Rights of Minorities and Women
#160-Rights of the Disabled
#149-The Right To Form Unions
#???-UNFair Wage Convention


This is a list of some of the resolutions that are currently in place that cover the UN's stance on discriminatory practices.

All I'm saying is that these issues have been acknowledged, a stance has been taken against them. What we are left with out of your proposal is a mandate to enforce one subject into the educational curriculums (curriculae?) of member nations. I don't see that the UN need do that.

We seek to put an end to a debate which continues to destabalize nations to no good purpose, and further put an end to the vocation of hate by acknoledging where we, as a world, have been, and where we, as a world are now.

How will a UN mandated initiative solve deep-set cultural problems overnight? There's a very simple answer: it won't.

Furthermore, there is no current debate of facts in most nations. Recently, on a world tour, I realized that what most nations teach their children is shallow and one sided with no emphasis put on actual facts.

What? You visited all of the millions of nations that inhabit the world of NationStates? Who are you to decide what is shallow and one-sided, especially when you might not hail from the cultural background you're experiencing?

Furthermore, can this issue ever be resolved by any nation if it is not finally acknoledged and dealt with?

No. But it's not the UN's job to solve social problems- society has to work those out on their own. The UN just gets in the way.

And I do take issue with the esteemed gentlething's insistance that this is more intrusive on any nation's rights then discussing on gay rights, the environement, education, religon, or any other topic that has been approached by this august body.

I am a man.

And this proposal does not accomplish the same goals as any of the other social topics that have been addressed by this assembly. This body has ensured the rights of human beings, outlawed slavery, guaranteed sexual freedoms, and made sure of other concrete human rights. Trying to solve a rootless cultural problem is something else entirely.

His discomfort withthe topic in no way invalidates it's seriousness or it's necessity.

You might be a bit confused. I'm not discomforted by the topic of slavery, I'm discomforted by the prospect of the gnomes forcing solutions to sociocultural problems they couldn't possibly understand. That's what this amounts to, and we shall oppose it.

Most courteously,

Whilst we respect the benificent intentions of this proposal, we fear that the course of the debate thus far has shown that the one thing it would not achieve would be to "end the debate on slavery once and for all."

On minor point of drafting, you currently have two clause IIIs, which we suspect was not your intent.

A quick read of the guidelines seems to suggest that this would be catagorized as a Political Stability resolution with Mild impact.A quick read of your draft seems to suggest that this has nothing to do with Political Stability in the slightest.

A quick read of your draft seems to suggest that this has nothing to do with Political Stability in the slightest.

I suppose that depends on how you look at it...

Internally, one of the biggest political and social problems Seabear70 is having right now is with professional agitators playing on the public's ignorance to keep hatreds and resentments over slavery in the distant past fresh in people's minds.

As it stands now, it is almost impossible for anyone to correct the insane accusations of the most obnoxious of these agitators without being accused of being racist and thought to wantto return tothe days of slavery.

I believe that this will add to the political stability of the region and I believe that other nations have, are, or will face similar issues if this is not dealt with.

If you have a better suggestion of the catagory, then I am willing to listen.

OOC : Gee, you think you guys would be happy to have something original.

Here's an even better suggestion: find a category, and write the proposal to it.

Here's an even better suggestion: find a category, and write the proposal to it.


Yet a better suggestion, find a problem, fix it.

Find a need, fulfill it.

Yet a better suggestion, find a problem, fix it.

Find a need, fulfill it.

OOC: The game doesn't work that way, mate.

OOC: The game doesn't work that way, mate.

OOC: Sadly neither does the real UN :_(